Minutes November 14, 2006

Meeting Open at 7:05

Members Present: Charlie Mabardy, Tim Lamprey, Kendra Pike-Osgood, Susan Pawlisheck, Bill Spinney

Case 06-025 Nextel Communications- Michael Rosen present

Charlie asked Mr. Rosen if the newly approved Seabrook tower will effect the proposed Nextel tower. Mr Rosen said the proposed tower was designed in conjugation with the Seabrook site to close the gap in coverage. If Seabrook approved there would be a little overlap in coverage, if not approved there would be a need for another collocation to cover gap. In recapping the events, Mr.Rosen agrees with the letter from Town Counsel and submitted a summary and his response to the Town Counsel letter.

Recapped request- Original request was for 100’ monopine, because of relocation of the pole site they would now need a variance for side setback of 85’ and no longer need the front setback requested since the location of tower has been moved back from street, also requesting relief from the tree cover requirement.

If the board voted for the 150’ he would also need a height variance. The benefit to the additional height would be more coverage eliminating the need for more towers to fill the gap, plus the additional height would be able to accommodate other carriers which would eliminate their need for another tower. Nextel would construct a monopole or monopine, they could paint the pole a color to blend with the sky.

Jerry Klima, town Selectman, in opposition presented a written testimony of his opposition. He does not feel it is the duty of the board to grant a variance for this application. For variance for a height over 100’ he points out the MA Zoning bylaw first requires a variance can be granted if it can be justified by circumstances such as soil conditions, topography and shape of land, you need a reason that this piece of land is different than any in the district. There are no such circumstances. A 100’ tower is permitted with a special permit with waivers but he does not think this should be granted either since there is not a 100’ tree buffer at 50’ that will limit the visual impact. The town is trying improve the entrance corridors to the town

Suggested other sites in town would be more suitable, with better tree coverage. A tower at this site will be too visibly intrusive. He has not seen proof of a site analysis and they need to show the board they have done this analysis.

Town manager, Neil Harrington not opposed to a tower but is opposed to this site and would like to see proof of more site analysis.

Mr. Rosen rebuttal:1.The board cannot deny based on the MA State Law in regards to soil conditions and topography as Mr. Klima stated. The Board is required to make a decision based on facts presented.

2. Nextel hired an engineer to do a site analysis and made a presentation to the board. At no time during case has an independent engineer been requested.3.Mr.Klima suggested several town properties that may be more suitable. It is the carriers obligation to explore sites that are available. There was never an RFP issued for available town properties.4. TCA rule states as a standard carriers do not need to do every single available property but a reasonable effort of 4-6 properties in the desired area. Nextel also explored the monopine in the north and the church, did an analysis that showed neither of these sites would work. 5.During the seven months of hearings not one abutter has appeared to opposed the site.

Bill Spinney speaking in favor of tower. Agrees with Mr. Rosen’s rebuttal. Only opposition is from two people Nextel has designed this to meet the needs of the town without being intrusive to the town square, schools, churches and residents. No one has justified this is the totally improper location.

Tim questioned why Nextel has leased space on the Lafayette tower that is not utilized. Mr. Rosen explained all carriers have reciprocal agreements in place to collocate.

Neil Harrington said the courts do not require municipalities to contact applicant to show that sites are available. Town Counsel advised town not to contact proponent outside the public hearing. For the record the town does have sites available that they would be happy to discuss with the applicant. Town is not arguing about the gap in coverage but the site location.

Motion by Susan to deny variance for over 100’

Second by Tim, Charlie in favor, Bill opposed , Kendra ineligible to vote on case 3:1 motion carries.

Motion by Susan to deny variance for monopole

Second by Tim, Charlie n favor, Bill opposed, Kendra no vote

Motion by Bill to approve 100’ monopole with side setback 85’ front setback 165’, in skyblue color, with a town to hold a bond for removal of tower if it becomes necessary, and permission from landowner to enter property to remove.

Second by Susan, Charlie & Tim oppose, Kendra no vote

Motion by Susan to Deny tree coverage variance

Second by Tim, Charlie in favor, Bill opposed, Kendra no vote 3:1 motion carries

Motion by Susan to Approve Special Permit with side setback of 85’

Second by Bill, Charlie & Tim opposed, Kendra no vote

Special permit denial:

Tim referring to bylaw regulations for special permit approval A-G; denial based on use regulation; not allowed in district and that it would impair the integrity and character district.

Susan does not support the denial and believes Nextel has provided information and guidance and fulfilled their requirements to inform the Board on making a decision outside the bounds of the special permit in regards to the FTCA.

Bill in support of tower, The TCA clearly states that what Nextel is asking is legitimate and reasonable and Special Permit should have been granted with reasonable conditions. Believes Nextel did due diligence in providing the board with information necessary to vote on their merit and not on a bylaw that didn’t take into account what the town needed.

Charlie opposed- the criteria of the bylaw has not been met and feels more places and avenues should have been explored.

Case 06-039 64-64 ½ No. End Blvd.

Request to raze existing two structures and build one 2-family dwelling. O’Neill’s have received approval from the State Highway department to enter and exit from No.End Blvd. Changed stairway egress to be within property line. Abutter Mr. Consoli concerned with the new building being built on his property and with exiting onto Old Town, which he claims that section to be part of his property.

O’Neill’s have records showing Old Town as a way accepted by the town .

Motion by Tim to approve per new plan submitted dated 6/27/06, with all of buildings and structures to be within the property lines.

2^nd by Susan, Bill and Charlie approved.

Case #06-040 188 No. End Blvd.-Atty Deshaise

Request to amend to a fnding

Motion by Bill to amend to finding

2^nd by Susan, all in favor to amend

Request for a 2.9 setback improving the setback by a foot. Bill suggested he would like to see a little more of a setback, 4.4’ or closer to 5’.

Abutter representative Atty. Chris Felch for Ocean Haven Condo. Disputing that a finding is for one and two family, extension or alteration only and that the new construction at 4000 S.F. is more detrimental to neighborhood.

Motion by Tim to continue to December 12 for revision of the setbacks

Second by Kendra, all in favor.

Case #06-046 126 Bridge Road-Sean Canning

Continued to November 28

Case #06-048 19 Cushing St.-Frank & Jennifer Ciaramitaro

Continued to November 28

Case #06-051 175 Bridge Road-Steven Kuchar

Continued to November 28

Case #06-052 143 Lafayette Road-Sign by Tomorrow

Continued to November 28

Case #06-053 128 Elm St.-Robert Cannon

Continued to November 28

Motion by Tim to adjourn

Second by Susan, all in favor