Planning Board Minutes

Search Minutes of Town Board Meetings

2024 Planning Board Archives

Older Archives

Minutes of 9/3/2020

September 10th, 2020

Carroll Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
September 3, 2020
7:00 PM

“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.”

PLBD Members Present: Chairman Alex Foti, Vice Chairman; Mike Finn; Selectmen’s Representative Bonnie Moroney; Julie Roesbery; and Terry Penner.

Public Present:
Representing Vertex Tower Assets, LLC: Attorney Francis D. Parisi of Parisi Law Associates, P.C.; Stephen Keiler, Vertex Towers; Tom Johnson of ProTerra Design Group; Jose Hernandez, radio frequency engineer
Representing Industrial Tower and Wireless, LLC: Attorney Steven Grill; Kevin Fadden, Site Acquisition Specialist; Kevin Delaney, Engineering & Regulatory Compliance Manager; and Shayna Galinat, Staff Attorney.

Donna & James Goettler; Joe Cutrone; Brian Mycko; Heather Brown, Planning & Zoning Secretary; Greg Hogan, Road Agent; Tadd Bailey, Police Chief; David A. Scalley, Building Inspector; Ben Jellison; Jeremy Oleson, Fire Chief; Cathy Conway, Horizons Engineering; Syed Nuruzzaman; and Attorney Andrew Sullivan.

Minutes Taken by: Judy Ramsdell, Secretary

Pledge of Allegiance

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Foti asked if there were any edits or comments on the August 6, 2020 minutes. There were no comments or edits made. Bonnie Moroney made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Terry Penner seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.

Chairperson Alex Foti stated that after the last meeting we received correspondence from the Law Office of Attorney Grill that not all abutters were notified of the Vertex Tower application. Alex said that we have evidence the abutters were properly notified and would like that in the records. We have a receipt that the certified notice was received and signed for by Bayroot, LLC.

OLD BUSINESS:
Echo Lake Subdivision: No one here to represent Echo Lake Subdivision.

Application from Vertex Tower Assets, LLC, Tax Map/Lot: 408-002-002 for a new 151’ tall lattice-style telecommunications tower.

Alex Foti said that the Vertex Tower Assets, LLC application was submitted and accepted at the last meeting as complete. We are reviewing the application and we also have an expert conducting a review of the application and all documentation. We don’t expect the results for a couple of weeks.

Attorney Francis Parisi, representing Vertex Towers, said we have submitted an application for a Special Use Permit and a request for a Site Plan Review on Route 3 North, tax map/lot: 408-002-001 owned by Robert J. Burns and Carmen T. Burns. We filed an application back in July. We volunteered to do a visibility test back in early August, and were here in early August to present the application. We are here tonight for the public hearing. We have a concurrent application for a Special Exception pending in front of the ZBA. It was originally scheduled for August but postponed until September, one week from tonight, for a Special Exception for the same facility.

Vertex Towers is a telecommunications infrastructure developer. We are not a carrier. The carriers have gotten out of the real estate business. It is a more fruitful process. Vertex is a real estate developer who develops wireless infrastructure very thoughtfully and we can use the information to fill in gaps in coverage. We look at town’s concerns with wireless settings. We have been involved in two sites in Jefferson, one site in Lancaster, just approved in Lisbon, just approved in Holderness, site under construction in Bristol, and just got approved in Center Conway. This is his 20th town he has appeared before to try to facilitate wireless service.

Tom Johnson, who is a licensed Civil Engineer, of ProTerra Design Group has experience designing and overseeing the construction of building sites in the state of New Hampshire and in the north country. He has experience to build sites further off the roads, mitigate visibility, and get the required coverage. Jose Hernandez, who is a radio frequency engineer, has also been engaged to work on the project.

The Planning Board saw a very expansive application at the last meeting. We produced a notice of visibility demonstration (balloon test). We were able to show that the town had limited visibility based on its design and substantial tree buffer. We provided information to remove the tower along with a removal estimate. We would post a bond for the removal, which we provided a draft of and showed a proposal for costs to remove the tower.

We have engaged a wireless radio frequency consultant. We have worked with him in many other towns. Attorney Parisi said that we have additional radio frequency detail to present tonight, which he gave one copy of this to the secretary. We want to be sure the radio frequency data is adequate for this property. Wireless coverage is a public safety necessity. More than 70% of 911 calls are made from mobile phones. More than 50% of American homes are “wireless only”. More and more workers are telecommuting.

We have provided data to show there is a gap in the coverage. We know where the existing telecommunications are. There is 6 to 7-mile gap. North on route 3, even less than a mile from here, just past 115, coverage drops off quite substantially. Jose has provided documentation there is a gap in coverage here. Attorney Parisi said that he has done projects in Rural NH and in urban settings. They have used anything they can that is tall. There are antennas in the coopla of the Mt. Washington Hotel, they can be located in church steeples. There are no tall structures here in Carroll.

We have an affidavit from Steve Keller, Site Acquisition Specialist, of Vertex who has been driving around looking for tall infrastructure. There is nothing tall in Carroll that would cover the entire gap. We have been working on this site for well over 2 years when we identified the gap in coverage. We have been looking for suitable land, and back in the fall of 2018 we identified a parcel. A lease was signed with the landowner so the Board was put on notice we have been working in Carroll for the past two years. Survey work, wetlands biologists work done in late 2019. We weren’t able to file the application until this July. This the 4th step of about 14 steps. They have done the due-diligence they have to do. It was delayed due to the pandemic and the winters up here. We have been working on trying to move this forward. We have been looking for a site that will cover the gap between here and Whitefield. Our recent projects have been focusing on the Route 2 corridor. The challenge here is the topography. The site next door here provides pretty good coverage along the Route 302 and some of Route 3. There is a substantial hill in front of this tower so it doesn’t provide much coverage past Route 115.

The site we identified is a large 22.6 acre parcel off of Route 3. It is located just north of Lennon Road. It is undeveloped and a heavily wooded parcel. It will be set back 555 feet off of Route 3. We will be using an existing driveway that is shared with an abutter, and will follow an over-grown trail. There are some benefits that follow the natural contour of the properties. Nothing will change from the Route 3 perspective. We are circumventing the identified wetlands. The engineers have done a good job using the existing terrain and will need to build a 12-foot driveway. It is constructed for construction purposes, which is about 12 weeks. Once it is built, it is un-manned. There is no traffic or no manned facilities, no water or sewer. Traffic after the six-week construction period is minimal. 236 feet from closest abutting property line. There is ample space for “no cut zone”. The compound itself will not be visible from Route 3. They will maintain a no-cut zone to maintain that buffer. The driveway will be curved to follow the former driveway.

Tom Johnson of ProTerra Design Group prepared the site plan. Tom said he wanted to present a quick overview. He said we have a surveyed site plan with bearings and distances in accordance with regulations. The Southern portion of the property with wetlands has been flagged. Chris Lucas flagged that area. We have designed the road to stay off of that and have done a storm water design.

There is an existing driveway off of Route 3, which is shared by the house on the abutting property and then it turns off with a wood path. They will follow the path and upgrade and get to the higher topography in the back, 555 feet from Route 3. The overall road is proposed to be 800 feet long, and It preserves the tree buffer curves. The elevation change gets to about 15 feet. Then it flattens out up at the top. They are proposing to do some upgrades to the entrance, a paved apron, about 25 feet long. During construction we will have a construction entrance. It will be a gravel driveway which will require maintenance over time. There won’t be a lot of traffic, it will not be used much after the construction, and it is not frequently plowed. It will have a 12-foot sub-base, as well as a swale to protect the driveway from water and capturing the water then dispersing it to follow the natural drainage. The road will have cross pitch on it so it is designed to shed water off the road. We have some water bars included as well.

Terry Penner asked about a gate being installed past the abutting homeowner’s driveway. Attorney Parisi said it is not shown in the plan but they can add that.

Mr. Johnson said that because this is an unmanned facility, it is not plowed regularly. It mitigates run-off and normal wear and tear on the ground. It is a gravel driveway and maintenance will go along with it. Once you get to the top of the hill the tower will be in a 60’x60’ fenced-in compound. The radio cabinet sits on a pad. It will be enclosed with a 6’ chain-link fence with barbed wire. There will be ample temporary parking space for maintenance vehicles.

The tower itself is 151’ lattice tower (157’ to the top of the lightning rod). The towers come 150’ feet, but the foundation it sits on sits out of the ground, which adds the extra height. We always permit for the extra foot. The tower is designed to support four carriers, and depending on the final design space for a 5th one and municipal to be on the top. The carriers are: Verizon, AT&T/First Net, other telecommunications companies including T-Mobile/Sprint, and the local public safety antennas. The lattice structure adds flexibility for connecting down the road.

The erosion control plan, which is part of the construction process, is a pretty-detailed erosion control plan. This plan has got a summary of what those features and plan would be so we don’t have problems during construction. The storm water drain runs along the entire length of the road on both sides. It is a significant driveway.

The tower itself is 150’ tall with a 1’ foot base, and above the tower is a small lightning rod which feeds into a grounding system. They leave space for telecommunications companies on the tower. The antennas themselves don’t project above the 150’ tower. Public safety officials like the space above the 150’. They have their own radio network and we provide space at the top for public safety. We don’t permit above the tower, as we reserve space for public safety, which is very valuable to the Town. A lot of towns mandate that in their zoning decisions.

For radio frequency reasons, we picked that spot by being on top of the hill is one of the factors that goes into visibility of the tower. We went with a shorter tower to use the existing topography to minimize the distance from the tower to top of the trees. Visibility is one of the biggest issues here in Carroll. They can look at the topography and look at sites and look at alternatives. We want to preserve the ability of the public to enjoy the mountain scenery surrounding the town, particularly the view of the Presidential Range of the White Mountains.

Attorney Parisi said that we are not required by the town’s by-laws, but they put a balloon up in the air, and engaged consulting engineers to look at the visibility from a lot of points. The consulting engineer they used was Virtual Site Simulation LLC of South Kingstown RI. They have provided a Photographic Simulation Package. Topography, terrain, and trees become a visual, and the site is 500 feet off the road so you have 500 feet of trees. There is some visibility in a couple of places. When you get a distant view, you see the top 10-30 feet so it mitigates it. There are a couple spots from the north looking south that it can be seen. The substantial views from the fields are not affected. You can see the tower from a couple of vantages. It becomes a mitigation factor with the visibility where you can see about 30 feet of tower. You are not really getting a full vista. About a mile away from the site, it gets lost in the trees. About 40 feet of tower from south of the site can be seen. There will still be a substantial buffer without leaves on the trees.

Chairman Foti said that a picture was submitted showing a little more visibility than they show. Attorney Parisi said they engaged engineers, who have sophisticated cameras and equipment they use to show the impact from various points. It is hard looking at this photo, which was taken from a cell phone to see if it was zoomed. It is hard to look at this and see if it has been altered.

Attorney Parisi said that in reference to RF exposure limits, we are compliant with all FCC regulations. When the tower is fully built out and at maximum capacity, realizing the tower is like a totem pole, at the lowest height of 112 feet the highest emission does not exceed 0.210% of the maximum permissible emissions requirements which is less than 1% of the MPE requirements. They are very low powered facilities.

Attorney Parisi said they have an immense amount of data given to the Planning Board, and we will provide a copy to the consultant as well. It is important to show we have done our due diligence and want to be sure we comparing apples to apples. This data can be presented in a variety of ways.

These towers operate in multiple frequency band, and you look at it from different coverage thresholds. We have provided data to show the different amounts of data and coverage. We have also provided the Verizon existing coverage drive test results. RF engineers can say at this location, at this height, and at this topography we can predict what kind of coverage exists. We do actual field measurements, and are able to demonstrate the actual coverage data coming off the existing data.

Attorney Parisi introduced Jose Hernandez, consultant engineer. Mr. Hernandez said he uses TENS equipment and the drive test data. They review the analysis to see what the issues are. They plot analysis to present to the Board so they know what needs to be calibrated correctly. He uses the strongest one which is the Verizon one and is able to present the data. He analyzes the coverage at the height we are proposing for the tower and it is done at various thresholds and frequencies. 700 mh range is one all carriers utilize. Mr. Hernandez’s work and findings has been presented to the Board for their review.

Attorney Parisi said we need a special use permit and site plan review from the planning board. He went through the planning guide. No variances or waivers required. They meet all height restrictions and setback requirements. Meet the requirements for the special use permit. Meet all the requirements for the site plan approval. The proposed facility is required to close a substantial coverage gap. We have provided the Planning Board with the all data to approve the site plan as required. The ZBA has to grant a special exception. Minimal criteria they have to look at it and we meet that special exception criteria.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is designed to facilitate the development of wireless infrastructure. It states you can’t prohibit telecommunications just because you don’t want wireless service. You can say no but just not to the extent to prohibit telecommunications. We work carefully with cities and town to avoid litigation.

Attorney Parisi said the Planning Board should grant the special use permit and approve the site plan as presented so they can get the special exception from the ZBA. He knows the Planning Board has engaged a consultant and he is going to look at it from the radio frequency issues. If there are any other issues, he would like to hear them tonight. Let’s get all the issues out on the table tonight.

Chairperson Foti thanked Attorney Parisi for a great presentation. Alex said that the Planning Board are not experts and rely on consultants. One question he asked is, there is another applicant, and an obvious difference is one can support 4 carriers and one can support 5 carriers?

Attorney Parisi said that telecommunications are rapidly evolving. At one time there were actually seven carriers, and over time there has been consolidations and mergers. There are three national players in this AT&T, Verizon & Sprint, one regional player, US Cellular, and Dish Network is becoming a player. There may be more mergers and other players who may come in. It is hard to predict, and hard to predict what is going to go on the tower. Antennas became smarter and more electronic. Radio equipment is much smaller but antennas have gotten smarter. We try to predict all these different variables. We design a tower with a height and integrity. Until the first person puts something on the tower we won’t know. They have space for five carriers, structural integrity for 5, but it is premature to say we are building it for 5. One carrier may want to put on something heavier to impact having other carriers. We are building it thoughtfully and carefully. There really is no difference between 4 and 5 carriers, and we do our best to anticipate the needs. They are very similar.

Bonnie Moroney asked about the impact on the airport. They have engaged aviation consultants who did a report. There is no impact on their aviation facilities. The tower is over three miles from the airport and not in the flight path. Attorney Parisi said it is premature at this time until the Town says we like the location and the height.

Jeremy Oleson, Fire Chief, asked why the application was marked as complete as he was never notified. Why is it complete if no one has reached out to the Fire Chief? Attorney Parisi said he will provide the Fire Chief with all the documentation. We need the Fire Chief approval. Attorney Parisi said he thought the Board did that and he had not contacted the Fire Chief.

Chief Oleson said in reference to public safety having access on the tower, he would like that in writing. Another question he has is if there is Technician issue, what type of staff shows up? Chief Oleson would also like to review gate-access and things like that before it gets further down the line. Attorney Parisi said that he will provide all that data to the Fire Chief, and will set up a time to meet with Tom, himself, and the Fire Chief. Chief Oleson said that there is always someone available at the fire department.

Chairman Foti said there are still several items to be completed and we are expecting a report from our consultant as well. Alex made a motion to continue this application to the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Bonnie Moroney. All in favor, 5-0. Motion passed. The next meeting is the first Thursday of the month, October 1st, 7:00 p.m.

Attorney Parisi said that before the next meeting he will communicate with fire chief, respond to the consultant report, once it is received, and get the airport report. Terry Penner said the minutes from the August meeting indicated to contact the Road agent as well re: driveway location.

Old Business:
Echo Lake Subdivison
Cathy Conway, P.E., with Horizons Engineering said that this application was approved many years ago and we had a couple of meetings since then which we discussed the status of the project. NorthPoint Engineering was hired as a consultant by the Town. Cathy wanted to talk about where we are at with Echo Lake subdivision, and review what has changed from the initial plan after working with Kevin Leonard of NorthPoint Engineering. Cathy said that the property owner is here, Syed Nuruzzaman and his attorney, Andrew Sullivan. Cathy provided all members of the Board with revised plans.
Cathy said that the Town’s engineer talked about Route 3 access. Cathy said we did receive a driveway permit in June of 2006 and that permit was for a design that had a minus 2.5% to prevent ponding and icing. It was installed with a minus 1% grade. DOT said we have to meet their current standards even though the driveway has been functioning for 14 years. The Town engineer had a recommendation to change that driveway so we have revised it to -4 percent off of Route 3 and we have submitted an application to DOT for their approval of that. It is an approval of a revised driveway permit. Because we have to come down at a steeper grade, the catch basin may have to be lowered.

The other item was the water main. Sheet #3 shows the utility plan and we were looking to connect to the existing water main on Mr. Lepage’s property. There was no easement for us to do that. Last September Greg worked with Mr. Lepage to get the water main easement so we now have the necessary easement to go on Mr. Lepage’s property. The water main needs to be approved by the Board.

In May of 2019 plans were submitted, and we made some revisions to meet the consultant engineer’s recommendations. Cathy said what has changed is that they were asked to provide a loop connection so there is a better flow of water. At the end of the hammerhead, they extended the water line all the way to the property line. We can only go as far as his property goes with the intent to go to the next property to create the loop. We also added water services to 10 feet into the property for each lot so they have that. Sheet #4 makes sure all our standards meet the Town of Carroll Water Standards.

We need to meet the town requirements. That is where we are with the water main.
Back to the road, one other question on the road was when it was initially installed 14 years ago the town did not inspect it. Gravel roads are appropriate and it met standards. On 5/6, we dug some test pits, town engineer led that effort to id the test pits and they found the gravel base was adequate depth and met the specification. 6 inches of crushed gravel on that did not meet that crushed gravel specification. They will add another 6 inches of gravel and grade the road so they will have an extra 6 inches of material on the road. Cathy had a report from the town engineer on the material and correspondence related to the crushed gravel, road base, and leaving the 6 inches in place.

This will remain a private road, and we needed to ask for a waiver for paving it. We are requesting that waiver to keep Solar Spring Road and Geodessy Way as gravel surfaced roads rather than immediately pave the roads. The specific conditions of the property that could allow this include: The parcel is located in extremely well-draining soil, Adams sandy soil is the predominant soil type, and there has been a good base of bank run and crushed gravels placed on the roads so the roads will not be susceptible to mid or other access issues; The grade of the roads is relatively flat therefore erosion of the surface is not a concern, and the roads will remain as private roads. This request to remain gravel opposed to paving the roads will not diminish the ability of the roads to provide safe travel under all conditions.

Kevin Leonard had a question on the underground electrical. In April of 2019 we met on site with Eversource to review the question about the junction boxes, and it was determined the quality was up to their standards. Eversource issued an order to pull the wires through those junction boxes. He will pull the electricity through the junction boxes once he is ready.
There were Drainage questions from Kevin. It is a very well drained site with Allen soil, which is like beach sand. There is an 0.3 cfs increase in runoff from the property, and today that is not acceptable. We completed a drainage analysis and looked at the best ways to retain the water. There are three separate discharge points toward Route 3 and the catch basin, which may be an issue, to catch that runoff. The other point is down towards the wetlands towards the remaining large lot which located a second small retention pond to detain and treat that run off. The third area is off of lots 8 & 9. They are proposing a simple infiltration trench, filled with stone to catch the runoff and prevent run off from the west side of the property. These are the three solutions to detain the water. It may require that those are built when the building permit is issued.

We revised the grading plan on sheet 2 to 6 inches of material that they will be putting on. They added sheet 1, which shows we were asked to add driveways and culverts for each lot, and we did that. The last two sheets are erosion control details, silt fence, ditches.
Cathy said we have a list of construction notes. This is a unique site, and some of the stuff is already there. We wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. Cathy reviewed the notes:
1. Six inches of crushed gravel shall be added to the roads and graded with appropriate cross-section. In areas where finish grade cannot be raised six inches (at entrance of Solar Spring Road); remove six inches of material from road base and replace with crushed gravel.
2. Replace culvert at Geodessy Way Station to 1+50.00
3. Add end sections per detail to all culverts.
4. Remove trees within ditch and right-of-way
5. Install rock check dams #1-4 per subcathchment PR-10. Install stormwater detention pond for subcatchment PR-30 and provide positive drainage from disturbed areas to the pond and downgradient from the emergency overflow as most practicable.
6. Install watermain per plans and details
7. Install erosion control as needed

Cathy said that we didn’t specific exactly on the silt fences. Those are the changes we have made over the past year since we were last here. Kevin did send a letter this afternoon to the Town. For Cathy, he feels all the technical issues have been resolved.

Cathy would like an answer on the waiver request to keep Solar Spring Road and Geodessy Way as gravel surfaced roads rather than immediately pave the roads. Cathy said there is an option to pave it later, but there is no intent to do it at this time. Bonnie Moroney suggested that they contact the Town Road Agent and have him involved if they do decide to pave that. A motion was made by Alex Foti to approve the waiver request. The motion was seconded by Julie Roesbery. All in favor, 5-0. Motion passed.

Chairman Foti reviewed the letter received from NorthPoint Engineering (a copy is attached and is part of these minutes). He suggested that we wait until the end to vote to agree or not to agree with the consultant points.

Alex Foti made a motion to follow the recommendations of our consultant as outlined in his 5th Technical Review. The motion was seconded by Bonnie Moroney. Fire Chief Oleson recommended that No Parking Signs be installed at the Hammerheads. All were in favor of the motion, with Chief’s Oleson recommendation included, 5-0. Motion passed.

Cathy verified that they don’t need to come back to the Planning Board. The easements can be submitted to the new Planning/Zoning Secretary. The timing of the bond is a Selectmen decision. Once they meet these conditions can they come for a building permit? That is a Dave Scalley issue. They have to have a bond in place to get their building permit. It would be a good idea to confirm that with the Board of Selectmen
A motion was made by Terry Penner to amend the agenda to discuss the ordinance discussion at this time. The motion was seconded by Bonnie Moroney. All in favor, 5-0. Motion passed.

Donna and Jim Goettler of 174 Paquette Drive petitioned the selectmen on the issue with Airbnb and short-term rental problems on their road. We have been having issues for quite a while maintaining the peace and tranquility in our home. We like to hear the river run by our house, but are unable to because of the parties and loud music coming from a house two doors down from ours. They can even hear it a block way. It is a big problem, and they are looking for some solutions. Any ideas how this could be addressed? We are not against Airbnb, but it shouldn’t infringe on our peace of mind
They are looking at a possible Noise Ordinance. The noise is just out of control, yelling, swearing, loud music, offensive language. Bryan Mycko said he lives off of Little River Road, and they have had the same issues. They are snowmobiling up the road. There is screaming and yelling, and they put 6-8 cars in two-bedroom homes. We are in a residential area, and it is not right.

Fire Chief, Jeremy Oleson said he is also speaking for Chief Bailey, who got called out on a call. For every one formal complaint there are probably 4-5 informal complaints. Clientele is challenging. Dealing with people overdosing, intoxication. It is how these places are being rented. They are being made more into a party house then a single-family home coming in for a family vacation. Noise is a big thing and fireworks. We do have a fireworks ordinance. No fireworks after 10:30 pm at night. There are consumer fireworks, which people typically get. Consumer fireworks are hard to judge. Fireworks would fall under the noise ordinance. Huge fireworks going off all hours of the night.

One resident said he moved here for the peace and quiet, and he is not experiencing that. The Police are awesome. We are draining our town resources. The people are financially not on the hook. We need to put some teeth in the ordinances, like fines and penalties. Why are we allowing business to be run in a residential neighborhood? How do we stop that? It is being asked all over. Anything rented less than 30 days should be considered a business. It was pointed out that we would be penalizing the responsible owners by staying you can’t rent your properties.

Jim Goettler said that he was informed of a Nuisance Ordinance for unruly groups in Narragansett. They have fines tied to the ordinance, and they are not just trying to regulate Airbnb.

Bonnie Moroney said she went around and spoke with both the Police & Fire Chief. We can’t make it as an Airbnb ordinance, an unruly gathering nuisance situation would be the best route to go. We have a GIS system for the town and the suggestion is if we could get something like the first fine is $150 then up to $1200. We can put this together as an ordinance, there would be a public hearing with the planning board around December and then it would be voted on at town meeting in March. If anyone gets any information, we could put towards that, it would be great. The Selectmen and Planning Board would be the ones to work on it.

Is there really nothing that can be done? There are some disturbance issues. Chief Oleson said currently it is difficult to enforce and nothing is going to happen in court anyways. There would be more teeth at the town and local levels. It was asked what would give you the necessary tools? Chief Oleson replied a town ordinance. The residents said they realize that they have to call and get their complaints documented. Terry Penner said in some communities to operate a rental property you need a permit from the town.

Has this been an on-going thing or something new? Chief Oleson said that this year has been worse but it has been going on for over the last 3-4 hears. We will need to work on preparing an ordinance to address these issues.

Chairman Foti said that he runs Bretton Woods Rentals, and this is a huge issue with them. This summer has been particularly bad. The complaints are up 44% from last summer. More people are renting short-term rentals, and there are significant challenges. How do we hold the renter responsible? The owners do not want this happening. Bretton Woods Rentals has created a new document that the renters agree to and sign. There are new Noise Alert programs that will contact you when the noise gets too loud. It was noted that the occupant of the house and owner of the house are held responsible with the Narragansset ordinance.

A resident asked can we approach this at both levels—something to give homeowners to say we don’t want this? How do we address the root cause? Do we want short-term renters? We have to be thoughtful how we do that. At Paquette Circle two properties have sold recently and the owners turned them into rental units. What is a residential neighborhood? Should we address that in our ordinance? Shouldn’t we have a process for short-term rental licensing? This is happening in a residential neighborhood. They are buying these properties specifically to be a business.

The Planning Board will address this as a board and put it on the agenda for the next meeting.

New Business:

Application from Industrial Tower & Wireless, LLC/Bayroot, LLC for a new Telecommunications Facility
Representatives from Industrial Tower & Wireless, LLC were in attendance at the meeting to review their proposal for a 170’ Lattice Tower w/10’ omni antenna, Off Route 3 North, Map 401, Lot 005,
Carroll, NH.

Steve Grill, attorney, for the applicant asked a procedural question—will the Board accept the application? Attorney Grill will review the application package. Kevin Delaney and Kevin Fadden will also review the application.

During the Vertex presentation, he identified the two main issues for this Board. Which of the two towers will have better coverage to close the gap? It is fairly obvious there is a gap. ITW built both of the existing towers. We think we have the better alternative. As the ordinance is written and as commonsense dictates, it only makes sense to approve one tower as they both will serve the same coverage needs.
ITW feels they will provide better coverage, and they know that the consultant, IDK Communications, is in the process of looking at that. They are anticipating more questions once IDK has finished their review.

Visibility: ITW has not done a balloon test, as we don’t do them before the hearing opens. We like it as part of the hearing and like to give the public a chance to see, which they find it is better to wait until after the first hearing. Maybe we can pick the date this evening. We have consulted with the Fire Department, consulted with the Road Agent, have a no hazard letter from the FAA, does not need to be lighted. ITW has also been trying to find a site for about the last two years as well. ITW does have some concerns about the manner in which the Vertex balloon test was conducted in terms of wind and photography. He is not attacking their presentation. The concern is both applicants should be judged on the same set of criteria. We should have all the same data. We didn’t use trick photography on the photo that was submitted. A calm day vs a windy day skews the findings of the balloon test.
Chairman Foti suggested we go through the application and be sure it is complete. The first step is to accept the application as complete.

Mr. Kevin Fadden, Site Acquisition Specialist, has spoken with the Fire Chief and will meet with the Road Agent before the next meeting. Mr. Fadden reviewed the application package with the Board to ensure it was complete. They also submitted a check this evening for the consultant review and have submitted the required abutters list. Mr. Fadden reviewed the n/a items: there is no storm drainage plan needed, there is no on-site sewage disposal or a proposed location of water, supply and sewage facilities as there is no solid waste, water, or sewer; no proposed provisions for fire protection—have had a review by the Fire Chief and the Road Agent review is in process; and there is no exterior lighting plan. The standard format they have used is what was used in the past for the other tower in town. Construction of the new structure meets all setbacks and they do not need any exceptions or variances. Per our FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, dated July 9, 2020, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety at the proposed facility. The tower won’t be lit.

Fire Chief Oleson said he did speak with them and he is waiting on some things from them in writing. Mr. Fadden will reach out and meet with the Road Agent before the next meeting.
Chairman Foti asked if there were any questions from the Board re: completeness.
Attorney Parisi asked if is appropriate for the public to address the completeness of the application? Attorney Grill said it was out of order. Attorney Parisi said there is missing documentation in their application.
A motion was made by Mike Finn to accept the application as complete. The motion was seconded by Julie Roesberry. All in favor, 5-0. Motion passed. The application has been accepted as complete.

The proposed site for the tower is located off Route 3 North, Map 401, Lot 005. It is a 462-acre parcel and is one of the lots that comprises 1,600 acres owned by Bayroot. The lot is mostly all wooded. They do some clearing or selectively cut in the back. They are going to follow the existing path cut. 25-foot wide accessed to a 100 x100 foot compound area. It is 450 feet to the site. There is a flared entrance because people pull off in this area. They will utilize that same road in so it is flared when you pull out. Some wetlands have been delineated by a wetlands expert. It is an 80 x 80-foot fenced area. The tower is a 170-foot lattice tower in the center of the 80 x 80-foot fenced area. The Town will have free use of space on the top of the tower and ground area, similar to what has been done next door. Fall zone radius and setbacks have been submitted. 120% of the tower height, 225 feet. No cut area. Meets all setbacks, not looking for any waiver. 12-foot gate in the front. Emergency services will have a combination to access that gate. 8-foot high chain link, anti-climb fence. 12-foot gravel driveway going from the gate to the road. Underground utilities all the way to the compound. At the entrance it is approximately 1,175 foot then it drops down to the gate at 1,155, 20-foot drop from the gate to the compound. That is about a 4% grade. Very easy driveway. Very gradual slope of 4%. Lattice tower with 5 carriers. Propane generator, hospital grade. That is a quick overview of the package.

Mr. Delaney, Engineering and Regulatory Compliance Manager said that the radio frequency pass between the tours to the phones. We need to run propagation studies that identify gaps. Industrial Communications is the carrier. Verizon Wireless, Dish network, will come to the towers. Propagation studies is the way to identify issues in the networks. After a gap is identified a search for a suitable site is done, utilizing the radio frequency characteristics, locations, heights, tree canopy and other existing towers. Other considerations are: constructability of the site, availability and a willing landowner to put the tower on their property, zoning criteria, wetlands.

The proposed site is 3.5 miles to the Whitefield site and 4.0 miles to the Carroll site. ITW own both those sites, and Verizon Wireless and ATT will be installing their antennas this fall. They picked a location that met the criteria of the by-laws and can’t have an impact on the mountain scenery in the area. The currents towers don’t connect to each other—they are too far away. This is what has led to the gap in coverage. They have been looking for the right property for two years. Kevin reviewed PCS coverage maps without and with the proposed tower. The gap itself is 4 ½ miles on Route 3 and 3 ½ miles on Route 115. You can’t get too close to an existing tower. He knows the consultant will review all these details. There are 140 homes who don’t have coverage in that gap. It is an important area for coverage. You don’t want to be breaking down in that area with no coverage. We think we have the best site here and we appreciate the Board listening to their presentation tonight. There is no impact on the view of mountain scenery of the Presidential Range of the White Mountains. FAA Determination of no hazard to air navigation, therefore, no lighting required. There will be signage as required by FCC to identify site, mini-mesh anti-climb chain link fence surrounding the site, locked gates at entrance to site and compound. 1,500 feet from nearest (and only nearby) dwelling
ITW Advantage: Carroll Landowner & Taxpayer, Owner of Twin Mountain Tower, Local ITW Construction Crew & Tower Technicians, In house leasing and permitting, we are local and will respond, we have our own in house electricians, we do our own tower erection and have our own tower technicians, no one climbs our site but our own people, we do our own landscaping and maintenance. We have a Warehouse and Satellite Office in Dunbarton, New Hampshire. We aim to be good neighbors with the abutters and the Town.

Mike Finn asked what the reason was for the difference in the height of the towers. Mr. Delaney said our ground elevation is lower so we need the additional height to cover the area from Whitefield to Carroll and to get down to that hole we need that extra height. It is a topography issue.

Chairman Foti said we have been debating the possibility of repeating the balloon test to see the two sites on the same day then there will be no questions on weather conditions and they both will be exactly under the same circumstances. Attorney Parisi agreed to repeating the test for Vertex Towers.
It is usually a third party who does the balloon test. It would be best to use the same company on the same day and time for both balloon tests. It was decided to pick a date now so we can get it advertised. It is hard to predict the winds, but if they are both done on the same day then they will both be under the same conditions. The advertising is due on Friday for the following week. It was decided to do the balloon tests on Tuesday the 22nd first date, earlier the better, 8:00 am – 11:00 a.m.
Rain date: 23rd, 24th or 25 depending on weather.
The meeting was open to the public for comment.

Ben Jellison thanked the Board for their service and time for this process. Ben said as an abutter and neighbor of ITW, the tower next door, they have been great neighbors. They allow snowmobile access across their property. They have been good neighbors for the three years they have been in town. They are a good neighbor in terms of being neighborly.

Chairperson Foti said that there is a consultant, and he will have questions. He is out next week, but he should be able to wrap this up by later in the month.

Voluntary Merger Application
BW Development LLC
Property Address: 6 Dartmouth Ridge Road (Map & Lot: 208-006-007-006) and 7 Dartmouth Ridge Road (Map & Lot: 208-006-008-007)
A motion was made by Chairman Foti to accept and approve this voluntary merger application. The motion was seconded by Bonnie Moroney. All in favor, 5-0. Motion passed.
Terry Penner made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bonnie Moroney seconded the motion. All in favor, 5-0. Motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.