Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-24 Planning Board Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 Town of North Andover 2 Planning Board 3 Minutes of the Meeting 4 February 24, 2009 5 Town Hall, 7:00 PM 6 7 Members present: John Simons, Chair 8 Jennifer Kusek, Clerk 9 Richard Rowen, regular member 10 Timothy Seibert, regular member 11 Michael Walsh, regular member 12 13 Member absent: Courtney LaVolpicelo, 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 the 19 discussion items would be called first, the bond release for 400 Willow St.; the traffic 20 signal on 210 Holt Road; and extension request for 12 Bonny Lane. Chair announced 21 that the Cahill project for 166 Salem Street is postponed. Chair will call for Metro PCS 22 then finish with remainder of discussion and "Minutes", etc. 23 24 25 POSTPONEMENTS: 26 none 27 28 29 Chair called for DISCUSSION: 30 Bond release: 31 o Stephen Foster, 400 Willow Street, request close out of $10K bond. As-built 32 and letter from MHF Design Consultants submitted. Letter from Gene Willis, DPW, 33 stating his concerns have been satisfied. Tim Willett, DPW, stating he has no concerns. 34 Judy made a site visit has no issues. Motion by RR to release all bond money, 2"d by TS, 35 vote was unanimous. 5-0 36 37 38 Chair called for DISCUSSION: 39 Traffic Signal: 40 o Mr. Thomson, 210 Holt Road, applicant has installed signalization at Holt Road 41 and Rte. 125, as required by the Board of Health — site assignment and the Planning 42 Board's Site Plan Review decision. There are remaining funds to be placed in an escrow 43 account to be used for future changes to the installed traffic signals. 44 Page 1 February 24, 2009 Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 Judy spoke wBOH there was a requirement in Site Plan Special Permit by the Planning 2 Board in the decision and also contained in part of site assignment decision from BOH to 3 contribute $200,000.00 for traffic light etc. Place money in escrow account to install a 4 traffic light at future date. Estimate is $184,000.00 to install a light, BOH questioned if it 5 would cost that amount? 6 7 Chair: talked wBOH does intersection need to be signalized or not? Applicant installed a 8 blinker light there, however, they may have to upgrade this light in the future. Only half 9 of the $184K may have to do with the light. PB: has a separate bond account with $15K 10 basically for landscaping that wasn't done. Chair: subtract the amount that has nothing to 11 do with the traffic light then the left over should be the escrow amount. 12 13 RR: if they set money aside to build and design a traffic light the light has been installed 14 now, they have fulfilled their obligation. 15 16 Chair:the idea of escrow is to have money there in case something happens. MW: asked 17 is there $184K worth of light? Chair said no. MW: have them come in and explain 18 attorney fees, etc. and schedule them for future discussion to clear up this matter. TS: if 19 intent is to put in traffic light then put it in, whether a more elaborate light is needed in 20 the future then is this to be put on them? Chair: hold the money for five or ten years, no 21 one knows what total volume of this facility will be. Bottom line bring Mr. Thomson 22 back in for a discussion with the PB. 23 24 Chair called for DISCUSSION: 25 Extension request: 26 o Tony Grasso, request for an extension for a Watershed Special Permit for a lot 27 located on 12 Bonny Lane under the name of Bonny Realty Trust granted on 3/12/07. 28 29 Mr. Grasso is in the process of purchasing this property—Decision has been recorded. 30 Atty. Don Borenstein to represent applicant. Watershed Special Permit filed w/Town 31 Clerks office. 32 33 Atty. Don Borenstein, 12 Chestnut St, Andover, MA stated two years ago applicant 34 Bonny Realty Trust, was in front of the PB, Con/Com and ZBA. A lot of discussion took 35 place with the Town at that time, unfortunately the market was on its way down. Buyer 36 is Mr. Grasso's son who will apply for building permit ASAP. Watershed SP will expire 37 in March of 2009, he wants a few months extension. 38 39 Judy asked are there changes to foot print? Applicant may not build as big as what was 40 originally permitted, at some point he may come back in for a modification to the Special 41 Permit. Motion by RR to grant one-year extension for a Watershed SP for 12 Bonny 42 Lane for March 6, 2007, 2"d by JK, vote was unanimous. 43 44 45 Chair moved this DISCUSSION to the end of the meeting: Page 2 February 24, 2009 Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 Article for Town Meeting: 2 o Wireless Bylaw, Section 8.9 of the Bylaw. J. Tymon's proposed changes to the 3 existing Wireless Bylaw. 4 5 6 Chair announced postponement for following CONTINUED MEETING: 7 8 o John Cahill— 166 Salem Street, Map 37D, Parcel 21. Definitive Subdivision known as 9 The Captain Nathaniel Berry Homestead, consisting of a new 292 foot long roadway and 3 new 10 proposed lots each containing 25,000 s.f. &existing lot containing 32, 174 s.f with existing 11 single-family dwelling within R-3 zoning district. Meeting not closed. Waiver on file until 12 March 31, 2009 final plan submitted 2/18/09 13 14 o John Cahill— 166 Salem Street, Map 371), Parcel 21.—Watershed Special Permit to 15 construct a new 292 foot long roadway and 3 new single-family homes, portions of the roadway, 16 one house and a storm water detention/infiltration basin will be within the non-discharge buffer 17 zone. Meeting not closed. Waiver on file until March 31, 2009. final plan submitted 2/18/09 18 19 20 Chair announced the Planning Board would not vote on MetroPCS tonight: Board 21 member Timothy Seibert recused himself from this petition tonight. 22 Metro PCS, 70 Elm Street, Special Permit, proposes to install 6-panel antennas 23 at a centerline of 80' in existing church steeple and related BTS cabinet within R-4 24 zoning district. Waiver on file until March 10, 2009. 25 26 Judy gave an update on the following punch list: Letter submitted by Atty. Peter Morin 27 requesting a waiver, 8.95D other pre-existing and approved wireless facilities within one 28 mile of N. Andover's boundaries. Another letter from Atty. Morin of property value 29 assessment by William Pastusick? Sign plan/ safety barrier plan, applicant's engineer will 30 review this. 31 32 Public submitted items via e-mail today, which include: collection of requirements 33 related to installation of telecom facility regarding Fire Department requirements. Judy 34 presented this today to Gerry Brown and he submitted a written opinion, she spoke 35 w/Chief Martineau. Received via e-mail a letter from David Deens and he received letter 36 from Counsel from FCC and submitted to Judy. 37 38 Atty. Morin addressed waiver requests. Alternative site is issue, looked at the area of this 39 gap, and identify existing sites that wouldn't work. Other existing sites don't serve this 40 particular gap area. Granting a waiver for this would make sense. If they are outside of 41 area that would achieve coverage then we know there are rooftops in S. Lawrence that 42 MetroPCS uses, tower in S. Lawrence/Andover line that everybody uses. They serve no 43 useful purpose for this application because they are so far outside of this gap area. 44 45 Judy read requirement: map showing other pre-existing approved wireless service 46 facilities in N. Andover and outside N. Andover within one mile of its boundary. See Page 3 February 24, 2009 Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 section#5 application procedures, page 111, #4 in Bylaw. Once an applicant submitted 2 this report then it would be easier for the next applicant to add on their information, etc. 3 4 Judy: this is a difficult thing to keep track of, due to co-location, carriers changing their 5 name, no reporting requirements by carriers; PB doesn't keep track of change in 6 ownership of the cell tower companies. 7 8 Chair: based on coverage area have you identified every single one? Atty. Morin said 9 yes. Atty. Morin: said Bylaw said we want you to use pre-existing structures and submit a 10 full application for 100 % invisible installation, then the purpose of identifying other 11 facilities is wrong, no purpose for it. 12 13 Atty. Morin: said real estate letter and report, was produced by Mr. Noon referring to 14 Schneider Electric smoke stack application. It concluded that the installation was visible 15 in neighborhood would have an impact on real estate values. Atty. Morin's letter deals 16 with fear of potential buyers relative to adverse health impact. He got appraiser to do real 17 estate study for scientific methodology done to identify similar installation to this one and 18 examine real estate activity out side of neighborhoods regarding the impact on real estate 19 sales. Reference report for Calgary Baptist and Bradford Church and West Parish Church. 20 21 Bill McQuade, MetroPCS, compared 70 Elm St. steeple to 3 other churches. 22 a). West Parish Church, Andover. (Residential location older homes, etc. No unusual 23 trends regarding absentee ownership etc.). 24 b). 586 Mass Ave, N. Andover, First Calvary Baptist Church, comparison in residential 25 near school, impact two sales of homes recently sold for prices above the median price. 26 c). 10 Church St., Haverhill, T. Mobile tenant, and Metro PC there too. First Church of 27 Christ, competitive location, residential area, no measurable impact from antennas, listing 28 indicates 3 listings fall within perimeter of listing price. Construction and operation will 29 not have any adverse affect on property values within the subject site. 30 31 Atty. Morin put: into file a NEPA letter stating "no significant impact on historical 32 neighborhood" (he submitted letter tonight dated Jan. 26, 2009.) 33 34 Don. Hayes: spoke regarding RF Safety Plan report done by Hudson Design Group 35 relative to roof top installations. Mr. Hayes: reviewed this report and finds this report 36 acceptable to use as RF safety plan. 37 38 No signs required throughout facility with exception of direct access to tower itself. Blue 39 sign A posted into steeple/near antennas is not required by law to do so. Sign B is caution 40 sign needed to notify individuals that they may exceed potential for exposure in direct 41 access to antennas. It's acceptable plan on file and made available for individuals who 42 would repair or do construction on the facility. 43 44 RR: would church have final authority to shut down antennas? Mr. Hayes: said 45 responsibility falls on the landlord. Page 4 February 24, 2009 Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 2 Atty. Morin: request for 5 minutes to sum up issues (at the end of the meeting). 3 4 Steve Tryder, 386 Chestnut St., did people who bought this real estate know there was 5 invisible source of radiation in church where they were buying their home? Bill 6 McQuade stated he presented the report he didn't compile the statistics. 7 8 Loretta Wentworth, 15 Pleasant St., stated real estate agent has to divulge anything that 9 would affect the consumer, high power lines, gas line, it's immediate deterrent. 10 11 Mr. Tryder: asked if there were a church located in a particular area would a buyer be 12 inclined to ask if there are wireless antennas located in the steeple? Ms Wentworth: said 13 yes, but at this point maybe not. Mr. Tryder: this is major loophole in the study. Ms 14 Wentworth: stated the report would carry much more weight if person who wrote it were 15 here tonight. 16 17 Chair: wants this report put-on line. Judy: sent it via e-mail to a mailing list today. Chair: 18 stated you can see the results of study if you think it's wrong get back to PB. 19 20 Ms. Wentworth: stated Bylaw is not being adhered to. Why isn't Bylaw adhered to? She 21 wants to review the report, and continue this hearing to March 3rd. She has information 22 on effected property values she wants to put into the record (submitted letter for record 23 tonight.) 24 25 Don Elliott, 266 Main St., he's a licensed radio amateur operator, Technical Director in 26 high-tech company, member of the Board of Trustees of Congregational Church. How 27 many folks present own a cell phone? They are ubiquitous? Cell phones should be 28 attacked, not cell tower or bay station. Power outlet here 10 Mila watts up to 200 Mila 29 watts. Bay station numbers are around .1 to .5 Microwatts. Who looked at Mark 30 Hutchins report? Section in there about going down from 4-bars to 1-bar and this is next 31 to your head, the power goes up automatically. GPS antenna you get location what sector 32 of antenna you will get connected to. Looking at 120 degrees 3 sided configuration, 33 you'll get connected with one of those antennas. Mr. Elliott lives at the Fields Estate and 34 is planning to put up an amateur radio transmission tower no higher than 200 feet on his 35 property. He read article by Diana Warren from Wayland, emissions levels are much less 36 than the RF emissions are. Submitted newspaper article to PB tonight regarding cell 37 towers that are planned to go next to school in Florida. 38 39 40 Liz Fennessy, 77 Elm St., presented how the Bylaw was applied since 2000. 41 Trinitarian Church, letter from Bob Nicetta 8.9 a SP is required prior to installation of 42 wireless facility, advised to obtain prior variance. 43 Page 5 February 24, 2009 Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 2001 letter July 27, from Attorney letter to Mr. Nicetta for 401 Andover Street, PB 2 agreed facility is type of facility consistent with Bylaw, but apply for a 600 `variance 3 first. 4 5 Letter from Michael McGuire on 2001 stated a variance is required for 600' setback from 6 ZBA. 7 8 Letter in 2002 to One High St., Omnipoint, from Mr. Nicetta a setback of 600' is required 9 petition the ZBA for variance. 10 11 2006 letter regarding First Baptist Calvary Church, from Gerry Brown 600' section does 12 not apply to First Calvary Baptist Church because as proposed antennas will be installed 13 in church spire, therefore, no need to go to ZBA for a variance. 14 15 Letter in Dec. 3, 2008 regarding Trinitarian Church from Gerry Brown 600' Section does 16 not apply to church as antennas will be within existing church spire, no need to go to 17 ZBA for a variance. 18 19 Ms. Fennessey: stated it's the duty of Town Board and officials to apply the Bylaw in a 20 consistent manner refer this issue to the ZBA where it belongs (letter for the record). 21 22 Jim Gordon, 500 Rea Street, wants PB to deny this petition with respect to a fire safety 23 issue. Issue is un-suspected children that might become impacted by approval of this 24 decision. 25 26 Judy: no recommendation was made by Fire Department. Building inspector submitted a 27 letter today, he's reviewed material presented and the issue addressed in material pertain 28 to fire related safety standards, would be addressed by the Fire Department at the time of 29 issuance of a building permit. 30 31 Mr. Gordon: stated Fire Department has to sign off on form M and the PB would want to 32 weight in with Fire Chief to find out what are the merits mentioned at the last meeting 33 regarding fire safety issue. 34 35 Cindy Allen, 45 Elm St., she identified existing wireless facilities within one mile and 36 locations of towers within 3 mile radius from surrounding communities (hand out for the 37 record). She has no choice regarding cell tower in her neighborhood. 38 39 Aaron Pertus, 62 Elm St., Referring to National Fire Protection Agency, issue of back up 40 batteries emit hydrogen gas when being recharged, which is explosive in contained 41 environment such as equipment room, needs automatic ventilation system. Judy: sent e- 42 mail to Chief Martineau with the packet information. 43 44 Cindy Jalbert, Webster Woods Lane, did PB talk to ZBA about this issue? Chair: talked 45 to Chair of ZBA and informed him of this process and letter of Gerry Brown. It was left Page 6 February 24, 2009 Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 that is the opinion of the Zoning Enforcement Officer and not the prerogative of the ZBA 2 until someone brings something in front of them. 3 4 Cindy: asked if existing antennas had to go in front of the Planning Board process to get 5 permitted? Chair: thinks they existed before the Bylaw was written. Nothing has been 6 put in since the Bylaw came to place. 7 Cindy: Town passed Bylaw to exempt these things and put them where they want to? 8 Cindy: asked do all antennas contribute to RF emissions? 9 10 Dr. Hayes: range breaks down to 1 to 1 '/2 percent of the FCC exposure limits to members 11 of the public. 12 13 Did church officially sign a contract w/MetroPCS? Chair said they are co-applicants and 14 filing jointly. 15 16 Thea Fournier, 247 Main St., home is in family for 75 years. Problem is not the Bylaw 17 but town officials have failed to uphold Bylaw. Gerry Brown and Town Planner did not 18 adhere to requirement of Bylaw, Chair objected to her making a personal attack against 19 the Planner, Thea scratched Town Planner...Thea went on to say PB needs to uphold 20 enforcement of 600 foot setback. 21 22 PB should turn application down because it doesn't comply with clear wording of the 23 Bylaw calling for 600 feet setback from schools and residences with houses close as 27 24 feet to proposed antennas. 25 26 Application belongs in front of ZBA not the PB. PB must according to Bylaw turn this 27 down, then applicant will go ZBA for a hearing. BOS made alternative site available for 28 Metro and other carriers at Stevens Estate. Town officials have failed to adhere to Bylaw 29 provisions, citizens are confused about the Bylaw, she submitted copy of a letter in the 30 Citizen and a letter from her Atty. Collins (submitted for the record). 31 32 Lynn Avacar, 125 Barker St., Bylaw enacted and got committee together included 33 telecommunication companies, worked together to come up with this law, citizens voted 34 on this law and unless citizens have a chance to say otherwise she doesn't understand 35 why a law is being questioned? 36 37 Mark DeIppolito, Pleasant St., question for Dr. Hayes? How far away from cell tower 38 was he when he made these measurements? Dr. Hayes: spoke he made measurements at 39 close proximity to this proposed site to get base line to get ambient readings. Performed 40 theoretical calculations from base of antennas at ground level out to including 10,000 41 feet. 42 43 Cindy Allen: presented drawing sound rays and radio waves and microwaves and 900 44 megahertz cordless phones and they go up to 500 megahertz and cell phones are 45 somewhere in there. There's danger of LIB rays. She explained waves. Page 7 February 24, 2009 Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 2 Diana Warran, Wayland, dispute Attorney can't provide information on current on line 3 build out of all carriers that have licenses in Boston area. 4 5 She will fax tomorrow copies of maps that show all carriers in the area proposed and the 6 ones on line. A member of wireless committee consults for Metro, she's protecting her 7 client who is member of wireless company. Moratorium by National Fire Association 8 voted in 2003 for a moratorium. Mr. Hayes hasn't submitted any power density projected 9 for this facility it was not provided. Ms Warren will fax 2 copies of other town's that he's 10 (Dr. Hayes) had done a comprehensive report on. They are keeping you in the dark on 11 purpose. 12 13 Dr. Hayes: demanded apology from Ms Warren stating that he's omitting certain 14 information tonight. Dr. Hayes: indicated see column with power density included in the 15 column. 16 17 Chair: advised Ms Warren to stick to the facts and stay away from the interpretation. 18 19 Applause drowns out the name of next abutter, 257 Main Street, home values are hard to 20 follow but irrelevant. Don Elliott asked how many people use cell phone? How many 21 people here attend and vote at Town Meeting? At Town Meeting it was determined what 22 was in the best interest for the Town and voted clearly that there shall be no cell tower 23 without a 600-foot setback. 24 25 Chair want thru information to make a decision. Judy: read following letter from David 26 Deeds...(Paraphrase)....Church leadership and its members have taken steps with their 27 neighbors and community to get neighborhood feedback........as part of this process our 28 Church has compiled a binder w/research and opinions and research studies compiled by 29 neighborhood residents. Investigated their concerns regarding health and encouraged by 30 the finding which was not paid for by Wireless companies......studies indicating that 31 such installation would be significantly lower than what would be necessary to cause 32 harm etc. 33 34 Atty. Morin: knows history of Building Inspector's interpretation of 600-foot setback. 35 36 He doesn't remember if T Mobile got a variance from ZBA in 2002? 37 38 If 600-foot setback was to prohibit any wireless installation regardless of what 39 installation or non-health related impact was then application of setback would violate the 40 Telecommunication Act. Inspector has obligation to interpret the Bylaw to be consistent 41 and in conformance w/Telecommunication Act. 42 43 Thea Fournier: spoke stating setbacks are allowable under the Telecommunications Act, 44 you can't prohibit a cell tower company from coming in but you can site where they go. 45 Requirements under First Circuit Court of Appeals asked for proof if the site is in the Page 8 February 24, 2009 Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 right place and prove there are no alternative places etc. Process begins in the ZBA. 2 I (pap u--aseParaphrase).... She would challenge in a court of law health effects, Telcom 3 Act talks about environmental effects it does not talk about health effects and it has been 4 challenged in Europe, most recently in France (Chair: stated we're not in France). We 5 don't want this kind of business in the middle of our neighborhood, and she wants her 6 rights. She expects PB as leaders of our Town to uphold our rights, otherwise she doesn't 7 know why you guys are sitting there, applause... ...she doesn't back down when she went 8 to court with Mr. Morin the last time it took effort on her part to stand up and do it 9 because she didn't have the Town Leaders backing up residents, if you won't stand up for 10 a law you shouldn't have it. Doesn't get it when a church morally doesn't care about the 11 neighborhood. Applause.....She feels bad that we don't have a Town that has the balls to 12 stand up for its residents. 13 14 15 Chair: asked if all PB members will be here next week? Board said yes. 16 17 Chair: ran thru criteria that PB has to use to judge the application. 18 19 1. Significant gap in coverage, there was demonstrated a significant gap in coverage 20 and proposed site fills the coverage gap. 21 22 2. Where there is not an alternative site available. Speculative if Stevens Estate 23 would be available. RR said if gap is in Southern end of Rte. 125 then church site closes 24 the gap better than Stevens Estate would. If it's closing maximum gap along Rte 125 25 then Stevens Estate closes it's better than proposed site does but sacrificing the gap in the 26 neighborhood itself. 27 28 3 Health issues: all evidence is RF levels are substantially within compliance with 29 FCC guidelines. 30 31 4 Antenna can't fall down cause it's enclosed within tower. 32 33 5 Visual that it's ugly don't exist. 34 35 6 issue of applicability of Zoning Bylaw. Building Inspector is the Zoning Office is 36 the one who makes the interpretation of the Bylaw and believe that no variance is 37 required. 38 39 7 RR: said Liz Fennessey brought up inconsistency over the years. The PB 40 followed the direction of the Zoning Enforce Officer. 41 42 Judy: said she has amended application w/church as co-applicant, named the other reports 43 the PB has NEPA etc. In-house reviews and VHB reviews were done in compliance with 44 the compliance with the Bylaw. 45 Page 9 February 24, 2009 Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 Chair: said keep this open until the next PB meeting just in case something else comes in. 2 3 RR: said waiver issue in his opinion is requested that they don't comply with application 4 requirements .........entertained a possibility of it if they had requested a waiver when 5 they submitted the application but not at this point. WW: this Bylaw is clear. PB will 6 agree to keep the record open for time to comply. 7 8 Liz Fennessey: said on June 5, 2001 meeting occurred by PB in revisiting the proposal a 9 variance is required for a 600 foot setback?......Chair: advised you should go back to PB 10 Minutes of Meetings to fully understand your question. 11 12 Judy wants a waiver on file until March 31, 2009. 13 14 Judy said other waivers that have been requested. 15 1. waiver distance at grade..... 16 2. waiver contours at 2 feet within 300 feet applies for monopole facility etc. 17 3 waiver for location of wetlands within 100 feet ...... 18 4 waiver for design landscape plan trees and shrubs.... 19 20 Judy wants these waivers because it's a collocation opposed to a new facility. 21 22 Steve Tryder: is another wireless joining this application? No they can't. 23 24 This meeting is scheduled for March 3, 2009. 25 26 Time now is 9:55 pm 27 28 8.9 re-write by Judy. 29 Judy submitted to Town Manager, Town Clerk the version of the Bylaw that she 30 submitted to the Board and accepted as part of the warrant by BOS last night. That is the 31 only item on the warrant by the PB now. Down town initiative Bylaw was submitted and 32 will be on the warrant accepted by the BOS and sponsored by Community Development 33 and not by the PB. Committee continues to meet and if they wish to submit a Bylaw it 34 will have to be submitted as a citizens petition and would need to be heard by the PB as 35 with any other change. 36 37 RR: what's with storm water management? That's not a PB Bylaw. It was submitted and 38 accepted as part of the warrant. 39 40 TS: asked is there a place holder for specifics of the Bylaw wireless re-write?.......Judy 41 said there will be a full public hearing and the committee will come up with a revised 42 version of the Bylaw. TS needs clarification of word-smithing......send comments to 43 Judy. JS: wants to deal with this issue piece by piece. 44 Page 10 February 24, 2009 Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 Judy: asked if everyone could make March 3rd? PB said yes. March 17 can't MW can't make 2 that meeting. Everyone get back to Judy on this. 3 4 RR: wants Judy to send stuff to work and to home? 5 6 Liz: can the public attend a meeting on discussing of specifics of the Bylaw? PB said 7 Yes. 8 9 Mr. Tryder: said Judy and Curt are on the committee for Bylaw re-write. Did PB ask 10 them to write a different Bylaw than what the committee recommend? Chair :said they 11 had no draft and had to put a place holder there because committee didn't come up with a 12 draft. RR: said original committee was formed 2 years ago, and PB stayed out of the fray 13 and committee didn't come up with a re-write of Bylaw. PB would not go another year 14 with no change. If they end up with 2 warrant articles then the Town can make their 15 decision. Mr. Tryder: said you have undermined the committee. 16 17 Thea Fournier: said she attended 36 meetings and she is the only one that has missed one 18 meeting. She came up with a Bylaw and told it would never fly with BOS or PB, it was 19 probably Curt Bellevance who advised her to just do a citizen petition. She worked so 20 hard and nothing got done. She was re-elected to a board and it took until September for 21 people to be elected to the board. Committee has two people employed with the Town, 22 and another person is a committee member who works for wireless committee and that's 23 a conflict of interest. Thea: said Judy told committee if you guys don't get something 24 produced by middle of January we'll write our own. Thea: feels she was undermined and 25 given up hours of her time and feels totally undermined by the people on the committee 26 that should be working with us them to get something good and done. 27 28 TS: said you are describing a committee that you call a sham, .......a year ago the 29 committee had close to a finished draft and as a committee thought it's a good idea to get 30 buy in of BOS, ZBA, and PB. Draft not circulated because didn't have it done until 31 February, Tim: asked do we hold out for another year or go forward w/citizens petition 32 and go with another year and Thea said let's go with a citizens petition. It's been 2 33 years, things are due on Friday and we've seen nothing other than some drafts. 34 35 Perhaps if your committee produces a Bylaw to put in front of Town Meeting, we 36 endorse it , or not, say no comment, if we don't like what we see (which is a possibility) 37 it's irresponsible of us to go back in front of Town Meeting to say we have nothing else 38 to offer you we are fulfilling our obligations that we have to the Town to at least be able 39 to produce something now and it's been 2 years with no Bylaw. Thea: accused Tim of 40 not coming to the committee meetings, Thea: wants to see the records of attendance. TS: 41 said as you know there are no records, and Thea is being disingenuous. Where was 42 Steve Tryder at these meetings? 43 44 Mr. Tryder: stated he quit. 45 Page 11 February 24, 2009 Minutes DRAFT Jen's edits -N1/09 Mary's edits 4/6/09 Approved 4/7/09 1 TS: feels this is very disingenuous to create a committee and call it a sham and then 2 blame the PB. 3 4 Cindy Allen: If somehow a Bylaw gets written that's clear and it gets put in 5 the warrant and it gets passed does it go into effect for this existing application? 6 MWsaid no. 7 8 Can the resident provide the PB the ability to say No? Chair: said two things don't have 9 any connection. 10 11 Thea: said the Bylaw as it stands is clear it's being portrayed as being flawed but it isn't 12 and it's clear. 13 14 15 16 PUBLIC HEARING: 17 o None 18 19 20 21 o APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MEETING: 22 January 27, 2009 "Minutes". 23 24 Motion by JK to approve the January 27, 2009 "Minutes", 2nd by MW, vote was 25 unanimous_. 26 27 o PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS: 28 February 3, 2009 cancelled 29 February 17, 2009 cancelled 30 March 3, 2009 31 March 17, 2009 32 33 Motion by JK to adjourn the meeting, 2nd by MW meeting adjourned at 34 approximately 10:30. 35 36 37 38 39 40 By order of the Planning Board 41 42 43 Approved Page 12 February 24, 2009 Minutes