Members present: Terry Silverman, Chairman, Suzanne Gray, Robin Haynes, Mac Landy, Carlotta Pini, and Tom Parker, Selectmen’s representative.
Others present: Deputy Fire Chief Nancy Carney
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Preliminary consultation: Ken Kozyra for US Cellular to discuss co-location of antenna on the Saga Communications tower.
Mr. Kozyra distributed plans to the Board. US Cellular is finalizing plans with Saga Communications to lease space for a cellular antenna on their tower, which now supports a whip antenna for the Town’s use and FM antennas for radio station use.
He showed a bird’s eye view and an elevation view of the proposed antenna and equipment shed, indicating where the new service will tie into existing infrastructure.
The US Cellular antenna consists of six panels; each is one foot by eight feet, to achieve 360 degree coverage. The antenna will be located at 105 feet on the tower. Saga will move their FM antennas up to accommodate the USC antenna. There will be no interference with the FM signal. The tower can structurally support three cellular providers at different heights on the tower. Emissions will be at 1%-2% of the limit allowed by the FCC because antennas are so high off the ground. The equipment shed is a prefabricated structure with heating and air conditioning. No additional ground or tower lighting will be necessary.
Mr. Kozyra handed out coverage maps, indicating how much more ‘in-building’ coverage will be achieved for USC with the addition of the tower. Fitzwilliam coverage will increase significantly along the Route 12 corridor and along Route 119 E to the Rindge line. Coverage in other areas of town will not increase as much because topography interferes with line of sight signals. He said ‘topography is everything’ when it comes to providing cellular service. He indicated that at some point he may be back for a tower to extend service towards Richmond, adding that any tower needs to be at least 100 feet tall because of tree heights.
Silverman noted town ordinance does not require any further permitting for co-location on an existing tower. However, a use variance may be necessary as the property is in three separate districts; they must obtain a building permit for the equipment shed and meet setbacks.
A resident, Jim Talbert, asked if other providers would benefit from this installation and Mr. Kozyra said definitely not.
Public hearing: PSNH Site Plan Review to construct a new electrical substation on property located on Route 12 N, Map 18, Lot 29, Light Industrial and Rural Districts.
Chuck Young and Eric Frazer were present. Mr. Young recalled that at the last meeting the Board was going to review the plans further and engage a third party for professional review.
Mr. Young added erosion control measures to the plans for the pole structures located in the WPOD. There is new information about National Grid poles on the other side of the right-of-way as well. He brought an appeal to the ZBA for a use variance, as the property is divided into two districts, and this use is not allowed in one of the districts.
Land Use staff will involve the Conservation Commission on the project. Mr. Covel, hydrologist, has been asked to review the plans for impact on wetlands. He is out of the country at the moment but his office expressed interest in doing the review.
Silverman asked if the frontage issue on Route 12 was resolved and Mr. Young said they are doing research requested by the DOT to discover how the property was originally subdivided and how many driveways had been approved for the location.
Silverman noted that four items remain to be resolved; 1) zoning - obtain use variance from ZBA, 2) impact on wetlands - evaluation by hydrologist, 3) resolution of frontage issue, and 4) report of Conservation Commission. He added that the Board’s interest is in how much the project will impact the wetlands. He’s concerned that it will be hard to evaluate wetlands through the snow cover.
Silverman moved, Landy seconded and the Board approved a motion to continue the public hearing to March 20, 2007 at 7:30 PM.
Public hearing continued: Steve Filipi proposes a seven lot subdivision of property located on Upper Troy Road, Map 15, Lot 6, Residential, Rural and Historic Districts.
Dick Drew and Steve Filipi presented the Board with a revised subdivision plan, requesting input from the Board. The plan was revised to keep development out of the aquifer protection zone as delineated by Chris Covel, hydrologist. The new plan incorporates a 1,200 foot road to access six lots running up the south side of the property; a long (1,100 feet) driveway off the cul de sac will reach a seventh lot. Two more lots have been added, for a total of nine lots, to offset the estimated cost of the road. They will be used for residences with an easement for the town well if the water district pursues that development. All homes are more than 500 feet off Upper Troy Road. Water runoff will be managed through appropriate engineering of road and driveways.
Pini felt that the water district should buy any lot the well is on rather than have an easement on a residential lot.
Silverman reiterated that Mr. Covel, hydrologist, made recommendations to obviate the impact on a major source of water for the whole town, not only for the water district. Mr. Covel did not think it would take too much to pollute this resource, given that the flow of water is substantial
and basically unhindered, and a cleanup would be very costly. Mr. Filipi noted that the fractures cross major roads and there haven’t been any pollution issues so far. He said the road can be engineered to prevent pollution. He is willing to pave both access roads to the subdivision. He noted that the water district will need access to their lot 24-7, to maintain generators and lines.
Haynes wondered if the houses themselves would have an impact on town wells. Silverman said it is the Board’s job to protect the watershed, but water district needs will be considered.
Gray suggested that abutters may be interested in buying two of the lots to protect the land from development. Dick Drew said the surface water drains into existing wetlands. There was some discussion about the entrance for the longer road, to move it to a spot with less of an impact. Gray suggested another site walk of the lots proposed for the town well. None was scheduled at this time.
There was discussion about road surfaces, with Silverman saying he’d rather see money go into engineering than road surface. Mr. Filipi said a paved road is more environmentally sound because gravel roads are a constant source of erosion.
Pini suggested consulting with Mr. Covel regarding this proposed plan, acknowledging that Mr. Covel was asked to layout a protection zone, not a subdivision. Neither is it the job of the Planning Board to layout the subdivision. A copy of the plan will be sent to Mr. Covel with a request for comments.
Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted to continue this public hearing to March 20, 2007 at 8 PM.
Minutes: The Board reviewed minutes of the February 6, 2007 meeting. Gray moved, Haynes seconded and the Board approved minutes as written.
Public hearing continued: William Gordon and John Heikkinen propose a two lot subdivision of property located on Templeton Turnpike, Map 3, Lot 02, Rural District.
Carl Hagstrom and John Heikkinen presented revised subdivision plans with the wetlands delineated. Mr. Hagstrom was able to delineate the wetlands before the snow fell, and found three; one on the front of the property, one on the north side of the primary lot and one on the north side of the proposed hammerhead lot. He moved the building square to the south on the hammerhead lot to avoid the wetlands and WPOD.
The Board questioned where the driveways were proposed. One long driveway will service the hammerhead lot and it is located directly across the road from an abutting driveway. Pini asked if the road agent agreed with its location. (no answer) She thought there may be water runoff issues at that location. Landy asked about the length of the proposed driveway. It will be about 920 feet. Abutters spoke about water runoff on that property and on the road.
Silverman invited abutters to review the plans if they were interested. One abutter expressed concern about heavy equipment and access to his driveway during construction because the road is so narrow. Mr. Heikkinen assured him that the heavy equipment to construct the driveway would not block his access for much more than an hour or so.
An abutter questioned how much traffic would be generated, noting that two school buses travel the road daily. Another asked if the road was ever fixed, since it now has a high crown on it.
Pini asked if the Board would rather see a shared driveway. Haynes agreed that it would make more sense to her. Landy noted there was discussion of a shared driveway during the site walk. Parker said they need a plan to handle water running down the long driveway too. Haynes asked if the long driveway could be moved to save a stone wall and divert the water. She wondered if there was an existing opening in the stone wall that could be used.
Nancy Carney said there was no issue with fire protection on this property.
Gray, Parker and Silverman all agreed that development on this road was scattered and premature, given the condition of the road. Pini thought that fighting a scattered and premature fight would be difficult given that the plans call for adding only one more house. Gray noted that one more house could add nine more trips on the road daily. Landy said Templeton Turnpike was never a very good road. Gray said the road is extremely narrow.
Silverman reminded the Board that creating a hammerhead is at the discretion of the Board and it doesn’t have to be an issue of scattered and premature. The owner is not being deprived of the use of his land by denying the hammerhead. Pini noted that the Board had expressed their thoughts about no further subdivision during the preliminary consultation on the proposal.
Landy moved and Gray seconded a motion to deny the application for a hammerhead subdivision of property known as Map 3, Lot 02, under Section 127-19 D (1) of the Land Use Ordinance, based on the additional load on the road and the condition of the road. Gray, Haynes, Landy and Parker voted yes, Pini voted no and Silverman abstained.
It was noted that during the approval process of the original subdivision by the Eddy’s, the Board expressed their desire to limit further subdivision of the property for the same reasons, however, the Eddys declined to place deed restrictions on the lots. Landy noted the town has no plans in the near future to further improve the road.
The Board adjourned at 9:15 PM.
| 
