Present: Frank Polito, Chairman; Bill Friel, Vice-Chairman; Sandy Carter; Kate Rochford

Alternates: Samuel Zannini; Maggie Osborn (both voting for the first hearing. Ms. Osborn only, after first hearing)

Outgoing

Mariner Tower, LP request for Special Exception as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII & VIII, Section 700:1e and 800:3a,d&e to collocate Omnipoint Communications, Inc (T-Mobile) onto existing Wireless Communications Facility on Hog Hill, Map 18, Lot 4, RR2 Zone.

Mr. Carter recused himself.

Abutters List was read with the following present: Brian and Karen Donnelly; Sanford Carter; Chris Ciolfi, representing Mariner Tower; Louis Vitale, and Linda Connell, Attorney for T-Mobile; Fuer Realty Trust

Mr. Polito invited Mr. Ciolfi and Attorney Connell to come to the table and begin their presentation. Mr. Ciolfi brought a 20’ whip antenna and an example of a 6’ cellular panel antenna that will replace it. There is an antenna cut sheet that describes the 6’ panel antenna located in the package of information sent to Shirley Galvin by the applicant. The attachment in the information package shows the typical antenna that T-Mobile uses. Mr. Polito asked about the panel antenna brought to the meeting and whether it was 12 inches wide. Mr. Ciolfi explained that he had to drive to Albany, NY to get this sample and it was the only one available. This is just a representation of the 6 foot panel antenna and is only 6.5 inches wide as opposed to the 13" width of the antenna panels described in the application. Mr. Polito wanted the record to reflect that what was brought was not exactly what will be going on the tower and is roughly half the width. Mr. Ciolfi explained that T-Mobile will probably be putting 56" panel antennas up, but are requesting the Special Exception for the 72" panel antennas because they are the latest in technology and they want that option to be available to them. Mr. Ciolfi said they are reducing what is currently on the tower. Mr. Ciolfi showed the Board a photo simulation of what the current tower looked like before the antennas were installed, what it looks like currently and what it will look like after the whip antennas are removed and the flush mount panel antennas are installed. These pictures were initialed and dated by Mr. Polito for the official record. Mr. Ciolfi stated that the flush mount panel antennas are not actually flush against the face of the tower. He said that they stand off the tower by eight to fourteen inches. Mr. Polito asked if the representation in the picture depicting the panel antennas was to scale. Mr. Ciolfi said it was a simulation, and therefore it was close to scale, but not exact. Mr. Polito asked the applicant to hold up a sample of the whip antenna, as he was concerned that this simulation picture did not accurately depict the size of the whips versus the panel antennas. Attorney Connell said this simulation would be a representation of someone standing on the ground looking up approximately 150’. Mr. Polito stated that whether this simulation was accurate is very important because the applicant is asserting that what they propose and show in the simulation is a reduction in visual affect from what was on the tower at the time of the amendment to the stipulation. The simulation did not include the twelve black 7/8’ coaxial cables, running up the tower from the base, required by the panel antennas. There was a consensus vote of the Board that the simulation did not appear accurate.

Mr. Carter said that he blew up a copy of the simulation the applicant provided. He presented the board with a copy of the blow up and said that it shows that the vertical dimension of the panel antennas appears to be only about 4.5’ instead of the 6’ proposed. The width is much smaller in the blow up of the simulation than what is described in the application. Mr. Carter said that this disparity is evident that when you compare the 18’ width of the tower to the width of the panel in the simulation. Mr. Polito initialed and dated the blow up that Mr. Carter presented. Mr. Carter then asked the Board to refer to sheet Z-1 of the engineering drawings provided by the applicant in tab 4 of the application where there is a plan view of what the panel actually looks like. Mr. Carter contended that this representation of the panels differs significantly from the simulation. Mr. Carter questioned whether the simulation depicts the panels as flush mounted to the tower or with the 14" stand off described in sheet Z-1of tab 4. He added that it appears that the simulation depicts flush mounting and he said that he believes that mounting with a standoff, as proposed in the application, will increase the visual impact and is further than what is shown in the simulation. Attorney Connell pointed out that exhibit Z-1 is an engineering drawing and the width of the tower is the same at both the top and the bottom. It is not giving visual perspective. A simulation is a geometric exercise of someone standing on the ground and looking up. Mr. Polito asked if she had the mathematics that would substantiate the claim or if the simulation was created using commercial software that accurately generates the perspective she is claiming the simulation represents. Attorney Connell said it was a simple fact of geometric perspective and that the simulation tries to depict that. She did not know if software was used to generate the perspective in the simulation. Mr. Ciolfi said that it was not. Attorney Connell said that she did not have anything to back up the geometry used in the simulation. Mr. Polito said that one of the most pertinent pieces of material that the Board was going to consider in this hearing was the applicant’s claim that the proposal in the application was a reduction in visual impact and that this simulation was their evidence of that. He said that this hearing is a finding of fact and there is no fact before the Board to substantiate that the simulation is in any way an accurate depiction of what the tower will look like with the panels installed. This is a simulation whose details and accuracy cannot be explained by the applicant. If this were an accurate simulation, it would have used simulation software that accounts for the math and geometry to provide an accurate depiction of perspective from the ground looking up at the tower. Mr.Polito said that this simulation is useless to the Board.

Mr. Polito said that the Board will have to consider the physical evidence before them, which is an actual whip removed from the tower and a panel that is smaller than what will be used. Mr. Polito said that it appears that the applicant’s were removing 28’ of whip antenna, plus a 2’ grid. They are being replaced with 18’ of panel antenna that is 13’ wide. Mr. Polito said that it seems that the area of the face of each proposed panel antenna is 6 square feet. Mr. Ciolfi tried to explain that the simulation was a demonstration of what the panel versus the whip will look like. Mr. Ciolfi believed it was very close to accurate, but not a scientific representation that could be scaled. Mr. Polito challenged this simulation was even close to accurate. Mr. Polito asked for a vote from the Board that the simulation could be used. There was a consensus of the Board that the simulation could not be used for a determination of the visual impact because they do not believe it is accurate. The Board will have to rely on the antennas brought in by the applicant. Mr. Polito reiterated that there would be 18 square feet of panel antenna surface area put up on the tower. He asked Mr. Ciolfi how much was being taken down in terms of surface area. Mr. Polito said he focusing on this because there were very strong assertions in the application that the proposed change represented a reduction and that needed to be backed up by fact. Mr. Polito said they needed to establish what the facts of the reduction are. Mr. Polito agreed that in terms of strictly linear feet, what the applicant proposes is probably a reduction. He said that surface area also had to be considered since it was his opinion that surface area of the antennas was most pertinent to visual impact as opposed to linear length. Mr. Polito asked again what the reduction was that is referred to numerous times in the application. Mr. Ciolfi said based on his calculation, they are removing 28 linear feet of whip antenna and replacing it with 18 linear feet of panel antennas with a reduction of 10 linear feet. Mr. Polito asked Mr. Ciolfi what is the surface area of the whips being removed. Mr. Ciolfi made some measurements on the whip that he brought in and said that there is approximately 7 square feet of surface associated with the whips being removed. The addition of the 3 proposed antenna panels’ adds18 square feet of surface area, which is a net increase of 11 square feet of surface area. Mr. Ciolfi claimed they are also reducing 10 feet of length and that also contributes to the visual impact. Mr. Polito said that would be for the Board to decide.

Mr. Politio asked if there were any more questions or comments from the applicant or the board and hearing none, asked that they proceed with reviewing the application and the materials that the applicant sent prior to this and the February hearing. Mr. Polito told those in the audience that they would be given an opportunity to speak after the applicant formally presents their application and their materials. Mr. Polito noted that there are two sources of answers to the 4 special exception criteria provided by the applicant; the original application and Attachment D from Attorney Connell letter dated March 9. He asked what the applicant wished to have considered. Mr. Ciolfi stated that tab 1, which is the answers to the three criteria, the letter of March 9, 2007 and attachment D, will be used as the application. Mr. Ciolfi began to read the application. He said this has been established as a pre-existing non-conforming use. Mr. Polito said that is not correct and by Court Agreement and stipulation this is a non-conforming use, period. The Board does not agree that this use falls under the body of case law that would be associated with pre-existing non-conforming or a grandfathered use. He pointed out that the board voted on that at the first public hearing when it agreed that a special exception was one of the proper venues for the applicant to seek the relief they wish from the amended stipulation.

Mr. Ciolfi read from tab 1 of the application. He started with the applicant’s written answer to first criterion of the special exception regarding no diminution of value. Mr. Polito asked if he were presenting any corroborating evidence. Mr. Ciolfi said the assertions were his opinion based on 17 years building towers throughout the northeast. Mr. Polito wanted the record to reflect that the applicant did not bring any documents from real estate experts to substantiate his claims. Mr. Ciolfi read the applicant’s written answer to the second criterion of the special exception, public interest. Mr. Ciolfi read the applicant’s written answer to third criterion of the special exception, substantial justice.

Mr. Polito asked about the propagation analysis that was submitted (tab 5). Mr. Ciolfi explained that the first picture in tab 5 shows T-Mobiles existing coverage and the numbers in the center of the page represent the Hog Hill area. The next page demonstrates in pink, what the increase in coverage would look like if the antennas were installed. Mr. Polito asked if there were still gaps on Route 121 after the proposed changes are made. Mr. Ciolfi said there were still gaps. Mr. Polito asked if the applicant had information on whether other carriers had similar signal or service gaps in this area or was it unique to T-Mobile. Mr. Ciolfi said he is not before the Board to seek relief for other carriers and does not have that kind of information. Mr. Polito said that even though they are not in specific consideration of the Telecommunications Act tonight, the Board certainly needs to pay attention to operating in a fashion that is consistent with what the Telecommunications Act tells them as a Zoning Board. Attorney Connell stated that under the Telecommunications Act, the Law is settled in the NH Circuit in that every provider has the right to fill a gap in its coverage. It is not a basis for this Board to deny it or approve it based on another carrier’s coverage. Mr. Ciolfi said he honestly does not know what the other carriers’ coverage is in this area. Mr. Polito said the applicant is using their need for service coverage as a rationale for public interest. If they want to take that path they need to demonstrate why it is in the public’s interest and why roaming, other tower locations, or other technologies can’t cover the gap. Mr. Polito asked if the applicant would like to withdraw that part of their argument. Mr. Ciolfi said they did not. Attorney Connell pointed out that public interest, as described by the Telecommunications Act, is for there to be free competition among the carriers, so that consumers and business have choices. Mr. Polito said that there is case law stating that just because one carrier cannot fill a gap and, as long as there is another carrier that can fill the gap, the court has upheld a zoning board’s denial. Attorney Connell said there is conflicting case law between other Circuits, but in this the First Circuit, which is New Hampshire that it falls under the Telecommunications Act’s strict definition.

Attorney Connell called the board’s attention to Attachment A of her March 9 letter. She pointed out to the board the definitions of wireless services as defined in the Telecommunications Act. She the pointed out the limitations placed on the board by the Telecommunications Act. Mr. Polito said that while the board must be aware of these limitations, it was his opinion that the board’s job was to consider the application under its zoning ordinance and not be unduly influenced by what a Federal Court may or may not do when and if it considers this Board’s actions in light of the Telecommunications Act. Mr. Ciolfi referred to the letter of March 9, 2007 and tried to address the concern regarding allowing a carrier on the tower and that if that would bring it under the Telecommunications Act jurisdiction. He said the case law is clear that just a tower itself, proposed to be put up for future service to wireless companies, is in fact covered as part of the Telecommunications Act even though no service exists yet. He said that an existing business on the tower now, Metrocall, qualifies under wireless communications. Mr. Polito asked what type of services Metrocall offered and how large the customer base was. Mr. Ciolfi said they are a paging service that utilizes satellites and land antennas but he did not know the number of customers that are served from this tower. Mr. Polito stated that the Atkinson Zoning was clear on the definition of a wireless communications facility, and this tower, under the original 1985 Stipulation, was not approved to have things that now fall under the Telecommunications Act. He said that at the time of the original stipulation, the antenna was used for a private business’ two-way communications. Mr. Polito said that it could be considered an expansion of use that the tower is now used for a paging service, something that is specifically referred to in Atkinson’s WCF zoning ordinance and only allowed in the commercial industrial zone, not is RR2 where this tower is located. He went on to say that the Board is using the Stipulation of 2005, specifically Exhibit A of the stipulation, as a baseline of what is supposed to legally exist on the property today. What the applicant is asking for will be compared to what is documented in the 2005 stipulation.

Mr. Polito told the Board that as a special exception, the board is conducting a finding of fact and should not assume anything without facts to support. He asked the applicant how, in the absence information on other carriers and existing coverage, does the Board know if they are unreasonably discriminating should this application be denied. Mr. Ciolfi said that what was before the Board was consideration of T-Mobile only. Mr. Polito asked how the Board was supposed to pay attention to the Federal Regulations, which state that they cannot prohibit personal wireless services but may deny an additional carrier. Attorney Connell said the only personal wireless services that are relevant are what T-Mobile is proposing to provide, not what other carriers may already provide. Mr. Ciolfi said that in the Boards consideration, if there were another tower, or building or structure available in that area, the Board would have the right to deny. T-Mobile is contending there are no other options in this section of town. Mr. Polito said if the applicant wanted that accepted into the record as fact, they had to demonstrate that there are no other options available to them. Mr. Polito said that Verizon has coverage in this area. Mr. Ciolfi said that Verizon is an 800 MHz carrier. Their signal carries almost twice as far as T-Mobile signal at 1900 MHz. He said that is a function of T-Mobile’s FCC License. Mr. Polito asked if the applicant had a document from an engineer that states that this is the only place T-Mobile can put their equipment in order to achieve their stated goal. Mr. Ciolfi said they demonstrated their need for additional coverage and how they would achieve it in the coverage map included in the application. Mr. Polito said Mr. Ciolfi is stating things as if they are fact, without substantiation. He asked if there was an engineer or expert statement that this is the only location for T-Mobile’s equipment in order to achieve the stated goal? Mr. Ciolfi stated for the record that it is his opinion that there is no other alternative for this service. If they cannot locate on this tower, they will try to find a landowner and be back before the Board to build a new structure. Mr. Polito asked Mr. Ciolfi if he were an engineer, he said he is not. Mr. Polito said for the purposes of findings of fact, the Board has to decide whether what is presented is a fact that can be substantiated and accepted into the record as such. Mr. Ciolfi believed that if there were other structures available to locate T-Mobil’s equipment, they would have been directed toward them already. Mr. Ciolfi claimed they would stand behind the propagation analysis and the engineering that went into the studies to demonstrate the coverage patterns in this area. Attorney Connell said that a carrier only has one type of license and that regulated what frequency the carrier could operate at and in this case that limits T-Mobil’s alternatives to this existing antenna. Mr. Polito said if the applicant wanted to make the statement that this was the only place for T-Mobile to locate, it was his opinion that they would have to provide documentation and facts to prove that statement. Mr. Ciolfi said that short of building a new tower structure there is no way to provide service in this area. Mr. Polito said that in his opinion, this has not been demonstrated. Mr. Polito said he has not seen an analysis that if a new tower were put in the commercial zone, that the gap would still exist. Mr. Ciolfi said T-Mobile is already on a tower in the commercial zone on Route 111. Again Mr. Polito asked, is there nowhere in the commercial zone that T-Mobil could locate an antenna and meet their stated goals? Mr. Ciolfi said he did not believe that to be possible.

Attorney Connell called the board’s attention to attachment D of her letter of March 9. She said the purpose of the applicant providing this additional material was to set the legal standard necessary for granting the special exception. Attorney Connell said the Board needs to consider that this is an existing tower. They understand that the abutters don’t like it being there, but it is there and it is legal. All they are asking to do is make a change for one type of antenna to another type of antenna, and whether that difference impacts the neighborhood to such a degree that it would change its character or somehow threaten the public health, safety, or welfare. She went on to say that the Courts, in considering variances, defines substantial justice as the test of whether the loss to the individual is offset by the gain to the general public. She said that while the definitions she is citing are tied to use in considering variances, they serve as a guide for the board’s consideration for a special exception. She said the benefit to the public should not be looked at as if they could get rid of this tower all together. Rather the board needs to consider any change from what is legally there now. In this case we are asking to remove whip antennas and put up the panel antennas. The question is would denying the applicant this change have a gain to the general public that would outweigh the loss to the applicant? Mr. Polito asked whom the applicant is referring to as the general public. Attorney Connell believed the legal standard included the abutters, but also the rest of the people in the coverage area that would not have service if this application is denied as well as the T-Mobil users who travel on Route 121 where there is a gap in service. Mr. Polito stated that the Chester Rod and Gun Club seemed to disagree that the public interest was defined as "what a group of people want". He said that the Court appears to be saying that the zoning is what is considered of interest to the public because that is what protects them and the abutters. Attorney Connell said the Court clearly said you couldn’t just look narrowly at what zoning expressed, because that limited the location. Attorney Connell did not understand Mr. Polito’s reference to this case.

Mr. Polito then asked how this proposal was a reduction in the nonconformity when they have already discussed how this is an increase in visual impact due to the increase in surface area of the antennas? Attorney Connell said they were looking at the linear feet, moving up on the tower, and doing a flusher mount on the tower. Mr. Polito wanted the record to be clear that the applicant was talking about very limited visional aspects, linear feet, when contending that this was a reduction in nonconformity. Mr. Polito then said that even if this tower were in the Commercial Zone, where it would be an allowed use, it would not comply with at least two of those requirements. Specifically, it does not meet the requirement of "Z800:3 f" that the fall zone be entirely within the property where the antenna is located and it does not meet the 100’ and setback requirement of "Z800:3 g". Attorney Connell again claimed the proposed changes result in the reduction in linear feet and the whip antenna’s, which protruded out as opposed from the flush mount antennas. They would still take the position that at the height proposed for the panels, even a white band of panel antennas around the top would be less obvious to the eye that the whip antennas. Attorney Connell said the Board needed to make a decision and articulate why they would deny this and the applicable standard here is the special exception zoning, which they feel they meet.

Mr. Polito opened the hearing to abutter’s comments. Mr. Polito asked that the comments be kept to the criteria issues of diminution of value, public interest, and substantial justice.

Mr. Carter spoke on behalf of the abutters. He provided the Board with a packet of information that included a letter signed by abutters and neighbors, a memo of points on the 3 special exception criteria being considered, 3 pages from the web on alternative wireless antenna technologies, and a page from the web on tower classification. Mr. Carter read from his memo addressing the special exception criteria. He said that if the panels were allowed, the abutters and others would see 6 square feet of surface area as opposed to a slender width of the existing whip antennas. The additional 7/8" coaxial cables that need to be run up the tower have not been discussed and would add to the visual impact. Mr. Carter said the applicant had not provided the Board with anything other than the comments of Mr. Ciolfi that would demonstrate that there is no diminution to property values. Mr. Carter said that while he believes that there are no health affects from cellular, he does contend that many people do believe there are health affects. He pointed out that the Federal government went so far as to clearly state that a cell tower cannot be denied based on concern over adverse health affects. He said that is further evidence that, regardless of the scientific evidence, there is a public perception that cellular is a health concern. He said that he and the abutters believe that this negative perception would adversely affect property values if cellular were added to the tower. Mr. Carter went on to distinguish between cellular and other wireless technologies like the two-way radio services or paging that are carried by whip antennas now on the tower. He said the public is particularly tuned and can distinguish cellular from other radio technologies. When you say cellular, people pay attention.

Mr. Carter said that the abutters have collected signatures from approximately 20 neighbors in opposition to the proposed changes and stating that they believe that the changes will adversely affect their property values. Mr. Carter said that there does exist case law found in the Fourth Circuit that gave credibility under federal appeal, that the opinion of abutters was deemed to meet the bar of substantial evidence in reviews such as this. Ms. Rochford asked Mr. Carter if he had clinical research to substantiate his claim of health risks from cellular towers. Mr. Carter said that he only brought it up to show that if people believed there were adverse health affects, regardless of what the science is, it would influence their decision to buy a house located next to a cellular tower.

Mr. Ciolfi wanted to be clear that ever since Mr. Carter’s involvement and through his repeated requests for analysis on the tower, the 222G Standard has been used in analyzing this tower. Mr. Carter questioned whether this proposed new use actually falls under Class I tower or a Class II tower. He said that the engineer analyzed the tower structure based on it being a Class 1 structure with no allowance for ice loads, which is permissible as a Class 1 use. He pointed out that the page he printed from the web would classify this use (cellular) as a Class II structure. Mr. Ciolfi disputed that assertion. Mr. Carter went on to say that he had read that new BOCCA codes that the town has adopted would also consider this a Class II structure.

Mr. Carter claimed there are other viable alternatives; less obtrusive technologies are available and pointed to the 3 pages of material he obtained from the web that demonstrated the alternative technologies available. Mr. Carter claimed the applicant did not prove that they had looked at other alternative technologies that might work and not need to be located on the tower. Mr. Carter also claimed there is case law that allows cellular carriers to rent right of ways on State Highways, (Route 121 or Route 111). Mr. Polito added that the Board is well aware that they cannot consider health effects as part of the reason to deny. Mr. Ciolfi said that he has commissioned many appraisals by MAI Certified Appraisers that continually demonstrate there is no evidence of diminution of property. Mr. Polito asked if there were some reason he didn’t bring one. Mr. Ciolfi said he didn’t think it was necessary and the board did not ask him to do so. Mr. Ciolfi said that they have been through this process with the Board of Selectmen and the ZBA for approximately six months and it has not been raised or requested. Mr. Polito said it was not their responsibility to tell them what they need to bring in. Mr. Ciolfi understood, but reiterated they did not commission a report because they were not asked to do so. It is still his position on the record that if they did commission it, it would show no diminution of property. Attorney Connell asked the Board to focus on the standards. Mr. Polito believed that in the interest of public safety, the classification of the towers is a concern. Mr. Ciolfi said there is no requirement that the tower be a Class II. The structure was always analyzed as a Class I structure. The professional engineer, that specializes in tower design and tower analysis said in his letter of March 8, 2007 that this could be considered a Class I Tower. It was Mr. Ciolfi who asked the engineer to look at this as a Class II tower because of Mr. Carter requests. As a Class I structure, if T-Mobile’s service was to be interrupted, there would still be land lines available and service from other providers. Mr. Polito questioned the fall zone and the representation that this is a low fall zone. Mr. Ciolfi said the structure would collapse upon itself. Mr. Polito asked about ice and whether the panels would accumulate and potentially drop more ice in wind than the whips. Mr. Ciolfi said it would have to blow over 70 feet which is the closest point. This is not a substantial risk. Mr. Ciolfi is not aware of any regulatory body that would tell what the classification had to be. Mr. Carter stated that FHA will refuse any home loan for a property that has a fall zone involving any kind of tower or overhead power lines, etc.

(Mr. Carter made other points all of which are in his memo accepted into the public record.)

After some discussion, the Board agreed that the Stipulation of 2005 was the baseline with which to compare the applicants proposed changes. He said that the Board must consider whether the proposed changes, as compared to what is allowed by the 2005 stipulation, meet the requirements of Z700:1 e. Mr. Friel asked if the tower had been inspected by the Town, Mr. Ciolfi said it was, that meeting that requirement of the stipulation was signed off by the Town Administrator, and they will continue to inspect this on an annual basis. The Board determined that the applicant’s request for a special exception relative to Z 800:3 a, d, & e was not under the prevue of the Board and restricted consideration of the application to the three applicable conditions of Z 700:1 e.

The Board reviewed the criteria:

Mr. Carter rejoined the Board. Mr. Zannini will not be voting

KLC Land Planning & Consulting for David Brown request for Special Exception Permit as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Sections 700:1a (Expand Non-Conforming) to permit partial demolition, alteration and enlargement and Section 700:2 to allow conversion of a seasonal dwelling to primary residence. Property located at 11 Lippold Road, Map 23, Lot 17, RR3 Zone.

Abutters List was read with the following present: Brown Family Trust; Kevin Camm for KLC Land Planning

Mr. Camm explained that none of the foundation will be replaced. They are using the original and will stay in the same footprint. They now have the two bedroom septic plan approved from the State. The septic will be located further from the lake than it is now. They are looking to convert this from a seasonal property to a year round property. The Board reviewed the plans. The applicant will be increasing the total square footage of the house approximately 500 square feet. Mr. Polito asked the applicant why he was changing from three bedrooms to two. The applicant explained he lived alone and his son was with him some of the time. He did not need any additional bedrooms. Ms. Rochford questions the basement space. Mr. Brown explained that when you come in off the lake you just go into the basement and are able to use the bathroom and not have to enter the house. The Board had the opportunity to conduct a site walk. Mr. Polito asked about the specific square footage. They calculated there would be about 2000 square feet total. Mr. Friel said this was not uncharacteristic for the neighborhood because the house to the left and right are the same or bigger and there is one a couple of doors down that is at least 3500 square feet. Conservation was not informed of this but the only issues would be the storm water runoff.

The Board reviewed the criterion

J.G. Tierney & Lorraine C. Mullett Family Trust request for Variance to Article V, Section 530 a,b & f of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a 2 Lot Subdivision which does not meet Lot Area, Lot Frontage and Side Yard Minimums on property located at 12 Willowvale, Map 14, Lot 3, TR2 Zone.

Abutters List was read with the following present: Lorraine C. Mullet Family Trust; Anita Still; Michael Morgan

Conservation was opposed to having this become a cluster subdivision and thought the two lot subdivision was the lesser impact. They did not want the cluster because of the Conservation land that they worked so hard to get.

Mr. Morgan is adamantly opposed to this subdivision. He owns 1400 feet of frontage, which is part of the Green Tunnel. This would impact them greatly. This is a proposal for pork chop lots. The owner bought this knowing it was inconsistent with the zoning. He did not see the hardship. The direct impact on them is there is no compelling reason to do this. The traffic will increase by 25% and if this is approved with flagrant violations of the zoning laws, what happens next?

The Board reviewed the criterion;

Patrick Mallon request for a Special Exception as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, 700:1, 700:2 to allow Conversion of a Seasonal Property to Primary residence and Expansion of a Non-Conforming property. Also request for a Variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 to permit expansion of the dwelling 50’ from wetlands (50’ variance) as opposed to the required 100’ on property located at 8 Valcat Lane, Map 22, Lot 47, RR3 Zone.

Motion made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Polito closed the meeting at 12:00 A.M.

Minutes prepared for notes & tape.

APPROVED______________________________

Submitted by Rebecca Russo