Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Great. Good evening. Welcome to the July 16th meeting of the Bowl Planning Board. Sandy Crystal, Vice Chair.

Kim McDaniel, Select Board Rep. Carrie Mackinnon, Community Development Director. Jess Duke, 50 Brown Hill Road. Kristen Hayden, 2 Colonial Terrace.

Casey DeStefano, 4 Hopkin Road.

Levi Berry, 19 Laurel Drive. Ben Davis, 9 Wheeler Road.

So I think we're going to, given what we have on the agenda, we're going to take item number, application number three, Global Montello Group Corporation first because it's a very simple request and So that's application 408, Global Metal Group Corporation, sign ordinance, reasonable exception, conditional use permit to add a digital diesel price sign to the existing high-rise sign. Located at 1516 Route 3A. All right.

We have Carolyn Parker on speaker. Sounds a little crackly. Can you hear us, Carolyn? Yeah, you're pretty crackly.

Do we just want to summarize what the application is?

I can do that, and if we have questions for her, you can ask.

So, Carolyn, if we have questions for you, we'll ask you, but just based on the quality of the audio, Carrie's going to summarize the application, and we'll go through the process.

All right, so this... Does it sound better? No. No. You sound like a robot.

There he is.

All right, so this is a conditional use permit for a reasonable exception from the sign regulations. It's for the Global Montello Group at 1516 Route 3A. There is an existing, they call it a high-rise sign. It's a tall, like a pylon. It has the pilot sign on currently. They're changing it to say global. And the proposal is just to add a digital sign sign that will have the current diesel price. So the existing sign won't be getting any taller. It'll just be a new section will be added to it below the global top.

Would you be able to share it? I'll make a motion to accept the application as complete.

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

Looking at what we can see and that other people

So the left side shows the existing. And then the right side shows the face of these existing pieces are supposed to be changed. But that's not part of this application because they're the same size. They're already there. It's just this diesel price sign right in the middle. That's the new part. So it just adds some additional square footage to the existing nonconformance sign. So it's visible from 93.

Okay, so we'll open the public hearing on this application. Anybody has any comments to provide? No. OK. As we close the no gavel. Oh, sorry. It's OK. I can go get it.

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

Sorry.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

OK. And then she did provide responses to the conditional use criteria. So the use is specifically authorized. Can you speak more loudly? Yeah, sure. The use is specifically authorized. It will comply with all the requirements of the article. It won't endanger the public health or safety. It's compatible with the neighborhood, will not have a substantial adverse impact on highway or pedestrian safety or on natural resources, and adequately serviced by public utilities. So those are the criteria they need to meet. You can read her responses.

Is there any clearing proposed to have a better view of the sign at all?

I believe, Vance, Carolyn mentioned that they might need to clear a little bit. Is that true?

Carolyn, do you need to clear any foliage for the sign visibility?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Saying in the winter you can see it better than in the summer for obvious reasons And they'll have a structural engineer to make sure the sign is properly attached as what she said That'll be reviewed by the building inspector when they have their building permit for Does anyone have any conditions of approval they'd like to attach to it?

No.

I'll make a motion to approve application 408-26 for adding a diesel sign to the existing structure.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

Yeah, no.

She's an hour and a half away, so we didn't want to have her.

Terry gave you good advice on that front. I'll make a motion that the finding of facts or that the structure already exists, and thus adding another relatively small sign. Yes, the answer is yes.

Yes. I can follow up with you tomorrow, Carolyn, if you have more questions about what happens next.

Thanks.

Have a good night.

All right. All those in favor? Because we have a motion and a second. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Okay.

All right. All right.

Thanks for the flexibility on that.

I've tried to use the phone before and it just worked. It hung up on something. Anyway, okay, so the next item on the agenda is the minor modification, conceptual consultation, Thomas and Alicia Marquis, okay, consulting LSE conceptual consultation for an existing roofing company.

John Rokey with Rokey Consulting. With me is Tom Marquis. So this is an existing house site and it's in a commercial zone on Route 3A. And what the kind of background of it is, it was purchased as a residential house. He's running a roofing company business on this site for... right wrong or indifferent he was running it thinking it was basically a home occupation sort of thing but it's the town issued a letter saying no it's bigger than that you need to do a site plan um so what i've done so far with the site is i put together i basically did the aerial version of it that you guys all have a copy of and um i kind of laid everything out of what we would do with the site The reason why we're here this evening is basically show why you basically kind of want to show you like we have every everything that's going to be proposed on this is kind of already there and and essentially there'd be like one cold storage building that we would apply for you know building permit for but it would be an open three sided building. Everything else, we're just showing kind of how things lay out. All the things we would do at this site can be done basically tomorrow if we just go ahead and If we make an application to the planning board and don't do a full survey of the property, if I basically lay it out like this and say these are the things we're going to do in the existing area, it's, you know, the top the top of this hill is level there's. There's not really anything that's going to change based on having the full survey. So. What the checklist looks like if I, if we would come to you in this manner, I would have waivers for, you know, state grid coordinates, existing existing proposed contours. I would have the, you know, the two foot contours from the from the website from the GIS, you know, soils erosion control drainage grading. Like there's really none of that that. Necessarily applies. I mean everything is level and it's and it's basically fitting things into the site The way it is right now that the site won't would not be regraded the access is already in place all the all the components of what we would be doing like the recycle pad like the dumpsters like a cold storage like it'd be basically open storage in the open area on top and We're proposing to put like a fence around the upper edge with some landscaping around the front of it. So when you're driving by on Route 3A, you would see a fence with landscape, you know, trees to break it up a little bit on top of the hill, make it kind of disappear from the road. I guess I'm coming, we're coming to see you guys this evening to see whether that's at all reasonable to request. I drove by today.

You cannot see, except for the camper up front.

Yeah. You can see nothing from the road. Correct. And what we're proposing is actually putting a fence and some trees along the top edge to even more enclose it.

What size trucks are coming in and out of there?

Pickup trucks. Just 2,500, you know, your everyday pickup truck. Pulling a trailer. Yeah.

I'm just wondering, like, sight lines with the trees. How did they look? I know it's a pretty straight road.

road like sight line coming out the trucks and yeah no sight lines are good so I guess my question is like this is what it looks like today when you purchased the property it was a residential property but you've kind of been operating as a commercial property somewhat in your house what did the site look like before you did that because you've kind of already taken the means to make it a commercial site it didn't look much different I'm just curious, I wasn't sure if there was a lot of clearing done.

I added a little bit to the concrete pad. A lot of the stuff was basically, there was a lot of clearing. I could go back through the historical images. It wasn't wholesale clear, there wasn't trees. It was always kind of used somewhat commercially. I can absolutely make a site plan application notify all the butters come to you and just basically ask for a whole bunch of waivers and be and get it straight away right away if we have to go to a survey and you know basically fill it I mean that that's going to take more time I mean it might be later on this fall before I'm back to see you but just making the application and asking asking for the waivers that can be back relatively quickly so that's why we're here this evening to see whether that's you know, kind of straw poll and see whether that's a reasonable request. In this situation, like, we're not, there's no floodplain, there's no grading, there's, like, it actually all can be done with just, you know, a basic plan. It'll be better than back of a napkin sort of thing, but, and we do have contours, and you will know exactly what's going on, but we're not near the boundaries. Everything fits very easily with what we're planning on doing, so.

Are the boundaries Are there bounds at the corners?

Yeah, there's some things in the ground.

This is in the aquifer protection zone?

More than likely. I think almost everything down there is.

The only thing I would say is since it's in that area and you're storing stuff, consider that. My understanding is it's roofing material, which doesn't strike me as...

damaging but just maybe consider that yep so and what so the area that area things are hap like when they they go do a job most of most of their materials You know, for the new jobs, they're doing never come to the site what they go directly to the job sites that they're they're doing. So there might be some material that comes back from that job site. They have a concrete pad that they're going to just got a little out of control originally. And that's what related to the violation. But now they have a concrete pad all lined up. They have all the different recycling. containers all the way around. So anything that comes back to the site, they can just automatically put it into trash, metal, shingles, everything can be recycled right away now. that we can get everything organized for where everybody's gonna park. We can have some enclosed storage or covered storage anyway, and then the landscaping and fence. So I think the site can easily be cleaned up and run well and aquifer protection items taken into consideration without necessarily a full survey, but that's my opinion.

Okay. So is this boundary based upon

Yeah, well, this is the GIS boundary that you're seeing here.

Which are not very accurate.

I know, GIS, get it surveyed.

Well, it's just that the parcel doesn't match the underneath aerial imagery very well. So using those boundaries may not be correct.

Sometimes it's obvious, more obvious than others. But you're able to locate the bounds in the field?

Yeah, I mean, I could do more research on it and actually see if there's like a boundary plan that I could draw up a little bit better and lock down where those boundary where those bounds are at. And have a little bit better of a boundary showing on this, but that that I'm going into, it's going into the survey and so. If you guys feel that it definitely needs a survey, then that's the next step that we need to do and come back once we have a little bit more better information along those lines.

I'm not 100% comfortable not saying that to do a survey, because once you do it once, it's setting a little bit of a precedent for others. And so in this situation, I personally am not comfortable doing that. But I don't know if others feel differently.

No, I think also because the shape of the lot, it's kind of, you know, between things, it just would be, would prevent future issues, too.

Yeah. Agreed.

Maybe get a survey?

A survey, yeah.

Yeah, we've got to find somebody to do it. Jacques always does. Ideally Jacques, but...

I can try. But that's essentially what we're here to ask you this evening. We've talked with the code enforcement officer that wrote the letter. Tom's done a lot of work on the site to correct the things that brought about the letter. It looks dramatically better. I've been going out there this summer and every time it's like cleaner and cleaner and cleaner. So it looks pretty good. So we'll put together a survey and come back and see you.

Awesome. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, next item is public hearings for application number 208-26, Dennis J. Ordway Trust, 2023, Mariner Tower, WC, continue from... June 18th, 2026 meeting, and then the application 407-26 for the personal wireless service facility conditional use permit for the telecommunications facility. I know we did the site walk yesterday.

A few new documents, right?

I see that. Yes.

I just notice that there are some additional An additional a butter comment after the business business

Oh, it's a two-sided. We can combine everything.

Yeah, that's actually Matt's report.

You can take credit.

Okay. All right, so there's some additional information, which is kind of hard to... Would you mind going over the additional information that's come in since the last time we spoke about this?

Sure.

Okay. Introduce yourselves first, please. Sure. Brian Grossman, again, Strengths Out Injury, counsel for the applicant. With me is Louis Vitale, manager of . The two submissions you've received from us Are both related to information we discussed at the last hearing just providing some additional Backup for that the first submittal was the affidavit of mr. Vitale There was in the alternatives analysis previously provided to the board the two existing towers at 98 and 100 South Bow Road that are used by a state of New Hampshire and town of Hooksett They've been ruled out in the alternatives analysis as not available and not structurally capable and we just followed up on that again just reconfirming that both the state tower at 100 South Bow Road not structurally capable of accommodating carriers equipment currently in its current state nor would they make it available for private lease anyway for a personal service provider so for two reasons not available. Very similar for the existing site at 98 South Bow Road, which is the tower is owned by the town of Hooksett. Again, not structurally capable of accommodating personal wireless service. The carrier equipment now also would not be made available by the town of Hooksett. And to the extent that they are looking at a potential replacement elsewhere on state property, One that is fairly speculative and not something that would be really a feasible alternative at this point, but even if it were something that were in the very foreseeable future, they've also stated that they would not make that available for lease for a personal or service carrier. Nor is a replacement. Verizon and the town did try and work on a potential replacement at 98 South Bow Road, and they weren't able to come to an agreement there with the underlying landowner. All of those reasons, those two sites continue to be unavailable as feasible as alternatives for one of those service facility. The second is an email submission from EBI, who's the environmental consultant engaged by Mariner for environmental review for determination of compliance with the National Environmental Programmatic Agreement that covers a whole host of various issues including wetlands including tribal including historic and that just goes through frankly the information that I highlighted last time in my presentation regarding spotted turtles regarding the monarch butterfly and the existence of wetlands and vernal pools and why some of the comments that were made or not evidence of the existence of spotted turtle spotted turtle habitat or monarch butterfly habitat and there won't be any impact on wetlands or frontal pools. All of the information I shared during my presentation last time I came from that email.

Is it possible to get the original data check results that DES provided?

I would assume so. I would assume so, yeah.

Yeah, I think, I mean, that's what we usually...

If it wasn't included in the...

Yeah, I don't think it was, I didn't see it in any of the material that we had. I think given that there was, I know there was some of the information talked about the turtle that were 4 tenths of a mile away. But I just, it would be good to see the original data from DES. How did the insect walk down? It was fine. You know, we walked up.

Trudged through the woods.

Kind of looked around.

Don't think I got Lyme disease.

I guess the other thing and you can check with your

wetland scientist is that when we were out in the field and below I think the one lower wetland, we had looked at the area when we're talking about the drainage and it looks like there's I guess what I would call an ephemeral stream. And you're not proposing, I don't think it's proposed in an area to be filled, but I think that it was visible on the LIDAR. And so when we went out there, I took a look and I know there were some comments about the amount of water, but given the criteria that DES has, it wouldn't be intermittent or perennial stream because it's full of leaves, but it is a channel there that comes out of the wetland and so it probably should be identified as an ephemeral stream. So you can check with your wetland scientist.

Did you discuss that yesterday with Audra?

I did mention it to Audra. Did we request a third party review for stormwater? We talked about that. I don't think that we made a decision on that. I think that That would be what we would talk about today

just so I make sure I have the question right for the environmental scientists. Is the question, has it been identified and shown on the plans or is there more of a related question?

Yeah, it looks like there's an ephemeral stream coming out of the lower wetland that would be... I don't know if you can see my cursor there.

The one on the right. Out of this wetland?

Yeah. And then where does it go?

If you're able to show the lidar, you can see it.

It's from this wetland?

It's from the lower wetland, the smaller. And you can actually see on the topo, the topographic lines sort of point upward below it. And that's kind of the location of the channel. All right. I know we talked about the stormwater. And I think that it would be good to have a third party review. I think other people have expressed that.

There are a lot of things in the report that I would say are not standard engineering practice when I was reading through it. As far as you're adding a lot of impervious area, And typically, when you do that, there's something called the CN value, which is how much water can get into the ground. And in this case, your CN values are going down, which means more water can absorb into the ground. And if you're adding impervious area, it should go the opposite direction. Minimum time of concentration is typically five minutes for anything. And you have time of concentration of like two minutes, three minutes. And five minutes is just like road runoff on a highway. So I mean, it's not even what we standard engineering practice, I guess.

Your name, please? Sylvester, I'm a consultant.

I'm Sylvester Bembe, that's B-H-E-M-B-E.

Thank you. Yes, so what's happening here is there's woods and grass existing. We're replacing that with better grass, new. So that's basically already improving just by replacing old grass with actually good permeable grass. And our gravel that we're handling is really, even though it's considered impervious, But it's crushed stone.

It's still a verve, isn't it? Yeah, yes.

That is considered in the calculation. Yes, that's correct.

And if you have woods, typically the CN value is much, much lower for woods than it is for grass. So if you're clearing and putting in grass, it's going to absorb a lot less runoff than the standard woods would. And just the minimum time of concentration you use does not meet New Hampshire stormwater manual, and that's what our standards are based on. The manual that was referenced in the report is an outdated manual. And they have a new manual as of February 2025.

Right, that was looked at, the 2025 manual, New Hampshire.

The one that was referenced was the old one.

The New Water Act, yeah, I listed 2025. I didn't see that.

I saw volumes one through three is what I saw. So we just should have a third party review is my point. I don't want to get into the specifics right now because I think there's a lot to delve into. So I think we'll just be wise.

Yeah. Does someone want to make a motion to that effect? Or do we want to?

Well, we'd probably public hearing. I was just asking Kerry. We'd do a public hearing and then regional impact. And then we would make a motion to ask for a third party review. And that would be the end of it tonight.

I would recommend discussing the waivers that have been requested.

In terms of formal actions, that would be the thing. open the public hearing for this application just make sure you state your name and I hate to sound like a scold I said this last time and I'll say it again this is based on the last time we dealt with a cell phone tower this is not a policy making body the town meeting is the policy making body that decides on the rules this body simply tries to align the application with the ordinance. So we're not here to discuss the merits of cell phone towers or the dangers of cell phone towers. We're here to discuss this application versus the town ordinances. So I said, I'm gonna sound like a school, but this is to remove the chaos that happened last time we had to deal with a cell phone tower in town. I just wanna make that clear.

Understood.

Yep.

My name is Donald Lowe. Frank Woodbury at 98 South Bell Road. I've been authorized by the family to speak to this matter. So I'd like to visit this used permit application. And so on page 49 of their application, they show the address at 91 South Bell Road and contacted the owner to try several times, no response. That is false. They move on to 98 South Bow Road. They say the government-use tower is structurally unsound. Well, that's very true, but two years ago, Verizon was going to put a tower beside that, and they were going to put a 185-foot tower, and that site was deemed acceptable for that. They did all the studies, and it was fine. As a matter of fact, back in 2003, 2004 timeframe, AT&T was also going to put a tower in that area. They found the site to be perfectly adequate for their needs. And again, that's a 185-foot tower. That piece of land is on the same level as what's being proposed here. It's the same elevation. So let's talk about the Hooksett Tower for a little bit. The Woodbury family has been in negotiations with the town of Hooksett. Starting in 2003 and on through 2024, when the negotiations were abruptly ended by the town of Hooksett. So we don't know what happened. Obviously, we're moving from a municipal radio tower to a commercial cell phone tower, and so the lease rates had to change. And so we were negotiating those rates, and Hooksett broke off. I'm not sure what their plans are now, but I will suggest this. The tower that they have, they can replace that, and they can go another 10% higher without review. So it's a 165 foot tower, contrary to what is in this CUP application. They said it's about 120 feet. It's a 165 foot tower in the documentation to show that. And so if they go another 10%, that means they can go to 181 and a half feet. And I'll also remind the board that that tower is part of the Capital Area Mutual Aid Pact. And so you'll be under some obligation to approve that. So if you approve this one and you approve that one, you'll have 181 and a half foot tower, possibly, and a 190 foot tower within a half a mile of each other, which smacks in the face of your zoning board ordinance to limit the number of cell phone towers that we approve of both. So there's a bit of a conundrum here. They also stated earlier that that lane is not available. That's not true. We're open to putting a cell phone tower there, and you can do it without having to blast a thousand foot road up through Virgin Woodland. So I'm a little mystified by this whole approach. They bypassed the Woodbury family. They never spoke to us. They show here two through eight south road on Batten Road, tried several times, no response. I'm the only house on south road on Batten Road in the range of two through eight. Nobody ever called, nobody ever knocked on the door. And so I'm not sure why this site is being bypassed, whereas it's an existing site, there's a tower on it. It's within, the current tower is about roughly 150 feet from the road. There's no wetlands in question. There's no economical impact of putting a tower there, so I just can't understand why that isn't on the table. I don't believe that Mariner has met the burden of the zoning ordinance, that they've exhausted all viable alternatives.

Anybody else? Yes. Just a question. Susan Moore, Living Project Drive. It was a question about the wetlands and stormwater management. Have you taken into account the increasing rain events with increasing amount of rain per rain event?

Yeah. Well, I think that's part of... the interest that we were discussing about having a third party review of the stormwater, which would take into account, ensure that the newer data has been taken into account.

Thank you. I just didn't catch that. It's hard to hear that. Right, sure.

Anybody else have any comments? Yes.

Yes, Dana would we First of all congratulations Carrie I Had a number of issues, but I'm gonna jump right to the tower that Don was speaking about Some key points here Co-location is a higher higher legal priority than a building a new tower and So the ordinance requires applicants to exhaust options in order priority three, co-locations, before priority four, new tower. That's under the ordinance, BOA ordinance. Because 98 South Bow Road Tower is already approved and partially started, I'm not sure how far started, remains a priority three option. Mariner Tower is pursuing a priority four solution. without proving that they cannot complete priority three option through partnership with Hookset. I did speak with the chief of police in Hookset, I think two weeks ago, and asked about the status of the project, and he just told me it stalled at this point because of agreement, well, he didn't say why, he said financial reasons. So what I gather from that, it's still very active, it's just waiting for some resolution. All right, technical viability is already proven. Verizon Wireless previously committed to placing equipment at 165 feet on the 98 Southwell Road tower. This demonstrates that the site does meet engineering requirements. Mariner must explain why a second tower only .35 miles away is necessary when the known viable site already exists. Unreasonable cost. standard is not met the ordinance says that the alternative is only exhausted if costs exceed those of building a new tower if the only barrier is hooks its lack of funds mariner should finance could finance completion in exchange for a lease. It's one option. Mariner must provide substantial evidence that finishing the existing tower would cost significantly more than building a new road and tower on our land. The structurally unsound claim is misleading. Mariner dismissed the site by referencing old government towers, but a new structurally sound 180-foot tower was already planned for this location. Their alternative analysis may be outdated or inaccurate for ignoring the new planned structure. Cumulative impact tower blight. Evidence aims to minimize the number of towers and encourages cooperation. Building a new 190-foot tower while another approved tower sits paused nearby creates unnecessary visual and environmental impact. The planning board should require RF maps assuming the 98 Southwell Road tower is complete. If coverage is adequate, the new tower is redundant. A viable, approved, technical proven site already exists at 98 South Bow Road and Marinette Tower has not demonstrated that completing it is impossible or unreasonably costly. Therefore, they have not met their legal burden to show they exhausted all alternatives before proposing a new tower. else I have here, rather than waste time, I will just give some recommendations to the board. Suggestions. Suggest the board have a second balloon raising and view shed done in the fall or winter when the foliage is gone. I strongly recommend that a second site visit be done in the spring when the area is saturated and flowing with water. And from years of experience, I know that water is saturated and flowing. That road proposed would be washed out in a week. I also strongly recommend that the Board have Mariner Tower re-evaluate their local prioritization for the areas that were skipped over with a full in-depth evaluation of the Hoekstra Tower location and the owner, Alan Woodbury at 91 South Bow Road, representing Frank and Mary Woodbury at the tower location at 98 South Bow Road. I request Strongly request no approvals be granted for this Mariner Tower CPU until the above items are performed, documented, and made public. Thank you. Yes. I can supply you with copies. Okay.

Yeah, that would be helpful.

Oh. You mentioned the New Hampshire D.E.S.

You want to give us your name?

Oh, sorry. I'm Daniel Ordway. I'm the son of Dana Ordway. There was mention of New Hampshire DES. I looked through the packet. I couldn't find it anywhere. There was no screening from New Hampshire DES. Mariner did use the federal IPAC tool to scan the area, which doesn't take into account local species. So I agree, I definitely think that they should use the New Hampshire DES to scan the area for endangered species and threatened species because it's probably overlooking the spotted turtle and other endangered things.

All right, thank you. That's why I had asked for it, because I understand that they may have also done the DES screening, but we did not get a copy of the results. Thank you.

In my education, can you recap your view of the 98 South Bow Road tower?

Sure, I mean, this is just. I want to get out as much information as possible. Yep. And Lewis has had more direct conversations. Certainly feel free to fill in anything. I don't but I think it's. Our position set out pretty clearly in the affidavit, which is. Hooksit isn't making it, even if it was structurally capable of accommodating a personal wireless service carrier, even if we all agreed it would work for a personal wireless service carrier from a radio frequency perspective, Hooksit won't make it available. Hooksit owns the tower. We can't force them to lease it. Why? Why? Why are they not making a deal? I don't know.

First of all, the tower is structurally unsound. Currently. Who's going to build the tower? Who's going to own the tower? They tried to negotiate a deal with the landowner. long period of time and those conversations ended up failing that was Now two years ago there haven't been conversations between the parties for over two years for two years So now The town of Hook said is working with the state on possibly erecting a tower on state land to be used for government purposes for the town of Hooksett and also for the state. My conversations with the state for their tower, and their tower is structurally not sound, and they will only, will not lease to a private party just for municipal purposes. So included in the package was an email back and forth with the person at the state who's responsible for the tower, the state tower, and the results of a conversation with the town manager, the town of Hooksett, on where they are now, what happened, where they are now. We've also talked to the carrier.

Have you talked to the landowner?

We've reached out, we tried many times to reach out, and we can provide, I didn't personally have someone in my office who tried many times to do that, yes.

What form do they use to reach out to the landowner?

I can provide both in person, in calls, but I can provide that to you. I can provide that to you.

Okay, thank you. I can respond to this. There was one business card left a couple of years ago in 91 South Broad Road, and we'll follow up. Two through eight South Broad and Marigold, it says in their documentation, that they've tried to contact several times. That's simply not true. We've lived there for over 30 years. We've never heard from Aaron. So neither of those statements are true, but I'd like to revisit the Hooksett Tower. That was never on the table, right? That tower was one of the folks that recognized. Actually, I have the report with me, the engineering report that declares that tower structurally unsound. So that was never a viable option anyways. However, the land there is, and there's a lot more to 98 South Bow Road than 100 by 100 square foot area where the current tower sits. Yet that address, that piece of land where Verizon was going to put a tower beside the existing Huxett Tower has not come into play.

Keep in mind that we're designing a tower that is for multiple wireless carriers, not to serve just one carrier. It's to serve all the carriers.

Verizon has abandoned that for this tower, which I'm not sure what the backroom dealings were that brought that about. But again, Hooks is now in a lurch. If they choose to replace that tower, as I said, they can replace it with one that's 10% higher and basically do it on a building permit from this board. That piece of land has been evaluated and accepted as viable by AT&T and Verizon. So again, Mariner has not shown the burden of proof.

I don't want to get into us adjudicating which private parcels of land get to have towers. It's all of the application. And I get the sense we're not going to make any decisions tonight. But as I said earlier, we're not in the business of like, saying who gets to have a tower on their land between two private landowners, we're in the business of looking at application in front of the board. I think Mike has a...

Yes, yes, yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tower that was proposed by Hookset on the Woodbury property, if they were to go ahead and try to put that tower on there, would they have to come before this board?

If it's on Bo property? Yes. No.

So the hooks to tower, they could increase the height by up to 10% without.

Donna was saying you can do it with 10% higher.

And then once that possibility seemed to dissolve and then they were talking about doing the tower of the stake, That was going to be done as a governmental land use. Oh, okay. Because it would strictly have state and government uses on it with no private carriers. And so that would come to the board as a... FYI.

If they want to put carriers on it, they'd have to come here.

Right. Even the original plan, when they were going to rebuild the Hookset Tower up to 10% higher, it was going to add Verizon, but... that was even going to be a governmental land use because the primary use of the tower was still going to be government, and Verizon was going to be the lowest on the tower and be...

So what you're saying is inevitably... Not the primary use, yeah. So what you're saying is if the town of Hooksett was to build that tower and have Verizon put antennas on it, then the town of Hooks would not have to approach the town of Bow in any way, shape, or form and ask permission from this board to put that tower in place. They could have just gone and done it without even speaking to you. Yes or no?

If it was the way they proposed with Verizon on the bottom and not the primary use of the tower, then it would be a governmental land use. They could come to the board for a basically just to ask for comments, and then approvals would come through the building permits. But it would not be the site plan CUP process.

But they wouldn't have to go through any of the same hoops or anything that a private landowner would, correct? Correct. So I'm trying to figure out, why would Verizon choose any other spot but there? If they didn't have to jump through any hoops or ask any town for permission, they could just go ahead and build a tower or put their antennas on and move on. Why wouldn't they do that?

Maybe they wanted a higher antenna. They want to be on the top of the antenna and not the bottom.

They're always going to take a higher antenna spot.

Oh, I understand. But I'm just saying, it's hard to believe that Verizon wouldn't have put that on the Woodbury property and choose another spot when they didn't have to jump through any hoops. They could just do it and have it done with and not have to worry about asking anybody anything about it. It's just very strange. Now, I was on the Telecommunications Committee for two and a half years, and we mapped out the entire town, paid engineers, RF engineers to come in, and the task was to get the least amount of towers for the most amount of coverage for the least amount of impact to the town. And they picked two or three locations in town and mapped them all out, and one of them is that location on South Borough. at Woodway's location, in that general vicinity on that high spot, somewhere in there, there needs to be a tower. There also needs to be one on top of Wood Hill. And then maybe in the future, another one maybe down near the schools somewhere to finally complete the whole town and give the town 80, 90, 100, whatever you could get. The most you could get for the least amount of towels. So the plan is already in place and it's already been mapped out and it's all on record. So this area where they're trying to put the towel, whether it's the Woodbury's or whether it's the Hardway's or whatever, there is a need and there is a spot and that's one of the designated places. However it gets sorted out is one thing or another. It's just hard to believe that Verizon would

Anybody else with any comment?

I just lost a thought. But just to reiterate, unreasonable costs Alternative is to exhaust all caustics Exhausted all costs exceed exceeded Those are building a new tower and I don't think that criteria has been met and it's an ordinance That would suggest possibly that they either approach books it should cut down greatly on the infrastructure rather than going almost a quarter of a mile up through the woods, virgin land covering approximately an acre worth of destruction. I think it would make more sense, much more sense

All right. Thank you.

Yeah. We can't force people to do certain things. We can approve an application or deny an application in front of us, but we don't get to say, put a tower here. That's not within the purview of this board.

Well, I understand, but they're not following you, and this is what I'm getting at specifically, and I'll supply you with all the details.

Right, part of our ordinance is making sure that the applicant has exhausted all of their options, and you do have to take into effect, did they actually exhaust all their options by going to different property owners, especially if there's already a site already constructed. Well, you get what I'm saying. I think that was what you were... Right, right. Okay.

Any other comments while the public hearing is open? All right, we'll close the public hearing.

actually have a regional impact.

Yeah. I would think so. I would think so. It's our first one.

No, we've done one before.

First, my first one.

I'll make a motion that it does.

Hold on one second. Can I just share one?

Matt Monahan, in his staff report, Matt Monahan said he did not feel that it warranted regional.

From a physical standpoint, it may not, but from an outcomes standpoint.

So his point was that all the towns within 20 miles have already been notified of this application. So the effect of deeming regional impact has basically already happened. All the towns within 20 miles have been to notification.

Do you agree with that?

So what would happen if you decide that there's regional impact is everything stops, the clock extends, we notify all the towns and the Regional Planning Commission.

We've already notified the town.

They all know.

That seems sort of needless.

It's a bit redundant. But if anyone feels strongly that we need to get more input from surrounding towns, then you can...

I don't vote. I'll make a motion that this does not have a regional impact.

I'll second.

I'm enthusiastic.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Given that they already all know anyways.

Do we want to make a motion to have a third-party engineer review the site plan?

Yes. So this would be specifically for reviewing the stormwater. Stormwater. Stormwater drainage.

Yes.

That's my motion.

Second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Oh.

Do you have a firm that you regularly use?

We often use Du Bois and King or Gale. I usually get quotes from both.

Other than that, there's nothing else to do on this.

So I have a few things I think would be helpful to at least discuss so we don't continue dragging it out into multiple meetings. I think as much as you can discuss and get an idea on tonight is good. So you've asked for a third-party engineering review for the stormwater. Is there any interest in third-party review for the RF study part of it?

I was looking at that. I didn't know how, if that... what everyone else thought and how reasonable of an ask that was.

We did that for the original, the first cell phone tower, and it was a de minimis change. Okay. I'm always trying to balance out being thorough without extra costs. Right. And in my memory, it was just basically, it was what it was.

IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MIGHT ALREADY HAVE DATA TO BACK UP THIS LOCATION FROM THE COMMITTEE. ITEMS. OKAY. THAT'S DONE. I'LL LOOK AT THAT.

REMOVAL BOND?

YEAH. I HAVE A COPY. SO THERE'S A METHODOLOGY. YEAH.

We can make sure that you want to see it. There's a draft or a sample removal bond in the materials supplied. And the amount was $20,000. I know for the last cell tower we did, which was a 190-foot lattice tower, we did $50,000. So it seems reasonable that it should be the same.

I would agree. It would be weird not to have the same number. Unless there's something vastly different between the sites and they're having been on both, there doesn't seem to be.

Or unless the costs are more since then? No, this one's 20. The first one we did 50 for.

Oh, oh. But make them both 50.

50, right. Okay. It was the cell phone tower. Yeah. Come on.

We have one. Of course.

50 is already high If you look at estimates for removal there in the 20 to 30 or 20 to 25 Does it leave the road afterwards? the access road and everything? If you remove a tower, just leave like the, what does the removal of the tower do exactly? Does it remove the pad? Does it remove just the tower part? What does it do? What does it entail?

Moves the tower, moves the fence, moves the meter center.

Your equipment.

I think, I speak for myself, it's very unlikely we're going to go less than 50 since we just did it. So if you want to make the argument, make the argument. But it would have to be a very strong one. It was going to be less than what we required of the last tower.

You have the removal estimate that's stamped by an engineer. There is guidance and a manual that they use to come up with those costs. I wasn't involved in the other permitting, so I don't know how that $50,000 number was arrived at. I can just tell you what we have in terms of typical removal cost for a wireless communications facility, and it typically doesn't reach $50,000 for a tower. It seems like it should be more. It just isn't. When you actually run the numbers, you have the PEs do what they do with their manuals.

I will also note, just from the experience of doing it from the last hour a few years ago, it took a little while to get the form of that into what our attorney would agree when they went back and forth a bunch. So I can send you maybe what we did last time so we can start that process because I think we ended up, they ended up having to put up cash because it took, and then we got the bond settled afterwards, but it took a little while to go back and forth.

I think what Lewis is saying is, or just said to me, is the issue of it being 50 they can agree to, but when we're talking about increasing it above that, our point was we think 50 is already really high. And so understanding that you imposed the 50 on another provider or infrastructure provider, and for consistency they can agree to that. The concern was just going what we thought of as already an aggressive estimate. What else would you like us to discuss?

Let's see. There is a section that says that you must agree to allow maximum co-location. Do we have, it says there should be some sort of agreement between the town and the tower operator that says that they will continue to allow other carriers to join their tower. Is that something, a document we can get, or?

I see that in ordinances a lot, I think in part because there was one ordinance, somebody did like a model one, and then it got shared and it just proliferated. Typically, it's a condition that you allow for co-location, and frankly, there are, They're a tower developer. They have, obviously, relationships with the major wireless communications carriers. Their goal is to have others co-locate and not keep co-location off. So typically, it's a condition that you'll allow for co-location at commercially reasonable rates. It's typically how it's been handled in my experience. Doing a separate letter agreement would effectively have that one paragraph in it. And as a permit condition, it's enforceable as a permit condition.

And same way is that the Board of Selectmen can enter the premises, so that would also be a condition of approval.

I just go whenever I feel like it. That's great. Exciting.

What else did I pick up here? Did you go through the checklist items that Matt had pointed out last time? They seemed mostly minor, but... I don't think we did.

So many papers.

Solid waste.

I assume there's not going to be a dumpster there. There is not. And snow storage. So some of these things might just need to be noted on the plan so that we can check them off. Just say, there will be no dumpster.

That's certainly in the narrative, but that's in their facility and doesn't generate any trash.

OK. If we can put it on a note on a plan, that's helpful. And then same with the snow storage. things under the plan, like the bearings, FEMA flood map reference, soil mapping, sign location, and then lighting plan, but I think there's no lighting. Correct. So some of these things probably just need a note on the plan if there's no lighting proposed. And then we can check all of these right off.

Well, I guess we had discussed, I think, the last time that the carrier might have some lighting on their equipment. So like the ground level cabinets?

Yes, yes.

So those are all pretty minor things that just need to be And then I wanted to confirm the waiver requests are aligned with what we have on our list. So for site plan waivers, we would have from Section 5.02J, which would be to allow the utilities to be overhead. Is there any discussion about that? Is the board going to have to vote whether or not to grant it? But any discussion you want to have about that? Yeah, Section 5.02J of the site plan regulations, which would allow the utilities to be overhead instead of underground. Okay.

So that's a waiver of their powers.

And then the second one is from 5.02T for monumentation. I assume that's to not set monuments around the entire large property.

Our involvement is less than 1% of the entire 57 acres.

And then for the CUP, those waivers would be... Matt put on 7.10e2b, the tower camouflage. And I'm not sure that I agree that that's really a waiver request. Did you intend it to be a waiver request for camouflage?

We listed it. I think that was how the prior tower facility was included, was that same waiver. You changed the ordinances since then.

There's that.

We added an out.

There's an out.

We're basically it doesn't make sense as we read it we still viewed the out as some sort of Request and we were seem to be the right way to request it if it's not the right references that is still there So now it's so for PWSS in wooded areas they must be camouflaged to blend in with a natural character and use stealth technology and unless the planning board determines that such technology would not be feasible or otherwise inconsistent with the purposes of the ordinance.

What we discussed last time with the previous tower is like putting up a fake tree that is 100 feet above the canopy is actually not camouflaging. It's just ugly.

Yeah. Sequoia tree.

Sequoia in Bali. Camouflage has a time and place, but there are also places where it doesn't.

Right, right.

I always think of camouflage when it's on a building, you can camouflage it well, but you're not camouflaging anything when it's 190 feet in the forest. And the other one is the 125 or so, the tower's height.

So what does that mean, like site control?

So that means the lease area. So they're proposing to lease an area that's 100 feet by 100 feet. Oh, okay. So that is not equal to 125% of the tower's height. Got it. Maybe the applicant could explain the justification for that one?

Sure. The 125%, terms of tower height all still falls on the on the property itself but requiring the site control of 125 percent requires a lease area that is vastly greater than what is typical and typically the typical tower site is 100 by 100 um you know lease area and typically a 75 by 75 foot compound that's really all you need to provide any of the anticipated co-location and to gain site control over the additional acreage which would be significant is just a Requires control over an area that it's unnecessary. It's not reasonable in terms of restricting landowners use in that area. We certainly don't need it and With that level of control for that level of area comes a materially increased cost that makes it economically infeasible

Why do we have that as an ordinance? What was the stem of?

That's a central question.

I guess not everybody thinks of a- The basic concept is- Right. Not everybody thinks that it's also going to be in the middle of a- Yeah, so it fell down to be fine.

Right.

But here when it falls down, it's powerful in the woods.

Right now it is though, but in the future, can somebody build an area?

You'd have to subdivide.

Yeah.

That would have to be considered.

You'd consider upon the subdivision, wouldn't you?

So it wouldn't necessarily need a subdivision.

They could build an ADU, but if they wanted to build an ADU.

Right where you want an ADU. I mean, right next to us.

They're going to get a driveway up there.

I mean, typically the setback provision is one more driven by a property line to ensure, as you said, in the unlikely event of a catastrophic failure that it's completely on the property. To the extent that somebody wanted to build something within that footprint on the property, they're the property owner, it's a known risk, to the extent that there's any risk but it's a choice they can make for themselves because they're the owner of the property whether or not they want to do that versus if you put it right up against the property line that neighbor that you know is having that imposed upon them without essentially that choice.

So the I guess two waivers that are from article 7 for the CUP It's a little different than your normal waivers, and you have to apply the hardship criteria from 13.02B to A, so you get to pretend to be the ZBA very briefly. So we'll make sure when you consider those that we are applying the appropriate criteria. Okay.

I think those two waivers are consistent with what was approved for the other tower as well.

Actually, though, one question that I had that wasn't really clear to me, and it could be more the scale of the plan, is when we were talking about the distance of the road from the boundary and, oh, but it's within the easement area, what is the easement area? I see that it talks about proposed 30-feet-wide access and utility easement. Is that what you're talking about, easement area? Yes. Also, in a couple of places at the bend, it looks like the fill goes to the property line.

Is that, I guess? It does appear that grading goes outside of that 30 foot. It looks like it, at least.

So the grading basically is not considered the road itself, the gravel road is the 12 foot wide. The grading itself is actually grass, That replaces grass so that goes back to so it's a disturbance, but it goes back to what it was before So that's I know you see it's I'm grading Extending it beyond the 12 foot width road, but that area goes back to Permanent disturbance with fill

So what is the slope of that, Phil?

Two to one.

Two to one. Generally speaking, on like a temporary impact, that's a two to one slope. If something were to erode away in that slope, it could impact the road and you wouldn't be able to repair it unless you had the easement. So from a... engineering perspective in New Hampshire, if you have a two-to-one slope, you typically make that a permanent impact and not a temporary impact. If it's a more gentle slope where, you know, it's not supporting a roadway, then it would be considered a temporary impact.

Yeah, I mean, well, it's a permanent impact because it's changing the ground contours. So it's a permanent impact.

Yeah, a lot of times when it's like a 4 to 1 or a 5, like a gentler slope on somebody's property, it can be considered a temporary impact if it's just minor in nature. But something of this where it's really steep, because you can't mow it. Who's going to maintain that slope, you know, that type of stuff? And if the slope was to fail, like how do you repair it? Somebody has to repair it so the road stays intact, you know?

Yeah, so all the side slopes are going to be reinforced. so that there's no such erosion long-term. That's the hope. That is the hope. A two-to-one slope is very steep. So the mats that we put on the side slopes have been tested. They basically do the job very well.

I think what the chair was getting at also was what is the... At the closest distance from the driveway to the property line, how close does the edge of the driveway... get to the property line?

We discussed that. We marked it yesterday with a stake at the closest point and the center of the road to the edge of the road to the center of the road to the property line was 27.2 feet. Which means the edge of the road going six feet was 21 feet and then the so you've got to go from 27.2 feet and subtract 15 so you get to 13.2 feet for the easement the edge of the easement

Yes, go ahead. What he pointed out yesterday is the closest point that would be excavated out to the property line. Also keep in mind that the stone wall is a boundary and that would possibly erode the foundation of the stone wall. and that showed, he showed us right up to, pretty much right up to the line, and it looked like it was taking out several feet of dirt. Utility, utility poles.

Yeah. Is it a historic stone wall? They're all historic stones. You can't impact them, can you?

You can't impact them if it's a boundary, a property boundary. Is it a property boundary, though? I see impacts for interior stone walls. Are there impacts to stone walls that are the property boundary?

By the way, I did reach out to the state historical society, and I'm pending a response back about any historical value. So there's still ongoing information I'd like to present about that.

All right. Well, we did have the, they did submit information on the Section 106 review, which is a historical. And if it's on the landowner's property, they have control over that.

I understand that. But this is reaching out to the state level.

I actually did the same thing. Somebody asked me, maybe it was you, a long time ago, that question, and I actually reached out to the state sometime last year, I think, and I can dig up the email, but the answer was that as long as it's not a boundary wall, that it can be disturbed on your own property. Got it. I'll see if I can find that email in case they don't get back to you.

Okay, I just want to make one last point here. I already read it, but cumulative impact blight, tower blight, the ordinance, BOA ordinance aims to minimize the number of towers and encourages cooperation. I think if this tower goes through, if the tower goes through with the state tower already up there, probably a new one, it'll start to look like Mount Uncannoonick. And I think where the residents and everybody that's lived there, even the new folks, are used to those towers that exist currently. So that would have pretty much no visible impact to what they've been used to. Whereas a new tower would.

All right, well, we're looking at this tower, and we'll make sure it meets the requirements of our ordinance.

Anything else, Carrie?

That's everything on my list. I would just ask that if there's anything the board members feel they need to make a decision, any additional information that you try to ask for it now.

Oh, jeez, the pressure. I think we covered everything.

I'll make a motion to continue applications 407-26 and 208-26, Dennis J. Ordway Trust 2023, Mariner Tower, to our next meeting on August... 20th. 20th.

I second.

Nice. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Stop bringing sandals to me.

Do we have a quorum? We can't approve the 21st minutes.

There's not enough people here.

How many do you need? Is that a quorum?

Is three a quorum? I think four is a quorum. Because I think that I will carry.

Okay.

A quorum is half.

More than half. Just over more than half.

We can't do the 21st minute. There's no rule that says you can't vote on that.

If you don't feel comfortable, that's valid.

I'm going to stay away from that. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of June 18, 2026. It's the 18th minute.

Oh, I got the wrong ones, all right.

And I was second, so... You can't vote on that.

Can I see revised? I thought it was in here. Yeah, it shows... Yeah, Sandy...

There are revisions.

Right, right, right. So these are revised from the draft ones that originally got sent out and were posted on the website. This includes Sandy's edits.

No one sent them to me this time around.

So a little... You'll get these ones tomorrow.

So we have a motion and a second.

Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions of people? Myself.

We're not going to vote on May 21st minutes?

Yep.

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

Before you all leave, if you can just leave with us. I'm just going to be ready.

Okay, all those in favor?

Aye.