Town of Carlisle, MA - Minutes of 3/12/2007 PB meeting

Public Hearing on application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. for a special permit and site plan approval under Sec. 5.9 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to install, operate and maintain a personal wireless communication facility at 886 Lowell Street (Map 33, Lot 7) on property owned by Thomas and Tamara Erickson.

Public Hearing on application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. for a special permit and site plan approval under Sec. 5.9 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to install, operate and maintain a personal wireless communication facility at 1022 Westford Street (Map 18, Lot 42A) on property owned by Lawrence A. Sorli.

Continued Public Hearing of request to remove five (5) trees and approximately 31 feet of stone wall within the right of way of Cross Street adjacent to Map 7, Parcel 21-4, to create a driveway entrance to a proposed single-family dwelling, under the provisions of the Scenic Roads Bylaw (Art. XII & MGL Ch. 40, S. 15C) and the Public Shade Tree act (MGL Ch. 87, s.3) [Request of William Costello]

Review of application to Zoning Board of Appeals for Comprehensive Permit under MGL Chap. 40B for 41 condominium units/12 affordable of attached housing to be known as “Coventry Woods,” on Concord Street, northeasterly of 515 Concord Street (Map 8, Parcel 10 – 22.8 acres), (Application of Coventry Woods LLC and MCO & Associates, Inc., referred by Board of Appeals)

Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm in the Clark Room at Town Hall. Board members Michael Epstein, Kent Gonzales, Greg Peterson, Tom Lane, Brian Larson, Peter Stuart and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present.

Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Alan Carpenito (BOS & South Street), Bob Ford (Maple Street), Dave Alexander (Westford Street), Nancy and Rik Pierce (Westford Street), Brian Grossman (Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye), Kamal Johari (Nexus Wireless), David Maxson (Broadcast Signal Labs), Peter Yelle (Cross Street), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.

The PB reviewed the draft minutes of February 26, 2007. Epstein moved to approve the minutes as drafted. Lane seconded and the motion carried 7-0. The PB then reviewed the Executive Session minutes from that meeting. Lane then moved to approve the Executive Session minutes as revised, Epstein seconded, and the motion carried 7-0.

Freedman summarized that at this evening’s Town Caucus, Ken Hoffman was nominated for one of the three seats that will be available in May. There were no nominees for the other two seats. The deadline for receipt of signatures in support of a candidate not nominated at the Caucus is Tuesday, March 20^th at 5 pm at the Town Clerk’s office. The number of signatures required this year is 26, which is determined from one percent of the number of Town voters for Governor in the last State election.

Mansfield reported that the acceptance of Section 23D will not be on the Town Warrant, on advice of Town Counsel and ConsComm Chair, Roy Watson. Both expressed that the article, as signed by the Governor, would limit the flexibility of Boards in conducting hearings.

After discussion, and with no objection, the PB authorized Mansfield to assign review of the impending common drive application to John Boardman of LandTech Consultants, Inc. This tree hearing may be combined with the upcoming common drive hearing. . George should speak to George D to see if any trees and stone walls need removal for this new location of the curb cut. Epstein then moved to continue the tree hearing, at the request of the applicant, to Monday, April 9, 2007 at 7:45 pm. Peterson seconded and the motion carried 7-0.

Freedman reported that he attended the recent semiannual event, at which many Town representatives and State legislators discussed issues. The Census undercount was discussed. Attendees suggested that the State needs to put considerable funds into this. Otherwise, if the Census figures are not revised upward, the State may lose 1 or 2 representatives to Congress.

Public Hearing on application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. for a special permit and site plan approval under Sec. 5.9 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to install, operate and maintain a personal wireless communication facility at 1022 Westford Street (Map 18, Lot 42A) on property owned by Lawrence A. Sorli.

Freedman reported that the BOS had engaged an appraiser for the property, to have a supportable number for land value, as some have suggested that the number offered by the applicant may have been inflated for 40B purposes. Mass Housing has requested a land value based on conventional zoning. However, the applicant has denied the appraiser access to the property. Freedman reminded the PB that there are ZBA hearings on this project on this

Freedman reported that a new draft decision for this 40B application has been forwarded to the PB. It is a compilation of the May 2006 decision and a new revision recommending approval for 24 units instead of 41 units. Some revisions are needed, and these will be discussed at the upcoming ZBA hearings. The abutters’ attorney is reviewing the draft decision, and will have their comments by the Wednesday, March 14^th meeting.

Regarding support information for reducing the number of units, the BOH has forwarded a letter summarizing Jeffrey Brem’s March 1^st testimony stating that the BOH feels strongly that the applicant has not submitted sufficient information in support of 41 units, and that much of the information requested has still not been provided by the applicant. The testimony also indicated that there is believed to be sufficient information indicating that a smaller development is suitable. The BOH will forward this information to the ZBA before the Wednesday meeting.

In a general discussion, Epstein reported that a trial date has been set for June 4, 5, and 6, 2007. He added that it does not appear that any PB issues are a problem, but some abutters’ issues still remain unresolved. They will meet on March 27^th to discuss these issues. The PB will wait to hear the results of that discussion.

Public Hearing on application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. for a special permit and site plan approval under Sec. 5.9 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to install, operate and maintain a personal wireless communication facility at 1022 Westford Street (Map 18, Lot 42A) on property owned by Lawrence A. Sorli.

Peterson moved to pick this hearing up from the table for discussion, Lane seconded and the motion carried 7-0. Brian Grossman (Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye) and Kamala Johari, radiofrequency engineer (Nexus Wireless) presented their information for the applicant. Grossman provided the 90-foot height coverage plot that had been requested by the PB, as well as the balloon test report. Freedman confirmed that Maxson and Omnipoint had received copies of letters to the PB from Peter Yelle (Cross Street) and David Alexander (Westford Street abutter).

Maxson summarized his view of the technical aspects of the application. He expressed concern that while it is common for applicants to discuss data on a line-of-sight basis (clear path from site to user), this is not always the case. Radiofrequency (Rf) radiation is refracted and reflected, and terrain is an obstacle. Rf can also penetrate foliage, buildings and vehicles. The key height of concern for signal level data is the transition to above and below the treeline, as signal level in this region is most affected by changes in tower height. Signal strength in this transition region is also more difficult to model by computer, and there may be need for actual field measurements to evaluate other alternatives. Maxson summarized that the Town must balance the impact of this facility compared to its necessity for the community, and suggested having the applicant look at other possible system configurations.

Johari said that at or below tree height, the Rf signal strength is attenuated (lessened), and the computer model also does not take all the trees into consideration. Therefore the signal area projected for the 57-foot height will be smaller in reality. He felt confident that the signal areas modeled for the 77 and 87-foot heights are accurate. He also confirmed the Chair’s concerns that signal falloff will be greater in the treed direction (west) than in the more open direction (east and north) for this proposed site. The engineer also pointed out that the coverage maps should not be viewed as “black and white” in that white areas indicate regions where, according to the model, the signal strength fell below the threshold of – 84 decibels (dB). Maxson added that this threshold is a level that the applicant considers will provide reliable in-car coverage. He pointed out that there are losses in signal strength on passing through walls, vehicles and bodies, and that these are not fixed numbers. He stated that the approximate

When Freedman explained to the consultant (Maxson) that, according to the applicant, Verizon and AT&T (prospective co-locators) can use lower height locations on the proposed monopole without a problem, Maxson said that the co-locating carrier generally knows their coverage may be less than that of the applicant. Maxson also stressed that the PB should require that the applicant assure that the tower diameter is suitable for PCS and cellular systems, and that the tower would not need to be “bumped out” to accommodate cellular.

When Freedman asked the applicant if they were interested in leasing to co-locators, Grossman said that while not the driving force for the application, they would be interested in leasing possibly up to two tenants, but that no agreements have been signed yet.

Yelle asked the applicant about their overall plan for seamless wireless coverage in Carlisle, and how this particular application fits into the picture. He asked the PB how they can assess the overall impact of the proposed facility on the Town unless such information is provided. Will the applicant be returning with applications to “fill in the blanks”, and, if so, when and how often should the PB expect applications? For example, according to the data provided, the proposed monopole provides enhanced coverage in the Acton direction, but not much enhancement in the easterly direction along Westford Street, even with use of an 80-foot monopole. Therefore, it seems that the applicant could return with additional applications to cover this gap. Yelle felt this could increase the impact of wireless facilities on the Town.

Grossman said that this facility will provide substantially improved coverage, and Johari added that 911 coverage will also be enhanced. Grossman also said that if the applicant was not granted a setback waiver, thereby imposing a height limitation of 60feet, he cannot be sure they would build the site. When Epstein pointed out that, according to the coverage data provided, for heights over 60-feet the coverage was mainly improved in Acton and not easterly in Carlisle, Grossman attributed this to the “tree effect.” However, in the easterly direction, there are significant areas clear of trees.

David Alexander (abutter on Westford Street) expressed interest in submission of better data. The data provided is not presented as part of an overall plan, and therefore the collective impact on the Town cannot be correctly judged. He and his wife are opposed to the proposed cell tower, and feel that it does not meet the criteria of the Personal Wireless Bylaws (Section 5.9 of the Zoning Bylaws). They feel that the tower would destroy the scenic vista of the 300-year old farm.

Nancy and Rik Pierce (Westford Street) said that in their opinion it is a pity to deface this beautiful landscape with a cell tower though they acknowledged that the owner, Mr. Sorli, had done much for conservation in Carlisle. They asked if the presence of a tower would affect the 61A (agricultural classification) status of the property, and/or the Town’s possible right to acquire the property later on. Peterson said that this 3.3 acre parcel itself is too small to have 61A status, but some of the surrounding land may be 61A status.

Freedman explained to the applicant that since the bylaw requires demonstration of why the 60-foot height is inadequate, and the current data at this height is not accurate, the Board either needs better data at this height showing clear inadequacy, or data showing significantly better coverage at 80-feet. Maxson also suggested collecting data at other dB levels besides -84 dB. Johari suggested that his applicant could provide data for in-building, in-car, and outdoor at -76, -84, and -91 dB. Maxson also expressed interest in seeing actual drive data for 60 and 80-feet. Freedman said that all of the suggested data will be necessary for the PB to determine if a waiver (required to exceed the 60-foot limitation) is justified. He added that the reason the PB asked for data at 90-feet at

Larson suggested that the applicant obtain actual signal strength measurements at 60-feet and 80-feet by placing antennas on cranes at the proposed location and taking actual field measurements. Freedman stressed to the applicant that the data at 60-feet must be accurate and complete in order to warrant a waiver of the height limitation.

Gonzales pointed out that the balloon test showed him that the site will be more visible than he realized. Larson suggested placing the monopole in a silo-like structure or another option suitable for a farm location that the applicant may suggest, to camouflage it.

After schedule discussion with the applicant, Epstein moved and Peterson seconded the continuation of this hearing to Monday, April 9, 2007 at 8:30 pm. The motion passed 7-0. Freedman pointed out to the applicant that after the April 23, 2007 PB meeting, the membership of the Board will change significantly. Therefore it is imperative that they be as complete as possible in providing the requested information for the next hearing.

Freedman moved to pick this hearing up from the table for discussion, Peterson seconded and the motion carried 7-0. Maxson pointed out that since the wireless equipment would basically be completely concealed in this proposed location, the only concern is that if and when it is necessary for anyone to work on the roof of the building, they should be made aware that there is an antenna inside. Since this private property, the owners should be made aware that this is an important issue. Maxson also added that federal standards indicate that if a wireless facility is more than 30-feet above ground, it is inherently compliant.

The PB reviewed the model coverage plots in the application. They agreed that this application appears to meet most of the bylaw requirements, as it is completely concealed. However, they expressed concern regarding Section 5.9.1.6, as with the prior application, as there is still the issue of minimizing the collective impact of wireless facilities throughout the Town. Epstein did point out that on proposed sites such as this where co-location is not feasible for practical reasons, there is no opportunity to use the site to potentially lessen the number of proposed wireless sites in Town. Grossman said that while the applicant does not intend to market for co-locators, if they were approached by a potential tenant with a sound proposal, they would consider it.

The PB requested that the applicant obtain the owner’s signature on the application, in addition to having their signature on the lease agreement. After discussion, the PB agreed that, in this case, no removal bond is necessary, as this facility is completely concealed.

When Freedman asked why the applicant has not considered using distributed antenna systems (DAS), Grossman said that they generally do not provide the same coverage. Several DAS along poles on a roadway will provide more of a “ribbon” of coverage, and not the more broad, cloverleaf-type base that a monopole or single antenna

At this point, Freedman requested that Mansfield begin preparation of the draft decision and conditions, referencing where applicable the settlement conditions on the Anderegg Tower. Peterson suggested that the PB request model coverage maps for indoor, outdoor, and in-car at the same dB levels suggested by the engineer for the prior application (-76, -84, and -91 dB) at the proposed antenna height of 36 feet. Freedman pointed out that this height is likely below tree level, so that model data should consider effect of trees.