Town of Carroll, New Hampshire

• Town Services
• Town Meeting Minutes
• Planning Board/ZBA
• Applications & Forms
• Town Clerk/Tax Collector
• Map
• Home

Minutes of Town Board Meetings

• Planning Board
• Board of Adjustment
• Select Board
• Budget Committee
• Building Committee
• Energy Commission

Minutes of 6/2/2016

June 7th, 2016

Carroll Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2016

“These minutes of the Town of Carroll Planning Board have been recorded by its Secretary. Though believed to be accurate and correct they are subject to additions, deletions and corrections by the Planning Board at its next meeting when the Board votes its final approval of the minutes. They are being made available at this time to conform to the requirements of New Hampshire RSA 91-A: 2.

Members Present: Chairperson Ken Mills, Richard Krapf, Bonnie Moroney, Selectman’s Representative: Brian Mycko, and Karen Saffian.

Members of the Public: Evan Karpf, Jeanne Stapleton, Jim (?) Stapleton, Joan Karpf, Billy Rines, Matt Materal (sp?) Applicant personnel: Kevin Fadden, Kevin Delaney, Steve Grill.

Minutes taken by: Rena Vecchio, Secretary

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.

Pledge of Allegiance

Approval of Minutes:

The meeting minutes for 04/06/2016 and 05/05/2016 needed to be approved. The chair asked for a motion to un-table the meeting minutes for the 04/06/2016 as they had been tabled at the 05/05/2016 meeting.

Brian Mycko made a motion to un-table the 04/06/2016 meeting minutes Richard Krapf seconded. The aye vote was unanimous.

The Chair explained why the minutes needed to be un-tabled from the prior meeting. There was additional discussion on why the minutes were tabled and the allowance of any ‘corrections’. The Planning Board Secretary explained the process involved after the minutes were tabled. Bonnie Moroney made the motion to accept the 04/06/2016 meeting minutes as amended, Brian Mycko seconded the motion. The vote was four ayes with Karen Saffian abstaining due to her absence at the meeting.

The Chair then raised the 5/5/2016 meeting minutes agenda item.

Brian Mycho made the motion to accept the 5/5/2016 meeting minutes as amended; the motion was seconded by Bonnie Moroney.

The Chair then raised a number of changes for grammar, spelling, and context; after which the board noted a different approach to meeting minute corrections or adjustments would be more efficient and the Chair concurred stating the board would work with the Secretary as close as possible with the minutes to avoid lengthy narration on any changes for accuracy the board wants. The secretary noted the input from the board needed to come from what actually occurred referencing the meeting, not what they may think they heard or said. All the members concurred.

After the discussion, the aye vote was unanimous to accept the 5/5/2016 meeting minutes as amended.


The Chair then read the synopsis by Industrial Communications on it’s application to construct a communications tower in the Town of Carroll. As the application had been accepted as complete at the last board meeting, the planning board concurred the synopsis was a sufficient review of the accepted application prior to the public hearing. The Chair then declared the board to be in public hearing.

The Chair then asked the applicant members to present to the public their case for constructing the tower with Mr. Kevin Fadden, Mr. Kevin Delaney, and Mr. Steve Grill making individual presentations. Mr. Grill (attorney for the applicant) began with a brief background on the various laws involving communications tower construction; the role of land use boards in approving/denying communication towers construction. Subject matter included the physical characteristics of the tower and the tower’s impact to a community as well as protections afforded applicants in seeking to construct a tower. Additionally, Mr. Grill summarized the numerous criteria involved in the progression of a communication tower construction. Mr. Grill was clear on the need for all parties involved to be engaged in the process with clear communication and documentation throughout the application progression. Mr. Grill continued his discussion with a focus on the lack of cell coverage in the vicinity of the Route 3 and Route 302 intersection in town and how this impacts the community. Mr. Grill then articulated how the tower would aid in mitigating some of those coverage gaps.

Mrs. Saffian had a question on the coverage needed to close the gap in coverage. Mr. Grill pointed out that ‘two bars or less’ was deemed a gap in cell phone coverage and that the site plan will more thoroughly address that definition. Mr. Grill concluded his comments. The Chair then ensured the public was made aware of certain legal issues and requirements land use boards must use in making their determinations on an application with a reiteration of the importance of the decision being supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record.

Mr. Kevin Delaney (Engineering and Regulatory Compliance manager/Industrial Tower and Wireless) conducted a Power Point presentation on the tower application. Topics covered included the application through its respective tabs, a variety of maps with depictions of the tower construction’s impact on the site and surrounding area. Mr. Delaney also covered several specifics regarding construction material, support construction and support equipage. The tower will be able to support up to five carriers once constructed. Predicted coverage gap closure was pointed out to the board and public via the applicant’s supporting documentation and maps. Mr. Delaney reiterated that as a communication tower, the capabilities go beyond mere cell phone coverage. Mr. Delaney then discussed the balloon test that was conducted 5/14/16. The discussion included descriptions of various views of the balloon from several locations through out the town. The photos of the balloon were presented with additional photos offered with the communication tower image super-imposed upon the balloon to reflect what the tower would look like at that location, at that height.

Mr. Delaney noted that the applicant had received a Notice Of No Hazard to Air Navigation from the FAA and that due to the tower’s height not requiring lighting by the FAA they would not be installing lighting. Mr. Delaney concluded his remarks and introduced Mr. Kevin Fadden.

Mr. Fadden then discussed the evolution of arriving at this particular site. From his discussion, Mr. Fadden made it clear that the location they seek to build on is the best of the different sites they researched. Mr. Fadden reiterated they were making the best attempt at having the least impact to abutters and still provide the best overall coverage for the area.

Mr. Delaney then gave a broader background on Industrial Tower and Wireless, its history and a desire to be good neighbors.

The Chair then set some ground rules for questions/discussion to ensure all present would have the opportunity to speak with the understanding that tonight’s topic would center on the balloon test/visual impact study as that information was available tonight and because there were outstanding engineering studies to be completed a hearing continuation would be needed in order to have the additional information to the board for review.

Bonnie Moroney had a question referencing a previous application for a tower on Harmony Hill and the outcome should the technology become outdated. Mr. Delaney said a bond is placed for the town to ensure finances are available should the need arise to deconstruct the tower.

The Chair asked about service footprint versus bandwidth at home. Mr. Delaney offered that the major issue is to increase coverage area. The Chair asked if the site and the various natural threats that could befall the tower were adequately mitigated in the design and both Mr. Grill and Mr. Delaney discussed how they were mitigated based on the site plan regulations of the town.

Ms. Saffian raised the question on the balloon size versus the actual tower sizing with Mr. Grill discussing the scenario of driving versus viewing. Mr. Delany pointed out the balloon was red to be visible but the tower will be dull gray to make it more subdued.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the impact having an airport in the town has on tower construction and the imaginary surfaces predicated on the center of the runway at the airport as addressed in the town’s ordinances.
Dr. Karpf offered additional comments on how towers are avoided by aviators.
Mr. Matt Materal asked about tower coverage and the impact of terrain features and foliage on signal propagation, which was addressed by Mr. Delaney.
Ms. Stapleton addressed various issues she has as a direct abutter to include her opinion on possible property value diminution. Ms. Stapleton offered additional anecdotal information on the tower’s impact to the scenery and aesthetics. Ms. Stapleton expressed her concerns of the tower on the community’s visual impact and tourism. Mrs. Stapleton expressed concerns on the quality of the soil/terrain in the area and the suitability for the construction as well as post construction reclamation. Additional discussion by Ms. Stapleton included issues with past excavation issues and the reclamation.

The Chair then reiterated the overarching process the board must follow in arriving at a decision on the tower application. The point was made that there are still engineering studies to be completed and made available to the board for additional consideration in its deliberation of this tower application.
Mr. Krapf and Ms. Saffian asked for a broader understanding on how the land ownership is handled which Mr. Grill answered regarding deeding of lands and permanent easements on the property with stipulations appropriate to continued use of the rest of the lot.

Dr. Karpf raised a question on the building site size versus subdivision regulations; Mr. Grill explained how New Hampshire RSAs exempt communication towers from subdivision regulations.

Mr. Jim Stapleton expressed his concern on who will have access to the site by way of the access driveway and the threat to children in the vicinity of the access. Mr. Stapleton also offered additional photographs of the tower from other locations, which the board appreciated.

Mr. Stapleton then expressed his concerns regarding any aviation in the tower area flying at night. The Chair reiterated requirements for aviators to know the threats in the area they are flying in.
Ms. Karpf wanted to know the footage from the tower to the closest property line. Ms. Karpf wanted to know what if any impacts to homeowner insurance rates a communication tower would pose. The board referred Ms. Karpf to her insurance company.
Ms. Karpf then wanted to know what the connectivity would be with other towers in the area as well as how many more towers can the town expect to be needed in addition to this tower. The applicant pointed out that due to the strategic nature of this site, the number of additional towers required in the area should be less.

The Chair reiterated the incoming engineering reports and how the questions on how many towers may be required going forward will be better answered to include what if any visual impact there maybe.

Matt Materal offered (as a former insurance underwriter) that as long as the risk has not changed, the rates should not be affected by a tower’s construction.

Various speakers related anecdotal information on tower impact to a community, coverage, safety and security of the towers.

The Chair then offered the applicant an opportunity to respond to several questions raised in the hearing from the public.

Mr. Grill noted that property value assessments have not been lessened with the construction of a communication tower. Mr. Grill went on to explain property values and an analogy of a swimming pool or not having a swimming pool at a home. Mr. Grill continued with the point that a number of a town’s residents want communications capability and understand the trade offs that must occur to have certain capabilities and the impact that construction will have on the community.

Mr. Delaney then addressed questions on how much of the land will be cleared in total for the tower’s construction.
A copy of the application is available at the Town Hall. Mr. Delaney also addressed the full process involved in the construction process from planning and approval and any mitigations needed/required during construction to ensure compliance. Mr. Delaney also addressed Mr. Stapleton’s concerns regarding who will/may be accessing the road to the site.

Mr. Rhines spoke briefly regarding the location for potential home construction by Ms. Stapleton and how the topography serves to mitigate the visual impact of the tower.

Mr. Stapleton wanted to know how the site was going to handle the electrical line to the site, which Mr. Delaney addressed with how they would coordinate with the power company and have the lines above ground or below ground predicated on best practices.

Ms. Karpf wanted to know how the generator noise would be mitigated to which Mr. Delaney expressed the hospital grade muffler and the generator enclosure would ensure the noise would be minimal to non-existant.

Ms. Saffian had a question on mitigating issues that arise once the company starts digging. Mr. Delaney stated that as issues arise the applicant will take appropriate actions based on the issue.

The Chair then addressed some issues that had been raised via email regarding prior excavation in the area on another lot. The lot in question for this tower application is not the same lot that was involved in past excavation and subsequent litigation. No excavation has occurred on that lot since 2010.

The Planning Board Secretary clarified a prior discussion with Ms. Stapleton regarding the lots in the area and a past housing development stared by Mr. Rhines.

Ms. Karpf wanted to ensure the applicant took the term ‘gravel pit’ out of the application due to specific definitions of a gravel pit. The applicant stated they would remove the term from the application.

The Chair offered clarification on public hearing adjournment versus closing. After discussion, the applicant coordinated with the Chair and the planning board to hold the continued public hearing in July on the 6th.
With that the hearing was adjourned until 7pm, July 6, 2016. Additionally, the applicant and the Chair clarified that the two entities completing the engineering studies for the planning board would be IDK communications for tower technical review and HEB Engineering for site plan review.

The planning board then went back into public meeting to address any ‘other’ items on the agenda, which there were none.

The motion was made to adjourn by Brian Mycko and seconded by Karen Saffian. The aye vote was unanimous.

The meeting ended at 9:25.














Richard Krapf made a motion to: adjourn. Brian Mycko seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting ended at 9:30.

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024