HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-27 Planning Board Minutes Draft 2/19/09 4PM ��n�-�
1 Town of North Andover
2 Planning Board
3 Minutes
4 January 27, 2009
Town Hall, 7:00 PM
6
7
8 Members present: John Simons, Chairman
9 Jennifer Kusek, Clerk
10 Richard Rowen, regular member
11 Timothy Seibert, regular member
12 Michael Walsh, regular member
13 Courtney LaVolpiceIo, Alternate
14
15 Staff present: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
16 Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary
17
18 Chair called the meeting to order at approximately 7:05 pm and announced that
19 MetroPCS applicant for 70 Elm Street will begin at 8:00 pm as the School Committee is
20 at a redistricting meeting and a number ofpeople wanted to hear this petition tonight.
21
22 Chair announced that there are no postponements for tonight's meeting.
23
24 Chair called for Bond release:
25 DISCUSSION:
26 Dr. Mukhedee, 217&219 Sutton Street&213 Sutton Street--Two Performance
27 G bonds both for$2K each. As-built and letter from engineer submitted. DPW has no
28 issues. Judy made a site visit, drainage is in place, signs have been installed, has no
29 issues. Landscaping will be done this spring. Motion by RR to release one of bonds in
30 it's entirety and release %2 of second bond and maintain a$1K bond balance to keep until
31 landscaping is done, 2"d by JK, vote was unanimous. Release$3K and keep $1 K.
32
33 Chair called for Street Acce tance: on Pasture Road off Winter Street
34 DISCUSSION:
35 William J. Nigro—request to be placed on 2009 Town Meeting for Street
36 Acceptance for Long Pasture Road. Chair briefly stated the convoluted history of this
37 subdivision. Before the PB can go forward all of the proper channels have to be closed
38 with Con/Com etc. in order to move forward with this request for Street Acceptance. Mr.
39 Nigro, 15 Long Pasture Road, stated he's working w/Mr. Fahey and Atty. Scalise and
40 stated that he got a call from Town Counsel 6 weeks ago, and apparently the Town has
41 settled their differences with Mr. Palinski regarding a superseding order of conditions.
42 Atty. Scalise is working w/Con/Com on documentation and deeds. He gave
43 documentation to Town Engineer for meets and bounds etc. He doesn't have Certificate
Page 1
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes /
1
Draft 2/19/09 4PM
1 of Compliance yet on lot 1A, (which is adjacent to Mr. Palinski's property) from
2 Con/Com.
3
4 Plse note: Atty. Walsh is now present.
5
6 Chair stated there is a checklist of things that need to be done when applying for Street
7 Acceptance, work w/Judy and get issues resolved well before Town Meeting time,
8 however, there is more tree cutting than what PB approved. Mr. Nigro should make
9 provisions to put in appropriate street trees put in areas that need replanting. Mr. Nigro
10 stated he would try to push his street acceptance thru.
11
12
13 Chair called for PUBLIC HEARING:
14 674 Turnpike Street, Theodori Londi, Site Pian Review Special Permit to allow for
15 demolition of a 2-story residential dwelling in order to construct a 2,800 s.f. commercial
16 building consisting of 1,400 s.f.; restaurant and 1,400 s.f retail within CDD2 zoning
17 district. Waiver on file until January 28, 2009,
18
19 Judy gave an overview and stated the applicant was still working with Con/Com on this
20 project, although the applicant has changed the proposed project during recent edits she
21 recommended that a new application will be substantially different from the current
22 application. Judy recommended the applicant withdraw their current application and
23 submit a more thorough application. Applicant submitted a withdrawal request that was
24 time stamped January 28, 2009.
25
26 In CDD2 the non-conforming lot has frontage-zoning issues. Applicant may have to go
27 thru ZBA and Con/Com too. Representative for Mr. Londi thanked Judy, Jennifer and
28 Building Inspector for their assistance.
29
30 Motion by RR to accept withdrawal without prejudice, 2�d by JK, vote was unanimous to
31 allow applicant to withdraw without prejudice.
32
33 Forest Linwall, Engineer w/Mistry Associates, made presentation tonight, Lot is
34 bounded by two paper streets, Booth and Saville Street. This is non-conforming lot
35 dominated by wetlands and abuts Mr. McGregor's property. Utilize foundation existing
36 to avoid 50-foot no-build, resulting to 1700 s.f on ground for restaurant. Build 2nd floor
37 for dwelling unit 2990 s.f in total. This will take them out of 25-foot non-disturbance
38 zone. Parking setback and aisle will require 5' of dimensional relief he needs a two-way
39 aisle. Replanting to be done also. Saville and Booth Street are used as driveways.
40 Applicant will continue to use those streets too; he's going to use some of the paper street
41 for his use.
42
43 Chair stated PB spent enormous amount of time planning out this district. There were a
44 bunch of small properties close to road and close to residents, the focal point was if
45 somebody wanted to build commercial structure they had to meet minimum lot size for
Page 2
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes
f.
Draft 2/19/09 QM
1 either side of the street. But if you wanted to put commercial inside of existing building
2 that would be allowed also. Chair stated applicant isn't complying with the spirit of what
3 PB is trying to do. You are not using existing building; you're making it much bigger.
4 Demonstrate that you can comply with the original/existing size of building fine, but if
5 not, how can you get a variance from lot size? What does that have to do with soil
6 conditions, topography?
7
8 Engineer stated the area(on the map) which lies to the left of the proposed project has
9 been subdivided under land court that means the paper streets are all within land court.
10 He runs into development obstacles because commercial structure would be divided from
11 the parking area by a paper street. Surrounding lot is owned by Town, another adjacent
12 lot is not selling. He's run into obstacles because building would be too far away from
13 the parking. Owner wants to protect rights they need to deal with relief in the zoning
14 district. PB doesn't agree with engineer's interpretation.
15
16 Please note: John Cahill's petition is going to be heard at 10:45 pm tonight.
17
18 CONTINUED MEETINGS:
19
20 John Cahill— 166 Salem Street,Map 37D,Parcel 21. Definitive Subdivision known as
21 The Captain Nathaniel Berry Homestead, consisting of a new 292 foot long roadway and.3 new
22 proposed lots each containing 25,000 s.f &existing lot containing 32, 174 S. with existing
23 single-family dwelling within R-3 zoning district. Meeting not closed. Waiver on file until Feb
24 27, 2009
25
26 John Cahill—166 Salem Street,Map 37D,Parcel 21. Watershed Special Permit to
27 construct a new 292 foot long roadway and 3 new single-family—homes,portions of the roadway,
28 one house and a storm water detention/infiltration basin will be within the non-discharge buffer
29 zone. Meeting not closed. Waiver on file until Feb.27 2009.
30
31 Judy stated applicant originally proposed a 4 lot subdivision. PB did a site visit and
32 submitted plan showing cul de sac,which conformed to regulations. After input from PB
33 they want to consider small footprint for the roadway, and Mr. Cahill will present a 3-lot
34 subdivision with roadway scaled back and to allow for less structure in terms of storm
35 water management, minus drainage pond_
36
37 RR asked if they were entitled to 4 lots and now they are talking about 3 lots? Judy
38 stated yes.
39
40 Mr. Cahill stated that Phil Christiansen, Engineer, was orq his way. Mr. Cahill will
41 telephone Phil now.
42
43 Please note: Phil Christenson is here now.
44 He wants waivers on roadway. Driveway 18 feet wide. .RR asked if PB wants to waive
45 sub-division rules and regs, make sure that street as laid out shows lots with right area
Page 3
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes
Draft 2/19/09 4PM
k
I frontage. If you drew in all lots with frontage and area would you have sufficient
2 frontage on paper with 3 lots? Phil said yes. Chair said cutting on Salem St. is visibility
3 less now? Cut is important it's a bad curve/curb? Is Keith Mitchell happy? Mr. Cahill is
4 not going to touch the tree that Keith wants to keep. No open technical issues raised by
5 VHB. MW asked is there concerns about road and drainage answered? Phil will submit
6 a drainage report to PB, Rain garden will provide calculation that garden treats the over
7 flow and go into wetland behind in the farm field. House located in back will face Salem
8 St. Chair said this is a nice improvement and results should be good. Chair wants
9 extension until end of March. Judy to draft a decision. Motion to accept extension by
10 MW, 2"d by RR, PB accepted extension until end of March.
11
12 Time is 11 PM.
13
14 IMPROMPTU DISCUSSION.
15 Judy stated new and/or revised zoning bylaw that she knows of is the wireless bylaw.
16 She suggested the PB look at her revision of the bylaw and put on PB February meeting
17 agenda.
18
19 Judy is working on revision of zoning map which should be approved at Town Meeting.
20 Joyce Bradshaw can approve a zoning map.instead of getting it approved at Town
21 Meeting. Judy stated that most of the changes are already on GPS now.
22
23 Chair stated the other zoning issue is Mr. Carroll regarding the Andover St, property; he
24 wants to take down existing structures and replace them with something else, Judy
25 discussed this at prior meeting; she knows what property it is. This is a rezoning issue
26 because he can't utilize the adaptive re-use bylaw. Paper Street exists and he wants to
27 build on top of paper street. Chair will talk w/Mr. Carroll but doesn't have a lot of
28 optimism.
29
30 Tim Seibert asked is there enough time to circulate Judy's language on the cell tower
31 bylaw to other people? Judy submitted a draft as a placeholder already.
32
33
34 DISCUSSION:
35 21 High St. wants to file Planned Development District application for apartments. Chair
36 wants Mr. Steinberg to talk to PB now before they get too far into the project. PB didn't
37 like the building done too close to the abutters and parking lot. Get them to Feb. P PB
38 meeting.
39
40 Judy talk w/Chris Huntress regarding landscaping for Messina's Plaza. Chris to bring
41 landscaping changes to the PB for discussion on landscaping.
42
u
u
Page 4
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes
d
Draft 2119109 4PM
I RR asked is installation of new lamps around the common depending on the removal of
2 old power lines? Don Stewart stated the Towri will have to get a loan to have this done,
3 should be done this summer.
4
5 Judy stated a Site Plan Special Permit will come in for Police station to add addition to
6 rear 2200 s.£ addition. Gerry Brown, Judy and Ray Santilli reviewed the design and it's a
7 cell—a-port. This will be a full Site Plan Special Permit.
8
9
10 CONTINUED HEARING:
11
12 Metro PCS 70 Elm Street, Special Permit,proposes to install 6-panel antennas
13 at a centerline of 80' in existing church steeple and related BTS cabinet within R-4
14 zoning district. Waiver on file until Feb. 18, 2009.
15
16 Recording Secretary circulated a request for name and street of people present tonight for
17 the record. Chair reconvened the PB meeting of Jan. 27th, 2009 tonight. Chair thanked
18 everyone attending tonight's meeting. Chair explained the procedure and will make time
19 for anyone asking questions tonight.
20
21 Please note: far the record that Tim Seibert recused himself now at 8:05 pm.
22
23 . Judy stated applicant to provide map showing pre-existing facilities within one mile of
24 the facility. Show on plan a security barrier, address requirement of DEP noise
25 measurements, review material for louvers, Mark Hutchins, consultant,provided a report,
26 applicant to provide information regarding possibility of co-locating at existing Stevens
27 Estate. See letter from Gerald Brown dated Dec. P regarding setback for pre-existing
28 structures. Atty. Peter Morin dated Dec. I Id`regarding gap in coverage with case report
29 ZBA involving Town of Pelham. VHB review dated Dec. 18th. Hudson Design provided
30 co-location at Stevens Estate information. Amended application provided with signature
31 of Trinitarian Church&MetroPCS. Noise report provided regarding pure noise Dec 23.
32 Atty. Morin alternative sites ran. 20th. Thea Fournier letter Dec 2ad letter from Atty.
33 Fitzgibbons. Liz Fennessey submitted letter at last meeting. Additional NEPA
34 environmental report. Dr. Hayes, Engineer, is here tonight. Applicant to address all
35 these issues tonight.
36
37 Atty, Peter Morin, present tonight. Two letters in Judy's file address whether or not the
38 coverage of competitors is to be considered whether there is a gap in MetroPCS wireless
39 coverage. First circuit Court of Appeals letter was issue regarding gap in coverage in
40 first circuit court of appeals the coverage of competitors is irrelevant whether there is a
41 gap in the applicants coverage. 2 d letter addresses alternative sites, the Steven's Estate
42 and two smoke stacks at 21 High Street. Stevens Estate question is whether or not
43 MetroPCS had or would ask the BOS to release a new RFP for a second tower. He
Page 5
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes G
lD
Draft 2/19/09 4PM
1 presented in Dec. of 2007 a representative for Metro did have a meeting expressing
2 interest.
3
4 Town was aware that there was interest in a RFP being released and none was released.
5 Atty. Morin stated he feels it's not up to him to release RFP for Town owned property,
6 Town didn't release it. Two people attending the meeting said Town Manager at time
7 had cautionary words to this with regard to what the climate was in Town and they went
8 away with notion they were not certain if Town would be willing to fallow thru on this.
9 Mark Hutchins report stated that even if the Steven's Estate were available that location
10 would not solve a gap in the coverage that would occur along Rte. 133 and Rte. 125.
11
12 Atty, stated the 2 smoke stakes one of which is located on High Street were in litigation
13 years ago,permit was appealed, and T Mobile said property owner wasn't interested in
14 pursuing this project.
15
16 Atty, contacted other owner of other smoke stack and was informed that other owner was
17 not interested in cell tower using their smoke stack.
18
19 RR doesn't know RFP process and only asking if people in Town would ask if they
20 would consider building a second tower,just looking for a yes or no. End of subject if
21 they were not interested in this project. RR read Mr. Hutchins report and look at graphs
22 it looks like driving force form law point of view is that they encourage coverage along
23 main roads, if this is criteria over residential coverage then it looks like proposed citing
24 covers better on southern end of Rte. 125 and Rte. 133. Look at alternative at siting at
25 Osgood Hill there is Iess good coverage on southern end and far superior coverage on
26 North side. Based on that the site at Seven's Estate seems to be a far better location. Did
27 they ask question of right people in Town of possibility to build a second tower at
28 Osgood Hill?
29
30 Atty. Morin said obligation to seek alternative sites is that alternative must be available at
31 the time the application is under consideration. Bylaw specifically requires before a new
32 tower is built that a more preferable alternative is not available before you can get a
33 permit.
34
35 RR asked if current application was approved and a gap is still at Rte. 125 and 133 then
36 will they come back in and say they still need to close a gap?
37
38 Franz Pierre, Engineer,presented he can't say if he would come back because as
39 customer base increases and for capacity reasons he might have to come back to close
40 that gap some time in the future.
41
42 Franz Pierre, stated he agrees w/Mark Hutchins report. Cell phones are used for travel
43 and at home, Metro objective is to provide reliable coverage that is to provide service,
44 based on residential, highways, building, and anywhere where there is si
45 coverage. gnificant gap in
Page 6
Planning Board
January 27,2,009 Minutes
r �
Draft 2/19/09 4PM
1 .
2 Alternative at Stevens Hill would be for coverage to close gap in coverage on Rte
3 and Rte. 133 area, but not as good as Metro propocoverased for residential e. 125
4 g
5 Bill McQuade spoke regarding security plan, he's developing this plan will have
one 6 week for the church. NEPA is in PD file; there is no adverse affect for church.
Hudson
a
7 Design letter and reviewed flagpole at Steven's and it's at capacity and compound an
8 capacity for 3 carriers at this site. Noise study, its pure noise___it's immeasurable i s at
9 church location. No sites within one mile of proposed church location no wireless n
10 facilities). Amended application submitted an original of co-applicants(si afore are
I 1 church and MetroPCS. Replacement louvered material is acceptable b the historical
12 commission and church. Dec. Ietter from Building Inspector stating collocation complies
13 w/Section 8.93 cd2 preexisting structure is proposed as a mount and setback rov' '
14 zoning district does comply, p tszon of
15
16 Mark Hutchins, Engineer, is speaking on behalf of the Town and VHB submitted his
17 name as an RF engineer. He has 40 years experience, and not accepted work from
18 providers or tower developer for approx. 9 years. Site is in compliance with FCC
19 guidelines. Dr. Hayes looked at exposure for approx. 2000 feet. Concerned about
20 program in place where church needs to make sure if somebody getting on ladder that
21 contractor be aware of existence of antennas that's the only case where FCC guidelines
22 woald be exceeded. FCC has case that went to Supreme Court where you are pre-empted
23 to do interference to neighbor's electronic devices from this equipment. RF covera
24 possibility of 3 alternatives, a new tower in area of existing pole there, looked at 2 smeoke
25 stacks filed by Omnipoint, he placed antennas at same'height, it appears those sites are
26 available for non RF reasons. Discrepancy between his coverage and coverage from
27 applicant from the North by exit on 495 there is a site there it's a 3 sector site and from
28 there it's BOS0211; he was not getting coverage to the North that applicant showed on
29 their map. One way to provide coverage to the North to add 4t11 sector somewhere
30 between 80 and190 to direct more signal in that direction. Report Page 5, section 4H, lot
31 of court decisions Iooked at Appeal Courts he said users expect more wide spread
32 coverage than just on highways. Good history where courts assume there will be
33 coverage on highways, but that coverage is needed in residential area. There is
34 tremendous drop in people who have wire lines. Losing subscribers in Maine, N.H. and
35 Vermont, losing customers and had to wait 3 weeks to get wired service and counting on
36 wireless service. Omnipoint went to Stevens Estate because it was better than nothing
37 because they couldn't get permission to locate on smoke stacks.
38
39 MW asked based on environmental effects we're precluded from denying'an application
40 based on environmental effects of RF? Mr. Hutchins said yes. MW asked and
41 environmental would include in your opinion? Mx. Hutchins stated he wished they said
42 RF radiation because that's clear to him that's what they intended.
43
Page 7
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes
Draft 2/19/09 4PM
b
1 Mr. Hutchins stated FCC has said measurements aren't necessary, procedure has an
2 endless litigation. Applicant should agree to do measurements after application process,
3 but recommends applicant volunteers to do measurements.
4
5 MW asked if RF levels would be well below FCC guidelines require? Mr. Hutchins,
6 stated yes, said at base of tower he does spectrum analyzer to measure.
7
8 RR asked if emissions allowed by FCC at base of church what is percent? Mr. Hutchins
9 said 1 to 5 percent of maximum. Are there any devices in use by people in Town in their
10 own homes compared to an antenna? Mr. Hutchins stated a leaky microwave oven would
I 1 be higher than what would be in the area at church. See report for the record.
12
13 Judy asked if Mr. McQuade would write up a maintenance plan? McQuade is drafting it
14 now.
15
16 Caroln McDermott-Zimmer, 135 S. Bradford St., a future applicant at same location? is it
17 RF cumulative? Mr. Hutchins said it is cumulative. Does it affect 2°d applicant? Mr.
18 Hutchins stated according to FCC it applies to everybody it's cumulative.
19
20 Loretta Wentworth, 15 Pleasant St., lives 276 feet from church. Mother and
21 grandmother, worried about future generations. RF emission neighbors are exposed 2417
22 to emissions. Negative effect on property values. Submitted petition of residonts
23 opposed to cell tower in church. Consider Stevens Estate or other sites it would generate
24 revenue to Town. Completed market analysis assessment at 45 Elm St. valued at
25 $665,000.00 could cost home owner$20K if presence of cell towers are located so close
26 to their property. Submitted petition of 189 residents in opposition for the record.
27 Submitted appraisal affidavit stating property value will drop so church will make money
28 is unacceptable (submitted for record). Chair asked for documentation to be submitted
29 for the record.
30
31 Dagmar Schnellinger, 83 Elm St., lives 60 feet from the church property. Submitted
32 affidavit of home appraisal to the PB price of home would be Iimited if cell phone
33 antenna were to be located in church and has a potential health risk.
34
35 Jim Gordon, 500 Rea St., what is relevance of Dec. 2nd Building inspectors
36 determination? Chair stated he's Zoning Enforcement Officer for Town, PB relies on his
37 guidance as PB makes their decision. Anyone has alternative to disagree with his
38 decision. Mr. Gordon asked has anyone challenged Building Inspector's interpretation
39 for antennas in church steeple at Mass Ave. steeple? MW stated Atty. Fennessey, of
40 Methuen, takes issue with his interpretation (in the record).
41
42 RR stated our Town's counsel said the proper authority is our Town's Zoning
43 Enforcement Officer go to him and he's rendered his decision.
44
Page 8
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes
c7t(
Draft 2119109 4PM
P
1 Mr. Gordon asked if any member of this Board has an opinion that differs from the
2 Building Inspector. Mr. Gordon asked when does a church steeple become a tower? If
3 this is the issue the building inspector should be dealing with a change in application?
4 Petitioner can take this issue to Appeals Board. Mr. Gordon asked if PB could become a
5 party aggrieved of the decision of the Building Inspector?
6
7 Town Counsel told the PB if you want direction on this go to the Zoning Enforcement
8 Officer, so the PB went to the Zoning Enforcement Officer, the BP looked at the bylaw
9 under Section 3B location, #1 (refer to Bylaw) that's the interpretation the PB intends to
10 follow. Mr. Gordon wants PB to appeal this issue. Chair stated the PB does not have
11 standing, someone-else has to do that as a party aggrieved.
12
13 Aaron Pertus, 62 Elm St., has issues with fire, ventilation system, emergency lighting,
14 back up batteries, smoke management system, procedure for battery spill and back up
15 system. There are statements inaccurate such as "no emissions" address these issues.
16 Bill McQuade said he doesn't have specific answers at this point but will provide these
17 answers to PB.
18
19 Chair said when getting a building permit some of these would be addressed then? Mr.
20 McQuade said yes. Mr. Curtis will provide PB with his questions tomorrow. Mr.
21 McQuade said he filled all requirements of this board and fulfilled the requirement for the
22 Fire Dept. also.
23
24 Mr. Allen, 45 Elm St., read Mark Hutchins' report. Mr. Rowen did a good job of
25 addressing the report Rte. 125 and Rte. 133. Why would PB grant this variance when there is a
26 better site in town? PB stated it's not variance it's a Special Permit.
27
28 Liz Fennessey, 77 Elm St., lives 50 feet away from church; she talked to people who
29 changed bylaw in 2000. Researched in 2000 interest in inventory existing towers to get
30 revenue for Town. Walter Soule requested a committee be formed for this purpose,
31 Stewart, Mitchell, Bernice Fink, Lynn Avakar and Garrath Morfill.They all stated
32 interpretation of bylaw made by Building Inspector and Town Counsel was incorrect.
33 Walter's intent was to keep tower at least 600 feet away from homes and people. Ms
34 Fennessey read committee report of people involved at the time. Ms Fennessey said
35 Building Inspector, Town Counsel, and PB should reconsider their interpretation of the
36 law and follow its content and refer this matter to the ZBA where it belongs.
37
38 Lynn Avacar, 125 Barker St,. said let's think about environmental issues, historical
39 building, there can be full coverage but we don't know what health coverage will do.
40 Wants compromise on this matter, why make people move from their homes?
41
42 Cindy Allen, 45 Elm St., read her argument (submitted for the record). How can the
43 language of the bylaw be mis-construed? Town has no good reason to allow church to
44 auction off the steeple to cell tower for financial reasons. Best options is to utilize
45 Stevens Estate,residents of Elm St. would win, even church would win because they
Page 9
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes
Draft 2/19/09 4PM
1 would be able to keep kindergarten at the church. If coverage shrinks, then applications
2 would increase to get stronger coverage? RR to a degree yes, the more people who have
3 PCS service then more people who would complain. Ms Allen asked how could you
4 sleep at night if you do this to this neighborhood? What about our who kids are sleeping W
5 on 2"d and 3rd floor in this neighborhood? Riverwalk has antenna arrays. Airport has
6 antenna arrays.
7
8 Karen Carroll, I 1 Woodbridge Road, she feels PB is being misled reg, interpretation of
9 bylaw. There are no FCC regulations relative to biological effects. No research is
10 available. Bylaw is meaningless as written it states 600 feet setback, and pre-existing and
11 existing can't be inter-changeable. She previously submitted opinion from a lawyer thru
12 Thea Fournier.
13
14 Ann Oliver, 46 Elm St., health risk to residents around church if you put cell tower there.
15 Too many scientists looking at low intensity exposure. Her daughter got cancer because
16 there was a transformer box outside of her house, according to Dana Farber from RF
17 emissions. Physical changes due to RF emissions in school children. Non-thermal
18 effects are potential health risks.
19
20 Chair said PB can't make determination based on health issues, the
21 forum to do that is to,go to FCC. PB can't make decision based on research submitted
22 (Ms Oliver submitted paper for the record),
23
24 George Schruender, 71 Elm St., he recommends to continue this hearing, go to ZBA first
25 and oppose opinion by the Building Inspector.
26
27 Bruce Baker, 257 Main St., Town meeting passed bylaw to prohibit cell towers within
28 600 feet of residents.
29
30 Mark Depolito, 9 Pleasant St.,presented PB with case law study. T. Mobile is going to
31 look for another tower for gap in coverage but relevant because Metro PCS is stating
32 Stevens Estate is not going to provide enough coverage. RR said no one has permission
33 to put an additional antenna on the Steven's Estate right now. Everyone here can contact
34 Town Manager or BOS and ask for an RFP so that it's at least a viable alternative.
35
36 Thea Fournier, 247 Main St., Jan Williams went to BOS meeting and asked to propose
37 they go to Metro PCS and propose to put a new monopole at Stevens Estate. BOS told
38 Ms Williams that it wasn't up to them. Mi s-communi cation with BOS because Ms
39 Fournier is trying to get them to communicate.
40
41 Mr. Depolito, (submitted handout tonight) interpreted Telecommunications Act of 1996.
42 Town could not prohibit cellular service. But Town had opportunity to determine where
43 they would locate the coverage. Mr. Depolito submitted reportfor the record tonight. See
44 page 9, 10, 11, & 12 for District Court's interpretation of TCA.
45
Page 10
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes
I
Draft 2/19109 4PM
1 Thea Fournier, 247 Main St.,presented document by Atty. Edward Collins from Wayland
2 Mass—submitted Ietter for the record. His opinion is zoning bylaw establishes a setback
3 requirement of at least 600 feet between wireless service facilities including antennas and
4 mounting structures etc.....she skipped to ......term pre-existing structures whether
5 conforming or non-conforming refers to structures actually in existence and being used
6 by wireless service facilities at the time provisions of current zoning bylaw became
"I effective etc.......Section 2 does not apply to mounting of antennas in that church, it's not
8 a pre-existing structure, it's a new existing structure and governed by requirements of
9 Section 1 etc.,_(see letter for the record).
10
11 Ms Fournier stated whatever decision PB makes she wants to be notified and provided
12 copy of PB decision at same time Town Clerk receives PB decision.
13
14 Don Stewart, 52 Prospect St., he was on committee and intent was 600 feet from
15 residential structures. Town divided, intent over-weights interpretation. He will get RFP
16 tomorrow from Town.
17
18 Lynn Avacar, stated intent was only to grandfather in the old structure because they
19 didn't want to say if there is cell phone tower they were only grandfathering them in. 600
20 feet was for anything new.
• 21
22 Applause from audience drowned out the name of the next speaker who lives on Webster
23 Wood Lane? Speaker stated the police station; down town has wireless antennas now?
24 How does WYFI systems compare? She doesn't have leaky micro-wave. What about
25 baby monitors? Mark Hutchins stated those devices are lower power and doesn't require
26 license fr 9m FCC.
27
28 Lynn Avacar stated she did not base the reasons on health, they were based on
29 environment,property value many other reasons.
30
31 Lynn O'Neill, formerly of Elm Street, stated she has thyroid cancer, has health concerns,
32 she had radiation and measure for public safety and it was a different measure which was
33 ok for her to go back to her home...she stated that the effects of a wireless located at the
34 church are not know.
35
36 Don Hayes, Health Physicists, stated use of iodine is outside of the PB purview.
37 Migration into public versus close relatives is a different type of RF energy than what
38 we're talking about tonight.
39
40 Ms Gordon, 25 Garden St.,people have a choice to use a cell phone because it's a choice;
41 there's no choice if you live close to a tower.
42
43 Diana Warren, Waylvnd, MA; what is range from signal from Metro PCS facility in
44 miles? Mark Hutchins, said depends on direction. Mr. Hutchins said range could be
Page I]
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes
Draft 2119/09 4PM
1 several miles, generally half mile or more. Ms Warren stated North Andover's request
2 for a one-mile range is insufficient. RR said he believes that wasn't what PB asked for.
3 Ms Warren stated some evidence was deleted from what was submitted to the committee.
4 Ms Warren stated Town Counsel is hired by BOS and PB should have their own attorney.
5 Town Counsel supported BOS and BOS is of a mind-set and his opinions expressed
6 indicate that. Ms Warren stated Section B limitations etc., FCC doesn't regulate
7 biological effects.
8
9 Chair instructed further questions to be directed to Judy. Chair wants follow-up on
10 applicant to address issue on wireless facilities within one mile. Applicant provide
11 information maintenance fire/safety issue.
12
13 Chair wants to distill in common patterns and threads and evaluate everything and put
14 into categories as PB moves forward.
15
16 Chair took a poll of what PB members are available for the next PB meeting of Feb. 3rd
17 Jennifer not available next week.
18
19 Meeting on Feb. 17'hRowen won't be here and Courtney will be absent on Feb. 171'.
20
21 PB will meet on Feb. 3rd, to continue this hearing. PB may have to schedule a Special
22 Meeting to bring in a derision. We need a quorum before the Feb. 17`x'meeting. Rowen
23 will be out 17, 18, 19, and out 8ft` and 13`h of March. Chair would like to hear this next
24 week (Feb, 3rd) in order to catch up.
25
26 Bill McQuade wants article number in bylaw for the one mile? Judy stated Section
27 8.95dii.
28
29 Steve Tryder, 386 Chestnut St., where does this stand in taking it to ZBA? Mr. Tryder
30 stated there is a mis-interpretation that PB will be basing their decision on and you are
31 going to go ahead and make a decision about having that clarified for us, we want to take
32 that .......Chair said you're suspecting that we're going to deny he wasn't finished
33 talking yet, Chair asked if you will let him finish? Chair thanked everyone for coming
34 tonight, this is the most people PB had in the past 20 years at their meetings. About 60
35 people tonight. Chair stated the subject of interpretation of bylaw is that you shouldn't
36 interpret bad faith by Building Inspector or anybody else. PB has changed bylaw and
37 developers came in and said they wanted to do such and such; therefore, the language
38 isn't as crisp as the PB intended it to be. Chair said he'Il go back to ZBA and have a
39 dialogue with them. Problem exists here is when bylaw was amended it was
40 incompletely amended, only minor changes of a couple paragraphs, therefore, conflicting
41 language remained in bylaw after the change that is contrary to the interpretation of what
42 you have. Even though somebody intended something to happen that is not necessarily
43 what they executed.
44
Page 12
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes
Draft 2/19/09 4PM
I Mr. Tryder said when law was amended in 2000, for 6 years that law meant something
2 different, Building Inspector carne to Town and suddenly it became an issue.
3
4 Chair said there has been legitimate ambiguity in bylaw, intent was one thing, written
S was something else.
6
7 Mr. Tryder tried to get Building Inspectors intent for 6 years and he hasn't gotten
8 anything.
9
10 Liz Fennessey said intent is the word not environmental. One thing that is clear is that
I I the bylaw is unclear.
12
13 Chair called to APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MEETING:
14 Motion by JS, to approve January 6, 2009 Minutes, 2nd by TS, vote was unanimous
15 approved.
16
17
18 PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS:
19 January 20, 2009 cancelled
.20 February 3, 2009
21 February 17, 2009
22
23
24
25 Time is 11:00 pm
26
27
28 Motion by RR to adjourn, 2nd by JK, vote was unanimous.
29
30
31
32 By order of the Planning Board
33
34 Approved
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Page 13
Planning Board
January 27,2009 Minutes