September 3, 2015
Board Members Present: Janet McEwen, Jeanne Cahoon, Steve McDonald, Chairman Chris Condon and exofficio Mike Genest.
Board Members Absent: Mike Frosch, Bob Holmes, Jesse Lazar and Elsa Volker.
Staff Present: Carol Ogilvie
Chair Condon called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. and asked for a volunteer to take minutes. Ms. Cahoon agrees to do so.
- S.R. Jones Excavation Review
Chair Condon begins to read notice as posted, but sees the date is not correct. It is brought to the Board’s attention that although the copies in front of the board are from 2013, the updated version was posted in the correct format. This was also confirmed by S.R.Jones who has a copy of posting.
Ms. Ogilvie informs the board that there is no new information to review on the S.R. Jones checklist because there have been no changes.
Ms. Cahoon makes a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Genest seconds the motion.
Mr Jones confirms nothing has changed, due to markets being down, resulting in little work. Mr. Jones states his concern with notices and hearing reviews seeming like “they are getting closer and closer together.”
Chairman Condon explains the review process to Mr. Jones with an understanding of this concern. Mr. Genest adds that there was a similar concern during the Zeke and Mac review. There is conversation amongst the board members on how to address this issue.
Chairman Condon asks for comments from abutters in favor, abutters against or any abutter comments. There are none in any case.
Mr. Jones reiterates his concern about excessive hearings.
Board continues thoughts on how to address the issue. Ideas included changing the regulations to address these concern. Ms. McEwen suggests having reviews during the time of the site walk. It is decided this issue will be addressed further in a different meeting.
Mr. Genest makes a motion that the review is found to be satisfactory. Ms. Cahoon seconds the motion. The motion receives all “yes” from the board.
Review is closed at 7:15 P.M.
- Continuation of ITW Deliberation
Chair Condon informs the Board that just before this meeting the ZBA corrected the notices of decision, placing the “dash” in their decision and exception.
Ms. Ogilvie informs board that she spoke with counsel about the tower straddling the lot lines. Counsel offered three options for proceeding, but appeared to recommend that the planning board set a condition for a lot line adjustment IF approved.
The Board begins discussing the August 27th site walk and impressions gathered.
Ms. McEwen stated she felt the site was far enough back, but had a concern for the visual impact created to at least one site and questions whether a monopine would be a good option.
Ms. Cahoon didn’t feel as though the visual impact would be an issue yet, but is concerned with later down the road and feels a buffer requirement be put in place.
Chairman Condon states that seeing the sites he feels the tower will be below the ridgeline for the most part, but has concern for the one visually impacted site, and thinks a monopine or paint might be a good idea.
Mr. McDonald thought it was helpful to see the sites in person and has similar feelings about blending this monopole into its surroundings and thinks it should be a condition.
Mr. Genest states he only went to the building site but feels that a buffer the height of the fence might be a good option to address the concern of the one site seeing the “base” of the tower.
There is no further discussion so Chairman Condon suggests that Board now start to frame any conditions they might want to see in place.
Mr. McDonald makes a motion that approval be based on the condition that the applicant seek a lot line adjustment so the tower and compound are on one lot. Ms. Cahoon seconds motion, all vote “yes”.
Ms. Cahoon makes a motion that a vegetative buffer of long-growing tree species, starting at the same height of the fence, be placed around the three sides of the fence that face the lake as a condition for approval. Mr. Genest seconds the motion, all vote “yes.”
Mr. McDonald questions the applicant as to what type of covering is most effective for the blending of the tower in this situation. The applicant provides the Board with a packet of pictures similar to the original packet showing the tower in monopine form.
Tom Davis informs the board that the ZBA has received “pleasing monopine pictures.”
The Board looks at the pictures and examples via google images of monopine towers.
Ms. McEwen states that she thinks it will be relevant to know if a certain style monopine will interfere with the workings of the tower. The applicant says it will not.
Chairman Condon asks if the Board being specific with the type of monopine is “do-able.” The applicant explains it is not “do-able” because they would have to go bigger for certain styles in order for it not to interfere with service.
The Board reviews and compares pictures, specifically of #8 Keene Road, of the monopole tower vs the monopine.
Mr. McDonald askW:\Planning Board\PB Minutes\PB Minutes 2015\Antrim PB Minutes_9-3-15(W).docs Ms. Ogilvie after seeing the pictures of multiple monopines if a monopine can be a condition without choosing what type? Ms. Ogilvie says yes.
Mr. McDonald makes a motion, as a condition for approval the tower needs to be covered by a monopine type that will be chosen at a later date.
The Board discusses this. The applicant was asked and agrees to bring three options of monopine towers for the board to choose from by a date decided at the end of the meeting.
A member of the audience asks to add to choices with his own pictures for options. Chairman Condon asks for thoughts from the Board on this. Ms. Cahoon states she feels it is not a good idea, too many options can be a bad thing.
Ms. McEwen asks to hear the motion again, Ms. Cahoon reads the motion as written. Ms. Cahoon seconds the motion. A roll call vote receives a “yes” from all board members present.
Ms. McEwen has a concern and feels we should make a condition of some kind regarding the buffer of the existing tree coverage at least 150 feet around the tower.
Ms. Ogilvie informs the Board that this is already a requirement of the Ordinance and easements would be needed to keep existing buffer safe that is already in place.
Ms. Ogilvie also noted that the Board needs to consider two waivers that the applicant is asking for. The first waiver is asking that the four foot diameter of the antennas be changed to an eleven foot diameter. However, the applicant explained that with the requirement now for a monopine, this becomes a non-issue.
The second waiver is asking to change the nine month time frame to become operational to a two year time frame. The Board questions the applicant about this request. The applicant informs the board that with ground soon to freeze, timely court proceedings, and securing carriers, nine months will not be enough time.
Mr.Genest makes a motion to extend the project to two years for breaking ground, and nine months after breaking ground to make the facility operational. Ms. McEwen seconds motion, all vote “yes.”
The Board then discusses Easements and Bonding. An easement is needed for the access road that crosses multiple lots; and one is needed for the 150-foot fall zone that crosses property lines. As for the bond for removal, Attorney Grill will bring estimates with him to the next meeting, and Ms. Ogilvie will also do this.
Ms. Ogilvie suggested that, since this deliberation is going to be continued, she would like to prepare a draft Notice of Decision that the Board could then review and work off of at the continued deliberation.
Ms. McEwen asked about the insurance requirement, to which Attorney Grill replied that that is typically handled with the Select Board at the time the Building Permit is issued.
The Board set a date for Thursday, September 17th, 2015 @ 7:00 pm for continuance of deliberation.
Ms. Cahoon makes a motion to adjourn meeting. Mr. McDonald seconds motion.
Meeting adjourned 8:15 pm.