Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
DATE: January 3, 2008
ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Vice -Chairman.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice-Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Jr.
(PM), Fred Hast (FH), Rich Hunsberger (RH), Daniel Greene (DG), John
Lenaerts (JL), Selectman Ex Officio Alternate, Chris Conlon (CC), Dan
Schroth (DS), Alternate, Gerard LeDuc (GL), Alternate and
Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.
Members Absent:
None.
ITEM 3. Public Hearing for application for a Site Plan review for a
telecommunication building (10 ft. x 20 ft. concrete prefab radio tower site)
located at 264 Berry Pond Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-43, Lot
16). This would involve the replacement and relocation of the building on
said property and the replacement and relocation of the existing tower with a
130 ft., three leg, freestanding tower. The property is owned by Catamount
Communications LLC, P.O. Box 945, Exeter, NH 03833, Michael Losapio,
Owner. This property is located in the RURAL Zone.
Gerard LeDuc, Alternate was seated on the Board.
(DG) Motion to accept application as complete. (GL) Second.
2
DISCUSSION:
(RH) noted that applicant has checked N/A on the application form on some
of the items. He noted that it was not up to the applicant whether these
should be applicable or not. The applicant should not be the one to
determine. (JL) noted that this is not on Catamount Road. Applicant n oted
that it borders on Berry Pond Road.
The Board and applicant continued discussion in regard to the items checked
N/A as well as the location of the road and vehicle access capability, length
of road leading to facility and need for driveway, size of lot (under ½ acre),
outside lights, generator capabilities and noise factor, water supply, propane
storage and delivery, landscaping, rock base of site, what construction would
be required and need for DES intervention.
After lengthy discussion Board voted: Motion to approve application –
Carried 6-0.
(GL) Motion to approve Site Plan Review application. (JL) Second.
Discussion:
(CC) questioned the size of the building and placement of the generator. Mr.
Losapio noted that the generator would be located on the exterior of the
building. Mr. Losapio requested if he could offer an explanation to the
Board as to the plans regarding the replacement and relocation of the
building and the tower. He noted that the current PSNH building would be
coming down, as well as the 75 ft. utility pole and be replaced by the
building as noted in the plans and the replacement of the current tower with
a 130 ft., three leg, freestanding tower. There would be no guide wires. It
would be a self-supporting tower. (BM) questioned applicant in regard to
the generator. What would be the sound intensity? How often is it tested
and would the noise factor be obnoxious to the surrounding residents? After
discussion with Ken Davis, Public Service of New Hampshire, and applicant
it was agreed that this would not be in excess of 80 dB. Mr. Davis noted that
it has a muffler on it, which would keep the noise factor at a minimum.
(FH) noted that he has worked around several generators, even larger in
nature, and there is not an issue with the noise. Mr. Davis noted he would
check the specs on the generator and advise Board accordingly. (BM) felt
that 80 dB at the property line would be pretty quiet. Mr. Losapio explained
3
that the tower would be 123 ft, which is approximately 7 ft. higher than the
existing tower. (CC) questioned why the tower is going to be taller? It was
explained that by the tower being 123 ft., it would then meet the
requirements of PSNH future telecommunication needs. He noted that there
would also be other tenants using the tower. (JL) questioned whether
permission would be necessary from other agencies? Mr. Losapio noted that
this would not be required. The Board further discussed with applicant the
use of propane fuel on the site to power the generator. Mr. Davis explained
that with this new tower, PSNH employees would be able to communicate
truck-to-truck in the time of emergencies from Canada all the way down
through Connecticut which would be a vital asset during these times. They
are unable to do this presently. He noted that this would also suit the future
needs of PSNH. Board discussed the placement of the building and tower
on said property.
PUBLIC INPUT
Christine Chase noted that there currently is a ham operator radio tower on
her property. Board questioned the height of this tower, and though she was
unable to give a specific height, she guessed about 100 ft. Board questioned
how long this tower had been there? She noted she thought about 25 years
or so. She voiced her concerns noting that in the past she was aware that the
WBZ tower had blown over causing quite a bit of destruction and she was
concerned that this one would not have guide wires.
Mr. Davis explained that though the Government specs for this type of
facility are less, theirs are much more stringent relating that this would
withstand 130 MPH winds with ½ inch of ice. He related that he has never
known of a failure of this type of structure.
Dan Schroth noted that this new upgrade would 1. Bring in more tax
revenue for the Town; and 2. PSNH would have the service that they need.
These are two important considerat6ions. He noted that in the years to
come, communication for PSNH will take on a new meaning and this will be
needed even more.
Ms. Chase noted that she realized that many people rely on PSNH but felt
that it could affect the future home site on her abutting property. She noted
that they were welcome to make a bid on her property. (BM) noted that this
4
would be between PSNH and her and would not be a concern or
consideration of the Planning Board.
Close PUBLIC INPUT
(RH) noted that according to Paragraph D of the Zoning Ordinances, it
would be necessary to go to the Zoning Board to get a Variance to do this.
(BM) noted that the Planning Board could waive this requirement. Are we
going to request that they get a Variance or waive it?
(FH) Motion to Waive Paragraph D. (DG) Second.
After discussion, his motion was further clarified to indicate that the entire
Paragraph D of the Zoning Ordinances would be waived.
(CC) related that his concern would be having another tower close by. He
noted that a lot of work went into the design but it would be nice to know the
height of the tower on the Chase property. Mr. Losapio questioned whether
these rules apply to a new site rather than one that is already in existence.
(BM) explained that though the site is currently “grand fathered” the new
tower is different. The existing tower is being upgraded.
The Board further discussed non-conforming location of tower and the need
that the new tower be constructed and working before the old tower is
dismantled. (BM) noted that Ms. Chase has voiced a concern regarding her
property in the event of failure of the tower, and noted that both towers have
been in this locale for a long period of time. Ms. Chase was questioned as to
whom is presently using the tower located on her land? She noted it is
utilized by the Pittsfield Radio Club.
Motion to Waive Paragraph D of the Zoning Ordinance carried 6-0.
Board moved on to consider approving the application. (GL) noted that the
three leg freestanding tower is safer than one with guide wires. (BM) noted
that it would be more expensive but more durable. Board discussed (RH)’s
note that there are also more requirements in regard to the placement of
towers in the Zoning Ordinances. (BM) reminded Board that they are not
really changing use, just upgrading the facility and structure. (CC)
questioned whether this one would affect operation of other towers? Mr.
Davis noted that this would be up to FCC to consider this. Mr. Losapio was
5
questioned as to how many tenants currently use the system and how many
would be using it in the future. He noted that it can accommodate 12 tenants
and that currently there are 3 and no one currently waiting to become a
customer of the service. (FH) questioned whether the Town of Pittsfield is
currently a customer? Mr. Losapio noted that the Town was a current
tenant.
Board voted to approve the Site Plan Review for Tax Map R-43, Lot 16, by
a vote of 6-0.
(BM) noted that there is a 30-day appeal process even though this has
tonight been approved. He reminded applicant that it would be necessary to
submit a Mylar of the site plan, check the noise level of the generator with
no more than 80 dB at the property line being acceptable which should be
submitted in writing to the Planning Board.
Break 8:25 P.M. Resume at 8:31 P.M.
ITEM 4. Review of Proposed Warrant Article
(BM) At the end of our meeting in December, I was concerned about the
acrimony and mistrust between the Board and Jim Pritchard. I asked Jim to
sit down with me and discuss his grievances and proposed changes. He
showed me what he attempted to submit to the Board and the Board had
made some revisions, dismissed it and went in t heir own direction. At the
end of our meeting, I realized that Mr. Pritchard’s proposal had a lot of
merit. He asked me whether I would support some form of what he
presented. I told him my concerns and he made appropriate changes. He
requested to talk to other members of the Board regarding this and I
explained that he certainly could do this. To date, I believe he has discussed
this with two other Board members.
I am proposing that the Board recommend this as the Warrant Article in
place of the proposed changes that were decided upon at the December 3 rd
meeting. I believe this document to be a better document. The first two
pages include what the Board has changed already. (RH) noted “I see things
on this that I would not vote for already and I have not read the entire
document.” (BM) noted that the Board can modify this, but we need to set a
hearing date for this. (FH) noted that the cluster was not included in the
Board’s original changes. (RH) Before we can consider making changes, we
6
have to have a chance to read it and then can make recommendations and/or
changes.
(DG) Motion to accept this as Planning Board’s recommended Zoning
Ordinances Amendments. (JL) Second.
(FH) noted it is too early to vote on it as it was just presented to us. (B M)
“When is the last date that we can submit it?” (GL) noted it has to be 30
days prior to the election. Mr. Pritchard noted it would have to be by
February 5th. (BM) How long prior to the Public Hearing? (FH) Ten days.
(BM) noted that it has to be done by approximately the 18th. When can we
have another meeting and still have ten more days to get it in? (RH) noted it
has to be far enough out so that we can have time to read it.
(CC) “Logistics aside, I think this is a better document. The problem with
two proposed Warrant Articles is we have one agreed on which is a good
thing.” (BM) noted “If we can agree on this one, we can withdraw the other
Warrant Article. Let us meet on Monday, January 21st at 7:00 P.M. We can
table voting on this Warrant Article until the next meeting.”
(DS) questioned Jim Pritchard as to the reason why he is submitting this
Warrant Article? (BM) noted that the reason is because Mr. Pritchard and I
are convinced that this one would do a better job of getting the Zoning
Ordinances to comply with RSA’s and less vulnerable to lawsuits. (DS)
noted it makes things stricter, which means it will have a harder time
passing. (BM) noted he had looked at the previous document and it was too
complicated. This one is definitely in compliance with State law. (FH)
questioned whether PB should check with the Zoning Board and have them
sit in on this meeting with the Planning Board. (CC) noted Board should
probably look at it with the Zoning Board. This would provide us with good
input. (RH) noted that the ZB felt the application was written wrong. (BM)
noted that the Zoning Ordinances were written in 1988, 20 years ago. It has
been amended piecemeal and it is due a large-scale upgrade. (FH) noted it is
an ongoing thing, we need to change a few every year or two. (CC) noted
that this is a lot to swallow, and this is part of my concern, processing the
way changes are made. There are small thing we need to do. (FH) When
you are presenting it to the Town, two or three changes at a time are
approved a lot easier. (DS) stated “It is going to be hard to get it passed.
Just like the Zoning, people are sorry they voted for zoning.”
7
Mr. Pritchard related this Warrant Article would eliminate vagueness and
strengthen property rights. Things get approved on what the Board feels and
not what is written. I would be delighted to sit down with Dan Schroth and
go over it. (DS) noted “I do not believe Jim Pritchard is for more property
rights.” Mr. Pritchard stated, “I am not interested in making policies. It is
not my goal to make policies.”
(BM) noted that the Motion has been made and Seconded. It is tabled until
the next meeting.
He also noted also that the Regional State Office of Emergency Planning has
requested the Town bring their flood plain standard in compliance or it will
make property owners ineligible for insurance. We should set the date for
the Public Hearing to include the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments,
and the Flood Plan Amendments. It was agreed that the Public Hearing be
held on February 4, 2008 at the High School Auditorium.
ITEM 5. Selectman’s Report
(JL) None.
ITEM 5A: Approval of Minutes of December 6, 2007.
(DG) Motion to approve the Minutes of December 6, 2007. (RH) Second.
Carried 6-0.
ITEM 6. Members Concerns
(BM) noted that he has received a notice that the State Economic
Development Board is meeting on January 22nd with the Board of Selectman
on the Pros and Cons of Economic Development, and the Planning Board
has been invited to attend.
ITEM 7. Public Input
Mr. Pritchard indicated, “I would like to offer to sit down with any of the
Planning Board members or alternates to review this Warrant Article.”
8
ITEM 8. Adjournment
(JL) Motion to adjourn. (CC) Second. Carried 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:12 P.M.
Approved: February 7, 2008
___________________________ ____________________
Bill Miskoe, Vice-Chairman Date