Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 12/20/2022Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes RECEIVED December 20, 2022 j OW N CLERKS OFFICE Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and 7023 APR 19 A 8* 31 Virtually Using GoToWebinarPlatform h A;NSFIELD K% Wlii1SETTS Present: Darlene Pruitt, Acting Chair; Matthew List, Associate; Ryan Maxwell, Associate; Eric Correira; Matthew Cummings Nadine DePillo, Administrative Secretary Absent: None >r,.i► Bn�rdf x el Mesta g pad eiit (lel vl�t Application of Bay Communications III, LLC and T-Mobile Northeast LLC for a Variance from Zoning Bylaws Section 230-3.6(G)(4)(a) requested setback less than the required distance equal to height of tower; Section 230-3.6(G)(4)(b) requested height of structure higher than allowed without additional colocations; Section 230-3.6(G)(4)(g) allowing a setback of less than 500 feet from a residential structure at 300 Branch Street; (Assessor's Map/Parcel 32/9) in the Residential 1 (RI) Zone. Darlene Pruitt, Acting Chair read public notice into record. Ms. Pruitt appointed Matthew Cummings as acting Clerk; Ryan Maxwell and Matthew List as voting members. Applicants' Attorney Michael Dolan from Brown Rudnick, LLP and co -applicant, Mr. Vincent Granese of Bay Communications III and T-Mobile Northeast LLC were present. Attorney Dolan stated that his client is seeking relief from the above referenced variances for the property of 300 Branch Street to construct a monopole -style tower, to a height of 120 feet above ground level ("AGL") The monopole will be 80 feet from plan side lot line. Attorney Dolan stated that the monopole -style telecommunications antenna tower will be camouflaged as a tree with faux branches. The monopole will not be visible from nearly all vantage points and from the limited few locations that it will be able to be seen, it will be predominantly far off in the distance low to the horizon and obscured by trees canopies. Attorney Dolan explained that the facility will be enclosed with a 50x5O foot chain link fence and will be accessed via the existing paved parking lot area which will connect to the by an added 12-foot-wide gravel driveway. Attorney Dolan expressed that Bay Communications III, LLC and T-Mobile Northeast, per the plans submitted in order to fill the gap in network coverage, T-Mobile Northeast LLC is proposing to install above ground level ("AGL"), six (6) T-Mobile panel antennas at 114-foot AGL centerline height together with installing ground equipment including remote radio heads and an emergency powered generator. Attorney Dolan referenced that the monopole can hold antennas of three other wireless carriers in addition to T-Mobile's equipment he further stated that the site is well suited for a wireless communications facility and that the Site satisfies the intent and purposes of the Mansfield Bylaw and meets with all applicable requirements of the Bylaw to the extent possible. Attorney Dolan stated that the monopole is proposed to be set back more than the required 500 feet from the nearest residence but is within 500 feet (415) of an uninhabited shed on a nearby residential lot. Attorney Dolan explained that the proposed location is nearly entirely screened by existing vegetative growth so that potential visual impacts are minimized and the aesthetic qualities of the Town of Mansfield are preserved. Attorney Dolan further expressed that the facility will not be detrimental to the public good or contrary to the public interest and welfare. He stated that the facility will not adversely impact adjacent properties and neighborhoods as the facility will not produce smoke, odors, waste, glare or significant amounts of traffic and that on average only one round trip visit per month is required to service and maintain the monopole facility. The facility will aid in public safety by providing and improving wireless communications services to the residents, businesses, commuters, and emergency personnel utilizing wireless communications in the immediate vicinity and along the nearby roads. Attorney Dolan noted that the Mansfield Fire and Police departments had discussions with Bay Communications III, LLC about locating antennas on the proposed monopole due to holes in emergency services coverage. The facility will greatly improve emergency communications for police and fire personnel by reducing the number and frequency of dropped and incomplete calls due to weak signals. Attorney Dolan commented that on August 10, 2022 the Planning Board Granted a Special Permit regarding the application of Bay Communication III, LLC and T-Mobile Northeast for approval to construct a monopole -style tower to a height of 120-feet above ground level which is the minimum height necessary to T-Mobile to provide adequate coverage to this portion of the network. Attorney Dolan explained that T-Mobile's hardship and request for variance is owing to the shape and topography of the land and its location within T-Mobile's wireless communications services network, as well as the location of existing wetlands and riverfront buffers on the site. Mr. List asked that if the tree line is up to 70 feet and to tower were limited to only 80 feet, then would the gap in coverage be fulfilled. Mr. List also asked whether the height requirement for T-Mobile is need for the function of the radio frequency to work better. Attorney Dolan respond that T-Mobile needs a height of 120 feet for adequate signal coverage. He further stated that the type of network will determine the other carriers' height below T-Mobile and how far their signals are broadcasting. ZBA Drafted Meeting Minutes — December 20, 2022 Page 2 of 8 i i I Mr. List noted that the intent of Section 230-3.6(G)(4)(b) is to encourage collocations. He asked i whether the applicant would agree to negotiate in good faith with any other company seeking to collocate on the tower if the variance is approved. Attorney Dolan confirmed that the Planning Board granted the Special Permit for gap in coverage as submitted in that application. He also explained the industry standard is separation of ten feet between carriers' antennas. Mr. Granese explained that the ten feet of separation is required for every carrier because it eliminates interference between the carriers' signals. T-Mobile's antenna would be centered at 114 feet and would not exceed 120 feet because the antennas themselves are at eight feet which allows them four feet above and four feet below which would not exceed the 120-foot height of the tower, leaving room for the extra branches and camouflage. Ms. Pruitt had concerns that if the Town of Mansfield was interested in having space on the monopole along with the additional height of ten feet what the impact would be, if any, to other carriers on the monopole. Ms. Pruitt asked if the tower will be camouflaged and asked if the applicants of the site will be secured by fencing and a monitoring system. Mr. Granese replied that Bay Communications will install a six-foot fence with barb wire around the top of the fence. Mr. Granese explained that the Planning Board did not propose Bay Communications to put in a monitoring system for security, but would accept the monitoring system as a condition if required. Mr. Granese explained that Bay Communications has an operation center that monitors and detects if the network fails or power fails. Mr. Granese said that currently there is no security system planned for the site but that T-Mobile will consider the proposal. Mr. Granese stated that the consultants for the Police and Fire safety networks have been in touch with Bay Communications regarding accommodations for a tower antenna. Attorney Dolan explained that the monopole "tree -like" branches will not alter any signals or produce an adverse effect. Attorney Dolan explained that one of the abutters to the property had concerns about the density of the branches and Bay Communications worked with a design company that was able to create a tree with the density of three branches per foot, painted brown, to create a blending effect in the area of where the tower will be built.' Mr. Maxwell asked what is the terminology for the gap in coverage that is being used, the justification for the variances and who determines what is a gap in coverage, is it a T-Mobile term or and industry term. Mr. Maxwell asked about the signal strength of the tower, Attorney Dolan responded to Mr. Maxwell's comment in reference to the gap in coverage that it is an industry term and under the 1996 Telecommunications Act supporting case law. Mr. Granese responded to Mr. List by referencing a map of the proposed site illustrating the coverage areas of the different carriers and where the gaps is coverage are located. Mr. Correira had questioned the variance for the 80-foot setback that Bay Communications is seeking for T-Mobile and whether the Town is seeking a variance from itself as the land owner for the proposed site. Mr. Correira had concerns regarding access to the property behind the adult day care center. ZBA Drafted Meeting Minutes — December 20, 2022 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Granese responded that a road will be built on the Northeast corner of the parking lot behind the Adult Day Care Center. Attorney Dolan confirmed that the Town of Mansfield is seeking a variance from itself as it is the land owner for the proposed site. Attorney Dolan explained that Bay Communication's landlord is Quasi -Governmental Agency and the Town directed Bay Communications to the proposed location which has a swath of wetlands throughout and dense woods which would never be built on. Attorney Dolan stated that the current property is in a Conservation Trust. Attorney Dolan explained that the proposed monopole could not be moved further back on the property due to the wetlands in that area. Attorney Dolan expressed that the Zoning Board Bylaws allows up to 150 feet set -back and the applicant is only seeking a variance for the requested 120 feet. Attorney Dolan further stated the antennas cannot be wrapped because of the signals that needs to be broadcasted. Attorney Dolan stated that the antennae's can be painted brown and camouflaged to blend in with the other trees in the area. Mr. Granese stated that they are in continued contact with the Conservation Commission regarding the wetlands and potential trails. Board Comments: Mr. List inquired as to how the 500-foot radius was measured to the nearest resident and if it was based on aerial satellite photos. Attorney Dolan responded that the radius was measured from using satellite imagery, and the distance from the proposed monopole and to the nearest house is further away than the 500-foot Bylaw requirement. Mr. Granese stated that continued communication with Conservation Commission approval will be reviewed for trails and wetlands. Public Comment: Mr. Robert Mattice who resides at 288 Branch Street had some concerns regarding the variance process and concerns regarding usage of his shed with the proposed monopole directly 80 feet from the shed as being too close. Mr. Mattice stated that according to Bay Communications application, relief requested indicates that the monopole could reach as high as 150 feet and if this application is approved Mr. Mattice would like the Zoning Board to add an addendum that the proposed monopole cannot be any higher than 150 feet. He was also concerned that as a direct abutter, the proposed monopole would obstruct his view in difference months of the year when there is no tree foliage, Attorney Dolan responded that the proposed monopole will not infringe on anyone's property for usage of their sheds or other uses on their property. Attorney Dolan further explained that the Zoning Bylaws to allow a height of up to 150 feet and the applicant is only seeking a variance for 120 feet. Attorney Dolan further stated the antennas cannot be wrapped because that would restrict the signals that needs to be broadcasted. The antennae's can be painted brown and camouflaged to blend in with the trees in the area. ZBA Drafted Meeting Minutes — December 20, 2022 Page 4 of 8 Ms. Julie Galante who lives in proximity of the proposed monopole expressed that herself and other neighbors have concerns and opposition regarding the proposed monopole. Ms. Galante presented research and data concerning safety issues and lowering of property values. Ms. Galante expressed that the abutters and neighbors do not approve of this site. Ms. Galante had concerns on why it was necessary for Bay Communications to receive another variance for additional height for the proposed monopole when it was approved by the Planning Board of 90 feet. Attorney Dolan stated that submitted in their application was a report from MAI Certified appraiser that there would be no adverse impact on surrounding property values. Attorney Dolan stated that T-Mobile would not apply for a height of 90 feet because it would not provide coverage for T-Mobile as previously explained. Mr. List noted that the only change from this application and the Planning Board application was that the camouflage of the monopole was added, but the height requested of 120 feet remains the same. Mr. Jason Iannoni who resides at 380 Branch Street expressed concerns about the appraisals in the surrounding towns from the application submitted by Bay Communications, Mr. Iannoni stated that the Worcester house appraisals are within 250 feet of a monopole and the price of houses sold higher and houses that were much further away were comparable. Mr. Iannoni further stated that one of the houses had a powerline extending along back of the yard and another house powerline were extended in front of the yard. Mr. Iannoni referenced a Scituate appraisal and that the comparison of the house prices is higher near a monopole. Mr. Iannoni also stated that one of the houses located near an Elementary School and another house located 300 feet of the railroad tracks were all priced higher and that a Scituate house was appraised at $585,000.00 in 2009 and it sold for less three years later. Mr. Iannoni also stated that the applicant Bay Communications had no examples of homes near a monopole. Mr. Iannoni further stated that that the applicants' clients are Corporate companies such as Verizon Wireless, AT&T, T-Mobile, and New Cingular causing concern that the applicants might be bias and are overlooking the local residence in the area. Attorney Dolan responded regarding the application appraisal report and that a certified appraiser compiled data throughout the Commonwealth in what was an applicable example from which one could glean some sort of conclusion and his conclusion was based on the research and analysis conducted for the preparation of this market study. Attorney Dolan stated in his opinion that the proposed facility will not have any negative impact on the value of the surrounding properties. Motion: to approve a variance from Zoning Bylaw Section 230-3.6(G)(4)(a) requesting a setback less than the required distance equal to the height of the monopole tower, Section 230- 3.6(G)(4)(b) for the height of structure higher than allowed without additional collocation and Section 230-3.6(G)(4)(g) allowing a setback of less than 500 feet from a Residential structure per the presented plan sheet C-1.1 for the property at 300 Branch Street. (Cummings/List) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES ZBA Drafted Meeting Minutes — December 20, 2022 Page 5 of 8 Discussion: Mr. List asked whether or not the Board should vote at the same time for all three variances which was agreed upon by all the members. Mr. List stated that Bay Communications does not have three collocated tenants but has the capability to host three or more carriers. Mr. List further stated that the Planning Board granted a Special Permit because cell phone towers are not allowed in Rl, R2, and R3 zone without a Special Permit showing significant gap in coverage. The Planning Board granted a Special Permit to build in Residential Rl zone. Mr. List, Mr. Correira and Ms. Pruitt agreed that the abutter's shed is not attached to the house and that sheds are an accessory to the building. Mr. Maxwell stated that it is not defined what a residential structure is on a structure of a used property. Mr. Correira stated that a similar application came before the board which was withdrawn due to the fact that the abutters did not agree and lived in a new cul-de-sac and this application is proposing the monopole in a wooded and thick brush area. Mr. List discussed that application presented is in a wooded area and further back into the woods. Mr. List noted that the Telecommunications Act references that if the applicants have shown a substantial gap in coverage, then the Board may be limited in their ability to not grant the variance. Mr. List stated that if the proposed tower was limited to 80 feet in height this would not solve the significant gap, and if they were limited to 90 feet this would still not solve the significant gap in coverage. The gap in coverage is a hardship due partially to the unusual shape. Application of Denise Lydon for a Finding from Zoning Bylaw Section 230-4.2 for a proposed front yard setback of 13.6 feet where 30 feet is required at 17 Eddy Street; (Assessor's Map/Parcel 27/154 in Residential 3 (R3) Zone. The Applicant Denise Lydon was present and explained that she has lived at the residence since 2014. Ms. Lydon is proposing to construct an addition to the home extending the front and side of the house for a new kitchen, great room and new deck. In June of 2022 Ms. Lydon suffered a house fire that damaged the entire home causing Ms. Lydon and her family to be displaced. Ms. Lydon is seeking to rebuild on the same footings as the prior home while extending out to the side no more than 15 feet and for the front of property no more than 30 feet from the street. Ms. Lydon stated that the existing home front setback was 8.7 feet and the proposed setback for the new house from the porch is approximately 13.5 feet. The proposed new structure would be moved more centrally on the property and will not be more non -conforming than the original structure. Ms. Lydon expressed that the new house would be an improvement and not detrimental to the neighborhood. The other houses on the street all have similar encroachments on the front setbacks of their properties. ZBA Drafted Meeting Minutes — December 20, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Ms. Lydon is proposing to rebuild and design a farmhouse with the same aesthetics as the previous house, which is a pre-existing, non -conforming structure and is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Board Comment Ms. Pruitt stated that the submitted Plot Plan notes the rear yard setback at 35 feet where it is actually 30 feet and that a new Plot Plan submission would be required if the Board approves the application. Public Comment There were no public comments. Acting Chair, Ms. Pruitt closed the public hearing. Discussion Ms. Pruitt stated that the new structure would be non -conforming, but would be an improvement with additional adjustment proposed, Mr. Correira noted that abutting houses on Eddy Street and Branch Street are also non- conforming and very close to the street. Mr. List noted that there is a special provision in the non -conforming part of the Zoning Bylaw to deal with houses that have been destroyed by fire. The Board members agreed that the lot is a unique shape, Motion: That the request for a finding at 17 Eddy Street is an increase in a pre-existing nonconforming condition. (Cummings/List) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion: That the increase in the pre-existing non -conforming structure per the Site Plan plan at 17 Eddy Street is no more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current conditions. (Cummings/List) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Minutes — November 8, 2022 Motion: to continue review and vote for November 8, 2022 minutes to the next scheduled meeting. (Cummings/List) Five (5) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES ZBA Drafted Meeting Minutes — December 20, 2022 Page 7 of 8 Next Zoning Board of Appeals Meetings: January 17, 2023 at 7:30 p.m. Motion: To adjourn at 9:05 p.m. (Maxwell/List) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Signature of Clerk Date lof Approval ZBA Drafted Meeting Minutes— December 20, 2022 Page 8 of 8