PRESENT – Greg Tillman, Mike Morasco, Tom Dwyer, Jr.; Selectmen’s Representative Susan McGeough; Planner Clay Mitchell; Alternate Steve Colby; Secretary Phyllis McDonough.
CALL TO ORDER – Chairman Tillman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and appointed Colby to sit as a voting member.
SITE PLAN BY NM COOK DEVELOPMENT, LLC – Chairman Tillman read notice to expand the existing
retail building with a 2,997 square foot addition and minor site
improvements. Parcel is located at
Chairman Tillman announced
this hearing has been continued to April 3.
DISCUSSION RON COTE & TIM MILLOUX, PLEASANT STREET – Tim Milloux and Ron Cote came before the
Board. Milloux explained he would like
to purchase a building from
Selectman McGeough has no
problem with the proposal and asked if the vehicles would be inside. Milloux explained some inside to do repairs
with a couple of vehicles outside.
Morasco questioned if the
business will be going from intermediate type use where there will be some
equipment there and asked about the waste water run off with pressure washing,
etc. He asked if this would need a site
review. Mitchell explained the board
needs to determine the nature of the impact.
After discussion, board members agreed business seemed to be switching
from primarily construction work run from the site to more sales and repair
work on vehicles.
Chairman Tillman explained to
Milloux and
As there were no further
questions or comments Milloux and
DAVID JUST, WAIVER REQUEST TO SECTION 29 AND ARTICLE
19 (SIGNS) – Chairman Tillman
read notice for a Parcel is located at 629 Calef Highway (Rt. 125 & 155) as
shown on Tax Map 005 – Lot 012. Abutters present: Harlow-Way Realty Trust, and Jane Burley.
David Just d/b/a Dominoes
Pizza came before the Board with the proposal.
He explained he is looking for a pole sign to draw customers, the type
of sign no has marquee, no lights on after close, would be in compliance with
section 29b. Just explained the type of
permanent sign would be a minimum of 10 feet from Route 125 and Route 155. He explained by placing it askew it would be
seen for a small distance down Route 155.
Chairman Tillman stated he
has no objection to sign advertising the business but will have to work with
what’s there. Chairman Tillman stated it
would be preferable to use the existing pillars, and noted there are a number
of trucks with logos; all of those are functioning with some kind of sign.
Just explained the vehicle
referred to is a handy coach vehicle which will be gone, and the larger truck
belongs to landowner.
Just explained the existing
sign is on two poles and this sign would be in addition to that.
Mitchell explained the issues
are total area and number of signs.
Selectman McGeough stated she
is thinking of the rural aspect of area and this proposal would just not fit.
Colby concurred with the sign
not blending in with the nature of the town.
He stated the board would like to see something more architectural.
Dwyer questioned the amount
of the signs that would be on site. Just
stated the one proposed sign would be situated so that it could be seen from
the road as the sign on the building does not have good visibility.
Abutter Margaret Way
explained when building was built she was not an abutter. She stated she has concerns with flood lights
on back of building. Just explained when
he saw those lights he was concerned and has already looked at adding hoods on
rear lights.
Selectman McGeough reiterated
she does not see necessity for an additional sign due to the proximity.
Chairman Tillman explained he
would be in favor of the outboard sign and stated all the trucks, especially
the Eniro Vans with signs on site would need to be parked in less visible areas.
Morasco stated if rest of
site is cleaned up, work out with the landlord that all the trucks are gone and,
lights taken care of he wouldn’t be opposed to something like a 3’ x 3’ sign.
The Board asked that sketches
be brought in and the site to be cleaned up.
Selectman McGeough moved, Morasco
seconded the motion to continue the application to March 20. The motion carried unanimously.
SITE PLAN & SPECIAL (CONDITIONAL) USE PERMIT –
INDUSTRIAL COMMUNICATIONS
–Chairman Tillman read notice for a 150 foot Telecommunications Facility and
accompanying equipment area. Parcel is
located at
Attorney Mark Beliveau,
representing
Attorney Beliveau stated he
feels the applicant is confident that they satisfied all zoning ordinance referring
to this application. Beliveau explained
most of the attention is on what effects a height variance has on the Planning
Board process. Beliveau reminded the
Board that Superior Court has upheld the decision of the Zoning Board on the
appeal by Jane Burley and informed the board that she has brought the appeal to
Supreme Court. He explained Superior
Court Judge said, in its opinion, “…search
area analysis feels they have satisfied every provision…….the intervener did
its homework by not only putting forth its need for a variance but also
addressing its inability for finding property in town.” Attorney Beliveau explained he believes ITW
has satisfied every provision and stated to suggest ITW should do more is
unreasonable as he feels the location is the best location and is for several
reasons:
Selectman McGeough asked in
the future with more technology what guarantee can be given that the tower
would be removed and using whatever new technology is available. Attorney Beliveau explained when technology
changes the carriers will have to meet the demands. Selectman McGeough stated she is concerned if
the application passes and technology changes that one is not looking at
something that is just stuck there in perpetuity. Attorney Beliveau explained there is a
prevision in the ordinance that speaks to the removal of the facility and there
is a bonding security requirement in place to cover the costs of removing the
tower.
Don reiterated if there is no
longer usage, a bond is in place so there would not be a standing tower and
stated he backs that provision that the Town would not be left with the tower.
Attorney Jeff Spear reminded
the Board of the issue brought forth by the Board on the tower at the State
Police site. He stated Jane Burley has
information that she contacted an officer at the State Police Department who is
very receptive of negotiating on the tower on their site.
David Maxson from Broadcast
Signal Lab a consultant for Ms. Burley came before the Board. He stated he would like to address the
rebuttal to his document he presented to the Board. He referred to a letter in the rebuttal from Jacqueline
McCarthy, Esq., PCIA where it states that the he is not a responsible resource,
noted that he was invited by this PCIA to join two expert panels at the PCIA conference last fall. Maxson noted there is a note from a
structural engineer referring to the police tower as a
Maxson referred to a pair of
licenses in the rebuttal document stating the ordinance calls for a license
from a relevant wireless service provider and the ordinance also calls for that
party to be an applicant and stated he has not seen an ATT wireless signature
anywhere saying that they are an applicant.
Maxson explained without the other alternative that the applicant be an
agent and that the contract be included in the application. He stated he felt because of this there is a
procedural problem. Maxson explained
there is no evidence from the carriers that may want to use the site of what
their gap is, which makes it hard for a Board to analyze alternatives. Maxson stated he does not feel this is the
best site for the tower. Maxson stated
there has been an implication that this will be the last tower in town which he
disagrees with. He stated this is not a
tower that will hold all the wireless carriers.
Abutter Jane Burley explained
on January 15, 2008 she sent a letter to Colonel Booth head of the division of
the State Police who responded that he would be willing to entertain wireless
on his tower and referred her to the communications director who explained an
engineering study would have to be done and offered to help in any way her
could for other carriers to be on their tower.
She explained there are four abutting lots from this proposal within 300
feet of the proposed tower, with hers being 150 feet. She stated the elevation is of 270 feet and
with a 150 foot tower brings it to 450 feet into the air which will be seen not
only by the abutters but by the public. Burley
stated there are several lots available where this could be set back along the
highways.
Dean Reubine of High Road in Lee
showed a picture of a crane test with the crane being above the tree line. He stated the intent of the ordinance is to
put towers in the overlap district. He
stated he did not understand why ITW wanted to put a tower on this site when
there are more sites in town.
Abutter Richard Straw stated
his objection is not with the tower itself but with the height that it will be
an eye sore. He noted that the applicant
spoke about coverage going into Lee and
Abutter Lois Straw stated her
land goes from
Ruth Sample from Lee stated
this tower will have a huge impact on her and her family. She also told the Board she appreciates all the
work the board has done and would appreciate denying the application.
Attorney Jeff Spear explained
the town has an ordinance that describes how things should be. He spoke about the applicant coming into
Towns and building big towers and stated they have not done what they need to
do. He stated he does not feel anything
they submitted in their rebuttal materials discounts Mr. Maxson’s analyses of
how coverage could happen and comply with the ordinance. He explained the ordinance is well designed
and will allow towers in town if complied with.
He stated the applicant has been resistant to finding other sites in
town that will allow a tower as Jane Burley has shown. Spear explained if the Board looks forward to
future application, this ordinance would be eviscerated and if this tower is
allowed the restrictions on height will never be enforced. He asked that the ordinance be applied.
Abutter Peter DuBrava stated
the cell towers are only good for approximately three miles and there is a
petition that is against the tower.
Don Cote asked to clarify a
few points and explained Cingular is a co applicant and Cingular and ATT are
the same. He stated there is a letter of
intent from Verizon. The crane test was
not at the exact location but was at the tallest part of the site and that is
why it looked so high.
Kevin Delaney explained the
study that was done for this site for coverage for each of the major carriers
and based on the result it shows the gaps.
He explained the next step was an RF propagation studies which is a
prediction showing an idea of what the coverage will be from the site. He informed the board that Verizon has also
submitted a letter of interest to this site.
He explained the State Police tower is 2.5 miles from this site and
would not have the coverage.
Attorney Beliveau summarized
by reiterating that ITW has exhausted all leads that have been mentioned. He stated if there were 10 more hearings, Ms.
Burley would identify more parcels that she knows that would accept this
tower. He explained the applicant is not
required to “prove the negative” that nothing else is possible. Attorney Beliveau explained that what Mr. Maxson
has proposed is a small tower in every neighborhood to cover the gap, which
will not happen. Attorney Beliveau
referred to the energy article and explained the applicant is willing to help with
a back up power source for the Town Hall.
Morasco explained stated he
does not like the fact of putting this tall tower in “God’s country” but cannot
find a legal means to keep this tower from going in without tying up the Town
on this application going to court.
Colby concurred with Morasco
and stated he is not crazy about the tower going in at this area.
Dwyer explained he feels this
is the best spot for this tower. He
spoke about the gap of no coverage in this area. He spoke about the floods when Verizon went
down and left the residents in that area with no coverage. He spoke about his daughter getting her
license and being safe when driving in that area.
Chairman Tillman doesn’t
think the conditional use permit should be approved in the area. He stated he does not feel there is a need should
be an increase of “visual clutter” in that area.
Selectman McGeough stated she
is a strong supporter of the ordinance that was passed, and concurred with
Tillman.
Dwyer moved, Morasco seconded
the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Motion fails 2 to 3, with Selectman McGeough,
Colby and Chairman Tillman opposed.
Mitchell asked in order to
clarify the record asked the Board to state their reasons for denial for a
written decision. He stated he feels the
Board should recognize the site plan application.
Chairman Tillman explained he
has no doubt this is an ideal spot for the tower in terms of propagation, but
all the alternative that were looked at were single site and he did not see
dual towers or alternate configurations addressed. He stated he did not think the applicant met
the burden of showing that this use was appropriate to the neighborhood,
independent of height, and a Conditional Use was not warranted for that
particular area.
Colby agreed with Tillman and
stated that the applicant was asked at a previous meeting to discuss
alternative sites within the town and does not remember anything discussed to
that effect. He stated he felt there
could have been multiple sites and within the town there were other places.
Selectman McGeough stated she
felt opposition brought out good points and seemed to be valid, with the State
Police tower and questioned if it does not fit exactly why not build one there
and put State Police and others on that tower.
Attorney Beliveau stated he
would like the Board to address the Site Plan.
Mitchell stated he does not
feel there are any issues with the site plan which have been talked about. Mitchell stated what should be addressed is
the location of road, the layout of the facilities on the ground, and the space
for the tower.
Attorney Beliveau stated he
feels the application is complete and speaks for itself. He asked that the Board grant the Site Plan
review and if denied he would like the reasons from the Board.
A question arose about the
architectural requirements of the tower as part of site plan review.
Attorney Spear explained the
courts have the power to remand further consideration. He explained that, subject to condition, if there
was a reversal of the Conditional Use permit decision then that aspect of it might
be returned to the Board.
Dwyer recommended for the
site plan 100 x 100 square feet, fence, double doors, pre cast buildings,
propane tank with generators.
Attorney Beliveau submitted a
write up that shows compliance with Article 22. Mitchell explained that a reasonable
conclusion is the applicant has eight points out of a required five, and stated
the site complies with Article 22.
Tillman requested a wooded
buffer be maintained around the site in the undeveloped part of the site, and
the applicant had no objection, since the Zoning Board of Adjustment had the
same requirement.
Tillman moved, Morasco
seconded the motion to approve with conditions the applicant submitted that
provide compliance with Article 22, and with a wooded or tree buffer around the
area, and a request to the Court to return the issue of the tower type to the
Planning Board if the Conditional Use Permit decision is not upheld. The motion carried unanimously.
Mitchell stated he will
submit a written notice of decision for the board to review.
SITE PLAN BY WATERSTONE RETAIL EPPING, LLC – Chairman Tillman read notice for a continuation of
an approved site plan (
Doug Richardson came before
the Board with the updated signage, building elevations, and landscaping plans
showing the addition of a tree cluster, three stop signs, wider sidewalks,
decorative light fixtures.
Mitchell explained the locations
of lights were on the previous site plan and the new information on the lights does
not cause him concerns.
Selectman McGeough asked what
“project banners” are.
Selectman McGeough suggested putting
a clock in tower window.
Chairman Tillman asked if the
hotel is not going to be built right away what will be done with the
parking.
Selectman McGeough moved, Colby
seconded the motion to approve the landscaping and architecture, with the
condition that “project banners” not be used for advertising. The motion carried unanimously.
SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL (CONDITIONAL) USE PERMIT BY ELM
& EBBERHARDT PARTNERS (WATERGATE) – Chairman Tillman read notice for a Parcel located at 58-62 Elm
Street as shown on (Tax Map 023– Lot 20).
There were no abutters present.
Joe Coronati explained the
proposal replaces everything on site. He
explained the proposal is for two buildings each with 41 units, with 32 two
bedroom, and 50 1 bedroom units. He
explained there will be parking in middle of site to hide all vehicles from
abutters. Coronati explained the
entrance on
Mitchell reminded the board
that this site already has an approval and the application is sort of laying an
approval on top of the prior approval.
Mitchell explained the applicant assisted in the repair to the
Dennis Meyer, architect, came
before the plans to show the floor plans, the outside plan, and materials that
will be used. He showed the ground floor
plan with common space in the center, the two bedroom units, fifteen, two
bedroom units, and 25 single bedrooms.
Chairman Tillman asked about
the changes in the size of the apartments from the prior approval. Coronati explained the previous approval was
for 24 additional one bedroom units for a total of 56 units. Coronati explained this approval is for an
additional 26 units for a total of 82.
Morasco moved, Dwyer seconded
the motion to accept the plans. The
motion carried unanimously.
Morasco spoke about the snow
plowing area, stating he is unsure of where that would happen. Coronati explained it will be off the edge of
the parking lot. A designated area for
snow could be created to keep the snow out of the wetland buffer, but might
result in reduced landscaping to allow for snow storage space.
Selectman McGeough stated the
lights don’t seem to go with the design.
Coronati explained they were going for fewer lights but will revisit the
fixture selection.
Mitchell informed the board
the applicant has submitted a written request for a waiver for impact
fees. He explained the waiver for
correction on the contribution amount justified with a formula based on number
of bedrooms, and stated he feels the waiver is reasonable.
Dwyer moved, Chairman Tillman
seconded the motion to approve the waiver.
The motion carried unanimously.
Selectman McGeough moved,
Colby seconded the motion to continue to April 3 to allow staff time for detailed
review. Motion carried unanimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW,
Rob Graham came before the
Board with an update on the proposal. He
explained the application is currently dealing with 3 lots. He showed the Granery property, the strip
purchased from the railroad, and a third lot that belongs to Maralyn Sherman. Graham showed the Lot Line Adjustment where
the new lines will show that there are still 3 lots;
Morasco moved, Dwyer seconded
the motion to accept the plan. The
motion carried unanimously.
Tillman moved, Dwyer seconded
the motion to approve the lot line adjustment, with the understanding that this
does not bind the board to approve any future development on
Graham explained the site
plan layout for a proposed bank and restaurant on two parcels. He explained the bank is 3,480 square feet,
added landscaping around building and indirect lighting with enough parking. Graham showed the sidewalks turned into the site
and the entrance from
Abutter Bouche stated he
would like an eight foot high fence before construction starts. Graham stated that would not be a problem.
Dwyer asked about the access
from
Morasco noted that
Dwyer spoke of his concerns
with traffic, and suggested turning the sidewalks 90 degree angle.
Chairman Tillman asked about
the dumpsters behind building. Coronati
stated they will be all screened.
Chairman Tillman stated he feels the dumpsters need to be high standard
dumpsters similar to other restaurants in this zone.
Morasco asked about the fence
that on the west side of the Boucher’s property line, and the reason why it
doesn’t go further, and down the buffer of the Post Office. Coronati stated that could be done. The board agreed the fence should run another
15 or 20 feet past the Boucher’s property.
Colby moved, Selectman
McGeough seconded the motion to continue the application to April 3. The motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF 2/21/08 FOR APPROVAL – Tillman moved, Morasco seconded the motion to
approve the minutes as submitted. The
motion carried unanimously.
ACCEPTANCE OF FRANK’S WAY – Tillman moved, Dwyer seconded the motion to
recommend acceptance of Frank’s Way to the Board of Selectmen. The motion carried unanimously.
PLANS & MYLAR FOR SIGNATURE SUBDIVISION DAVID
LEACH,
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mitchell presented a graph of three years showing savings in electricity. He presented a memo to make part of the
minutes on the Core 2 project. He
explained there is a subdivision that has reached its 15th building
permit which requires a $50,000 contribution.
He explained the Successor in Interest, RJ Moreau will assume that debt,
and they have presented a check $25,000 and have requested to participate in
the work to be done out back of the Town Hall.
Mitchell asked that the Board to accept the modification the $25,000
cash and work contribution, with a careful accounting of the work to be done.
Morasco asked who would be in
charge of the project. Chairman Tillman
explained Graham is staying on as clerk of the project, although the Board of
Selectmen authorizes any work and the Planning Board authorizes money from the
account.
Dwyer brought up the concerns
with the way the work was done previously.
He just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware of the project. Rob Graham explained this is an offsite
exaction as part of the site plan approval and is in the Board’s jurisdiction as
long as the requirement to the spirit to the offsite is met. Mitchell stated that it is preferable from a
legal point of view for them to do the work then there’s no money changing hand
for the project which is a referenced in the statute. Report attached:
CORE 2 Update & Request for
Action
The
following action is requested on the CORE 2 project:
·
Accept
substitution of obligation for RJ Moreau from Thibeault for $50,000 (half in
cash now and half in-kind construction for parking lot project to take place
summer of 2008).
From
the June 2007 action, there was an acceptance issued in the amount of $90,000
from the Thibeault Holdings Corporation.
This amount reflected a payment in the amount of $50,000 due at the
issuance of the 15th permit.
RJ Moreau is the success-in-interest of the lots on the site and has
tendered a check to the Board in the amount of $25,000 and made a request to
complete work on the parking lot project to offset the remaining amount. Since these funds were targeted for that
project, I recommend that the Board accept this offer. The real estate market has tumbled and the
effects are far-reaching. By accepting
this offer, the Board will realize the goals of the project and RJ Moreau will
be able to put people and machinery to work that would otherwise languish
during the depressed market.
The
remaining $40,000 of the original acceptance is due from Thibeault. They have indicated that the payment will
arrive on or about May 1st, 2008.
·
Update:
From the cash received, the final invoices for the installation are paid:
o
$ 9,300.00 Pan American (Ecopower).
o
$ 4,350.00
o $ 1,810.50 Waldron
(Engineering)
Selectman McGeough moved,
Tillman seconded the motion to approve Mitchell’s report and to accept the
payments as noted therein. The motion
carried unanimously.
Mitchell presented invoices
that are due and asked the Board to authorize the payment of $5,000 for the
installation of a furnace in the Library.
It was previously agreed to have the Library stand by itself because of
its low signal for heat
Tillman moved, Colby seconded
the motion authorize a first payment of $5,000 out of the Core2 account for
furnace installation. The motion carried
unanimously.
SIGARMS AUGUST 2, 2007 MINUTE
CORRECTIONS
Mitchell submitted this memo
to the board:
After
reviewing the minutes and video tape of the August 2, 2007 Planning Board
meeting it has come to my attention there are a few clarifying changes that
should be made within the approved minutes regarding the Site Plan review and
subsequent approvals concerning the Sigarms application.
First,
on page four of the minutes, paragraph eleven, the first full sentence of that
paragraph should be restated so as to remove the word “Bore” from the phrase “Long Range Bore Rifle.” It has come to our
attention that there is no such rifle as a “Bore” rifle. The sentence should read:
“Morasco
moved, Dwyer seconded the motion to approve shooting from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm,
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, for Long Range Rifles only.”
Second,
page five of the minutes, paragraphs six and nine should be altered to clarify
when the Board is agreeing to revisit the specified location at the Sigarms
property. The minutes currently read:
Paragraph
Six - “The Board agreed to revisit
the
Paragraph
Nine - “The Board agreed to revisit
Area 51, the Rifle Range, and the
The
language stated in those paragraphs need to clarify that the Board will revisit
the New Engineering Range, Area 51, the Rifle Range, and the Qualification
Range upon the request of Sigarms to modify the conditions specified in the
approval. The intent of these corrections is to clarify that the Board is not
revisiting these approval once the berms and ranges are built, but should
Sigarms request modifications to the hours of operation in these ranges at a
future date that the Board at that time would revisit those areas.
Consequently, the Board should consider revising the minutes to represent that
notion and propose clarifying language such as:
“The
Board agreed to revisit the
“The
Board agreed to revisit Area 51, the Rifle Range, and the
The
attached document, titled “Sigarms Academy Operating Hour Revisions 8/2/07,”
notes the correct revised operating hours for each site.
Selectman McGeough moved,
Colby seconded the motion to amend minutes of August 20, 2007 regarding SigArms
by attaching the above memo and related document to the end of those
minutes. The motion carried 3 – to – 1
with Chairman Tillman abstaining as he was not in attendance.
ADJOURNMENT – Selectman McGeough moved, Colby seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 P.M. The motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Phyllis McDonough,
Planning Board Secretary
f:\data\planning\planbd.min.
pbmin030608pbmin.doc
pg.1-11