Wilton Town Hall
PO Box 83
42 Main St
Wilton, NH 03086
603-654-9451
December 15, 2010 Planning Board Meeting
Calendar Name:
Planning Board Meeting
Date/Time of Meeting:
12/15/2010 7:30pm - 10:00pm
Location:
Wilton Town Hall meeting room
Application Deadline:
November 29, 2010
| Minutes for this Meeting: |
|---|
|
TOWN OF WILTON PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Approved 1/19/11 DATE: December 15, 2010 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Wilton Town Hall Courtroom PRESENT: Wilton Planning Board Members: Chairman Jeff Kandt, Alec MacMartin, Neil Faiman, Matt Fish, John Shepardson, Alternate Sue Egan, Board of Selectmen Representative Steve McDonough, NRPC representative Steve Wagner and Clerk Heather Loewy Nichols. The agenda was amended as follows: 1.) Minutes - November 17, 2010 - December 1, 2010 2.) PB10-010-SPR: Mary Lyn Yonika 3.) PB10-014-LLA: Sarah Shanklin 4.) Other Business 5.) Adjournment Chairman Kandt opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and appointed Sue Egan to the Board as a voting member in Walter Zuber’s place. 1. Minutes: - November 17, 2010 A MOTION was made by Mr. Faiman and SECONDED by Mr. MacMartin to approve the minutes of November 17, 2010 as written. Voting: 7 ayes; motion carried unanimously. - December 1, 2010 A MOTION was made by Mr. MacMartin and SECONDED by Mr. Faiman to approve the minutes of December 1, 2010 as written. Voting: 4 ayes; motion carried with Mr. Fish, Mr. McDonough, Ms. Egan abstaining. Continuations:
Chairman Kandt read the Zoning Board’s decision granting a variance from the side setback requirements. Mr. MacMartin suggested that the plan be re-reviewed by NRPC and noted his concerns about water runoff, lack of engineering on the plan, lighting, and silt control to be used during construction. Mr. Yonika noted that he met with Steve Wagner and did as he was asked. In response to a question from Mr. MacMartin, Mr. Yonika stated that there are existing lights but they are not on the plan. Chairman Kandt noted that the application has a number of checklist items checked as “not applicable” and that “no” is checked on the outside lighting item. Mr. Faiman stated that it does not seem reasonable to require a complete existing plan to put a porch on a 100 year old building. Mr. MacMartin explained that the Board usually receives a fully engineered plan and while he does not think the full building needs to be surveyed, he does think it is reasonable to require an erosion control plan, because of the proximity to the shoreline, and to require building code issues be taken care of. Mr. Shepardson stated that, as the Building Inspector, he will require details about the deck and he will tell the applicant to put in an erosion control barrier if necessary. Mr. Fish stated that six to eight footings will need to be dug and the existing conduit will need to be covered. Mr. Faiman stated it is not the Planning Board’s jurisdiction to deal with life safety and building codes issues. Mr. Fish noted that it may be necessary to bring a back hoe in to move the dirt and rocks. Mr. Yonika stated that all the work will be done by hand, with no mechanized equipment, and he will put hay bales in place if required. In response to a question from Mr. MacMartin, Mr. Yonika stated that there is an ac unit on the outside of the building beyond the stairs. Mr. MacMartin noted that it should be marked on the plan. In response to a question from Mr. Shepardson, Mr. Yonika stated that the porch will be freestanding with six to eight hand dug sonar tubes. In response to a question from Mr. McDonough, Mr. Shepardson explained that there are many more restrictions if the porch is attached. Mr. Faiman noted that the Board was reviewing something that would not raise an eyebrow if it was in a residential site and that it is not fair to drag the process on. Discussion ensued as to whether a shoreline protection permit would be necessary. Mr. Yonika read an email from Jason Albi, of the Department of Environmental Services, stating that if the deck is built without machinery, with pervious materials, and less than 12ꞌ deep, it will not need a shoreline permit. Mr. MacMartin suggested that the plan include the detailed plans that had previously been submitted to the Building Inspector, the email from DES, and notes on the plan regarding items the applicant has represented at this meeting. In response to a question from Mr. McDonough, Mr. MacMartin stated that the Board cannot accept the application until the application is complete and suggested that a list of requested waivers be submitted. Mr. Wagner stated that it makes sense to put notes on the plan such as the site being hand dug and the kind of building material to be used. Discussion ensued as to what is pervious and what is impervious material for decking. Mr. Fish stated that he feels that an erosion control plan should be included on the plan in the event that machine work is necessary. Mr. Kandt suggested that this would be unnecessary if the applicant is not going to use a machine. Mr. Fish questioned what would happen if the applicant ran into rocks that required a machine to move. Mr. Faiman noted if machine work is required the applicant will then be required to obtain a shoreline protection permit from the state. Mr. Fish stated that it is his interpretation of the RSA that an erosion control plan is required with or without machine work. A MOTION was made by Mr. Faiman and SECONDED by Mr. McDonough to accept the plan based on the reasoning that what the applicant has presented is sufficient for the Planning Board review of a non residential site plan. Mr. Shepardson stated that he supports the motion and noted that several points have been raised in the meeting that he will pay attention to in the permitting phase. Mr. MacMartin stated that the Board is not creating something that builds a historical record and they will not be able to go back to the record, in the future, to determine what has been done with no notes on a plan that is not prepared by an engineer. Mr. Fish stated that he does not think the plan is ready to accept without any erosion control plans especially considering the sensitive area and the Shoreline Protection Act requirements. Mr. Kandt suggested that an as built plan could be required. Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried with Matt Fish and Alec MacMartin opposed. Mr. MacMartin stated that before approving the plan the Board should have sufficient information on the plan such as a note that the excavations will all be hand dug or the applicant will need to come back to the Board. A MOTION was made by Mr. Faiman and SECONDED by Mr. Fish to approve the application with the following conditions: - All excavations be done by hand - A copy of the email from DES pertaining to the non necessity of a permit be included in the file. - If mechanical excavation is necessary then the applicant must come back to the Planning Board for erosion and sedimentation control approval, otherwise the Building Inspector’s normal procedures for controlling erosion is adequate. - The Building Inspector will review the building material and confirm that the deck is permeable. - A thorough photographic as built accounting will be submitted for the file. - If a shoreline protection permit is required it will be submitted to the Board. Voting: 6 ayes; motion carried with Mr. MacMartin abstaining. Sign Applications
In response to a question Mr. Kandt, Lincoln Geiger explained that the sign in question has been in place for two or three months and he plans to take it down after town meeting. Mr. Geiger explained that one could consider the sign a real estate sign or a political sign as he is trying to gather funds to preserve the land from development. He further explained that the sign serves as a location marker for people who get a call for fund raising and it is to inform people about an upcoming town meeting issue. Mr. Faiman noted that the sign is urging political action. Mr. Kandt noted that the Board can still regulate the size of the sign if not the information on it. Mr. Faiman stated that if the sign requires a permit then he does not think it follows the regulations but he thinks the sign qualifies as political speech. A MOTION was made by Mr. Fish and SECONDED by Mr. MacMartin that the Planning Board find that the sign is of a political nature due to the fact that it is urging a vote on a particular matter at town meeting and therefore does not require a permit but should be removed shortly after town meeting as with all political signs by state statute. Voting: 7 ayes; motion carried unanimously.
Ed Rogers of Roger Engineering Solutions, appeared before the Board and explained that DJF Properties purchased the residential building on the corner of Green Street and Whiting Hill Road and received variances from the Zoning Board to allow for three units in the building with one of the conditions of approval being that DJF come before the Planning Board for a site plan review. In response to a question from Mr. Kandt, Mr. Rogers stated that the building has been everything from a single family to a five family residence. Mr. Faiman explained that the building was used in a way that may or may not have been permitted by decisions that may or may not have been legal and noted that the Zoning Board declined to find that the building was grandfathered for five units but approved a variance to allow for three units. Mr. Shepardson noted that two of the units are being lived in at this time. Mr. Rogers stated that there will be no changes to the exterior of the building or to the site and that there is adequate parking as six parking spots are required and the sight has eight. He noted that the applicant will need some waivers to be approved as this is a somewhat simplified site plan. In response to a question from Mr. Kandt, Mr. Shepardson stated that there is no more fire protection in this building than is required in an apartment building. Mr. Rogers noted that the waiver he requested with regard to fire protection is in reference to the water lines because the fire hydrant is right outside the building. Mr. MacMartin suggested that the applicant get a letter from the fire chief and questioned whether Steve Elliot, Road Agent, should review the plan prior to the Board granting the waivers. In response to a question from Mr. MacMartin, Mr. Rogers stated that there is only one meter on the building and the Water Commissioners are satisfied with that situation. A MOTION was made by Mr. MacMartin and SECONDED by Mr. Faiman to grant the all the requested waivers except for Section 6.3.aa subject to revisiting the issue as the review process continues. Voting: 7 ayes; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Shepardson questioned whether the applicant can start working on the third unit. In response to a question from Mr. Kandt, Mr. Faiman explained that the Zoning Board accepted that two units were grandfathered and granted a third unit. Mr. MacMartin stated that if the applicant starts work prior to Planning Board approval, he will do so at his own risk. A MOTION was made by Mr. Faiman and SECONDED by Mr. MacMartin to continue the application to January 19, 2011. Voting: 7 ayes; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Faiman noted that the Zoning Board did not require a site plan review as stated by the applicant but rather Wilton Ordinance requires it for a three unit building. New Applications:
Mr. Fish explained that he visited the site and reviewed the regulations with the applicant. He stated that the home occupation would be incidental and secondary to the main residence and carried out by a resident owner and members of the family with two non family employees permitted. He further noted that no additions or changes will be made to the home, no exterior storage will take place, there is sufficient parking, and there will not be a significant traffic impact on the neighborhood. In response to a question from Mr. MacMartin, Ms. Boyer stated that she has a circular drive and there is a place to the right to park which will be plowed. Mr. MacMartin asked that the parking spots be drawn on the plan. Mr. Fish stated that the daycare would have eight to twelve children, there will be no sign, and the hours of operation will be 8am to 4pm. Ms. Boyer explained that per the Zoning Board's recommendation she has changed the hours to 7am through 6pm. A MOTION was made by Mr. Fish and seconded by Mr. Faiman to conditionally approve the application subject to additional parking and hours congruent with the Zoning Board approval being marked on the plan and subject to conditions of the Zoning Board approval of the ZBA approval and to being in accordance with Section 5.3.1. Voting: 7 ayes; motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Webber, of Infinigy Engineering, appeared before the Board on behalf of Florida Towers, and explained that Florida Towers and AT&T would like to put a 116ꞌ monopine tower at 303 Curtis Farm Road. He explained that they are proposing a 75' by 75' compound with one 12' by 20' equipment shelter and a generator on a concrete bed. He stated that they will be using a deeded easement on Lot B-39-03 to gain access to the site. He also noted that there are existing wetlands on the property and while they are not impacting any of the wetlands they are within the buffer zone so they have submitted a wetland report. Mr. Kandt noted that the wetland report states that the wetlands were delineated within 300ꞌ of the compound. In response to a question from Mr. Kandt, Mr. Webber stated that the wetland scientist did review the driveway impact. Mr. Kandt questioned how the Board could know that all the vernal pools were identified as the driveway is outside the 300' area and noted that there is a vernal pool close to the driveway. Mr. Webber stated that the whole property was surveyed and he will get a new letter that says that the proposed road is included in the area of review. Mr. Webber noted that the applicants have submitted a copy of their FCC license, a Property Value Report, a Radio Frequency Propagation report, and Visual Reference Report. Mr. Kandt noted that the propagation report included a before and after comparison and the coverage will be significantly better for most of Wilton and also significantly improved in Milford. He also requested a single propagation map for the 110' level. Kenneth Kozyra, of KGK Wireless, appeared before the Board on behalf of AT&T, and explained that the AT&T RF Report can only speak to AT&T network and they are unable to tell the Board what other networks can and cannot do. Mr. MacMartin suggested that AT&T can show how their network would propagate at the other various heights. Mr. Kozyra explained that this would provide a misrepresentation of the other carriers' capabilities. Mr. MacMartin noted that the ordinance requires that the applicant show that they do not have the opportunities to co-locate other places. Mr. Kozyra stated that this issue was discussed at the Zoning Board and the Planning Board cannot have "two bites out of the apple." Mr. Kandt noted that this explanation is required by the ordinance. Mr. Kozyra stated that Mr. Springer will deal with this issue at the next meeting. Mr. Kandt expressed concern that the co-location heights won't actually work. Mr. Faiman stated that it is somewhat of a double standard as the town does not allow the tower to be much higher than tree height. Mr. MacMartin stated that as part of the ordinance the Board needs to consider if this is the best location to provide co-location. Mr. Kozyra stated that the requirement is to provide co-location but not to prove that it may be viable for their competitors which they cannot do because they do not have knowledge of their competitor’s product. Mr. MacMartin stated that first the Board needs to see why AT&T cannot co-locate on another tower. Mr. Kandt read the ordinance requiring alternate site review. The Board noted that approval from the Fire Chief and the Road Agent will be required. Mr. Webber then reviewed Steve Wagner’s comments and the Board noted their concerns. Mr. Kandt stated that he does not believe the plan has been updated to the proper setbacks for the residential agricultural district. Mr. MacMartin asked that the 100ꞌ setback buffer line be added to the legend. Mr. MacMartin questioned whether this use is permitted under the easement. Mr. Webber explained that they are not proposing any above ground utilities but rather all utilities will run underground to existing poles for telephone, electric, and data. In response to a question from Mr. Kandt, Mr. Kozyra explained that the wireless portion of cell phone transmission is from the phone to the tower and then the information runs down to the ground wires from the tower. In response to a question from Mr. Kandt, Mr. Kozyra stated that the compound is 60ꞌ from the closest corner of the lot. Mr. Kandt read Section 15.4.1.6 that requires a 150ꞌ visual barrier and noted that the Board can change the requirement but they will have to make a decision on the issue at some point. Mr. MacMartin stated that he would like a more detailed topographical map of the whole property. Mr. Kandt noted that a letter had been received from the town of Milford asking for municipal co-location on the tower; however no representative from Milford was present. In response to a question from Mr. Kozyra, Mr. Kandt stated that the Board cannot hear this application at work sessions until after town meeting. He also asked that the applicant get new plans to Mr. Wagner in time for him to can the plans and get his review to the Board prior to the next meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Kandt, the Board did not feel that a review, by Dennis LaBombard, of the bonding estimate is required. Mr. Wagner asked for structural information about the tower itself. A MOTION was made by Mr. MacMartin and SECONDED by Mr. Faiman to continue the application to January 19, 2011. Voting: 7 ayes; motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Gauthier explained that he is looking to have the town accept the road in his subdivision and the Board of Selectmen sent him to the Planning Board for comment. Mr. MacMartin stated that there is the issue of the road going through a winter season with the fresh top coat and also that the lots off the road are not fully built out. Mr. Gauthier stated that the subdivision is 60% complete. In response to a question from Mr. McDonough, Mr. Gauthier stated that it has been five years since the road was built so it needed to have top coat put on it and also the current residences of the subdivision are generating $50,000 in taxes but not using the major resources of the town such as the school. Mr. Kandt noted that the Board of Selectmen may want someone to assess what has been done. Based on the discussion, Mr. Gauthier was advised to pursue his request with the Board of Selectmen.
A MOTION was made by Mr. Faiman and SECONDED by Mr. Fish to enter into non public session per RSA 91-A: (c) for matters of reputation and (e) for discussion of pending litigation. Voting: the Board was polled and all members were in favor; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Kandt declared the Board in non public session. A MOTION was made by Mr. MacMartin and SECONDED by Mr. Fish to close the non public session. Voting: The Board was polled and all members were in favor; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Kandt declared the Board to be in public session. A MOTION was made by Mr. MacMartin and SECONDED by Mr. McDonough to authorize Mr. MacMartin to communicate with the town attorney authorizing him to make the proposed settlement offer to Mr. Sienkiewicz. Voting: 7 ayes; motion carried unanimously.
A MOTION was made by Mr. McDonough and SECONDED by Mr. Shepardson to adjourn the meeting. Voting: 7 ayes; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Kandt declared the meeting adjourned at 10:54 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Heather Loewy Nichols . |
| Agenda for this Meeting: |
|---|
|
WILTON PLANNING BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, December 15, 2010 7:30 p.m. Wilton Town Hall Courtroom 42 Main Street, Wilton, NH 03086 1. Minutes: - November 17, 2010 - December 1, 2010 Sign Applications
Continuations:
New Applications:
5. Other Business - First Light Pre-Construction meeting. - Steve Gauthier, requests the Town of Wilton to take over portion of road maintenance. - Executive session to discuss pending litigation and an issue regarding an upcoming application submission. Closed to the public per RSA 91-A:3 (c) and (e) 6. Adjournment **AGENDA SUBJECT TO CHANGE**
|
Printer-friendly version