Planning Board Meeting Minutes - October 25, 2006

PUBLIC HEARING Lincoln Town Hall Conference Room Main Street, Lincoln, New Hampshire Present: Chairman Pat Romprey, Alternate John Hettinger, Selectmen's Representative Peter Moore, Member Jim Spanos, Alternate Charlie Cook, Alternate Edwin Fredie and Vice Chairman Joe Chenard. Staff Present: Stacey Havlock - Administrator, Ted Sutton - Town Manager Others Present: Steve LaFrance, Tom Adams, Heather Castagnaro, Jon Springer, Ronald Mattison, Wes Graves, Russ Cooley, Chester Kahn, Rick Kelley, Richard Uchida, Brent Drouin, Heidi Barrett-Kitchen, Susan Chenard, Dennis Ducharme, Lutz Wallem, Val Wallem, Tammy Ham, Jon, Ham and Celeste Reardon 6:02 PM CALL TO ORDER by Chairman Romprey; announcement of excused absences, if any, and seating of alternates(s), if necessary. Chairman Romprey called the meeting to order and welcomed those present. Full quorum present. Clerk Bovarnick was excused and Alternate Fredie was seated. 6:03 PM CONSIDERATION of Draft Meeting Minutes for September 27, 2006 Selectmen's Representative Moore made a motion to approve the minutes of September 27th as amended; seconded by Member Spanos. Vote was unanimous. 6:07 PM CONTINUATION of an application for Site Plan Review/Master Plan submitted by Steve LaFrance for Lincoln South Mtn Partners, LLC - Rapids at South Mtn (Tax Map 16 Lot 310) Proposal: A planned unit residential development to include residential/resort and singles-family lots. Also roadways, parking and utilities will be discussed. Planning Board: Acceptance of the Completed Site Plan Review/Master Plan Application. Public Hearing: Approve or Disapprove the Completed Site Plan Review/Master Plan Application. Mr. Uchida, attorney for Lincoln South Mountain Partners, LLC (LSMP), approached the Board and noted he had recently spoken to the Town of Lincoln's attorney, Peter Malia. After some research was done, Peter Malia believes that the PURD (planned unit residential development) does not actually exist in the Town of Lincoln's ordinances. Attorney Uchida would like the opportunity to review Attorney Malia's comments as he just received them at around 2:00 pm this afternoon. It was noted that the comments were just received by all people involved and some Board members had not had the chance to review them. Attorney Uchida noted his clients were obviously disappointed with the decision made by Attorney Malia as his clients have had a number of meetings and much time has already spent on the proposed project. He noted they are still interested in the project as a PURD and asked if the Board would be interested in supporting an ordinance to be written and put on the town warrant in March 2007. Chairman Romprey noted if the Board were to pursue a warrant article he would probably ask LSMP to withdraw their application as it is now and resubmit it at a later date. He noted it is the opinion of Attorney Malia that LSMP may want to change their application and submit it as a cluster development or a planned phased development. There was a brief discussion on whether or not the way that the proposed plan was set up would qualify as a PURD, if and when an ordinance were to come into effect, due to the fact that there were deeded single family residential lots mixed in with the condo units. Alternate Hettinger noted there were also concerns about how the private residences were laid out along the easements and rip raps of the river. Attorney Uchida noted one of the problems they would have changing their application to a cluster development is that there are certain public benefits they have been asked to provide for the project that will become more difficult to provide without the added density that a PURD would provide. Chairman Romprey noted that either Selectmen's Representative Moore or Town Manager, Ted Sutton would have to address that issue. Selectmen's Representative Moore noted that it was a separate issue between the developer and the governing body of the town. He believes the question at hand would be whether or not the developer would be interested in using the cluster development formula to get the most out of the property that they can or whether or not the Planning Board would be interested in writing an ordinance for the PURD to submit to the town's people for vote in March. He noted that was yet to be determined and where LSMP probably would not be doing any building until the spring he would imagine they would not want to go forward if there was a possibility of the ordinance being written. Selectmen's Representative Moore noted the application that has been presented would appear to be invalidated as presented because of the circumstances, which would require the application being resubmitted once an ordinance was put into the regulations, if one were to be. Attorney Uchida responded what he believes his clients would be inclined to do would be to proceed with the development of the property laying out some of the units but not all of them under the cluster ordinance and if a new ordinance for PURD's were to be placed in effect they could shift their plans over to a PURD at a later date but he would prefer not to pull the application at this time. Chairman Romprey asked if Attorney Uchida was asking for a continuation of the 30-day clock for acceptance or denial of the application. Attorney Uchida responded that would be his inclination. Rick Kelley noted a developer on Connector Road, which he can't remember the name of, was the one who initiated the PURD ordinance. The ordinance for PURD's, which were submitted at the time for low to moderate-income housing, was never presented at the town meeting in 1988-1989 due to the opposition of the town's people. He noted there was one paragraph that was left within the ordinance that was hoped to be useful for the cluster developments. Vice Chairman Chenard made a motion to continue the 30-day clock until the next meeting on November 8th, 2006; seconded by Member Spanos. Vote was unanimous. 6:37 PM CONSIDERATION of an application for Site Plan Review submitted by Heather Castagnaro for Nextel Communications, Inc (Tax Map 4 Lot 006) Proposal: To construct a wireless service facility to be approximately 11' X 20' in size located on an area of land owned by Southern Peaks @ Pollard Brook. Planning Board: Acceptance of the Completed Site Plan Review Application. Public Hearing: Approve or Disapprove the Completed Site Plan Review Application. John Springer, attorney for Nextel communications, approached the Board and presented information on the proposal to put a new cell tower on a rectangular parcel that is 38 acres in size, which is owned by Dennis Ducharme - Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook. He noted the following points about the project: . compound is 50 'X 50' in size . concrete pad with a 11' X 20' equipment shelter . 10-foot fence is being proposed . utilities will be run off the existing services for the electrical and phone - water and sewer are not needed . pole will not be lit . a monopole will possibly be used with a diameter of 4-5 feet tapering off to 2 ½ feet . 100' flag pole is proposed according to ordinance - discussion was held on a 100' pole expandable to 150' . pole will not be a visual impact - will be colored brown so that should blend well with other surroundings . wires will run down inside the pole Alternate Hettinger questioned why Pollard Brook was chosen as the location. Mr. Springer responded that was where it fit best for service according to their database software they use to determine signals. Alternate Hettinger questioned whether or not an emergency generator would be on site. Mr. Springer responded there would not be as battery back up is used and when there are outages they are not generally long enough to impact service. Member Spanos questioned what the overlap was for the signals. Mr. Springer responded 2-3 miles. Member Spanos questioned if there would be spaces available on the tower to be leased by other cell phone companies. Mr. Springer responded yes but other companies would have to be placed below Nextel, as theirs would always be on the top for the best service. Further discussion was held on an expandable pole to accommodate up to possibly 6 other cell phone carriers. All expansions would have to be at the cost of the leasing cell phone company to have the pole expanded. Alternate Fredie questioned whether or not there would be any public safety issues even though there would be a fence installed. Mr. Springer responded he has been to a number of different sites and has never had a problem - Mr. Ducharme noted there was an existing gate near the salt shed. He noted the road was not actually off Route 112 as stated it was an access road on the parcel of land where there is an existing salt shed - the name of the road is believed to be Black Bear Road. Selectmen's Representative Moore questioned how many antennas could be collocated? A response of up to possibly 6 was given - and it was noted that the further one was down on the pole that carrier would get poorer reception. Selectmen's Representative Moore made a motion to accept the application as complete; seconded by Member Spanos. Vote was unanimous. Vice Chairman Chenard made a motion to open the public hearing; seconded by Member Spanos. Vote was unanimous. Mr. Kahn noted in his opinion it would be best to have the tower built at a greater height now versus at a later date to accommodate for the other carriers in the area. Mr. Adams questioned whether or not the plan should show how the tower would sit on the location with a topographical map to show the actual location of the tower. Mr. Mattison questioned the height of the trees in the area. A response of approximately 60 feet was given. Mr. Mattison noted he was not in favor of the tower being built higher than the tree line, as he does not want to be able to see them from the Coolidge homeowners' side. Mr. Ducharme noted he does have a 300-foot setback agreement with Coolidge Homeowners so that nothing can be built within that area. He also noted he had been approached by a number of different cellular phone companies regarding leasing his land. He believes allowing the tower to be put in would be beneficial to everyone. There was a 10-minute recess. 7:55 PM meeting reconvened. Mrs. Ham asked if the increase in the pole size would be supported by the structure proposed. It was responded that the ground support would be made in advance to accommodate a 150' pole. Member Spanos made a motion to close the public hearing; seconded by Vice Chairman Chenard. Vote was unanimous. Selectmen's Representative Moore made a motion to approve the application with three conditions: (1) Nextel agrees to provide collocation on their tower for other communications companies, (2) Nextel will build a 12-foot gated access road on a 20-foot easement from Brookline Road and (3) Nextel will construct as a part of the personal wireless service facility a 100 foot monopole extendable to 150 feet and Nextel agrees to make this extension upon formal request of the Planning Board; seconded by Member Spanos. Vote was unanimous. 8:10 PM CONSIDERATION OF Year 2006 (Draft) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: Alternate Hettinger - CIPC Chairman - noted the CIP was worked on from July 13th until September 27th. He noted Mr. Sutton had recommended changing the format of the spreadsheet to break out the department heads requests individually. The primary figure used each year is approximately $370,000 for expenditures. He mentioned due to the difficulty of this task it is his recommendation that the Planning Board change the By-Law dates so that the adoption process is later in the year. Selectmen's Representative Moore made a motion to change the By-Laws completion date requirements to the end of September versus the end of August; seconded by Member Spanos. Vote was unanimous. There was a brief discussion on some of the roads that needed to be repaired and what the time frames were on them. Due to the length of the document it was decided to move the adoption date of the Draft CIP to the next meeting on November 8, 2006 after the Board had time to review all of the changes. 8:28 PM CONTINUING & OTHER BUSINESS (Staff and Planning Board Member/Alternates) Mr. Adams gave an overview on a plan that was started a number of years ago - The Heritage Trail. He feels the committee for the completion of that plan should be reconstituted. Chairman Romprey responded he didn't have a problem with that and for Mr. Adams to form a committee and report back to the Board at a later meeting. Alternate Hettinger noted he would be interested in being on that committee. 8:35 PM CONTINUING & OTHER BUSINESS (Staff and Planning Board Member/Alternates) Miss Havlock noted the Board had to re-elect officers. Selectmen's Representative Moore made a motion to elect Pat Romprey as Chairman, Joe Chenard as Vice Chairman and Jim Spanos as Clerk; seconded by Alternate Hettinger. Vote was unanimous. 8:37 PM REVIEW AND COMMENT on the MATRIX REPORTS and OPEN FILES pertaining to: A. Land Use Subdivision and Site Plan Applications/Approvals B. Building Permit Applications C. Sign Permit Applications Selectmen's Representative Moore mentioned that next week a date should be set when all of the members of the sign committee were going to be available for their first meeting. Mr. Ham noted the sandwich board signs near Gordi's Fish & Steak House should be looked into as he is aware of someone a few nights ago that ran over one in the road after the sign blew into the road from a wind storm - that vehicle did get 2 flat tires. So he is recommending the signs at least be taken in at night. 8:46 PM PUBLIC INPUT on Specific Issues - There was none. 8:47 PM ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Chenard made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Member Spanos. Unanimous affirmative vote. Dated: November 8, 2006 Pat Romprey, Chairman