|
Town of Meeting Minutes Members
Present: Barbara
Annis, Hank Duhamel, Ed Mical, Dan Watts, Paul Violette and Rick Davies Members
Arriving Late: None Members Excused:
None Members
Absent:
None Alternates
Present: Peter
Wyman, Harold French Alternates Excused:
None Alternates Absent:
None Presiding: Barbara Annis Open Meeting Roll Call Ms. Annis opened the meeting. The roll
call was taken. Paul Violette and Rick Davies recused themselves and the
two Alternates Mr. Wyman and Mr. French were asked to take their places.
1. Applicants: New Cingular
Wireless/ Property Owners: Diane
Violette Property Location: Map 14, Description: Site Plan
Review for a wireless telecommunication facility.
The applicant proposes to modify the existing AT&T/New Cingular Wireless communication facility by adding a
platform at the 105-foot level
a. Review Application – Accept/Reject/Continue – Accepted
b. Close Meeting and Open Public Hearing – Public Hearing
c. Close Public Hearing and Re-Open Meeting – Public Hearing
Closed
d. Action Taken – Approve/Disapprove A. REVIEW APPLICATION: Ms. Annis explained Jonathan McNeal presented a new plan at last
meeting therefore it was determined by the Board it would be necessary
to go through the entire procedure again having a Public Hearing,
reviewing the application and accepting the application. Ms. Annis asked if the Board had seen the Plans. A Board Member asked
for a summary. Jonathan McNeal of A Board Member asked is it is the same height as existing antenna
which is approximately 105 feet. Mr. McNeal agreed. Ed Mical asked if the engineering analysis submitted indicated that
the change would be permissible engineering wise on the tower with the
new antennas. Mr. McNeal explained the structural engineering that was presented to
the Board at the last hearing showed the needs an upgrade but it can
accommodate the antennas with the upgrades. He stated that he has a
letter from the engineering company certifying that with a couple of
upgrades to the Tower which would need to be done before the
installation it could accommodate the three antennas. He said basically
it is upgrading a couple of the legs on the Tower. The structural
analysis was done on the G standard, Ms. Annis asked the Board if they had anymore questions. A Board
Member questioned the location of the site on the map. Ms. Annis stated the first thing is to review the new application to
determine whether we accept it or not, but before that can be done the
Board needs to be sure the new plan complies with the checklist.
Although the original one did the new one needs to be reviewed also. A short recess was called for the Board Members to have copies of Ms. Annis called the meeting back in session. It was confirmed
everyone had the checklist for site plan. Ms. Annis asked three of the
Board Members to review 1-9 on the checklist and the other table to
review 10-19 on the checklist to be sure the plans are complete with the
checklist. After reviewing the checklist Ms Annis asked if the
application in the Board Members estimation is complete in section
reviewing 1-9 on the checklist. A Board Member indicated they were okay.
Ms. Annis asked the second section reviewing 10-19 and a Board Member
stated they concluded the waivers that were requested in the not
applicable points are correct and they meet with their review. Ms Annis stated a motion is in order to accept, reject or continue
the application. A Board member MOVED to ACCEPT application, it was seconded. The
Board unanimously voted to ACCEPT the motion. A Board Member MOVED to ACCEPT the waivers, it was seconded. There
was no discussion. There was a unanimous vote to ACCEPT the waivers. B.
PUBLIC HEARING: Ms. Annis explained Abutters would be heard first then other
interested parties. All questions or comments are to be directed to the
Board and limited to two minutes, an individual cannot speak a second
time until others have spoken once, and to please not repeat questions
and comments. Ms. Annis asked if Abutters had any comments regarding the new
proposed plan. Rick Davies questioned the height of the tower being
extended to 105 feet and asked if it could be explained why it is not an
extension but an adaptation. Mr. McNeal explained that basically a pipe
would be attached to the Tower and then the antennas are extended above
the height of the existing Tower as they are now with the antennas to
the height of approximately 105 feet. He stated they are not extending
the Tower itself the pipe basically needs to be attached for the
antennas to be attached to it, because the antennas cannot be attached
to the Tower itself. Mr. McNeal reinforced that the antennas will not be
any higher than what is there now. The next question was if the propagation plan passed out at the
December meeting was still the one proposed. Ms. Annis stated the only
change she is aware of is the plan on the Tower to take off the platform
and put on panels. Mr. McNeal explained the propagation plan is the
same; the additional antennas are for additional capabilities and
additional callers. The signal strength will be the same. Rick Davies asked if the antennas would be non-reflective so as to
not catch the sun. The answer was yes the antennas would be
non-reflective as most manufacturers design them that way now and there
would be no problem if the Board wanted to put that in their decision. Ms. Annis asked if any other Abutter had questions or comments. Since
there were no other Abutters it was asked if anyone in the Public would
like to make a comment or ask a question. An audience member asked what was being waived and if a side by side
photo was available of what it looks like now and what it would look
like later. Mr. McNeal explained that a waiver was requested because no
changes were being made other than the antennas; the equipment would
still be within the same housing as originally. He explained no side by
side picture is available due to the cost. Ms. Annis referenced a photo
of the existing Tower and stated Mr. McNeal pointed out that there would
not be much difference between what is there now and what is being
proposed. Mr. McNeal agreed and stated there is a lower ray of six panel
antennas on there now right below their antennas which would be three of
the same type of antenna, therefore there will really not be much change
in the appearance of the Tower. C. CLOSE
PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Annis closed the Public Hearing and re-opened meeting. She asked
for a decision to approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions.
A motion was made to approve the application with the conditions that
the antennas will be a non-reflective material and no increase in
present height of the Tower. A Board Member MOVED to accept the motion with the two conditions, it
was seconded. Ms. Annis opened discussion. Ed Mical asked for more information
regarding the modifications that were in the letter submitted tonight.
Mr. McNeal stated they are basically replacing the diagonal bars on the
tower itself with stronger bars and reinforcing those. It is not an
extension of the tower it is reinforcing the cross beams at the 20-40
foot level. There would be no increase in the width of the Tower. Ed
Mical asked if the modifications would be submitted prior to
installation of the antennas. Jonathan McNeal stated that the owner
would not allow them to proceed until the modifications were done. Ms.
Annis asked if Mr. Mical wanted modifications to be presented to the
Board. Mr. Mical stated he
did not feel they needed to be presented to the Board but that an
engineering certificate would be available showing the Tower
modifications as described in the report dated Hank Duhamel wanted to clarify the overall height of the existing
Tower. Mr. McNeal stated that the height of the Tower is 100 feet and
there are existing antennas on the Tower that bring it to approximately
105 feet. Mr. Duhamel asked if basically the configuration has not
really changed and Mr. McNeal agreed. Ms. Annis stated the conditions of approval are:
1. The site location on the cover sheet is to be corrected.
2. Final structural analysis at time of applying for building
permit.
3. No increase in height of present Tower.
4. Antennas to be non-reflective. A question was raised if the Tower were to be taken down or replaced
would the original bond be enough to cover the changes being made. Ms.
Annis stated there was no bond but she read an agreement dated D. ACTION
TAKEN: A Board member AMENDED the motion as such to the four conditions as
stated above. The Board unanimously voted to ACCEPT the application with
the four conditions: 1. The site location on the cover sheet is
to be corrected.
2. Final structural analysis at time of applying for building
permit.
3. No increase in height of present Tower.
4. Antennas to be non-reflective. 2.
AMENDMENTS TO ZONING
CHANGES Paul Violette and Rick Davies returned to the table. Ms.
Annis stated that at the last meeting Amendments #1,#2,#3,#4, and #6
were done, however Amendment #5, #7 and #8 need to be determined how
they will be written. A.
AMENDMENT #5 It was agreed Amendment #5
would be discussed first. A short discussion was held. Ms. Annis thought
the Board did not have ample time to look
into it and research it. Since a good point was brought up regarding
structures she suggested Postponing that entire
section for a whole year to give the Board time to look up the
definition of a structure, talk about it and then see how it relates to
the various parts in Zoning. It is not decided what the structure
definition will be and will it be applicable in all
situations. Ms. Annis read a letter
received in the office that stated: As
a farm owner I suspect a fairly loose definition of structure as
currently stated includes fencing whether decorative or functional
in nature. With that in mind there are some instances (INAUDIBLE) zoning
where I feel replacing building with building
or structure can create an excessively tight restriction on fencing
especially in the terms of frontage, lot and yard requirements.
The Notice of Public Hearing
did not itemize which of the designated references to building would be changes;
therefore please except as one citizens voice request that we not modify
the section on front lot and yard requirements.
Ms. Annis stated that this is part of the definitions. Ms. Annis MOVED to postpone Amendment #5 until next year so the Board
can have more time to discuss it. A Board member seconded the motion.
The VOTE was unanimous. B.
AMENDMENT #6 Ms. Annis stated Paul Violette MOVED in the previous meeting to leave
the height at 45 feet, Hank Duhamel seconded the motion. Rick Davies
MOVED to amend the ordinance to read 45 feet in Commercial and B1 Zones
and 35 feet in all other districts, measuring roofs with over a 6/12
pitch at the midpoint. Paul seconded the amendment. Hank Duhamel had
objection to the wording pertaining to “barns”. Paul then
recommended excluding copulas from the total height. A VOTE was taken
and all were in favor except for Hank. C.
AMENDMENT #7 Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 7 as
proposed by the Planning Board to amend the Zoning Ordinance as
follows? This proposed
change was presented at a public hearing.
ARTICLE
X -
BUSINESS DISTRICT B-1 Section
F: Change the maximum
gross floor area of buildings as permitted in this District and included
in TABLE 1 of the use regulations from 2,000 square feet to 6,000 square
feet and to read as follows: “The
maximum gross floor area of 6,000 square feet for new construction as
permitted in Table 1 of the Use Regulations. Existing buildings may be
expanded to include a total of 6,000 square feet.
Adequate parking must be provided”.
YES ____
NO ____ RATIONALE:
The purpose of Amendment #7 is to provide for additional
business opportunity and growth while maintaining reasonable building
sizing and also to help address the parking needs of the B1 District. A discussion was held regarding sizes and dimensions of other
buildings in the B1 District. Ms Annis stated that looking at the Use
Table the uses permitted are quite different than in the Commercial
District. She stated some things are absolutely not permitted in the
Business District and other things need to have a special exception and
that is not arbitrarily permitted. Hank Duhamel stated he was concerned that when you put the square
foot down in writing and people read it if it is so small it is not even
worth giving a proposal. Not knowing what might happen in the future he
would like for the Town to have the opportunity to say no or what the
applicant would need to comply with whether it be a waiver or whatever
would be necessary. A short discussion was held regarding square footage and the verbiage
used. Ms. Annis stated in her opinion most businesses in the Business
District are not that big and to put something that is basically three
times as large as the current businesses would be overwhelming. A Board
Member stated that Foothills is about 5,000 square feet with the two
floors. A Board Member asked Paul regarding the Rationale if people were
actually asking for it to be 6,000 square feet. Paul said no not
specifically but they would like to see more business opportunities. The
Board Member agreed 2,000 square feet is a small area. It was agreed
most buildings in the B-1 District are currently more than 2,000 square
feet including all floors. A Board Member MOVED to change the 6,000 square feet in the two
locations to 4,000 square feet in the amendment. It was seconded. A discussion was open for the 4,000 square feet in the B-1 District.
A question was raised whether someone could get a larger building by
special exception or variance. Ms. Annis said depending upon their
reasoning they could apply for one.
The Board members VOTED to present to the Public Hearing 4,000 square
feet for new construction or expanded to a total of 4,000 square feet. D. AMENDMENT
#8 To Amend #8 as follows to change from 20,000 to 80,000 multiple from
40,000 to 120,000 to read as follows: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 8 as
proposed by the Planning
Board to amend the Zoning Ordinance as
follows? ARTICLE
XI -
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT C-1 section F: Change the maximum gross
floor area of buildings as permitted in this District and included in
TABLE 1 of the use regulations from 20,000 square feet to 80,000 square
feet, and for multiple buildings from 40,000 square feet to 120,000
square feet. It shall read as follows: “The maximum gross floor area
for buildings permitted in Table 1 of the Use Regulations shall be up to
a maximum 80,000 square feet and shall compliment the historical design
of existing buildings in Town. Where
more gross floor area is required, multiple buildings may be grouped on
the same lot up to a maximum of 120,000 square feet. Adequate parking
must be provided”.
YES ____
NO ___ RATIONALE:
Amendment #8 is proposed to allow more flexibility for commercial
growth within the existing C-1 and to help maintain a balance among all
land uses in the town, while at the same time requiring a complimentary
historical design approach. Ms. Annis opened Amendment #8 for discussion. Dan Watts voiced
concern regarding the size of the building from the outside not just the
inside since some business use only one floor and others may use
multiple floors. He basically suggested using a small footprint for
multiple buildings grouped on the same lot that would be small to
replicate the Downtown area in the Commercial District. A short
discussion was held regarding using a footprint and the amount of
buildings allowed. Ms. Annis stated she asked Peter Wyman to come up with a number of
scenarios; height vs. dimensions that would include 80,000 square feet
in case something came up and the Board said maybe they did not mean
that or yes that is what the Board meant. Dan Watts stated that is why a
footprint would be helpful and to get rid of the gross floor area
definition. After a short discussion regarding footprint vs. gross floor
area it was agreed that making a minor change from reading gross area to
read footprint might be a good idea.
Following a lengthy discussion Paul Violette agreed with Dan Watts
that the Board should consider doing more research and consideration and
hold off another year on making a decision. A Board Member agreed since
there has not been a lot of demand this coming year for a building
larger than 20,000 square feet therefore he felt it would be fine to
give it another year. Paul Violette MOVED to take Amendment 8 off the list for now. The
motion was seconded. The
VOTE was unanimous to take Amendment 8 off the list for now. E.
DISCUSSION: Rick Davies MOVED to reconsider the current version of Amendment #6.
This was seconded. It was unanimously agreed to reconsider. A concern
regarding the height and pitch of a roof was brought up. A short
discussion was held regarding the pitch and aesthetics of the roof
regarding the total height of a building. Rick Davies MOVED to change Amendment 6 to read no structure will
exceed 35 feet except 45 feet is allowed in C-1 and B-1 Districts unless
approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and leaving the rest of the
paragraph the same. The motion was seconded. Ms Annis stated this motion
will supersede what was voted on earlier and will be posted in the
newspaper to read: ARTICLE IV – No structure shall exceed 35
feet except 45 feet is allowed in Districts C-1 and B-1 unless approved
by the Board of Adjustment. The Board VOTED unanimously to ACCEPT the motion. Discussion was
closed on Articles. A Board Member asked if the public will have access to the
information before voting in March. Paul Violette stated that between
the Website and postings at various locations the public would have
ample chance to review the information. 3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Ms. Annis announced that at the 4. COMMUNICATIONS Ms Annis stated the only communication received since the last
meeting is the Ms. Annis stated she and Paul Violette would be meeting with Nick
Coates and Joan Clinton from DOT in regards to EECBDG Grant. A Board
Member asked if it was a 100% grant. Ms. Annis said the paperwork read
The New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning announces the
availability of 6.6 million through the energy efficiency.
Each community would be eligible to receive funding up to 100% of
the project cost with a limit of 400,000 per applicant. Ms. Annis stated
the application is being released on January 8, 2010 and the Letter of
Intent is January 15, 2010. 5.
ADJOURN A motion was made to adjourn; it was seconded and all agreed. The
meeting was adjourned.
|