TOWN OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
February 5,
2008
Approved February 19, 2008
DRB Members
Present: Tom McGlenn, Lisa Godfrey, George
Munson,
DRB Members Absent: Ted Bloomhardt.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator),
Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Brian Hanlon, Sharon Hanlon, Amanda
VanVranken, Charles Kogge, Johanna White, Will Dodge, Brian Frazier, George
Mokarakorn, Tim Richmond, Sheri Hanlon, Richard Watts, Kim Hazelrigg. Mark
Delaney, Alan Norris, Allison Cleary, Wayne Bissonette.
The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.
Minutes of the January 15, 2008 Meeting:
Zoë MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion, with Greg abstaining. The motion PASSED 5–0.
Conditional Use Permit
– Accessory Apartment/Home Occupation –
Amanda VanVraken
described the proposed building as a 2-story, post and beam structure, with an
office/apartment space above a 2-bay garage and workshop. She said a consulting business using
primarily email and phone services would be operated from the office, with no
client visits, no deliveries, no sign, etc.
The structure will be 24 ft. x 36 ft.
Alex noted the 30% rule (size limitation of structure) in relation to
the house; Peter confirmed no issue existed with this project. Amanda said a new septic system will be
installed for this structure, but water will be plumbed from the existing well. Greg asked about the driveway/parking
configuration. Amanda said a circular
drive exists and pointed out access from it to the structure. She said no parking spaces are being set
aside for the business.
Tom asked if the conditional
use permits are transferable. Alex said
the home occupation permit would not be transferable, but the accessory
apartment would. Peter said he would
write that language into the draft decision.
Zoë MOVED to close
the public hearing and to approve the draft decision as amended (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Minor Revision to
Subdivision Final Plat –
Alan Norris said he wished to delete an easement for a replacement septic system from the plat, as new septic rules no longer required replacement systems. He said neither the house nor primary septic system locations had changed. Alan said there will be a reference to the original decision put in the new plat before it is filed (as requested in the draft decision).
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and to approve the draft decision as written (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Conditional Use
Permit – Wireless Communications Facility –
Background information from the Staff Report:
The Applicant is requesting
conditional use approval for a wireless communication facility consisting of 1)
up to 12 panel antennas mounted to an existing barn silo; 2) an equipment shed
and appurtenances for antenna operating equipment; 3) related utility cables
and conduits. The subject parcel is
owned by Sally & Clifford Brody, Brian & Sharon Hanlon and is located
at
Will Dodge, an attorney at RCC Atlantic, and Shari Hanlon,
property owner, spoke on behalf of the applicants. Other project participants introduced were Brian
Frazier, a radio frequency engineer who prepared a statement for the state for
ACT 250 review, George Mokarakorn
with Giant Solutions, who prepared the radio frequencies emissions report, and Tim
Richmond, a representative from Pyramid Network Services.
Will explained the wireless facility would consist of 12 antennas placed on the
silo on the Hanlon/Brody property, giving these details:
- the silo is 41 feet tall; the antennas will be flush against the silo and no part of the antennas would protrude beyond the dome of the silo
- a 12 x 10 equipment shelter will be on the ground
- an ice bridge will connect cables and an underground cable will bring electricity to the facility.
Will said the reason for the facility is to increase cell phone coverage in Hinesburg. He quoted language in the Town Plan that encouraged the use of technologies. He said the radio emissions would be well below the FCC threshold level for emissions harmful to human health, that emissions would not rise above 25% of that threshold level. He said the silo will be painted a single color, and antennas will match that color; he passed around pictures of the silo. He said there would be no environmental impacts.
Greg noted federal law regulating wireless issues; he asked whether federal law would preempt any decision this DRB would render regarding electromagnetic emissions. Will said yes, notwithstanding any local, state or zoning authority, as long as the service provider (such as Unicel) was in documented compliance with the FCC bulletin. A town board or state governing body cannot rule that the service provider is not in compliance, nor that federal guidelines aren’t sufficient. Greg asked about neighbor concerns; Will said the board is limited in satisfying those claims. He encouraged questions from neighbors and acknowledged there are concerns about radio frequencies or health effects from radio emissions. He said other traditional conditional use criteria (aesthetic, etc.) is not under federal purview.
Tom asked about different cell phone technology. Will said the facility would improve AT&T, Unicel and any other GSM provider coverage. GSM is one kind of cell phone technology; the other is CDMA, used by Verizon, Nextel and Sprint among others. Tom asked about the possibility of Verizon buying Unicel, how that would affect this facility. Will described how networks would be managed differently after such a change. Tom asked if antennas serving different technologies could be located on the silo side by side. Will said there is no technical reason they could not, but that space is an issue, that vertical separation is necessary. He noted their lease proposal was part of a larger strategy that encouraged co-location.
Allison Cleary, an abutting neighbor, said she is uncomfortable
with the proposal. She cited health
concerns, noting studies have been found to be inconclusive. She said she discussed the issue with Louis
Furst, head of the Pediatrics Department at Fletcher Allen; she quoted him as
saying he would not purchase property near such a facility. Allison said the Town of
Peter asked whether cumulative frequencies were calculated by
the strength or number of frequencies; Will said both. He noted a federal injunction had been issued
against the
George Mokarakorn illustrated diagrams describing frequency emissions, and gave an explanation of how calculations were created for this particular site. He referred to OET 65 as the FCC bulletin as the standard for evaluating compliance with FCC guidelines. Those guidelines for power density are described in FCC bulletin 96-326. NOTE: the document “Electromagnetic Exposure Analysis”, dated 12/5/2007, as compiled for this project by GIANT Solutions LLC for RCC Wireless, was submitted as part of the DRB application materials and is available at the Planning Office for review. The document includes this summary statement: “Results of the cumulative total indicate that no area will exceed 19.4% of the maximum permissible limit for General Public/Uncontrolled areas. This level is 5.15 times less than the respective allowed maximum.”
George Mokarakorn said readings for maximum exposure were measured 6 feet off the ground and the percentage of emissions would decrease as they were measured farther away from the silo. Kim Hazelrigg, an area resident, asked about cumulative emissions, whether the study took into account that the facility would be continually transmitting and how that would effect exposure to a family living in the area over a 30-year time period. Will said the FCC Bulletin OET 65 studies cumulative exposure and bases resulting thresholds on those studies. Kim also asked about an increase in users over the course of a day, for instance. Will said once maximum exposure is reached, phone usage is transferred to another facility.
Will said RCC is looking for approval of a total of 12 antennas but would accept 6 for now with a condition they need to return to the DRB for the remaining 6. Charles Kogge, a resident, asked how frequencies compared to carrying a personal cell phone. Brian Frazier said a cell phone carried all day emits 2 watts at the most. He compared this to a signal from a cell site, stating by the time it got to an individual, it would be significantly less (than a personal cell phone emission).
Richard Watts, an area resident, said the Town Plan stated
the town should explore zoning that addresses these types of facilities, and
asked whether that had been done. Alex said
no, the issue had not been explored formally by the town. Richard asked about the Crabb silo (the
Kim Hazelrigg thought arguments could be found on both sides, for and against the proposal, but that available science is inconclusive, opening the door to uncertainty about your health. She thinks the placement of such a facility is inappropriate in a residential neighborhood. She said the uncertainty of its safety would add stress to all of the neighbors.
Mark Delaney, an area resident, questioned the proposal’s 19.4% summary finding, whether that number was for 6 or 12 antennas. Will said that finding is based on 12 antennas transmitting at the same time (the entire proposal). Mark said he thought the general public’s perception of a cell tower is at issue; that a negative perception of cell towers, no matter what science says or does not say, will prevail and affect property values of residents near the tower. Greg asked if there was any documented evidence concerning the impact of developments. Will said studies had been done on the aesthetic impacts on towers, particularly the height of towers, as generally people are concerned about views, not emissions. He noted all different types of communities have these towers, that the issue of property values had not come up before. He said as the revenue for the individual property (on which the facility is located) increased, the value of surrounding properties would increase as well. He stated one possible issue as being the rate (speed) at which a property near a facility can sell at, that the rate could be lower than average.
Shari Hanlon said the property is in farming use but the silo was not being used. She said they wanted to maintain it as a historic marker and tried to keep it up. Will said he checked, as part of national Environmental Protection Act requirements, whether there would be an adverse affect on a historic structure; none was found. He added the silo is structurally sound. He noted a “vested rights doctrine” stating that once a permit application was submitted, and a particular zoning rule changed, the application would be considered under the regulations that had been in place at the time of the application.
Charlie Watts said that to say residents did not respond
instantly is not fair. There was some
discussion about the timing and scope (who received) of information that was
sent to residents. Kim said she did not
get notification, that letters went to abutting landowners only.
Charles Kogge, speaking for the Conservation Commission, asked
if any federal agency would study and confirm emissions numbers after the facility
was in place and operating. Will said no
but that RCC could do a field report.
Charles asked if antennas were like those at state police stations. George Mokarakorn said antennas would be viewable from
Zoë asked where the other 6 antennas would be eventually installed. Will said they would all be facing out toward the valley. Zoë asked about the board’s ability to actually consider the health effect – due to the fact that the FCC regulates what is allowable, whether the DRB had the ability to deny a proposal based on health concerns. Will confirmed the DRB could NOT, and suggested a review of the proposal by the town’s attorney. He cited the Telecommunications Act (TCA) as an enforcing document, based on the standards established in FCC bulletin OET 65. He said towns can regulate cell tower sites on other concerns, but not based on health concerns, as long as the applicant meets a burden of proof showing the standard has been met.
The issue of a need for a subdivision permit for this proposal (as it is a proposed lease) was discussed briefly.
Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to February 19th. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Sketch Plan Review –
2-lot Subdivision/PRD –
Lisa recused herself from the board at this time (9:00pm). Kate Werner spoke on behalf of the
applicants. She said they are applying for
a subdivision that would provide one lot of 1.6 acres to be donated to the town
of
Zoë MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended (approval), clarifying the proposal as a Major Subdivision with steps 2&3 rolled together. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0. Lisa rejoined the board at this time (9:10pm).
Other Business
GK Investments: George MOVED to approve the draft decision as written (approval). Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0, with Greg abstaining.
Dennison and ESNID (unrelated applications, both 6-month extension requests): Zoë MOVED to grant 6-month extensions to both applications. George SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Zoë left the meeting at this time (9:10)
French: Order #3C was discussed. Peter said he would add wording regarding the small mowed area. Tom MOVED to approve the draft decision as amended (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0, with Greg abstaining.
Alex briefly discussed the Bedard appeal to environmental court. The next DRB meeting is February 19. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary