Minutes of Town Board Meetings
- Planning Board
- Board of Adjustment
- Select Board
- Budget Committee
- Building Committee
- Energy Commission
Search Minutes of Town Board Meetings
2007 Planning Board Archives
- Minutes of 12/06/2007
- Minutes of 11/14/2007
- Meeting Notice for November 14, 2007
- Minutes of 10/4/2007
- Minutes of 09/25/2007
- Minutes of 09/06/2007
- Minutes of 08/16/2007
- Minutes of 08/02/2007
- Minutes of 07/25/2007
- Minutes of 07/05/2007
- Minutes of 06/07/07
- Minutes of 05/09/07
- Minutes of 05/08/07
- Minutes of 05/03/07
- Architectural Design Review
- Minutes of 4/05/2007
- Minutes, 3/1/2007
- Minutes of 02/01/2007
- Minutes of 01/25/2007
- Minutes, 1/16/07
- Minutes for January 4, 2007
Older Archives
Minutes of 07/25/2007
August 6th, 2007
Carroll Planning Board
Minutes
Cell Tower Public Hearing Continuation
July 25, 2007
“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 RSAS 91-A:2.”
Members of the Board present: Chairman John Birknes, Connie Oliver, Evan Karpf,
Charlie Cohn and Bill Smalley
Member of the Public present: Tom Hildreth, Mercy Luhanga, Ken Kelly, Dave Maxson, Edith Tucker, Leslie Bergum, Erik Bergum, Bill Rines, Lee Hallquist, Jim Covey, Bob Holland, Mike Gooden
Minutes taken by Susan Kraabel, Secretary Pro Tem
Pledge of Allegiance
Meeting called to order at 7:00 PM
Chairman Birknes advised that the Board was resuming the public hearing for the Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Tower.
He then told the board he would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the July 5, 2007 Planning Board meeting. Evan Karpf moved to approve the minutes, Charlie Cohn seconded, and the motion was passed unanimously.
Chairman Birknes then read an email from Karen Moran asking several questions, some relating to previous meetings. She asked if the Verizon license had been renewed. She asked why when previously stated that a 180’ tower was necessary, a 90’ tower was now proposed. She asked about plans for further tower expansion in Carroll. She asked if they have a binding agreement with the owners of the tower at the Mt. Washington Resort. She asked about FAA research regarding proximity to the Twin Mountain airport. Lastly she asked about the outcome of research relative to putting the tower behind the town hall.
Tom Hildreth said some of these questions had been answered at the last meeting. He reported that the 2 licenses they have in the area that expired in April have been renewed and now expire in 2011 and 2017. He produced copies for the board.
Atty. Hildreth pointed out that in the year since they first came to the board with regard to the Harmony Hill site, they have made four proposals.
Proposal #1 was a 180’ pole that would need waiver because it was too close to the property line.
Proposal #2 was a 180’ pole within the property lines.
Proposal #3 moved the pole farther to the east.
Proposal #4 was a 90’ pole in the same location as #3.
Atty. Hildreth produced composite coverage maps (copies attached). The first showed the gap they are trying to fill, the second how the gap is affected by a 170’ pole behind the town hall (still gaps), and the third the Harmony Hill site with a 90’ pole. He stated that with the original 180’ pole, the Mt. Oscar site was unnecessary, but the FAA would not approve this height because of the airport proximity. He stated that the FAA would require lighting with the 90’ height, and they have no indication that an adequate tower at less height would not still need lighting. The lighting would be dual red medium intensity.
Atty. Hildreth said there had been questions about the history of the tower at the Mt. Washington Hotel, and he presented some information from plans and minutes. Nextel came before the Planning Board in January 2005 and all the waivers and plans were approved. Minutes referenced multiple carriers. In July 2005 they came back for clarification of 2 points. The minutes say the height of the poles would be 23’ rather than 18’. The canisters would be 26” rather than 24”. The minutes state the intent is to have as many carriers as possible. He stated there is currently room for 2 carriers, but Verizon plans in a new application to gain service at the hotel and leave room for a fourth carrier.
In speaking of the most recent balloon test for a 90’ tower, Atty. Hildreth showed pictures from Rte. 3 south and Rte. 302 east. He stated at no place was the balloon seen above the ridgeline. He also showed pictures of “tree” camouflage available.
Dr. Karpf said he’s been speaking to Bob Cirus of the FAA, and as a result of these conversations, Dr. Karpf has the understanding that if the height is a foot below the airspace and he as owner of the airport requested it, a light would not be required. Atty. Hildreth said it was his understanding that it’s not the height that determines the lighting, but the horizontal. Dr. Karpf then mentioned he thought if the pole is out of the glide slope, you don’t need a light. Dave Maxson, RF engineer consultant to the town, said it’s not the glide slope but something called the notification slope. This is based on the absolute elevation of the pole site and the absolute elevation of the airport and the distance between the two sites. If the tower is in the notification slope it must be lighted, and he suspects the light restriction will not go away. It was questioned whether the fact that the pole is less than 20’ higher than the treetops and far lower than the mountain a plane must go over could maybe allow the FAA to waive lighting the pole.
Mr. Maxson also said the FAA has two standards for lighting. 1) a red and white pole during the day and red beacon at night, or a not red and white pole but a white strobe during the day and a red beacon at night. 2) a white strobe during the day with a not so bright white strobe or red light at night. He said the FAA had chosen for this site a red light glowing on and off at night and a white strobe during the day. Chairman Birknes questioned how combining a red and white pole with the tree camouflage would affect the lighting requirements if unsuccessful with eliminating lights altogether. He was told we would have a red and white tree. Mr. Maxson said he felt the green tree would provide the best option for the town.
Jim Covey showed pictures he took from the last balloon test. They were from farther north on Rte. 3, and the balloon was far more visible than on Atty. Hildreth’s photos. He said Verizon has never brought up that we are on a North Country Scenic Byway, and that the National Historic Preservation Act says that visual impacts should be considered. He stated that we are in a sensitive scenic area and the tower does not belong in our view shed. He feels it would have an impact on the predominantly driving tourist business. He said the Mt. Oscar pole would be on the Scenic Byway too. He stated the pole at the town hall would get coverage and the law says adequate coverage is what’s mandated. It was stated that Verizon proved the town hall and Mt. Oscar option will not provide reasonably uninterrupted communication mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Micro cell towers perhaps on light poles could make up for the small gaps between the town hall and Mt. Oscar. It was also stated that the composite map represented using a 130’ tower at Mt. Oscar, but Verizon’s proposal would be for a 100’ tower. Erik Bergum questioned whether some combination of heights at the town hall and Mt. Oscar could result in no lighting on the town hall site. Atty. Hildreth said they have looked at the tourism issue, and other areas that depend on tourism have towers and have not seen a lowering of tourism. He said that if they can reasonably lower the Harmony Hill pole to eliminate the lighting mandate, they will do it.
Lee Hallquist questioned the possibility of using repeaters which help carry calls through small gaps. Mr. Maxson explained they sometimes use these or micro cells, but Mercy Luhanga said they also have to be on a pole tall enough to receive the signal from the donor pole and they cover a very small area. She also said heavy traffic would shrink the capability of repeaters. Mr. Bergum questioned whether putting these repeaters or micro cells on National Forest land would be a problem. It was stated that it is not prohibited, but could very well be a problem getting permission.
Billy Rines questioned whether people would object to a 170’ pole on town land. He said it would probably be seen far more than a pole at Harmony Hill. He asked about whether and how large a fenced are around the pole would be and was told there would be a 100’x100’ cleared area at the town hall. Mr. Rines brought up the fact that the town had recently purchased land from the state to construct a building to house the Historical Society and library, and they are looking at the possibility of building a police/fire station in the future. He feels the town site is a poor choice, that it would restrict growth on town land.
Discussion took place on what alternatives are available for using town land. What is a reasonable height? 100’? 120’? What gaps in coverage would there be? Go for a specific town site, determine setbacks and see what the impact would be on remaining town land. Mr. Maxson said you have to balance the impact and benefits of the town hall site against those of the proposed Harmony Hill site.
While Mr. Covey had stated that clientele in Twin Mountain have not been clambering for cell service, guests at the Mt. Washington Hotel have been. They are building larger convention quarters, and anticipate a greater demand. Whether requests for service are relevant was mentioned; Mr. Maxson said the Telecommunications Act talks about “significant gaps.” The size of demand would go into the board’s weighing the significant part of “significant gaps.”
Mr. Covey said he’d not seen the latest pictures of the tree camouflage. He said if the tower looked like a tree, was painted brown, and didn’t have a flashing light, it would be a lot more palatable to people. Mr. Covey received copies of the pictures.
Chairman Birknes said while there will be no vote taken tonight, he personally has come up with some conditions he’d like to see attached to any approval of the Harmony Hill site.
1. The location of the pole to be at least 125% of the tower height from the property lines.
2. Not to exceed _______ in height from ground level and will be designed to blend in with the trees.
3. The tower design including aesthetics shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Board.
4. The tower shall be such that service will be available for one other provider.
5. The applicant shall pay the reasonable charges for the consulting radio frequency engineer for the purposes of the application, hearing, and follow-up inspections.
6. A bond shall be posted payable to the Town of Carroll in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of removal of the tower and associated structures when no longer in use.
7. A new set of plans with a rendering and accurate representation of the proposed tower shall be submitted to the board to ensure the addition of these conditions.
8. Accommodation for emergency networks for police and fire.
Mr. Bergum mentioned that the proposed tower on Mt. Oscar is in Bethlehem, and no one in Bethlehem proper will see it. Carroll residents will, and need to know what it’s going to look like, and Mr. Bergum asked if the board could work with Bethlehem or put a condition relating to that tower. Atty. Hildreth said it would be awkward to link it in an approval, but that in all cases towns within 20 miles are given notice of an application for a cell tower. He stated the Mt. Oscar tower would be below the summit. Mr. Kelly said the resort wants both cell service and aesthetics.
Chairman Birknes suggested that Dr. Karpf get the lighting issue settled with the FAA on Tuesday, and that the board pick a date for the next meeting. Atty. Hildreth mentioned getting alternate heights on the town land in combination with repeaters. The mapping is not difficult, but Mr. Kelly said if there are gaps at 170’, there will be at lower heights too. He’s not willing to abandon the Harmony Hill site. Mr. Maxson said if the board has the sense that the town land is more palatable, setbacks must be checked and get a sense of the gap—consider 90’ poles along Rte. 302 with repeaters. Ms. Luhanga stated again that repeaters and micro cells cover a very small area. It was stated again that approvals would be necessary for the land for repeaters and micro cells.
The question was asked about a balloon test for the town hall site. There was a sense that people wanted one if the town hall site would be seriously considered. Atty. Hildreth asked if the light is found to be unnecessary on the Harmony Hill site when Dr. Karpf talks to Bob Cirus on Tuesday, could we stop there.
Phase 1 work is to nail down the lighting issue.
Phase 2 would be to further investigate town hall coverage plot, using various heights and repeaters or micro cells.
When questioned, Dr. Karpf said a 170’ tower on town hall property could be a bigger issue with the airport proximity.
Mr. Covey said after listening to an abutter, Mr. Rines, if it doesn’t work for him and his family, and it probably won’t work for other abutters, maybe Harmony Hill is the better site. It sounds like the town hall site won’t work. More investigation could be avoided with the elimination of the flashing light. Chairman Birknes suggested that Dr. Karpf, in his talks with the FAA, talk about the suitability of a 100’ plus tower on the town land.
The continuation of the cell tower hearing will take place on August 16, 2007, at 7 p.m.
Connie Oliver moved to adjourn the meeting. Evan Karpf seconded and it passed unanimously.
The Chairman declared the meeting ended at 8:40 p.m.