Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Oh, there's the screen. Thank you. Welcome to the June 18th, 2026 meeting of the Bo Planning Board. It's about 7.01 p.m. Sandy Crystal, Vice Chair.

Kim McDaniel, Slack Board Rep. Matt Monahan, Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission.

Casey DiStefano, Fort Hopkins Road.

Ben Davis, Nine Wheeler Road.

Jonathan Petrangelo, 5 Whittier Drive.

Jets Duke, 50 Brownhill Road.

OK. So we should probably, before we start, choose who's going to vote and then we'll get that set. So I guess we need two people, both Ben and Casey.

That would give us an even number. Yeah, just one would give us five. No, never mind. Now you're not a number anymore.

All right, so all the alternates are voting? Okay. All righty. And I think that we were looking at the agenda and thought to revise the order just by making the, bringing the Unitil proposed tree removal work up to start the public hearing. So if Unitil would like to present, that'd be great. So here, or? Yeah, raise your hand. Yeah, I'm sure.

Appreciate that. So yeah, I'm Chris Moltrip, manager of forestry operations at Unitil. So what we're looking to do is our routine maintenance on a couple of roads this year. I believe we did the eastern half of Woodhill except last year. So this year we're looking to do the western half and also on Putney Road. Both of those are on one of our circuits that's scheduled for routine maintenance. It's a five-year cycle. So every five years we come out and do this type of work, pruning and I actually did create a couple I created a list of some hazard trees this week if you want a couple copies of that that I found out there so there are 20 trees that I'm gonna be looking to have taken down mostly dead ash trees and well there's a little bit of a mix but there are 20 trees out there so that's what we're looking to do this doesn't negate the fact that we're still gonna be out there knocking on for all this work beforehand we will have lucas tree service doing the work again and i would expect that to be started in the fall throughout it's kind of their last project for the year i would make a motion to accept the application as complete second all those in favor

Okay, I guess we'll open the public hearing, see if there's any... If there's any comments, any on the Unitil utility work? Okay, we'll close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion, does it not have regional impact? Yeah, it's just one page I just made individual trees in town, I'm not sure I'll recognize I'd make a motion to approve the application for responsible clearing of trees on the

I'll second. All those in favor?

Aye. I'll make a motion for the finding of facts that this is essential maintenance of the trees so that it doesn't impact people's ability to have power at their houses. I'll second.

All those in favor? Aye.

All set.

There you go.

Next item on the agenda, application number 502-26, Timothy Polson, continued from the May 21st, 2026 meeting, proposed wetland adjustment 68 and 76 Woodhill Road.

Thank you. Yes, name's Tim Polson, co-owner at 68 Woodhill Road with my wife, Ashley. So we're proposing a lot line adjustment with our neighbor, Gretchen DePass, at 76 Woodhill Road. Her property surrounds ours. So we're looking to adjust the lot to basically annex a portion of her land into ours. There is no plan for development beyond what we already have. There's no plan for any development. So it's an open field. small pond on it and that's the

Matt, can you? There's a number of waivers here, my understanding. I was not in the last meeting. My understanding is one real waiver is that if we follow the rules, without these waivers, the house would be, there would be a structure in the right of way.

Correct, yeah. Yeah, so given that it's a simple outland adjustment, there was several waiver requests that they had put in. and you know he's got them all listed the new one that uh we identified last last month was the was that one for the right away with and he has since put that in so he's he's got you know all the waiver requests in that he needs um just need to act on on them all uh just spinning through them uh usgs data on on um contours the buffer strip which kind of goes number two which kind of goes hand in hand with the new one number ten lot boundaries shall be permanently marked 500 feet between because the big the back part is kind of big so that's yeah and that one was basically for all new bounds create or all new property lines created as part of this adjustment will be marked with less than 500 feet but the existing uh

76 Woodhull Road, parcel 4 does have on the back line, there's a pretty long stretch along the stone wall that is likely to be greater than 500 feet. So that was the waiver request was not to basically make right the other unaffected part of the property.

You said waiver number 10. I only have nine on my sheet. Oh, okay. Is there a 10th?

Yeah, so an additional one, it should be in your packets. I have a copy as well.

Page 12 of 177. There you go.

Oh, this is the, oh, sorry.

I was looking at the original one.

No, yeah. Yeah, it should have, like Carrie doesn't, like the changes in bold. It should have that.

Yeah.

Yeah, so designation, yeah, designation of unsuitable land. A waiver request there. Location type of all existing proposed utilities. Two ties to the state coordinate system soil delineation and legend and Existing a proposed sewer and water and pet and the impact, you know And then yeah, that's it for waivers and all together I

I assume we accepted this as complete last time. We didn't get to that point because of the waiver number 10. I'll make a motion to accept the application as complete.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye.

Any opposed?

Yep. Okay. Well, let's open it up to a public hearing on this application. Anybody here? regarding this proposed guideline adjustment. Okay. Closed the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to not have a regional impact.

I'll second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Okay. Anyone have any issues with the waivers? No, I don't. I'm just going to know by number if that's okay. I don't want to have to read 300 words. I'll make a motion to approve waivers 1 through 10 as listed in the Community Development Department notes.

Second? I didn't know if you were done.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

So the conditions that they have in the updated staff report on page 13 is to show a 1 by 3 foot reserve strip, professional stamps and signatures, all conditions of approval. Are there any other conditions the board wants to place on this?

I would say also the waiver is granted just so that it's on there because I think we definitely want to track that too.

So I just need to list the waivers that were granted? Perfect. And I can follow up with you.

I can send you an email with them writing the email, literally just copy and paste them right into the final plan.

a motion to approve application 502-26 with the following conditions. To one, show a one by three foot reserve strip in the top left corner for the Merrimack County Register of Deeds. Two, personal stamps and signatures as well as owner signatures on the final plan. Three, all conditions of approval and waivers granted listed on the final plan.

I'll second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Make a motion that the findings of facts that this was a logical granting of the waivers given the realities of the physical land of the time.

All those in favor. Okay, and I see that application 206-26 was withdrawn. And so we have application 205-26, Kearsarge-Bow, LLC, continued from the May 21st, 2026 meeting, proposed site plan for the construction of the 1.76 megawatt Alternating current ground-mounted solar photovoltaic array on the former White Rock Hill landfill. Oh, with the CEP? Yeah. We can, yeah.

Just for the sake of efficiency. All right.

Okay, and then the proposed wetland conditional use permit application 404-26 to impact approximately 800 square feet of wetland buffer for the installation of portions of the ground-mounted solar array, 8 Falcon Way.

Do you want to keep these extras? Ginger wanted me to bring 12. Sure, we'll just leave them there. So, hi everybody. Again, I'm Rob Pekowski with Westland Samson representing Kearsarge. Unfortunately, Alex from Kearsarge is under the weather, so he couldn't make it. So since the last meeting, we had a site walk on Monday, and then Monday night we were granted the CEP approval for some panels in the prime wetland buffer. We've updated the plan since then to remove the trademark on it. We added the colored wetland buffer lines to the plans, and then we submitted the soil map.

The town report, I'll be doing that at page 36. It combines 36 and 77. Am I getting that right? 35. Yeah. That's for the first application. And then?

Does this take away that little parking lot area?

No, that remains.

Yeah, it's basically the fence. It's not touching any of the parking. Okay. So when we did the sidewalk, you walk into the heated fence where the existing.

Got it. I just see lay down area, so I'm not sure what that was.

It's like where the whole stage to take. That's just temporary. Oh, okay. That's just temporary construction.

That would be that.

Do you want to describe also some more information about the tree cutting? Because I know that the

Conservation Commission had concerns and wanted more information and... Yeah, I don't think, I mean, since that came up Monday, they haven't had a chance to dig into any of the numbers. I know one of the commission members wanted to see that, you know, like quantitatively, if they were to not remove additional trees, what would that do to the output? So I know Kearsarge is still working on that. I think they're planning to go back to conservation next month.

Okay. And then really I think among the questions was also on the other hand identifying what trees You felt were necessary to remove And or trim well we talked about trimming and I the town forester Ron Komarczyk happened to be at our meeting Monday evening for another purpose and kind of mentioned how when you top pine trees first of all it opens them up to decay and other things to get in them and then also since you're cutting off the kind of growth point, they branch out, sort of like most plants do when you cut the top.

I was more meaning not the pines. I was more meaning like eventually they'll probably have to trim some of those other trees.

Oh, some of the other trees.

Like within the next three to five years, right? It would probably be good to know what's the plan around trimming those other... Yeah, I think that's part of it. Once you cut out those pines, those other trees are just going to start...

Right, they're going to grow up around it. Yeah. Yeah, I think Kearsarge is working on a plan for that too, for not just the initial tree clearing, but for like an O&M plan to try to manage the tree ice. Okay.

So I assume we did not get to accepting the application last time?

I'll make a motion to accept the application is complete second one way of a request yeah actually they don't have the one thing that that it's relative to the CUP is usually there would be a wetland resources evaluation which they haven't provided And I think it would be logical since it's the...

I thought we submitted the wetland report.

The wetland report I don't think had a... I don't recall it having the... That's that CUP report. I know I have it here. conditional use permit it has the data check it has a narrative it's it's not on the checklist it's in the rules it's in Ordinance, but it's not on the checklist. So that may be confusing to everybody but I would and it's in 10 f to be in the ordinance 10 F is the standards for granting a conditional use permit.

Is it like a narrative kind of?

No, it's usually in most sites where you're going to really impact a undeveloped buffer, it would be like a Corps of Engineers has a highway methodology supplement and it's Did you hear anything? No. It's a wetland thing. I don't have a copy with me of what it looks like. But like I said, for this, we mention, oh, wait a minute. Oh, yeah, B. The proposed activity minimizes the degradation to a loss of wetlands resources and wetland buffers and minimizes any adverse impact to the functions, values of wetlands resources and wetland buffers as determined by a wetlands resources evaluation in accordance with an established methodology such as the Highway Methodology Work Supplement, 1999, of the Army Corps of Engineers.

I thought we, at one of the previous meetings, I thought we discussed a waiver for that just because it is only in fill.

And I think if, as long as we, if we don't have it written, we should get a, we should get a waiver for that.

So it would be a waiver, just so I can say it correctly, waiver for...

It's a 10F... case B.

Okay. And I'm seeing that there's a waiver for 502N for a drainage plan. Yeah. And so this would be another waiver. Okay. We didn't actually vote on accepting the application as complete.

Right.

Yeah, I'm rolling through the full application now to see. Cindy, where did you read that from, the ordinance or the application?

The ordinance.

And it's 10F2B.

On page 79 in the ordinance, if you have the ordinance. OK.

I would think the narrative would answer that.

Well, but it.

There are methodologies for doing it, so I think it would be probably best to just have a waiver.

So what do you want to do? Can we add that waiver to the list? Yeah, I have one. So we have a motion and a second on application as complete.

Do you have to hold it up? You can always withdraw the motion, too. You can always withdraw the motion, too. Well, aren't we just adding in a waiver request? If you want to do that, yeah, you could do that.

that work for you for what Oh add that waiver and then the application is still complete okay and they'll they'll follow up with the written yes okay all right all those in favor aye any opposed There weren't any additional comments that came in.

I mean, we have to... They're the same comments as... They're just the ones that we got.

The ones that we got before. Okay.

I'm sorry, the fire department's comment and the road agent's comment about the...

Right. And in terms of public comments, I know there were a couple of people here.

Yeah. And in terms of additional materials, there was a post-development soils map that came in. There was a proposed site plan note seven regarding the tree clearing. And I think you guys basically discussed that. Yeah, the other thing, just kind of rolling through the memo, you guys talked about other department heads are at just now. The monuments every 500 feet is a thing. You could do a waiver on that, too. I don't think they had submitted one.

Is that along the property boundary?

Yeah. Like the law line adjustment application, they discussed that as well. That was when they had put in the existing Yeah, we're not changing the law.

But they're not changing boundaries.

Right, right. It's just in the past, Bill Klavan, he would, you know, just say, that's how he interpreted that, is to make sure the bounds end. So, but, yeah.

I think these are, isn't it, along the existing property line, essentially, or just inside of that, that the...

Yeah, I mean, it's a big parcel, so I think it makes sense to consider that as a waiver.

So Sandy, in the conservation meeting, was the discussion satisfied from the Conservation Commission's select clearing to be formed within the limit of the work in the fence line.

No, I think the Conservation Commission voted to recommend approval of the CUP for the work, the panels on the landfill, but the tree issue was still needed to be addressed.

How is it left? Because the way that it's worded here in the plan is as approved by the Conservation Commission.

Yeah, Kearsar still has to do some additional evaluation.

Do you owe them feedback? Should that be a condition of approval?

Right, right. So I was thinking of it as a condition of approval.

So what would that condition be? that CURESAGE comes back with the study analysis of the number of trees that would have to be taken down in order to have efficient energy output.

And I think the idea with that that one of the commissioners had asked was to get an idea for you know, how much of that is needed. And I think also they would need to submit like an O&M plan we were talking about as well.

That would be a second condition. O&M?

Operations and Maintenance.

Yeah. Okay. Plan for... Well, trimming of trees and grass. The grass mowing, which would be standard O&M procedures for a solar...

All right. I know we had a hearing the last time, but if there's anybody else, I'll open up the hearing to if anybody has anything to add. No? Okay. Close the hearing.

I'll make a motion this does not have a regional impact. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

So the waivers that I'm seeing are the application, the applicant has requested a waiver for 502.N, and then we also have a waiver for 10.F.2B. That's on the CUP application. So those would be the two waivers for applications 205-26 and 404-26.

Do we need one for the modification? It's not really applicable.

You guys, I mean, that's an interpretation that I...

say it's less relevant for a site plan than it would be like a subdivision right right and it looks like one bound that was noted I don't know what bounds are out there there's one of the northwest

There's a square with a little dog.

That's what I was. Yep. Yep. Oh, yeah. I guess the question is, when you have the fence installed, How do you know exactly where it should go? Not to be. Oh, right. Okay. It's actually beyond the rock.

Yeah, it's on the outside edge of the riprap. Right, right, right.

Yeah, I forgot about that. Okay. Yeah, I don't have an issue with the bounds. I know that.

5.2-N and 10.F.2-B for applications 205-26 and 404-26. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

So the conditions, I see nine plus the two that we added on there. Does anyone else have more conditions they'd like to put on this approval?

Can I just add one thing? Did you vote on completeness?

We did. Yes. We did, okay. It took us three times, but we got it.

You said I was remembering the previous two.

You have those nine plus the two, is that what you said? Yes. Yeah, that's what I've got.

All right. I make a motion to approve applications 404-26 and 205-26 with the following conditions. Address missing checklist items. Post a bomb for removal on solar panels. Recipient of NHDS AOT permit. receipts of NHDS type 1b permit modifications to solid waste management facility permit review by and compliance with any comments from town department heads set monuments in accordance with section 502 t professional stamps and signatures as usual plus that Curaçao agrees to return with a study analysis of the trees in which they are to cut, and then an O&M plan. Cut or remove. Cut or remove, sorry. And an O&M plan for tree and grass maintenance.

Keep one edit. The one about the monumentation.

We killed that?

Yeah, kill that one.

So moved. That's my motion. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I have a motion that the applicant has to satisfy the regulations and has balanced out the need for efficient energy capture with incorporating into the actual site. to balance. Carrie would not approve of that. She's not here. Carrie, if you're watching, I'm sorry. So that's my motion.

I'll second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Next item, application number 208-26, Dennis J. Ordway Trust 2023, Mariner Tower LLC. And we do also have application number 407-26, which is the personal wireless PWSF conditional use permit.

Oh, yes.

Thank you. Brian Grossman from Strange Scott and Giroux, counsel for the applicant Mariner Tower. With me is Louis Vitale, who is the president and principal of Mariner Tower.

What is his name? I'm sorry.

Yeah, it's Louis, L-O-U-I-S, Vitale, V as in Victor, I-T-A-L.

Okay, thank you.

So, Mariner has applied for a conditional use permit and site plan review for a proposed personal wireless service facility at 116 to 120 South Bow Road. In accordance with the ordinance, a visual demonstration has been performed prior to the hearing. The results of the visual demonstration including photographic simulations as well as a viewshed map have been provided to the board. We think the results of the viewshed analysis demonstrate how well-sighted the facility is. Even for its height, it's extraordinarily limited in terms of overall visibility. Where it is visible, you need very specific spots to see it, otherwise it really does blend just based on the natural vegetation and distance to the site and given its location. The site is a 57-acre site. The proposed site facility is a what we call self-supporting lattice style tower so there are no guy wires attached to it. It is a lattice style tower proposed to be 190 feet tall. It will not require any lights including FAA marking or lighting. It will be finished with a hot-dipped galvanized finish which weathers to, it starts out as a dull gray and continues to weather even further so it's a non-reflective finish. access to the compound. There will be also anti-climbing techniques for the tower as well. Should someone get back there and get into the compound itself, they still won't be able to climb the tower without specialized equipment. The facility itself is set back over 900 feet from the road, 300 feet from the nearest property line, so it complies with the requirements for a 125% foot setback. It is located over that 75 by 75 foot compound is located within a 100 by 100 foot leased area, as I said, the 57 acre property. It's designed to accommodate at least four wireless communications carriers that are licensed by the FCC. Expected antennas would be a fiberglass, again, with a non-reflective finish, typically kind of a dull gray-ish. Again, so in terms of overall visibility, there shouldn't be any light heat, smoke, glare, pollution. It doesn't discharge water, it doesn't require sewage, it's unmanned. that's only visited one to two times per month for routine maintenance if that per carrier they would typically do that in an SUV type vehicle so post construction in terms of what you would expect to see on any residential property any any normal vehicle going up and down south bow road they would blend in up other than the fact that probably have some some graphics on there denoting their company that's a typical pickup truck or explorer type size vehicle Generally, the equipment includes small equipment, either shelters or weatherproof radio communications equipment cabinets, and those are a non-reflective color, typically muted tones, but given the setbacks of over 300 feet to a nearest property line, 900 feet to a road in the existing vegetation, the compound should not be visible from a public way or even off property. Access is via a 12-foot-wide gravel driveway that is proposed to extend from South Bow Road approximately 980 feet to the site. The utilities will run above ground through utility poles to the site along the accessway. There will be a turnaround that will accommodate at least two utility vehicles, so if two carriers happen to send their tech out at the same time, there'll still be places for them to park, as well as the ability to turn around and leave the site as well. Mariner is an independent infrastructure provider. So they don't provide service themselves. They have agreements with all of the major wireless communications carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, to work with them. And they've worked with them successfully in a number of places in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and elsewhere. So they have those relationships to facilitate co-location on the proposed facility. Mayor is aware of other efforts to site a facility in the area and focused its search as well as being guided by I think even a Butter Correspondents referenced a study done by the town itself in choosing the location. The facility will provide coverage to South Bow Road, Woodhill, Hooksett Road, Quimby Road, Notting Cot Forest Preserve, surrounding roads, neighborhoods, and businesses. It will increase coverage to about a thousand people about an additional 145 employees, about almost five square miles of additional coverage, about a mile and a half of coverage along South Bow Road, almost a mile along Woodhill Hooksett Road, and about half a mile on Columbia Road. I don't think I need to tell anyone the importance of wireless communications in this day and age, but I will a little bit anyway. It continues to grow exponentially. The number of wireless subscriber connections as of 2025 is 579 million. that is 1.7 per person in the United States, which means each person on average has more than one wireless communications device, and that connects to a wireless communications network. That doesn't count just an iPad that's Wi-Fi only or a tablet that's Wi-Fi only. Wireless households in the United States that are wireless only, they have zero landline whatsoever, is now up to 78.7%. Annualized minutes of use is 2.4 trillion. There are 2.2 trillion text messages or picture messages, because they're now accounted for combined. That is an increase from just 2024 of 42 billion. Annualized wireless data usage is 132 trillion. And as of December 2024, 76.4% of all E911 calls are made from a wireless communications device. Extraordinarily important statistic, we rely on, as far as radio frequency design goes, we rely on the experts with the appropriate tools and don't generally go with, and would not go with anecdotal evidence, but there are a number of instances where people have said absent a wireless communications device, whether they were on the side of the road, whether they were in their own driveway, they would not have survived had they not been able to use wireless communications.

I'm going to stop you here because I can see these are all very valid facts. When we had a cell phone tower approval a number of years ago, this turned into a policy debate. This is not a policy committee. We actually don't care at all about the number of people in America with networks. We care if this application aligns with our town ordinance. I would like to, and I'm just one member of this board, I would like to keep the discussion on that because when it goes into a policy area, It gives the public the incorrect view that this is a policy committee when we are simply trying to make sure your application aligns with our tower ordinance.

Well, to that end, we did submit a comprehensive narrative of approximately 40 pages that goes through line by line, provision by provision, all of the applicable ordinance provisions, whether they are generally applicable to a condition of use permit, whether they're specifically part of the personal wireless service facilities ordinance, or just your general site plan regulations. I don't think anyone wants me to go through 40-some-odd pages of that. Please don't. So we hope you've had a chance. The application was submitted a while ago. We hope you've had a chance to review that. I will hit some of the highlights. A couple of these might be repetitive from the original intro. Tower setback, the tower setback requirement is 125% of the tower, so 240 feet. The nearest proposed property line is 316 feet. It's 380 feet from South Boat Road, over 700 feet from both the south and west property lines. So it far exceeds all of the applicable requirements as far as setback. The height is consistent with the maximum height limitation under the ordinance. The location prioritization, we did submit an alternatives analysis. I think it's at Exhibit E of the packet that you have, along with the radio frequency report, demonstrate that there are no existing buildings, feasible structures, or other feasible personal wireless communications facilities that can provide, would allow an opportunity to provide adequate coverage to the significant gap that's been identified here. It will comply with FAA and FCC regulations. It will not require marking or lighting. We did include the determination of no hazard to air navigation in the packet, demonstrating that no marking or lighting would be required. We did submit as well a report demonstrating that the facility will comply with the FCC regulations with regard to radio frequency exposure. Submitted evidence that the facility will comply with the national environmental programmatic agreement and the section 1 of 6, which is the historic review. Um, the New Hampshire state historic preservation office has issued a finding of no adverse effect and they did that on December 29th of 2025. The location of the site avoids any environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands. It preserves existing vegetation and topography to the extent possible and feasible and is located outside the 75 foot wetlands buffer. As I mentioned from the visual demonstration and photographic simulations, the visual mitigation requirements have been met. It's located on a wooden hill, a wooded hill rather. It's shielded by a lot of that wood. It's not going to be visible. The compound itself will not be visible. The vegetation really screens it fairly well from a number of locations around town. The galvanized finish, as we talked about, is non-reflective to try and blend with the environment as much as possible. Mentioned some of the operational characteristics. It's unmanned, so it requires only one to two visits per month for routine maintenance, so no increase, no discernible increase in traffic will not pose a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic in the area. Given the basis of the area, I expect pedestrian traffic is fairly light, but certainly won't pose a hazard to the vehicular traffic on Southwell Road. Again, no water, no sewer, no septic, no trash, doesn't generate trash. no objectionable noise or odor, fumes, glare, smoke, dust. So no adverse impact on the environment. It does enhance public safety. So again, improves personal communications for personal services, for emergency, for convenience, for business, and does address a significant gap in coverage in this area. The tower itself is designed to meet the NCEIA TIA 222H, which is the current revision or applicable revision for structural standards for wind and ice loading for a tower type structure. It is being designed for We have submitted a real estate valuation study demonstrating that the facility will not result in a diminution of property values. The stormwater management plan and pollution prevention plan has been included to demonstrate that it will not generate any undue runoff or sedimentation off the property and will comply with environmental regulations with regard to stormwater. There was, and because this did come up a little bit deeper than we ordinarily would on the National Environmental Programmatic Agreement review, the environmental review that's performed under that includes federal and state listed species evaluations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consultation through IPAC, natural resources review coordinated through the State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and their data check program, New Hampshire DES did review the project boundaries. They did report there are no documented occurrences of any protected species or exemplary natural communities within the vicinity of the project site. And they concluded that no further consultation was required. An HDES review also reflects their current database of documented and verified occurrences of those type of environmentally sensitive areas and habitats. The agency did not identify specifically, as this was raised, any spotted turdid records associated with the project area. We know there was observation about a half mile away, but that's not necessarily evidence of the area itself that's involved in the project is a spotted turtle habitat. There's no evidence that in the review demonstrated that through the consultant. There's also no evidence that there is a monarch butterfly habitat. There's no state or federal resources that identify the monarch as a threatened species in this area. The site assessment did not identify any milkweed host plants within the project area and the project area is really inhabitable to monarch habitat. It's a wooded area that is not more sunlit. It doesn't foster milkweed growth or breeding habitat. With regard to the tricolored bat, not the first time we've encountered the tricolored bat. Mariner's review demonstrates that it may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the tricolored bat, so long as tree clearing doesn't occur during the pup season, which is between June 1 and August 15th. It's important to note the tricolored bat is still a federally proposed species, so these types of clearing restrictions are voluntary. But that said, Mariners committed to avoiding any tree clearing and that type of work during the pup season of June 1 through October 15. So that should hopefully alleviate any concerns with regard to the tricolored bat. Any assertions concerning wetlands and vernal pools are contrary to the evidence that's been provided. National wetlands inventory and FEMA flood plan review were performed. A site-specific wetlands delineation was performed by a certified wetland specialist, which was Andy Klum Environmental. Their evaluation of potential impacts to surface features and natural resources they did consider those. Wetlands are on or near the property but not within the footprint of the facility, will not be impacted by the proposed facility. The tower and access road are specifically cited to avoid wetland impacts. Review found that the proposed facility is not anticipated to result in any significant change to surface features or wetlands resources provided that standard erosion and sedimentation controls are implemented during construction and of course we would expect to do that. So based on the professional consultant's review, including above and beyond NEPA, but certainly consistent with NEPA, the facility will have no adverse historic effects, nor will it have any adverse effect on a protected species, no wetlands impact, and no significant impact to natural resources. There have been some questions concerning design. Consistent with design approved a few years ago for, I think, the most recent other tower approval in Vaux. It's a very similar site design in terms of the lattice tile tower. Given the necessary height, we've been consistent with those discussions then and now. The camouflage would just be counterproductive. It would draw more attention to try and camouflage something of that height where everything can fall down. We just draw more attention to it. There is a time and a place for it, and when it blends, it works really, really well. When it doesn't, it is worse than if you had just done nothing and just let it be what it is. And we think given the, again, the photographic simulations and the viewshed map and the really limited visibility, we think the best thing to do is leave it, to draw the least attention to it, is leave it as a proposed lattice-style tower with the hot tip galvanized. The site is at a height necessary to provide coverage for the anticipated anchor tenant, as well as up to the total of four carriers. I only want to address a few last things here. I know health concerns were raised. I won't go too deep into it. I think as the Board knows, the application is governed by the Telecommunications Act. Telecommunications Act, under that, the Board is not allowed to base a denial upon the consideration of environmental or health effects. We've submitted the report demonstrating compliance. We can answer questions whether or not a Board wants to engage in that discussion given that it cannot form the basis of a decision. is certainly up to the board. So we can answer questions on it. We cannot answer questions on it. We would leave that to your discretion. Other than, again, to say it does comply, this is at Exhibit M, is where the FTC compliance document is. And there's reference to the New Hampshire 5G report. It's important to note that that was not adopted as official state policy. And given my review of it and 26-year knowledge of the Telecommunications Act, if it were adopted, I think it would violate it. pretty clearly, given the recommendations or requirements that it would impose. So, important to note that. Lastly, we'll address alternatives, and we submitted a alternatives analysis that goes through the process and the thought process behind it, and then attach to that Alternatives analysis is a document that includes over 170 different properties. That is one of the most exhaustive alternatives analysis I've seen in my 26 year career. It again goes through in general in terms of the I'll call the cover letter, the narrative explaining the process. What Mariner does and that is consistent with industry practice in terms of reviewing the zoning ordinance, determining where a facility could go, in relation to the significant gap in coverage, working through what the bylaw, what the zoning ordinance requires, but also really what good site acquisition procedure requires, even if the bylaw doesn't, or ordinance doesn't, which is to try and identify, okay, are there buildings, are there large structures, or is there something else that could be utilized before going to what we would call the raw land build. It identifies a handful of existing structures that aren't appropriate, were not feasible, maybe appropriate, not feasible from a structural standpoint, so they were ruled out. It really isn't any other type of structure. There's no tall smokestack or anything like that that would provide an opportunity for co-location for a carrier without the need for a new tower. I would correct one misstatement concerning federal law. Federal law does not require least intrusive means. I want to be clear about that. It is of a denial, but the federal law itself, the Public Indications Act itself, does not impose a federal standard for decision-making. It puts some parameters and some limitations around decision-making, but it does not prescribe a standard itself. The Public Indications Act does not have a list of criteria that a carrier or a wireless infrastructure provider is required to meet. Those criteria come from your ordinance. And if it is something that is not from your ordinance and is applied, it would potentially be a violation of federal law to include it or consider it. Last thing I'll address is the issue of providing coverage to or from another jurisdiction. Radio frequency does not stop at the border. Towns all over New Hampshire, including Boe, benefit from spillover coverage from other municipalities. Other municipalities will benefit from coverage where a gap lies and where it straddles an area. The coverage needs to be provided and to stop it at a town boundary would be impractical, would be terrible design. And the reality is a lot of the coverage is provided to and within Bowe. On the other hand, also even that coverage that spills over is going to benefit Bowe residents and visitors who are moving along that road, South Bowe Road, to and from Bowe or through Bowe. With that, Louis, I don't know if you have anything else. happy to take questions.

Do you want to accept as complete? Yeah. Just for full transparency, I'm going to suggest a site lock schedule. But I would make a motion to accept the application as complete. Yeah, just a quick scan of my

While you're scanning that, Bill, I saw your note, but I don't see dimensions yet on this, even on what they provided tonight for the driveway with respect to the boundary. Correct, yeah. Can you comment on that? The driveway location with respect to the boundary of the property, the distance, what's the distance?

Can you answer that slide, Sylvester? I'm Sylvester, TEP consultant for this application. And I can answer that question. The driveway itself, you're asking how far it is from the property land? So that will be staked. But it is tucked. So if you look at the easement, so you've got a 20-foot easement, because a 30-foot easement, it is tucked on the boundary on the west, on the easterly boundary of the lot. And so the driveway itself is within that 30-foot easement. So if you wanted to guess how far it is from the property line, it's 12 feet plus, it's actually 15 feet, yes, from the center. Okay. Yeah. And maybe you could see that on the other side plans. But it is tucked. Yeah, it is close to that boundary line.

And it looks like the powerful lines that you're running are on the edge.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, they're within the easement itself. Yeah. That's why they crisscross in some other areas so they could stay inside the easement.

There's easement, and there's also proximity to the adjacent property and the existing ordinance on that.

I was of the same concern that Bill raised in his notes.

Right.

You say the driveway is too close.

Increase it to 15 feet Increased it to 15 feet, but I can't remember where it's measured from I think there are two places

Maybe in the subdivision it says 15 because I know that we did increase it.

Well, I'm wondering if it's 15 to the center.

Oh, I don't think it'd be 15 to the center.

It's 15 to the edge.

From a property line.

That's what I recall. But you said it was 15 to the center.

Of the easement, that's 30 feet.

Well, of the easement, but we're... So that'll be something we'll have to look at closely.

Has the fire department had any comments?

I haven't gotten any from them yet. But getting back to the completeness question, I have two quick comments. I guess the first one is there's not going to be lighting on the site, per se, right?

No, as the applicant, there's no lighting on the tower when the carriers typically will have a motion detected light above the canopy of above the equipment. So as they're approaching, there's light there, but they will submit their specifics with their application.

Yeah, okay.

But we're not proposing any lighting.

Yeah, so had you been proposing, you would have needed a lighting plan, and that would have been a completeness issue. So short of that, and just to make sure that the driveway for any sidewalks that you guys may agree to do, you have the driveway staked, the locations for the facilities, that's typically a completeness item, but you could call it complete and then just say, stake it as a condition. But that's it for completeness. I'll stick with my motion. I'll second.

All those in favor of the completeness?

Aye.

Aye. So I have an aye from everybody? Okay, any opposed?

Okay, I think that because... Do you want to schedule a sidewalk now, but also have a public hearing? Yeah. When would we want to have a sidewalk? When's our next meeting? July 16th.

I would suggest that we not do it before the meeting, just because I think it's going to take a decent amount of time to walk in.

1,000 feet. I won't be here that week, just FYI, at all. I have a vacation, so.

You do it on the Monday? The 6th? The 13th. Oh.

Maybe before the conservation commission meeting. Okay.

I'm not here on the week before, so one of us is going to miss it.

Tuesday?

Tuesday.

Selectively.

Assuming it's going to take at least an hour.

Yeah, it'll definitely take at least an hour even to walk in. I don't know. So what are the options?

I would say you could do it on, we've done them on the weekend in the past. We've done some on like a Saturday morning.

Yeah, 18. Oh, sorry.

I won't be here. But again, don't do it on my behalf. Oh, dear.

The 15th, the Wednesday before.

I can do that.

Well, can we do it? Well, I guess we do have light, but what's the earliest we can start? I can do whenever.

Yeah, you can do whenever.

I want to do the 15th.

Don't base it on my schedule. I'm not here the 15th. No. Do you want to do 5 o'clock on the 15th? Works. Sure. We have daylight. So I just say, let's do that, and you don't have to stretch through the woods. No ticks. I got two from Monday. All right, so now we'll do a Wednesday, July 15th.

And I just did find in the zoning, there is a conflict with the side setback in the rural district, the residential district, the residential one-family district. Driveways do need to be 15 feet off the side property line, which is a problem with the driveway, right? Excuse me. I can go fix that. Yeah.

So...

Just out of curiosity, what was the maximum, or what was the minimum distance from the property line to the driveway again? He said 15 from the center. 15 to center?

So the width is 12, so like from the center to the edge, that's six feet. Okay. Yeah.

And then from the edge of the driveway to the nearest property line? Yeah, that's what I'm focused on. Here's the way it's written. It says, driveways, this is the district, shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the side of the property boundaries. I would assume that means the paved area.

Yeah.

Or the edge of the... Yeah, there's plenty of room. I mean, confirm it. I'm not even giving you a number, but there's too much room. It's way more. There's almost the size of the road.

Right.

Okay.

We'll take a look at that.

Take my tape measure out.

Okay, so why don't we... And we have the second meeting is on the 18th, is it, that week? 16th. 16th, the next day.

Yes.

Okay. I'm going to open the public hearing because I suspect there might be some people interested. So please make sure you provide your name.

Happy to. Do you want me to come up first?

No, just stand up so that we can hear you better.

the property a lot of my questions are more procedural because I do understand the regulatory body that this is but given that it sounds like things like the viewshed analysis just came in how do you make sense is it my understanding correctly procedurally there's going to be a second meeting so we have opportunity to review the packet the application packet submitted and then give comment based on that yeah so we'll do a sidewalk and then on the

So we'll have more questions. And then if you have questions, you have ample time then to speak to it as well.

And the site walk is open to the public, too, if you wanted to go there and ask questions there.

The one thing I would say is one discretionary aspect of 710 is the board's ability to ask the applicants to fund a third party assessment of the application. Given the complexity here, given the fact that there's a tower that's 160 feet just down the road, You know, and I understand there may be a question about engineering on that. Not to say that a company trying to make money would miss something, but I think, you know, to your point about trying to keep something that can be a hotbed issue at bay, asking them to fund a third-party assessment of the application and this bill design, I think we go a long way to acquiesce any concerns that are out there. So I think I'll save a lot of my questions right now until I get a chance to review the packet itself, but... This board has not been shy about getting third-party engineers involved.

We are fully aware that's something we quite frequently do. To that point, the drainage study, it's again, if you guys want to kick that over to have Towns engineer review that, just the drainage study.

Timing-wise then, I know everyone wants to get out of here too. Timing-wise on that, if you were to do it, would there be an opportunity after the third-party review for comment? And I only say that because depending on what they say, that may raise more questions for the abutters.

And it could raise more questions for everybody.

They'd bring the third party to move back to us in this forum again. We never meet outside of this forum. And then you would be able to comment on it at that point too. Okay.

Again, that's my only request at this juncture is for the board to truly consider bringing in that third party.

Any other concerns? Thank you.

A little nostalgia here. This is my first grade classroom. Dana Ordway, I'm going to direct a butter. A butter with a property line is in question. OK, I have a number of issues. I submitted a document to the board. I think you all had a chance to review it. And there was just a few of many issues that my son and I have a little inconsistencies with the I've got several pages to go through if you'd like me to do that I did not have a chance to make copies for everyone We have we have copies in our pack of the original but not what we just generated only hours ago. Oh, okay. All right, I said We'll see you in there somewhere. We said ten days. It's just not sufficient time And it's interesting they address some of the issues that we put forth today Okay, I'll start going through it. The tower height in the ordinance compliance, first issue. Let's see, the ordinance 7.10b2a limits new towers to 90 feet unless it's a tenor-only application. The applicant is proposing 100 foot. Now we're in excess of 100 feet. Okay, we also, I'm just reading this, I hope you don't mind. On April 12th, communication meeting here, there was a discussion of 89 Southmore Road of the tower. It's a new tower that we generated with the destruction of the old one, 180 feet. And Verizon agreed to place state emergency medications. It's interesting that their tower is 165 foot currently and they're proposing a 190 foot tower. So I believe the board was proposed by Carrie who brought it in. Even the CPU packet from Mariner reports 185 feet as the height used in their own analysis, not 190. You'll read that in the report. The tree canopy and stealth technology requirements. The average tree canopy per their document is 48 feet. Wooden 710E2D in the town of Bow allows the tower to extend 20 feet above that canopy, which brings it to a total of 68 feet. Their tower proposed is 122 feet higher than that. Also, the stealth technology, I'd highly call it a lattice tower stealth technology, which is intended. Location prioritization was not followed. Okay, and according to Ordinance 10.10 requires applicants to exhaust all high priority options before proposing a new tower. These options include using existing buildings that what I described was submitted by Cary. New structures and it would also be owned by I think the New Hampshire, the state of New Hampshire. Okay. New structures taller than the zoning district allows. Again, these are the priorities that they should abide by. Co-location on existing towers. Only then a new tower using stealth technology. Mariner checked off box four, which is stealth technology. I don't believe what they described as stealth by any means. They're asking for a waiver from applying stealth.

Stealth is like when you put fake leaves on. They're saying they don't want to do that and have asked us to approve a waiver to that, just to clarify. OK, I didn't. I couldn't. Yeah, no, I get it. It's fine.

And did you approve it?

No, no, no.

We're not there. Nothing will even be. I mean, we're just starting.

Nothing will be approved tonight even. We're just going to hear some concerns or comments, and then that will be it for tonight because we want to go see it ourselves. Sure, sure. And then we'll come back here and do this all again once or twice.

I'd be happy to walk. I grew up in that area.

And you're welcome. It's open to the public, the sidewalk. Thank you.

Okay, um, site selection errors and lack of outreach. Um, I'm gonna say Mariner originally placed survey stakes on my property, which is the highest spot in that area. Their stakes led right up to the top of the peak. So I'm questioning the boundaries, a couple of things, the boundaries that their, uh, that are now listed in there. I don't know, I don't believe they did not have a surveyor come in, but we did have, they generated it by the existing stakes, and I believe an expert that would be able to calculate the time, so it wasn't surveyed. Okay, and again, I referred to It was April 12th meeting minutes from Beau Planting Board. 98 South Bow Road refers to that tower I'm talking about existing. And the property is owned by Frank Woodbury. I'm sorry, leased from him. I don't know where the status of that ended up. But we could not find any resolution to that meeting or the results. Okay, and just a side note, why do the utilities have to be on the poles as opposed to underground? It's not consistent with the area or the wooded area. Okay, height, inaccurate elevation data. They're showing CPU packets such as 33 Quimby Road being listed as under 800 feet, where in actuality, it's much higher. So this is all in their CPU documents. All these statements they're making. Site, yeah, site selection. Okay, something else. I spoke of the stakes. All right, and... talking about outreach for all those people, how many people they approached, but I for one was not one of them. I was never contacted. I was never given an email, a letter, or anything of such. You can read. If you go to, I don't know what page it's on. Well, it says 123 24 South Bow Road, it says no checks at all. It says contacted owner. It comes down and says brother of target parcel landowner was contacted. I had no knowledge of that. I don't know anything. And I know there's no legal right you can speak to me. So, you know, like I said, the property, on my side is much higher, probably be more desirable. What else? Environmental wildlife and watershed impacts. I'm very concerned about the watershed. Again, growing up there, it flows into two brooks as the should probably be very aware of. There's a lot of water up in there, particularly after rainstorm like we just had. A site visit in July being dry, you won't see water probably, but you will see the remnants of the water flowing through. Okay, is there any?

Are you gonna, you'll leave your newer comments with us?

I will, yes.

Okay, all right, that'd be great.

I've got, yeah, I didn't take enough copies, but.

No, no, no, but even if you leave it with Will, Matt, or something.

Will has been a great help, and Matt as well. Yep, yep. So again, on the outreach, lack of outreach, I suggest that the applicant did not thoroughly evaluate all viable locations. So, and there's several people that they say could not be contacted, property owners questioning as to the effort that went into that. Again, in the environmental wetlands, like I said, Oh, these are just bullets. I have much more details into the watershed and the wellhead protection area for Hooksett Village Water Precinct. Mariner's Own Wetland Scientist confirms that these wetlands support vernal pool breeding habits. These, in fact, should be avoided. Two species have faced Their tricolor bat is what they reported on. It is an endangered species. Spotted turtle is something my son discovered, Daniel here, discovered two years ago. And that was just down the road from the entrance to this site. Now they migrate. They go to water areas, obviously, the turtles. And I don't know. I don't know how they could determine that they couldn't go up through them like you suggest. I don't know of an expert that could find those tracks or whatever they looked for to determine that, just like the bat. I don't understand how they would determine that. The milkweed. The milkweed is the only food for the Monarch butterfly. That field grows. So when they say there's no damage, no weeds in the field, it's not up in the woods. So I disagree with that.

That's why we do a site walk, so we can see things for ourselves.

Yeah, things are different this time of year, July versus early spring and fall. Okay, one last thing. A lot of health concern, property value concerns. The New Hampshire Commission 5G recommends 1,640 foot setback from homes with 5G. He says that was, I'm not sure. And I'm sorry, I forgot his name. And I did speak with some real estate agents. And the property values, unless they're within that 1,640 foot setback, and they're aware of the potential bias, yes, there is a problem. OK. And while federal laws limit how much weight we can place on health concerns, the SEPARAC recommended recommendation and property value impacts on legitimate planning considerations. So in closing, I'm going to have a number of issues based on what I just heard. Closing the proposed tower violates multiple town ordinances. The applicant has not demonstrated the need for a 190-foot tower. The nearby tower already exists, which Verizon already agreed to putting their antenna on. This imputed packet contains inconsistencies in questionable data. The site proposes

Thank you very much. Anybody else with comments? Anybody? Anything else? No? Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

Sandy, just one thing. I don't know if this is a good time to read in a last-minute email we got. And then we also have another one attached to the packet that came in from email from Ms. Hawkins, I believe. I don't know if we need to read that in the record.

I can summarize that we have, there's always people who can't be at these meetings and we respect that and ask that they send us notes so we can read them into the record. Ryan and Lauren Hawkins have sent us a note saying that we read this aloud during the public hearing. Where is the actual letter?

That is a second email that you have there, Kip, that is another abutter that is acknowledging the same thing.

Yeah, so the Hawkins are raising some concerns about the height of the tower, some of the studies, and also the pre-existing infrastructure in the area. And then Ms. Harrington is raising concerns that we at least consider all negative impacts that this would have on residents of Belle. This is now in the public record, but we just want to make sure that people are heard when they can't make these meetings.

Okay, yes, I will close the public hearing.

Right. So for everyone, that's it on this tonight. We scheduled the sidewalk. We'll come back and do much of this again and have public hearings where you can raise, you can ask questions and we'll ask questions of the applicant and then we'll move to either approve or deny the application in time. So the next meeting is in July on that.

Can I have one last statement?

The public hearing is closed, but what's the... a little bit yeah and that's again why sandy said we we want to go and see it ourselves if something is important we need to have a sense of what it's going to look like if it's approved yeah anything that comes for us is in the public directory yeah and if you can't find online our town planning group will happily sorry guys they'll get it for you okay you if you want to save the paper i can send you an email

to make a motion to continue application 208-26 NCUP-407-26 to July 16th.

Second. All those in favor? Aye.

Opposed? So a new business, is this just a, what's this building? It's already open. Ice cream shop?

Yeah. You haven't seen that yet? No. Yeah, it's a notification from Dunbar.

They're already open. Thanks, Dunbar. I had ice cream last week there. It wasn't good. It was great.

All right. There's nothing. They're just notifying us. Okay. Yep. That's it. Pre-advertisement. Yes.

For all the viewers out there.

Yeah. I can't do the minutes since I wasn't here.

Okay. I wasn't here either. Okay. Do you have a quorum to do?

Maybe that's what that is. There's no recording.

Yeah, no. There's no mic on. You don't have a quorum, do you?

And maybe just go in and make your statement, because they should all come out.

You would have three.

She wasn't at the last meeting.

But to make the changes. OK. OK, thank you. Whatever he says. You wouldn't have three? Me and Casey.

OK. All right. So I guess we need to wait. That's not enough. It's not a quorum. Not on the planning board anyway. Conservation commission, yes.

You're not going to have the next one either, probably.

Well, it might be a different group. Yeah, I do have some edits on that, but I'll go through them.

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

I'll second.

All those in favor? Aye.