Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 03/14/2018Planning Board Minutes March 14, 2018 Present: Tom French, Chair; Don Cleary, Clerk; Beth Ashman -Collins, Michael McClanahan, Rich LeBlanc Alternates Joe Cerretani and Sharon Friedman Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development; Jennifer Davis, Administrative Secretary 1. Minutes February 28, 2018 p. 2 4"' para — children will be 6 mos to 12 years Motion: To approve as amended (Cerretani-Cleary) Five in favor. McClanahan, Friedman abstained. PASSES 2. Public Hearing notices — Attleboro, Easton, Norton 3. The Beacon Annual Town Meeting Mr. Burke said town counsel has revised the drafts to the board's two recreational marijuana articles; definitions of "canopy" and "marijuana" have been added. References to the Board of Selectmen and Board of Health have been removed because counsel did not think the functions of those boards have to be included in the Zoning By -Law, Mr. Burke explained state law has changed and special permits are now good for three years rather than two. The setbacks have been changed from 1,000 to 500 feet. Mr. Burke said the Commonwealth's Cannabis Commission filed its final regulations last week; they will be approved March 28 and the state expects the first licenses will be issued June 1, Mr. McClanahan asked about cafes; Mr. Burke said the state has put that use off for a year. He said the Board of Selectmen is reviewing the warrant tonight, including an article to ban the use, an article to extend the moratorium and the Planning Board's articles. A ban would involve both a zoning article and a ballot vote. Ms. Ashman -Collins said when the board met with Chief Sellon, they discussed not allowing cafes in any zone. Mr. Burke said if Town Meeting choses to limit the allowed uses, there will also have to be a ballot vote. None hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted. Attorney Edward Pare, Brown Rudnick and David Forte, AT&T Site Acquisitions Planning Board 3/14/18 Attorney Pare explained the existing building is 42 feet high and the proposed antenna would be nine feet tall. There will be one cylindrical antenna, 24.7" high and 10" in diameter, attached to the roof by a mount along with the equipment, so there would be no need for a shelter. The equipment will have low power. Attorney Pare explained the equipment needs to be close to the roof edge; the by-law allows up to 12 feet. He said he thinks this will be low impact. Attorney Pare said the photosimulations included in the application show the only place the antenna will be visible is from the street in front of the building; it will not be visible from Route 106. The antenna is mounted on a 2-3" pipe and will be ballast -mounted with weights to hold it in place; the equipment will not penetrate the roof of the building. Department Head Comments The clerk read memos from the Conservation Agent and Mr. Burke. Board Comment Mr. French asked if the array could be moved to the elevator penthouse or back from the edge of the roof to make it less visible. Attorney Pare said the equipment has been placed as far back on the roof as possible; if it is closer to the edge, the building itself would cause interference. He said the further back on the roof the equipment is placed, the taller it would have to be. Ms. Friedman said the diagram appears to show some gaps remaining and asked if they will share the antenna with other carriers. Attorney Pare said they do not share this type of antenna equipment with other carriers. He said additional gaps may need to be filled in the future; this type of small equipment has low power, which will suffice for their network needs at this time. Ms. Friedman asked if another carrier could put another piece of equipment on the pole; Attorney Pare said there would not be room for another carrier on this pole. He said another carrier could apply to install their own equipment. Ms. Friedman asked what would prevent them from coming back with another application for another site; Attorney Pare said nothing would prevent that, but that this will take care of their need in Mansfield right now. He said it is possible they may propose other structures in the future. Mr. LeBlanc asked why the equipment cannot be lower than seven feet. Attorney Pare said the top of the antenna is at nine feet, the top of box seven feet. He said the equipment box would not be visible, only the top of the antenna. Attorney Pare said they have not run into any issues with the small cells; he said the only other options would be to put the equipment directly on the roof. Attorney Pare said the equipment would not be visible from the ground. Mr. Burke asked the color. Attorney Pare said the equipment can be either brown or grey; he suggested grey because it would blend into the skyline. Mr. LeBlanc asked if this would have to be screened if it were mechanical equipment; Mr. Burke said it would. He said if the equipment is installed below the parapet and the equipment is grey, it would resemble a vent pipe. Attorney Pare said he doesn't think the equipment will be visible, and only about half the antenna will be visible above the roofiine. Mr. Cleary asked if the equipment is taxable; Attorney Pare said it is. Mr. Cleary asked if there will be equipment run along the outside of the building; Attorney Pare said it there would not be. Planning Board 3/14/18 Mr. Burke asked if the FCC requires a backup generator; Attorney Pare said they will connect to power in the building and there is no requirement for a backup generator. Mr. Burke said he thinks the applicant has answered the questions raised by staff, the board and the public, the application meets the intention of the by-law to avoid towers when possible, and it will be located on an existing building. Public Comment Kevin McNatt asked if the 42 feet is to the top of the parapet; Attorney Pare said that measurement is to the top of the roof and the parapet is another four feet above that. The antenna would be about six feet above the parapet. Motion: Based on the information provided by the applicant, the Planning Board finds that a gap in coverage exists. Information submitted in accordance with Zoning By -Law Section 3.6.7.2.6.1 demonstrates the gap in coverage would be eliminated after the installation of the antennae, which were submitted with the special permit application and discussed during the hearing. (McClanahan -LeBlanc) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To grant the Special Permit under Section 3.6.7.2.6.lof the Mansfield Zoning By -Law for the installation of one (1) 24.7" high, 10" diameter round antenna on top of a 32" high equipment cabinet, both of which are attached to a metal post at a maximum height of nine feet (9') above the roof of the existing 42 -foot (42') tall building, together with related cables, fiber and other associated electronic equipment to be located upon the tripod antenna mount on the roof of the building at 214 Rumford Avenue. This special permit is granted with the following conditions: 1. Application for Special Permit and Plan Sheets Tl, C1, Al, A2 and A3, dated December 13, 2017, revised January 22, 2018 and further revised based on March 14, 2018 Planning Board discussion and public comment, prepared by Hudson Design Group are incorporated into this special permit decision by reference; 2. All above -referenced department head comments shall be fully and satisfactorily addressed during the 20 -day appeal period; 3. The transmitting frequency shall not interfere, conflict with or interrupt any Town of Mansfield radio or communications device or system; Should an emergency generator be required by the FCC, the location shall be approved by the Planning Board. The emergency generator shall have a noise suppression muffler and cabinet enclosure to mitigate noise issues; 5. There shall be no signs placed upon the panels except as required by state or federal regulations (eg:, FCC, FAA, OSHA); 5. If the structure upon which the antenna is to be located is torn down, falls down, or meets some destructive fate brought about by a natural or manmade disaster, this permit shall not Planning Board 3/14/18 allow a new interior or exterior wireless communication facility to be at that location without a new special permit; 7. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) or its successor, owners or assigns shall remove the antennas, panels, cable trays and covers at the equipment owner's expense within one (1) year from the date of cessation of use; 8. Any equipment that may be exposed on the roof shall be painted grey. (McClanahan -LeBlanc) The board further discussed and found that the application as submitted meets all of the special permit tests, as follows: • There will be no negative impacts on the health, safety, convenience, general welfare and amenities of the inhabitants of the Town; • There will be no negative effects on adjoining premises, neighborhood character, and social structure; • There will be no negative impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic convenience, safety, and adequacy, including an assessment of movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets, properties, or improvements; • The Town has adequate municipal facilities and services, including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, water provision, and wastewater disposal; • There will be no negative effects on the natural environment; and • There will be positive fiscal impacts, including effect on the tax and employment base, municipal finances, and property values. McClanahan - In favor. The impact will be minimal, and the benefits outweigh the detriments Ashman -Collins - In favor. The impacts on health, safety and welfare will be positive, the project will result in no traffic, noise or natural environmental impacts, and will have a positive fiscal impact. Cleary - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the project will have a positive impact on convenience and fiscal impact. LeBlanc - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, this will provide service for local residents and have no traffic impact. Friedman — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, there will be no adverse health impacts, no traffic issues, maintenance will be minimal, and it will provide a service for customers. Cerretani — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the equipment will not be very visible and will produce revenue. 4 Planning Board 3/14/18 French — In favor. This will have a positive impact on health, safety and general welfare with increased cell service, not result in traffic problems, will not impact municipal services or the natural environment, and will have a positive fiscal impact. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Cleary -LeBlanc) All in favor. PASSES w N;e`�tt� The clerk read the public hearing notice. Attorney Ricardo Sousa, Prince Lobel Tye, LLC; Ryan Monte de Ramos, TMobile RF Engineer; Keenan Brinn, TMobile and Eco -Site Site Acquisition; Mark Correnti, realtor; Don Haes, health physicist. Attorney Sousa explained they met with the ZBA last week, which requested the Planning Board work with it to hire an RF consultant to review the application materials. Mr. French noted the applicant would also have to get an Amended Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Monte de Ramos explained existing TMobile sites and the proposed location, along with T - Mobile's in -building coverage and in -vehicle coverage. Attorney Sousa said they have seven other wireless antenna locations in Mansfield, including 127 North Main, 241 Francis Ave, 230 Oxford Road and monopoles at 200 Gilbert Street, 615 School Street, 30 Reservoir Street and 520 West Street. He said they have tried to take care of their gap in coverage using existing structures, but said the Branch Street area doesn't have a building tall enough to fill the gap. He said an RF consultant would review TMobile's plots and do a drive test to determine whether they agree or disagree about the gap. He said they are in the I2 Zone, so need to prove they have a significant gap in coverage. Mr. Monte de Ramos explained TMobile's existing coverage and said the proposed site is in the middle of those existing areas. Mr. McClanahan asked the radius of the new coverage circle; Mr. Monte de Ramos said it would be around half a mile. He said this tower is considered a low - powered device with antennas on three sectors, and the signal dissipates as it moves through structures. Mr. McClanahan asked how many customers would be in that radius; Mr. Monte de Ramos said he does not know. Attorney Sousa said they would like to build their network to gather more customers. Mr. Monte de Ramos said they use a lower band to overlay existing network; most of their existing sites have already been upgraded. Attorney Sousa said if the gap in coverage is overlaid with the zoning map, this site is in the middle of their gap in coverage. Mr. Brinn explained the alternative site analysis and why this site was selected — he said he looked at where the search ring is drawn to pinpoint coverage needs. He noted this is a Planning Board 3/14/18 brownfield site with solar panels. Mr. Brian said he extended the search to the south toward airport and to the north toward East Street. The airport is restricted because of height, several parcels are landlocked and would need access easements and they did not get a response from some owners. He said they contacted owners of large Flint Farm and Mansfield Cable Access. Mr. McClanahan asked if they looked at the back corner of the former dump site on East Street, which the Police Department uses for a firing range; Mr. Brinn said they looked at the new municipal complex and the former dump property across the street. Attorney Sousa said the municipal complex is too close to one of their existing sites. Attorney Sousa said the FAA would allow them to go as high as 137 feet on the Branch Street site, but they are proposing 90 feet. Attorney Sousa said he has been told the Board of Selectmen has authorized the Town Manager to talk to them about town -owned sites; he said they would analyze any parcels the town is interested in leasing. Mr. Monte de Ramos said they looked at the Congregational Church on West Street but it is too close to an existing TMobile site, which could cause interference. Mr. Cleary asked about the airport tower; Mr. Burke said the existing tower is 70 feet high, not in the glide path and could potentially be replaced with a taller tower. Mr. Burke asked about Reservoir Street; Attorney Sousa said TMobile is on someone else's tower on Reservoir Street. Attorney Sousa said they could check to see if the airport site would be too close to the Reservoir Street site. Don Haes, health physicist, explained his role is to come, up with a theoretical analysis of the proposed facility and said he tends to be more conservative than the FCC. He said his exposure calculations indicate the absolute maximum anyone would be exposed to, including assuming the site is at 100% capacity, that the ground is completely reflective and that TMobile would be mounting all their technologies. He said TMobile was a little behind in PCS technologies, so they were not given large slices of the spectrum in which to operate, and are lower in power than AT&T or Verizon. Mr. Haes said with those assumptions, at six feet above the ground, he found much less than I% of the allowable limit for public exposure at any distance from the structure. At 16 feet above the ground, it would still less than I% of the allowable limit. Mr. Haes said he found this site would be well within the limits for RF exposure. Mr. Correnti explained his methodology for determining how towers would impact property values. With towers, he said he looks at sales of similar homes. There are five cell towers in town, but for an analysis to work, there have to have been sales. With no sales in Mansfield of houses with views of towers, he said he looked at home sales in other towns, including Taunton, Norfolk and Oxford. He said he talked to brokers about how a tower view impacted sales, and was told there was not much impact. He noted The Village at the Pointe was built in 2003, after the Reservoir Street tower. He said that is an example of a neighborhood being around an 6 Planning Board 3/14/18 existing tower and said he doesn't think the builder would put his money at risk if there was a detrimental element. Mr. McClanahan said this is the opposite situation, with a tower being proposed around an existing residential neighborhood. Mr. Correnti said the qualitative approach is to look at sales around existing towers; he said buyers have different perspectives and different needs, and if someone is willing to pay the asking price, that is what will set market value. Mr. Correnti said he does not think there is an impact from towers on real estate values. Attorney Sousa said when the originally submitted the application, they proposed a monopole. He said they also designed a "monopine" design option, which was submitted to the ZBA. He said there are some other design options, like flagpoles, that will not support their equipment. Department Head Comments The clerk read memos from the Conservation Agent and Mr. Burke and a letter from the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding hiring an independent consultant. The ZBA public hearing has been continued to April 3, 2018. Attorney Sousa said they have not filed with the Conservation Commission yet, but said they plan to. Attorney Sousa said the tower would have a fenced compound around it. Attorney Sousa said they are not proposing an antenna farm, but one tower that could accommodate up to two other carriers. Mr. LeBlanc asked if there would be different levels for the carriers; Attorney Sousa said TMobile would be at the top, and there has to be 10' of vertical separation between carriers. He said nothing below 65 feet would be viable. Mr. Burke asked if the pads on the ground are future tower pads; Attorney Sousa said they are not for future towers, they are for future equipment pads. He said an equipment cabinet is the size of a small refrigerator. Mr. LeBlanc asked if they are applying for all three now; Attorney Sousa said they are applying for the tower and for TMobile's equipment on the tower; if another carrier were to come in to collocate on this tower, they would have to apply for a new special permit. Mr. Cerretani asked for specific dimensions on the plan; Attorney Sousa said they would add that. Mr. Burke said he is uncomfortable with a 90 -foot tower for one carrier now and possibly two others later. Attorney Sousa said this is not a tower being built on spec; Eco -Site has a lease agreement with TMobile, which is licensed to construct and operate a wireless network in Mansfield, and is a co -applicant with Eco -Site. 7 Planning Board 3/14/18 Attorney Sousa said the transformer is outside the fenced area because the utility company requires it for access. Attorney Sousa said they will bring power and fiber to the site from Branch Street through a five-foot utility easement, which he said is entirely on their property. He said they do not anticipate needing an easement from the town for access through the bike path. Mr. Burke suggested the applicant continue to pursue the landowners they have not heard from. Attorney Sousa said they would do that. Attorney Sousa said they would do an analysis to see if the Reservoir Street site is too close to a potential tower at the airport. Mr. Burke suggested looking at the town's former dump site, which is several thousand feet closer to the Branch Street site than the municipal complex. Public Comment The clerk read a letter from Andrea and Vincent Lattuada, 31 Deer Path Lane. James Farley, 18 Lincoln Road, said his house is the closest to the proposed tower. He said he has TMobile and has no issues. He said he is concerned about safety and said when the solar arrays were installed, all the trees were removed, eliminating the wind break and changing the direction and magnitude of the wind. He said the soil near the wetlands is not the most stable and the board should consider the safety of a 90 -foot tower and where it go if it fell over. He said he doesn't think the alternative sites were pursued. He said the application doesn't read like TMobile has a significant gap in coverage, but rather like the landowner was looking for a tower for the site. He said he is concerned about property value and aesthetics, and has reached out to the landowner about existing aesthetic concerns, with no response. Mr. French suggested contacting the building inspector if there are building or zoning violations. Mr. Farley said he would request the independent consultant verify the claim there is a gap in coverage. Julia Camp, 14 Lincoln Road, submitted letters from neighboring residences. She said she would not have moved to this neighborhood if there were a cell tower there and she thinks a tower, even a monopine, would be out of place. She said the photosimulations do not take the yards on the bike path side of the street into consideration. She said the applicant said the new tower would cover one-half mile, which she said would not be a wide coverage area. She said she thinks there are other site options that were not pursued and the applicant has not done due diligence. She said she thinks they did not hear back from some owners because they had old ownership information. Sergio Martin, 10 Lincoln Road, said he thinks the application has inconsistencies. He said he doesn't think there is a gap in coverage and noted the TMobile website claims there is no gap and they have full coverage. He said the documents in the application do not have any certification from TMobile, and the application should include complete documentation of each site they looked at. He said he is concerned about the applicant's attorney working with the consultant; Mr. French said the consultant will work for the town. Attorney Sousa said their data Planning Board 3/14/18 will have to be submitted to the consultant; he said he would copy Mr. Burke on any correspondence with the consultant. Mr. French suggested Attorney Sousa supply the information to Mr. Burke, who would send it to the consultant. Mr. Martin said the real estate analysis looked at towers in the distance, but this would not be in the distance. He said he found a 2014 study from National Institute of Science about the impact of a tower on property buyers, which said 94% of respondents said the existence of a tower would impact whether they would buy and how much they would pay. Mr. Marin said he found another study indicating buyers would pay up to 20% less for a property near a tower. Robert Camp, 14 Lincoln Road, said the tower is 90', but the application says it could go to 110'. He said he measured the balloon picture, which is slightly different from the antenna picture, to see what it would look like from his house. He said he would see the tower from everyplace in his house, his yard and his neighborhood. He said this would not be in the distance. Mr. Camp said he would not have built his house if the tower were already there. He said the study Mr. Martin cited included a market analysis, which showed a 21 % drop in price. He said if the tower falls, it could land on his neighbor's property. He said since the trees were cut, there is a lot more wind. Amy Frazier, 23 Deer Path Lane, asked if TMobile is the coapplicant; Attorney Sousa said Eco - Site and TMobile are coapplicants. Attorney Sousa said if the board would like, he would be happy to amend the application and send but new notices. Attorney Sousa said Eco -Site has signed a ground lease with the owner and TMobile has signed a site lease with Eco -Site. Ms. Frazier said the affidavit in the application does not say there is a "significant gap in coverage." Attorney Sousa said "gap in coverage" is not well-defined by the federal courts; it is dependent on the board's determination and the court's review of that determination. He said they can appeal under the Telecommunications Act. Ms. Frazier said the impact of the previous application, for a rooftop wireless antenna at 214 Rumford Avenue, would be very small, but provide a lot of people around the train station with coverage; but this proposal is for a small coverage area and would have a huge visual impact. She said there are not many houses in the expanded area and there is a lot of undevelopable land in that area. Attorney Sousa said the difference between their application and the previous application is they are adding a small site within an existing coverage area that does not have enough capacity. Mr. French encouraged the abutters to send questions to the Planning Department to be passed along to the consultant. Bob Matthias, 288 Branch Street, asked how the tower will be erected and if the ground can be dug because of the contamination; Attorney Sousa said the work area is outside the AUL area. Mr. Matthias asked why TMobile has a coverage problem and asked if they could raise their existing towers. He said he is concerned the tower could go to 110 feet. He said he saw the test balloon go up over the summer and he will see the tower from his property. He said he thinks his view will be compromised. He said an abutter said the panels reflect, which should not Planning Board 3/14/18 happen if they were installed properly. He asked how the real estate appraisals were done and said they were not very descriptive. He said he doesn't think the comparisons are good analogies. Board Comment Mr. McClanahan asked about ZBA; Attorney Sousa said it was continued to April 3, but it may need to be continued again to give the consultant time to review the materials. Mr. French said he thinks the applicant needs the variance prior to the special permit. Ms. Friedman said the lease agreement is between Eco -Site and Branch Street Development Partners, not TMobile; she asked how much they are obligated to the site, and whether they are proposing to litigate using FCC regulations if the ZBA doesn't grant a variance and the Planning Board does not grant the special permit. Attorney Sousa said it is premature to talk about litigation. He said to appeal, there would have to be a denial that would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting wireless communication. He said the lease is conditioned upon obtaining approvals; they have the right to terminate the lease if they cannot obtain approvals. Ms. Friedman asked about the potential for moving from this site to another one. Attorney Sousa said they are trying to be respectful and go through the permitting process. He said without a ground lease, they could not have filed the applications. Mr. Cleary asked about screening along the bike path. Attorney Sousa said there has not been a discussion at this point. Mr. Cleary said it would be nice for the landowner to replant the dead trees. Mr. Cleary asked if they check for contaminated soil; Attorney Sousa said they would. Mr. Cleary asked about talking to the town; Attorney Sousa suggested the board ask the Town Manager to contact him to discuss what town properties might be made available. Motion: To continue the public hearing to May 23, 2018 at 7:15 p.m. (McClanahan -Cleary) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Burke asked the board if it wants to move forward with both recreational marijuana by-laws. Mr. French asked if the town would be covered if the board only goes forward with the cultivation by-law. Mr. Burke said he doesn't think the board has to bring both, and said he is concerned that bringing both would confuse Town Meeting. He asked if the board's intent is to get revenue for the town, they should take the retail by-law to Town Meeting because that use would come with a sales tax. Mr. French said the town may also gain revenue from cultivation because it can tax the building and equipment. Mr. Burke said cultivation would probably be the least impactful on town services. Mr. McClanahan asked if the town could have one and not the other; Mr. Burke said he thinks it can. He said limiting the uses would require both a Town Meeting and a ballot vote. Mr. LeBlanc asked if the number of lots in the proposed cultivation zone would be too limited; Mr. Burke said he doesn't think so, and said they are all under different ownership. He said Attorney Ross from Town Counsel's office did not raise that as an issue. Mr. Burke said the lots range in size from one to ten acres. 10 Planning Board 3/14/18 Mr. French suggested holding public hearings on both articles, and deciding whether to go with one or the other, or both, after the public hearings. Mr. Burke said he has requested all the recreational marijuana articles be grouped together on the warrant. WIN — ME-- 10101-M-106=1 None Mr. Burke said the DLTA grant submitted by the Planning Department for analysis and review of the TOD zoning to work toward a unified policy was not funded. Ms. Ashman -Collins said the Downtown Committee has been talking about signage for municipal parking lots and would like to establish a uniform wayfinding program. Ms. Friedman said the Open Space & Recreation Committee is meeting next week and will be looking at what different parcels of land need and funding resources. Mr. Cleary said the town has lost a number of parking spaces to piles of snow : To adjourn at 10:45 p.m. (McClanahan- ) All in favor. PASSES Next Planning Board Meeting: March 28, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. 7 Signature of Clerk `r1 f2DI Date of Approval 11 Planning Board 3/14/18