Planning Board Minutes

Minutes of 10/1/2020

October 7th, 2020

Carroll Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 1, 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 David Scalley, Terry Penner.

ZBA Members Present: Janet Nelson, Andy Smith, Chairman Aaron Foti, Ken Mills, Sandy Pothier, Selectmen’s Representative Rob Gauthier

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

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.
Heather Brown, Planning & Zoning; Tadd Bailey, Police Chief; Jeremy Oleson, Fire Chief; Ben Jellison, Brian Mycko, Michael Hogan, Michele Penner, Kevin Leonard, Andy Smith, Richard Sierpina, Carmen Burns, Robert Burns.

Minutes Taken by: Judy Ramsdell, Secretary

Pledge of Allegiance

The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.

Approval of Minutes
Chair Foti asked if there were any edits or comments on the September 3, 2020 minutes. There were no comments or edits made. Mike Finn made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Terry Penner seconded the motion. The motion passed. David Scalley abstained.

Appoint Alternates

Joint Hearing with ZBA
Chairman Foti explained that we are in the middle of reviewing two applications for cell phone towers who have both submitted applications. The ZBA has requested to hold joint hearings primarily for efficiency. The questions are relative to both boards. This will make the meetings more efficient.

Mike Finn made a motion to agree with the request by the ZBA for joint meetings for the cell tower applications. The motion was seconded by Alex Foti. The motion passed unanimously.

Terry Penner said he is recusing himself from the joint meetings as he has a personal relationship with one of the property owners. There were no objections to Terry recusing himself.
We have some new folks on the Planning Board. David Scalley is going to join us as the new selectmen’s representative to the Planning Board. We have two alternates: Mike Hogan and Brian Mycko. A motion was made by Mike Finn to accept these two alternates to the Planning Board. The motion was seconded by Alex Foti. The motion passed unanimously. The two planning board alternates were sworn in by the Town Clerk. The Boards sat jointly at the table and introduced themselves.

Chairman Foti said that there is one letter we received from Vernon and Barbara Amirault. Chairman Alex Foti read the letter. They said they were out of town for the meeting and unable to attend. They said as abutters they have no objection for the construction of a tower. They said their recommendation would be to go with the Vertex Tower Assets plan. A copy of the letter is attached to the minutes.

Chairman Foti said that we do have a consultant who is doing a review of both applications. We do not yet have the results from his review. Data is going back and forth. We expect to have the data review late next week. We do have the results from the balloon tests, and we would invite the applicants to give us an overview of these balloon test results.

Application – Vertex Tower Assets, LLC; Map/Lot: 408-002-001: New 151’ tall lattice style communications tower

Attorney Parisi representing Vertex Towers said that they have been to two planning board meetings and one zoning board meeting. An application has been submitted for a Special Use Permit and a request for a Site Plan Review with the Planning Board and an application for a Special Exception with the ZBA. Filed applications jointly back in July. Had our own visibility demonstration done earlier in the summer but did another one last week. Vertex Towers is a wireless infrastructure developer, we are not a carrier. Carriers like Verizon, AT&T, have gotten out of the real estate business and partnered with companies like Vertex. We have had successful tower applications in Lisbon, Jefferson, Woodstock, Bristol, Conway, and have several other applications pending. Have worked with many cities and towns. We can be more thoughtful by using existing real estate data, zoning by-laws and radio frequency data. We look at the town’s concerns. We are real estate developers. The town has engaged a wireless consultant. We have provided all the information that has been requested so far, i.e. field data and radio frequency data. Supplied additional data. Yesterday we submitted supplement no. 4 which included: Response to the Town’s RF consultant, with attachments; Photographic Simulation Package from 9/22/2020 Visibility Demonstration, and the Timberline Communications, Inc. Safety Plan. An issue came up with the fire chief when he asked us to meet with him to review safety protocols. We met with the Road Agent, who has no issues. The site is being accessed by an existing driveway that is already there. The Fire Chief was concerned that we know what we are doing. We don’t rely on lawyers, we engage experienced and qualified contractors and who have experience with building these facilities. They are incredibly safety conscious. Be sure it is secure, very extensive safety protocol. The people we use train other people to build structures like this.

Attorney Parisi wanted to review the photographs from the Photographic Simulation Package. We are proposing a 150’ tower with a small lighting rod on top. The balloon is actually higher than the top of the tower. We engage a consultant to do this simulation. They can do software analysis to indicate where there may be visibility. They use photographic simulations to show what it will look like with the tower. It is not invisible. Given the setback and tree cover and development around it, it has minimal visibility. It addresses the town’s concerns with visibility. He reviewed the photos from the areas that were identified. It is an unmanned facility after construction. The antennas are about 8 feet in length and 10 feet apart. They put up balloons at 20 feet and 40 feet lower. Attorney Parisi reviewed the photos in their Photographic Simulation Package from 9/22/2020. They can’t go on private property to conduct these tests. They have taken advantage of the tree canopy, tree buffer and terrain. It is not invisible but the site does address the town’s concern with visibility. The tower is not visible from the entrance to the site. There is some visibility .19 miles north of the site. It will be obscured with the tree cover. There is visibility .19 miles from the site by the blue house. The tower is not visible from Lennon Road sites. There is some visibility .54 miles and .83 miles. There is also some visibility 1.11 miles at the top of the trees, but mostly obscured by the trees. Mike Finn asked about photo #3 from the blue house. Attorney Parisi said it is visible from the road, but is not visible from the house. The lot itself is 22 acres. It has never been logged and will not be logged. We will agree to that. The tree canopy today is going to be the tree canopy for the life of the tower. The trees around will remain. Just an area will be cleared for the 80x80 facility.

Chairperson Foti asked if there were any questions from the PB or ZBA members.

--Dave Scalley asked how tall the rod is going to be on top of the tower?
Attorney Parisi said it is a six-foot lightning rod, which is 6 feet of rebar. The tower itself is 150’.

--Vendors accessing the tower?
Attorney Parisi said what we can guestimate are 4-5 carriers. Vendor neutral. Depending what a carrier will put on it, it is structurally and the right height to carry 4-5 carriers and we are hoping they all come. It is uncertain how many will come. Try to do the best we can in a very rapidly evolving telecommunications environment. No commitments from any carriers at this time. The process takes about two years. We go through an extensive process which includes an extensive engineering process, federally regulated process, no endangered species. They don’t have any commitments at this time. They have placed their site in a strategic area to cover the gaps we have in the area.

--Is the driveway going to have a gate to protect others from entering?
Attorney Parisi said that we will agree to that and add it to the plans. We will guarantee it is not going to be logged. We will agree to what the Town wants. We will agree to any type of restrictive covenants.

--Would you allow a restriction like AT&T doesn’t want any other carriers on it?
Vertex is carrier neutral, and we would not allow that restriction. We are real estate developers. We have done it with AT&T and Verizon with other towers. They rent 10 feet on the tower. Plenty of height and space on the ground to accommodate four to five carriers. We build infrastructure so they don’t have to. The model really works and we have been successful with that.

--Mike Finn asked if you put the tower in and the business plan says we have to have three carriers and that doesn’t happen, what do you do?
Attorney Parisi said we would not build it without a commitment. They currently don’t have a commitment. They invest the money in engineering and real estate. They won’t build it without a commitment. Confident the carriers need this. There is a lot of publicly available data that shows this tower fills a coverage gap. It is an expensive endeavor. It is worth it for them and for the Town of Carroll go through the process to get some of the leg work out of the way. We just finished permitting in Holderness, and during the process AT&T and Verizon came on board. Attorney Parisi said we are not going to build this if they don’t have a commitment. Steve Keller said we go through approval process, and permits are good for two years. There is a federal process, and we are build-ready. We don’t want to put up a tower with no tenants on it. If the carrier comes on, it is six to eight weeks to put it up.

--How many permits have you had approved without carriers?
Permitted tower in Lancaster five years ago and that is just being built now. Permitted two in Lisbon and now going through the federal process. Water Wheel in Jefferson, New England Wireless Networks jumped on during the middle of the process. It is strategic putting capital to work. Everyone is spending money and 90% of the time you are successful and when you are not it is the cost of doing business.

--Ken Mills asked when going through the process when do you decide if you are going to build?
It can be $30,000-$50,000 worth of work to do what we have done. The towns don’t want towers that nobody is using. The risk is Vertex’s. Land owners don’t exercise until you commence.

--Alex Foti said that Vertex submitted data to the consultant. Were there any questions or concerns you had? Attorney Parisi said the one thing they did do was a very extensive field test, drive test. You can go along and measure the signal. We are not doing this on speculation. We do it based on data, actual field measurements. We provided all our data that to the consultant.

--Aaron Foti asked: would you build with just one carrier?
Attorney Parisi said yes, one justifies going forward and if the rest come that is good and if they don’t it doesn’t matter. One carrier went on the Carroll tower and a different carrier went on the Whitefield tower and then those two came on both of them. We have extensive marketing efforts. There are so many different variables. Covid slowed things down. AT&T and Sprint merged. T-Mobile has plans to come back here. We are always in communications with the carriers. It is in Carroll’s best interest we go through this process. Build-ready is more attractive to the carriers than not being ready. We have gotten 20-30 permits, and we have built 10 of them. We have walked away from zero. We are not here today but may be here tomorrow or next year. We have done the due diligence, which makes it more attractive to encourage the telecommunication carriers to come.

--Are there any other areas you feel may need carriers in Carroll?
Carroll is a unique shape. Existing tower next door here. There are some antennas on top of the Mt. Washington Hotel. Between here and there is a long stretch. Might be a need to connect to those. The real issue is between here and I-93, but there is no available land. We can’t solve every problem. Focus on specific areas.

--Do you have successful contracts with all the carriers?
Absolutely.

--Ken asked if there any towers that only have one carrier?
Look along the I-93 corridor. It is like a totem pole. As you drive along you see some four-carrier towers. When you get off the corridor, there are very few. Eventually the plan is that every tower will have every carrier. Long and thoughtful process.
Chair Foti asked if there any comments from the public.
The Boards would like to confirm with Chief Oleson that the conversations happened. Chief Oleson said that he did meet with him and there may has been confusion what he was talking about. Chief Oleson is concerned with the safety protocol after the fact when the tower is already there, and how things are managed then. We know they follow the guidelines during construction. It is the in-between times. The other item is if we do have access to that tower for public safety radio, we would like what are we getting in writing so we understand what the costs will be if we try to get something up there on our end.

Application – Industrial Tower & Wireless, LLC/Bayroot, LLC Map/Lot: 401-005
New 170’ tall lattice telecommunications tower

Kevin Delaney, introduced their team who is present tonight: Kevin Fadden, Shayna Galinat, and Counsel Steve Grill.

We are a cell carrier and provide the service to other carriers. We do everything in-house. We have our own crews, and we know who is coming in and out of the facility. Have experience and take pride in what we do. Local company with an office in Dunbarton, N.H. Work all throughout New England. We will focus on the visual aspects. On Tuesday September 22nd a balloon test was conducted with Virtual Site Simulation. It flew from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. as advertised in the Coos County Democrat. The balloons were at 170, 150, and 130 feet above ground level. Drove around and took photos. Kevin reviewed the photo simulation. Balloon not visible from the driveway into the facility. It was visible through the trees from the property across the street. Photo #3 south of the property .24 miles south it was not visible. At the hayfields, the proposed site was not visible. They thought it would be visible from the hay field leaving town. On Photo #5, 0.29 miles to the site looking south, you can see the 170 foot and 150-foot balloon. They did a simulation with what it would like with one carrier installed and one with five carriers installed. On photo #5, it is visible from .41 miles away because there are no trees there. Photo # 7, you can see it .52 miles away. .59 miles south it is visible from there. .61 miles south of the property, partially visible. .64 miles north looking south is not visible. .64 miles south look north is not visible. .82 miles north of site looking south, barely see it from there. .98 miles south looking north the balloon is not visible at all. 1.06 miles north looking south and you can barely see the top of the tower from that location. 1.24 miles south looking north not visible at all. Not visible from Whitefield location. 1.77 miles south of the property the balloon was not visible at all.

In summary, we gave an honest opinion where we thought it would be visible, Route 3 north by the hayfield and heading north to Whitefield and the photo simulation confirms it. Highest visibility point is when traveling along Route 3 North. It does not affect the view south. The carriers who are available to go on the tower are: Verizon, T-Mobile, US Cellular, ATT&T and Dish Network.

Over the past 2 years, ITW’s site acquisition team has worked to find the optimal location. We own the tower next door in Twin Mountain, which has Verizon Wireless and AT&T will be going on as well. In Whitefield AT&T and Verizon are on that tower. We anticipate that they will co-locate on the proposed tower.

We offer free space for police and fire. The property we are looking at is not owned by a firm from a foreign country. We have given the Fire Chief extensive information on our training, which we are willing to offer to his staff. They offer the service of being local so they can be here. We know that there is a coverage gap in that area, and the propagation studies confirm that.

701 (1)(a): ITW has minimized the impacts on the unique natural assets of the Town, including its scenic mountain views, its recreational trail network accessing the White Mountain National Forest and its wilderness environment. The proposed tower does not minimize any impact on scenic mountain views including the Twin Mountains and the Presidential Range of the White Mountains. The highest visibility point is when traveling along Route 3 North leaving Carroll towards Whitefield.

701(1)(b): minimizing of the number and height of towers; avoiding congestion in their location and lessening the intrusive effect. ITW’s proposed tower is capable of collocating five carriers as opposed to four, thus minimizing the need for additional towers in the future.

701(1)(c): Conserving and enhancing property values:
--Nearest house is over 1,500 feet away
--Next closest house is over 2,700 feet away
--Provides coverage to over 140 homes
--5,500 cars a day travel on Route 3
--3,000 cars a day travel on Route 115

701(1)(d) Ensure optimum location of such facilities: Over the past two years, ITW’s site acquisition team has worked diligently to find the optimal location to provide superior coverage while minimizing the impact on the factors most important to the Town of Carroll.
Chair Foti asked if there were any questions for ITW.

--Will you build without a carrier?
Kevin said that we are so confident that we will build without a carrier. By the time we are done, we know they will be ready to go on. We will put a stipulation in if the tower is unused longer than a year, we have to take it down. It will be up and the antennas for the carriers can be put on.

Kevin said he just wants to mention the initial balloon test done by Vertex, they said the tower will not be visible and he wants to be sure we know it is visible. You can see in the balloon test from the windy day compared to the test last week.

--Dave Scalley asked in comparing the views, has anyone taken a full photo of both balloon tests where you can see them together?
They are in opposite directions so it couldn’t be captured in one photo.

--Mike Hogan asked about the tower if they didn’t have carriers?
Kevin said even if there are no carriers, we will put it up. Once it is up, it is structurally capable of adding five carriers. The first carrier goes at the top and then you work down. They will be at 170’, then the next one will be 10’ below. As we get other carriers interested, we can have five plus and any radio communication equipment.

--Alex asked: Would you only allow one carrier?
That is how it would be years ago, but it does not make sense today to allow only one carrier.
--Kevin said this has been a two-year process for it. Janet Nelson said she thought ITW said you were only aware of the tower going up because of the abutter notices? The company has been looking in the area for two years.

--It was stated that 140 houses will get service—do they not have service now?
They either have zero service or very weak service.

--Ken Mills asked if the company is open to the condition to tear the tower down if it is not used within a year?
Kevin said that they are open to that condition.

--Janet Nelson said that she did go out and look at the balloon test. She appreciated it. You see the pictures, but it is difficult to see if you were living here but having the balloons on the same day was very helpful and is appreciated.

--Brian asked if you don’t get a national carrier in a year, you will take the tower down?
Kevin said yes.

--Brian said he thought it seems like from the second group we saw more photos. Does the Board have all the pictures that were taken?
We saw all the photos. They were both done by the same company, Virtual Site Simulations. The simulations for both balloon tests showed simulations with five carriers and one carrier.

--Ken Mills asked about the 10-foot antenna at the top?
Kevin said that is where the emergency service will go and it is also for their two-way radio system as well. The lighting rod is 6 feet as well. The lighting rod is lower than the 10-foot omni antenna. They are at 180’ total.

Chair Foti asked if they were more questions or comments from the public?

Chair Foti thanked the companies for their presentations.

Alex said we can continue the joint hearing until the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Board, which will be November 5th at 7:00 p.m.

Dave Scalley asked if there anything in our RSA and rules and regulations that say we have to approve one of the applications. Chair Foti said that we have to have a very good reason not to approve one of the applications. Chair Foti said that we are awaiting third party review. We will continue this as joint hearing until November 5th.

Mike Finn made a motion to continue this joint hearing to the next Planning Board meeting scheduled for November 5, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. Brian Mycko seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion passes unanimously.

Mike Finn made a motion to move Item #10 of the agenda for the ordinance follow-up so Chief Bailey and Chief Oleson can participate. The motion was seconded by Dave Scalley. All in favor, the motion passes unanimously.

Ordinance Follow-Up
Chair Foti said that we had a healthy and vigorous debate over the town being a resort community and challenges it presents with the number of visitors doing vacation rentals and one of the challenges is noise control and how do we get people to behave and prevent the disturbances that make for very unhappy neighbors and residents. There are a number of options and looking at what other towns have done. Some towns have done a registration process. It is difficult to limit it in zones in town as we allow for short-term rentals. There is concern that there shouldn’t be businesses in residential areas when actually it is happening. Is there more we can do? There is currently no ordinance to allow a police officer to say you are too loud, and say here is a ticket and if I have to come back there will be additional penalties.

Mike Finn contacted the Town of Newport and the Town of Narragansett. They came up with a registration for anyone who rented properties. If you rent out your property, you have to register it. They were required to register, and they received a sticker that went on the window to say this property is rented out. Especially with these two towns, college parties were commonplace activity. There was some information they gave on ordinances and what constituted a violation. It gave some teeth for the town to give citations and a fine schedule was put in. Alex sent one from the Town of Durham, which deals with noise. Looks like these towns have had problems. Not sure if it cured the problem to the degree they wanted. From the research done, he would suggest we make a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen we follow this process as well. We could put a package together and have them review it and go to the Board of Selectmen.

Chief Oleson said people are putting sleeping spaces where there should not be any. Alex’s concern is resources—do we have the bandwidth to do the inspections and the registration? Chief Oleson said we don’t need to go back every year once it got started. We would look at the number of people going to single family homes. Sometimes you have up to 10-14 people. They have people staying where they shouldn’t be. The noise is the big issue, but if we can whittle the number of people down who can be there that would help.

Police Chief Bailey does not have a specific noise ordinance. We deal with it with as a disorderly conduct. Most of the renters are from out of state. It is a problem to enforce it through disorderly conduct. Since the Air BNBs have opened up, we have had a big increase in noise complaints. It is the same problem with new people over and over. How do we build it into an ordinance? Whatever the fine is that is set up just keep in mind we can’t go above $1,200 because it is only a violation level offense. It was suggested if a year goes by and we haven’t responded then the fine schedule starts over. Terry Penner said he is talking about fining the owner. It is a cost of doing business.

Brian said the owner does not care at all because it is cash for him. What can we do to stop the noise? You get new renters every weekend, unless the owner is made aware and it affects him it will keep happening. We have the same problem every weekend. We need to let the owners know that we have a new ordinance in town, and you are going to be responsible for that fine. If you are anticipating problems, then you shouldn’t be renting. Alex said that when you rent through an agent, you can’t just say I am not going to rent to them because I have a suspicion, it could fall under discrimination.

Mike Hogan said all Air BNBs are registered through the state so when they register with the state they should register with the town. We could put teeth in the ordinance if there is a problem with a renter you will lose your permission to rent your property. We have to go after the owner. Alex said it is not always the owner’s fault. Brian said that there are owners specifically advertising these houses as party houses. You can potentially hurt legitimate owners. Portsmouth does not allow short-term rentals. We don’t have that in the Carroll ordinance. How many Air BNBs residences in Carroll? Mike Hogan thought 1200. Chief Tad thought about 200. Air BNBs that have changed hands is where we are having issues. It is not working now and how it is handled through the owner. It is new people every week. Give them a town ordinance they are not going to pay. They have to deal with it eventually. They will be given a court date, don’t pay within 30 days then they go to court. Brian thinks we should go after the owner. If the owner goes to Air BNB and says I got a fine then that person will no longer be able to rent through Air BNB.

Aaron Foti said if we have some teeth in our ordinance and registered properties are required to have a manager within a certain distance or time frame. You are not only registered but you have someone who is not the police to go to the property, someone local to manage the property. Granted we are only talking about a handful of properties. Brian thinks that would be a good idea. Got called here because I got a noise complaint, then it might work. Not a bad idea.

How do you limit capacity? Some of these places are being rented without legal sleeping facilities. Dave Scalley said that the State of NH doesn’t look at building contractor’s licenses so who is going to track these registrations? We could have a fine structure so if a place is not registered there is a fine for that. There could be fees associated with the registration.

Dave said he is uncomfortable requiring an agent, or a representative, somebody who can be available within 30 minutes. Distance is easier to quantify. We don’t want someone living in Rhode Island to be the one to respond. Dave can’t see the town policing the properties. Brian said that there are people ready to sue because of these Air BNBs. It has gotten so nasty and so out of control. They are running a business in a residential area.

Andy Smith said it sounds good but it will be a logistical and financial nightmare for the town to enforce. If you have the ordinances to give the officials a fine structure that fines the property owner and maybe the noisemakers. Have to give the police the authority and also fine the property owner. Getting into registration we will never be able to police that. Manpower is way beyond what the town can handle. We don’t have the resources to manage the current ordinance.

Chief Bailey said occupancy and noise is what we have to look at. Noise can be enforced with a disorderly conduct charge.

Alex said the Town of Durham did a very comprehensive well-done noise ordinance that addresses different noises. If you disturbing others, you are causing issues. The Town of Durham plan covers a lot of the noise complaints. It was noted that a noise ordinance presented in the past failed miserably at town meeting. Chief Bailey said we have to enforce the problem at hand but the homeowners have to be brought in as well. The Durham ordinance is based on when there is noise, they get a ticket. The noise ordinances apply to everyone not just Air BNBs.

Mike Finn said we had residents who registered a complaint, so we have to do something. The police chief is looking for some jurisdiction. Mike thinks we should put something together to start with. He doesn’t think we should have someone chasing people. We have to put something together, flush it out have the police chief and fire chief review it and put in what we think is appropriate and they can decide what they want to do. We will move forward and put something together.

Consultation – Map 204, Lot 5 – Northpoint Engineering, Kevin Leonard
Kevin said he is here on behalf of the applicant, 3G Eagle, LLC and the property is Map 204, Lot 5 which we plan to subdivide off approximately 11 acres of a 43-acre parcel to do a multi-building commercial development. There is an island inside the lot, which is Map 204, Lot 6. Pike has done some excavation in the area. Most of it is wooded. It is right across from UPS and Ledoux Drive. The plan is to put in a common access driveway off on NH Route 3. Pike, parent property, will have access rights across the drive for their future use. The property is zoned industrial and has some rural zoning as well and rural residential business as well. Because of the wetlands and steep slope, the bottom of the property will be untouched. We are proposing three building sites. We have a construction manager and real estate agent on board. We are looking for interested parties looking for space. We do have someone lined up to take one of the buildings. They will have four loading docks inside the building. Truck into the site off-loading sort of transfer depot to go out to the north country. The building is similar in size to the UPS building. Loading docks in the back. The southerly building would be bays of 20 feet by 40 feet with overhead doors in the back. There is flexibility. Something like an Amazon pick-up center. No traffic study has been done. Dave Scalley asked if the building for contractors would be condoized for the owners? Kevin said that the goal for the moment is to acquire the property until we have some approvals going through the local and state approval process. We will need a D.O.T. driveway permit, alteration of terrain permit, septic system design approval, and we are talking about a water main extension from the existing Parker Road 8” watermain across Ledoux Drive and under the highway to service the development. Water is a value for fire protection, and if you don’t have municipal water, it is a hassle. Dave Scalley said that the new water rules require looped lines. We don’t want any additional dead ends on the water lines.

Kevin’s questions:
--The surveyor is going to start next week. Would we be required to survey the whole 43-acre parcel. It seems vague in the checklist. They are only buying 11 acres and Pike will keep 32 acres. Dave said he feels they would need to survey the entire 43-acre parcel if they are going to subdivide 11 acres. What are the zoning concerns? We will have to get back to him on the subdivision requirement.

--In reference to the aquifer protection area, Kevin is not sure if he is in the aquifer zone looking at the GIS.

--This new 11-acre lot would see site plan approval for phased development with potentially three buildings as depicted on the conceptual site plan. They are not going to build the buildings if they don’t have a user for them. They are ready to move on the first building. We are looking at this as Planned Unit Development. He said he could present it in phases. He knows he is coming here this winter for Phase I to start construction next year.

--Kevin asked if the water main regulation was a hard regulation? Dave Scalley said that we don’t want to dead-end water lines. We are looking at looping the water lines. The loop is from the main back to the main. Kevin said he will look closer at that.

--Kevin said that 100-foot setback by zoning right now pushes these buildings way back. There is a section in the ordinance, at the top of Page 64, that gives the Planning Board the authority to reduce or waive minimum lot size, minimum setbacks, maximum percentage of lot coverage, and minimum lot width for PUD’s. Kevin is asking if you think in this area will you really want the 100-foot setback, or would you entertain reducing that? Cross that bridge when we come to it. We haven’t been doing these developments. Kevin said the concept is trying to promote strong planned growth. This region is residential across the street but it is pretty zoned industrial on Route 3. Kevin said he is trying to do a complex with a single point of access. What do users need in Carroll? 100 feet is a big front setback. If it was smaller setback, we might be able to fit bigger buildings. Dave said there is a lot of hot top there. Kevin said we are thinking distribution or warehouse.

--Kevin said that the snowmobile trail goes through there, what is the story with that? Brian is the President of the snowmobile club, and he said they are trying to get to Patio Motel. They are open to moving the trail.

--Kevin said If anybody knows of any users or types of spaces people are looking for let him know. Chair Foti said we have some homework to do, and Kevin said he will be back after it is surveyed.

Consultation – Map 208, Lot 13 (AKA Lot 15 Eames Property) Dartmouth Ridge Road
--Peabody & Smith Realty, Inc., Managing Broker, Michele Penner

Mike Finn said he would like to get permission from the Board and audience to recuse himself. He feels he should recuse himself as he is on the Board of Dartmouth Ridge Association, where he has judiciary responsibility and lives across the street from the lot. He would feel more comfortable to recuse himself.

Michele Penner said they are here for guidance. Jerry Eames is here as well as he owns the lot. This lot is listed for sale, and a prospective buyer is inquiring on the lot, and their builder has indicated that to build a driveway from the bottom of the lot on Dartmouth Ridge Road would be nearly impossible due to the elevation of the land, as well as a 25-foot easement up the right side of the lot. They are looking to be able to access the property from the back of the lot.

There is a deeded right-of-way to that 30-acre parcel. There is a 50-foot right-of-way from just after the turn around on Dartmouth Ridge Road all the way up and around for the 30-acre parcel. Michele said they are looking to gain permission to use this 50-right-of-way. There are also lots, 15 and 16, owned by Omni that would need to use this right-of-way when they are developed.
They are trying to determine who owns the right-of-way, and how they can access that? The builder says to access it from the front road it is straight up and would be nearly impossible. We want to access it from the back of the 50-foot easement, which also accesses those two lots that Omni owns. That was a proposed subdivision. The lot in question should be accessed from Dartmouth Ridge Road. If the parcel is going to be developed, the only way is to extend the road is past Bode’s house. The front of the lot is solid boulders, and it was never intended to be put in the front. The only way that makes any sense is a short extension. Dartmouth Brook subdivision shows access beyond Bode’s house.

Mike Finn said that the plan was approved by the Planning Board in 2008. The road that Michele talked about actually ends before the Finn’s property. There is a question of ownership. We even paved sections of that road. He was the last house to be built, but even the road before his house there is no ownership of it. The Dartmouth Ridge Board has no objections going behind that property, but we don’t own it.

Dave Scalley said that the main issue is we can’t as a board allow two driveways off an existing road. This goes away if Dartmouth Ridge Road is extended past the lot in question. Then it becomes how do you get that road extended and who owns it?

Mike Finn said usually when someone has deeded access, they can’t give access to someone else.
The plans that were approved in 2008 shows the easement. Can the planning board turn around and again approve that set of plans and use that as a starting point? It gets the ball started.

If they came to us will you give us approval to put the road in? We can’t give you approval. The big question is who owns that property. It is believed it may be owned by Omni. Mr. Eames said that he believes he can get a letter from Omni to use that road. The two lots that Omni own are part of the Dartmouth Brook subdivision plan. It is separate from Dartmouth Ridge. Those lots were already approved. Only way to get to those is to extend the Dartmouth Ridge Road. Omni is claiming they don’t own it.

What would the town’s requirement be to extend that access from the 50-foot right of way? Dave said it would have to be a road with a hammerhead for a fire truck to turn around. Michele said there are dead ends up there now. Dave said that we aren’t going to make a problem worse. If Omni wanted to develop these two lots, they would have to extend Dartmouth Ridge Road, which is a private road. There was a question if there was a drawing in the Dartmouth Brook subdivision showing those two lots owned by Omni being accessed from Dartmouth Ridge Road?

Right now, Omni can’t access those lots without building a road. Mr. Eames said that he will speak with the General Manager at Omni. What exactly is needed? We need that road to be extended. Dave said that you should take those two lots owned by Omni and make them part of Dartmouth Ridge Road and do the hammerhead properly for emergency vehicles to be able to turn around. How do we make that happen—do we need to come forward to the Planning Board to put a road in? Dave suggested coming to the Planning Board adding Dartmouth Brook to Dartmouth Ridge and put in a hammerhead and be done.

Discussion – Comments or Concerns with proposed collocation of antenna on flagpole
Letter received 9/24/2020 – CBRE Project TS00523906; Flagpole at Mt. Washington Hotel
The Planning Board received a letter from CBRE on behalf of AT&T Mobility, LLC to solicit the Board’s input concerning a proposed collocation of antennas on an existing 141-foot flagpole on top of the building along with the installation of ancillary equipment at the Mt. Washington Hotel.

Chair Foti asked if there any concerns about these antennas being added? Mike Finn said they have come before with the same request. Nobody has any concerns.
Discussion – Clarify Submission Timelines
Chair Foti said that we noticed lack of clarity for timelines for applications. We want to take the opportunity to make things a little cleaner and decide on timelines for consultation. There is no statute on a timeframe for consultation. It is up to the Board to decide. Dave and Brian said in the past it has been 10 days, which gives us time to get the information out. The Board only meets once a month.

We have to set some parameters for consultation. It was decided that materials for consultations have to be in the Wednesday the week before the meeting. Agendas will be out the Thursday the week before the meeting. If it doesn’t work out, we can always change it.

Applications have to be in 15-21 days before the meeting as regulated by the RSA’s. We will stay at 21.
Notices need to go out 10 days prior to the meeting.
Notices of the meeting will be posted 24 hours prior to the meeting in two public places.

Notice of a Public Hearing is 10 days.
Voluntary Mergers are essentially unregulated
Heather and Alex will work on amending the Rules of Procedures for the next meeting.

Budget
The Board reviewed the Planning Board budget to be presented to the Selectmen. It was mentioned that the Master Plan Update should be tackled in the coming year. Dave Scalley made a motion to carry the same budget. Brian Mycko seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passes.

The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m.