DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2003

TOWN OFFICES – 7:00 PM

The Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment met at the above time, date and place with Chairman John Trottier presiding. The following members were present:

John Trottier, Chairman

John Herlihy, Vice Chairman

Alison Vallieres, Secretary

Gertrude Dulude

David Nault

Ron Slocum, Alternate

John Van, Alternate

The Chairman verified with the Secretary that the public meeting notice had been posted in three public places in a timely fashion according to State law throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one day.

Approval of previous meeting minutes (July 14, 2003):

A motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously that the previous meeting minutes of July 14, 2003 be approved as written.

REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW GARY KING (B4-3-1) TO PUT AN ADDITION ON CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED SETBACK OF 50 FEET AT HIS PROPERTY AND A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 5. SECTION G.1 OF THE WETLANDS CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO ALLOW HIM TO PUT A STRUCTURE CLOSER THAN 125 FEET FROM THE WETLANDS DISTRICT ON HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON 1175 BLACK BROOK ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

DISCUSSION:

The Chairman noted the following members would be voting on the Gary King request:

John Trottier

John Herlihy

Alison Vallieres

Gertrude Dulude

David Nault

The Chairman noted that at the last meeting the Board had received information from Five Rivers which they needed time to review and the Board also needed time to research the date of the Wetlands Conservation District Ordinance by the Town before making a decision. This was necessitated because of Article 5. Wetland Conservation District, Section G. Specific Provisions. Item 4 and follows:

4. Notwithstanding other provisions of this ordinance, the construction of additions and/or extensions to single family dwellings may be permitted within the Wetland Conservation District provided that the dwelling lawfully existed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance and all other local, state, and federal requirements are met.

The Secretary stated that she had spoken with Janice VandeBogart, Town Administrator, and she stated the Wetlands Conservation District Ordinance had been passed by the Town in 1990. It was noted the house had been built in 1979.

Based on the above information, the Board reached a consensus that paragraph 4. above applied to the Wetlands Conservation District request for a Variance.

At this point in the meeting, the Board decided they should act on the request for the Variances separately in two different motions.

MOTION:

John Trottier made a motion that the Gary King Request for a Variance to Article 5, Section G.1 of the Wetlands Conservation District to allow him to put a structure closer than 125 feet from the Wetlands District on his property located on 1175 Black Brook Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH is not needed for the following reason and the proposed addition should be allowed within the 125 foot setback of the Wetlands Conservation District:

Article G. Section G. 4. specifically states that additions and/or extensions to single family dwellings may be permitted provided that the dwelling lawfully existed PRIOR to the effective date of this Ordinance and all other local, state, and federal requirements are met.

The motion was seconded by Alison Vallieres and passed unanimously.

DISCUSSION:

The Board discussed the second request for a Variance to allow Gary King to put an addition closer than 50 feet from the boundary (front yard setback) as follows:

The Board noted that the King’s could not put on living space in the rear of their house because of the layout of the existing bedrooms and could not go “up” as suggested because it would not be practical or workable to have additional living space upstairs. They cannot change the entire layout of the house to put the addition in the rear.

Alison Vallieres stated that Mr. King was not adding additional bedrooms or bathrooms which would cause additional load on the existing septic system. He is looking for additional living room space.

In addition, the Board had previous granted a Variance to DalPra for a garage practically on the road.

The Board noted that most of the applicants have difficulty in answering the questions re the granting of a Variance but the Board felt there would be no decrease in property values because of the proposed addition. It was not changing the use of the property. It would still be residential.

Denial would result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant because of quality of life. He is only adding living space. There is no other space to put the addition. There would be an injustice to the applicant if the Variance was not granted.

The Board agreed that the granting of the Variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance. This is why we have a Zoning Board of Adjustment.

John Van stated this is the only way the applicant can go.

Ron Slocum stated that his only concern was in the future if the Town wanted to do road improvements, how would this effect them. The Board agreed that if the Town did future road improvements, they would work within the existing 50 foot right of way.

David Nault asked how the Board can be assured that the owner does not do any more filling on the lot. He stated he is concerned about protecting the Wetlands area from further erosion. The Board noted there are Erosion and Sedimentation Control Practices which can be made a part of the approval.

John Trottier noted that the proposed addition’s close proximity to the road did not bother him. He stated he lives very close to the road and his children know they don’t play in front of the house.

MOTION:

David Nault made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for a Variance to Article 4. Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to allow Gary King (B4-3-1) to put an addition on closer than the required setback of 50 feet at his property located on 1175 Black Brook Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH subject to the following conditions:

1. That the proposed addition be no closer than 27.9 feet on the northeast property line.

2. That the proposed addition be no larger than 24’ x 24’ and that the proposed addition be for living space only and no additional bathroom space so there will be no additional load on the septic system.

3. All erosion control practices will be constructed and maintained according to minimum standards and specifications contained in the “Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Developing Areas of New Hampshire”, Dated May 1981, by USDA – SCS. (Available from the local UDA – SCS Office in Milford, NH) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit.

The motion was seconded by Alison Vallieres. The motion passed unanimously.

REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW VAAL FAMILY REALTY TRUST (ALFONS VAAL) (E3-5-6) TO REPLACE AN EXISTING FAILED SEPTIC SYSTEM WITH A LARGER STATE APPROVED SYSTEM CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED SETBACK AT HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON 1007 SCHOOL STREET IN THE VILLAGE DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

The Chairman noted the following members would be voting on the Vaal request:

John Trottier

John Herlihy

Alison Vallieres

Gertrude Dulude

David Nault

The Board noted that there were items the Board had wanted shown on the plan. All items were on the revised plan as requested by the Board.

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, stated that the septic system could not be put in the area in front of the house because of a very high water table. It would be a large mound in the front of the house.

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, presented a plan showing the Vaal property prior to deeding land to the Town for the Cemetery. There would have been sufficient land for the new septic system if the land had not been deeded to the Town.

John Herlihy asked if the system was failed. Bruce Vaal stated that there had been a purchase and sales agreement and at that time, the septic system had been checked. At that time after heavy rains, the septic system tubes were filled. Since that time in dryer conditions, the tubes are clear. He stated that water comes off the Town Parking Lot and runs into the septic system causing problems.

Questions re the granting of a Variance were answered as follows by Jacques Belanger:

a. No diminution in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;

Answer: The current septic system in place is substandard. The new system will meet the State Standard.

b. Granting of the variance would be of benefit to the public interest;

Answer: There are health issues with the substandard system which might break out into the pond. This will prevent this from happening.

c. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it;

Answer: The Variance we are asking for is to replace the existing system in approximately the same location as the existing system and it will fit in the existing landscaping.

d. Granting the variance would do substantial justice; and

Answer: The septic system will be to serve the existing structure and for the purpose of public safety and health.

Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:

William Zeller – Not Present

Kenneth/Susan Koerber – Not Present

Peter/Barbara Weeks – Not Present

Town of Dunbarton – Present

J. E. Belanger Surveying – Present, representing the applicant

Discussion:

John Herlihy stated that the Vaal’s should be allowed to upgrade their septic system. The Vaal’s have always done the right thing.

The Board reached a consensus that there was no other spot to put the proposed septic system without causing additional problems, etc.

MOTION:

David Nault made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to allow Vaal Family Realty Trust (Alfons Vaal) (E3-5-6) to replace an existing failed septic system with a larger State Approved System closer than the required setback at his property located on 1007 School Street in the Village District in Dunbarton, NH subject to the following:

1. That the proposed septic system be no closer to the north boundary than 29 feet.

2. That the proposed septic system be no closer to the west boundary than 33 feet.

John Trottier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM DAVID PELLENZ (H2-2-2) TO BUILD AN ADDITION CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY AND AN EQUITABLE WAIVER FOR AN EXISTING GARAGE CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY AT HIS PROPERTY ON 54 RAY ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

The Chairman noted the following members would be voting on the Pellenz request this evening:

John Trottier

John Herlihy

Alison Vallieres

Gertrude Dulude

David Nault

The Board stated they would be acting on each individual request separately i.e. Equitable Waiver for the existing garage and then the Request for a Variance for the proposed addition.

Equitable Waiver Request:

John Herlihy read that requirements of an Equitable Waiver to the applicant. (attached) J. Herlihy stated that Mr. Pellenz was a lawyer and he should have known to check the Town maps regarding what the setback from the road was before he built the garage.

Mr. Pellenz presented a copy of his building permit which had been granted in May of 2001. (attached) Ron Slocum stated that the Selectmen had enacted a requirement that all building permits must have a site plan. He was unsure as to when the Selectmen put this requirement on but was sure it was sometime during the summer of 2001 because he had been required to do so when he got a permit for his barn/garage.

Mr. Pellenz stated that the garage was put in the present location after measuring with Les Hammond, Selectman, and William Nichols. He stated that was plenty of room at that time to move the building back but he assumed both parties knew the laws regarding row, etc. Mr. Pellenz presented a letter outlining the chain of events leading up to the building of the garage. (attached)

The Board required that Mr. Pellenz answer the necessary questions for the granting of a Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirement as follows:

674:33-a Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirement.

I. When a lot or other division of land, or structure thereupon, is discovered to be in violation of a physical layout or dimensional requirement imposed by a zoning ordinance enacted pursuant to RSA 674:16, the zoning board of adjustment shall, upon application by and with the burden of proof on the property owner, grant an equitable waiver from the requirement, if and only if the board makes all of the following findings:

(a) That the violation was not noticed or discovered by any owner, former owner, owner’s agent or representative, or municipal official, until after a structure in violation had been substantially completed, or until after a lot or other division of land in violation had been subdivided by conveyance to a bona fide purchaser for value;

Answer: That is correct. It was not noticed.

(b) That the violation was not an outcome of ignorance of the law or ordinance, failure to inquire, obfuscation, misrepresentation, or bad faith on the part of any owner, owner’s agent or representative, but was instead caused by either a good faith error in measurement or calculation made by an owner or owner’s agent, or by an error in ordinance interpretation or applicability made by a municipal official in the process of issuing a permit over which that official had authority;

Answer: That is a correct statement.

diminish the value of other property in the area, nor interfere with or adversely affect any present of

permissible future uses of any such property; and

(d) That due to the degree of past construction or investment made in ignorance of the facts constituting the violation, the cost of correction so far outweighs any public benefit to be gained, that it would be inequitable to require the violation to be corrected.

Answer: That is a correct statement to both c and d.

Discussion:

Ron Slocum stated he did not feel there was an effort made to look at the survey and they just went ahead and marked off from the road. A current survey map should have been done.

The Board asked D. Pellenz how big the lot was.

D. Pellenz stated it was 4.5 acres, most of which is under government easement.

John Herlihy stated the homeowner should be checking on what the help is doing.

Dave Pellenz stated the Building Department did an onsite inspection of the footing.

John Trottier stated the burden of proof is on the applicant.

D. Pellenz stated he relied on the judgment of someone else. I could have moved it back ten feet or more at the time we were measuring, etc. It is not like I was trying to hide something or do something in violation.

Abutters were read as follows and it was noted that all had been notified by certified mail:

David Ilsley – Not Present

Ralph Fellbaum – Present. Stated the Board needs to make a decision on this request.

Daryl/Tina Hubbell – Not Present

Anna Silva – Not Present

Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers – Not Present

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor – Present, representing the applicant.

MOTION:

John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request from David Pellenz (H2-2-2) for an Equitable Waiver for an existing garage closer than the required 50 feet from the boundary at his property on 54 Ray Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH and note for the record that the existing garage is located 33 feet from the westerly property line. David Nault seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Request for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. to allow him to build an addition closer than the required 50 feet from the boundary:

The Board requested that David Pellenz answer the necessary questions for the granting of a Variance as follows:

a. No diminution in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;

Answer: That is correct.

b. Granting the Variance would be of benefit to the public interest;

Answer: Yes, the house would look better.

c. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it;

Answer: I need more room. Of course it would be a hardship to me.

d. Granting the variance would do substantial justice; and

Answer: Correct, My barn was burned by mistake in 1959. At least I could get something back.

e. The use would not be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.

Answer: It is a residential use. Not contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.

Abutters were read as follows and it was noted that all had been notified by certified mail:

David Ilsley – Not Present

Ralph Fellbaum – Present. All set.

Daryl/Tina Hubbell – Not Present

Anna Silva – Not Present

Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers – Not Present

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor – Present, representing the applicant.

The Chairman closed the public hearing at this point.

Discussion:

The Board noted that all items requested to be on the plan were there.

The Board noted the addition would not be any closer to the right of way than the existing house. All members took the site walk. The addition will enhance the property. It will correct a wall which is bowing out presently. The proposed addition does not infringe upon any of the wetlands.

MOTION:

John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from David Pellenz (H2-2-2) to all him to build an addition closer than the required 50 feet from the boundary at his property on 54 Ray Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH subject to the following condition:

1. That the proposed addition be no closer than 32 feet from the westerly property line.

Alison Vallieres seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM U. S. CELLULAR ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS, RICHARD AND NICOLETTE HECKER (C3-5-7) TO ALLOW THEM TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 180 FOOT FREE STANDING TOWER WITH 12 PANEL ANTENNA AND A 12’ X 20’ GROUND EQUIPMENT BUILDING AT THEIR PROPERTY ON 12 POWELL LANE IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

Kenneth Kozyra, Agent for US Cellular and Attorney Steven Grill, of Devine Millimet & Branch of Manchester NH appeared before the Board on behalf of US Cellular.

Mr. Kozyra stated he had a list from the previous meeting of various concerns from the public and the Board and he would address each one individually. He presented a new set of plans to the Board. (attached) Also presented a letter from the Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company. (attached)

Private Air Field adjacent to the Country Club –

Mr. Kozyra stated that US Cellular needs approval from the FFA for the facility and how it relates to the County Club Air Park (NH88). He presented a letter of opinion from Wireless Applications, Corp. regarding the airspace analysis results. (attached) It stated they did not feel this facility was eligible for study under FAR Part 77 sub-Part C. K. Kozyra stated they had not yet received the response from the FFA but it usually takes between 30-60 days. Still have time for it to come back to them.

Correction on Plan regarding the Description of the Leased area:

The Board noted the description was still incorrect on the plan. Mr. Kozyra stated it will be corrected for the next meeting.

Board concern about Elevation Figures on page D2 of the new plan were incorrect.

Plan shows elevation 16 feet lower at the edge of Powell Lane than the site thus causing drainage issues. Board expressed concern about how this drainage would effect the abutting properties to the east and the north.

Mr. Kozyra stated there was a mistake in the figures and they would be corrected for the next meeting.

Fire Department and Police Department Availability of Space on Proposed Tower:

K. Kozyra presented letters from both the Fire Department and the Police Department stating their interest in being on the proposed tower for communications. (attached)

% Coverage of proposed Tower Site at 180, 150, 120 and 100 feet:

K. Kozyra presented a table showing the % Coverage of Dunbarton at different heights. (attached)

Mr.Kozyra stated that the SBA would only provide coverage for 14% of the Town if they used it. The proposed 180 foot Tower will provide 42% coverage of the Town of Dunbarton. In addition, Mr. Kozyra provide the Board colored maps showing % of coverage at different heights.

Alison Vallieres asked if they had considered putting a tower on Town of Dunbarton Property.

At this point in the public hearing, Attorney Grill noted that they had worked closely with the Town of Webster in getting a cell tower in Webster. Stated they had met with them for 5 or 6 months before reaching a final decision. Had Joint meeting with the Planning Board and the Zoning Board during that time. Addressed many concerns.

At this point in the public hearing, K. Kozyra turned the discussion over to Tony Wells, Radio Specialist. Mr. Wells explained the process of using repeaters and why they would not work in Dunbarton, etc.

David Nault asked what the approximate cost of the facility was and what was the financial benefit to the landowner. Also what can you tell us about why you cannot use the SBA Tower which is already there.

K. Kozyra stated about $500,000. Financial benefit to the landowner was confidential. He stated that lease rates for towers run between $500 and $2,000 per month depending upon the facility. The top of the scale is around $2,000/month.

He stated that with regard to using Town land, the Fire Tower is very small and US Cellular tried to avoid the historic center of Town, the church and any natural areas. Stated they realize that the area is very precious to the residents.

K. Kozyra stated that the SBA Tower is only 100 feet high and is 15’ – 20’ below Route 13 so it is really a 80’ tower. It is only 75 feet above the trees. We have no experience with rebuilding tower and in addition we would have to work around the existing tenants. Would no be cost effective for US Cellular.

View Shed Analysis:

K. Kozyra presented the Board with a series of pictures showing the balloon which was flown at 180 feet at the proposed location of the tower. In addition, he presented larger pictures with a tower superimposed on the area where the balloon showed up in the view shed. (attached)

David Nault asked if there was a balloon flown at 100 – 125 feet. K. Kozyra stated no. The tree line is between 60 and 70 feet.

David Nault asked about towers which looked like trees and if they had considered these.

K. Kozyra stated that these “tree” towers are somewhat limited by snow and ice load. He stated there is a tower on Upper Straw Hill Road in Hopkinton which the Board should look at. This is 100’. In addition, there is a tower at Exit 3 in Windham, about 180’ west on 111 one half mile on the right. The Board should look at this one also.

At this point in the discussion, Ken Alton stated that he felt all the abutters should have copies of these pictures prior to the meeting so they can make comments.

The Board asked K. Kozyra if he could provide two sets of the colored photos for the record and the Secretary will leave one complete set at the Town Office for public review. Mr. Kozyra stated he could do this.

At this point in the meeting, Attorney Grill stated that he felt the applicants should have copies of any materials which were handed out at the last meeting with regard to cell towers. The Board noted this was information which George Holt had taken off the internet with regard to towers for the Board information. (Copies are attached to a copy of the minutes.)

Concern about Tower collapsing onto other properties:

K. Kozyra stated that the closest building to the tower is the Hecker’s property which is 500 feet from the Tower. The proposed Tower is 102 feet from the boundary to the north.

John Van – Asked what the life expectancy of the tower was.

Answer: 20 – 30 years. Stated they would be posting a $10,000 bond to cover the cost of removal of the tower if need be.

Attorney Grill stated he had already addressed the Variance requirements within the application which was submitted for the last meeting but would like to go over them again as follows:

a. No diminution in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;

There is a federal statute that states that US Cellular or other carriers are entitled within reason to correct any gap in coverage. They have established that Dunbarton has a significant gap. We are entitled to a Variance. You have to give us some idea of what would “do the trick”. We try to find the least intrusive way. The possibilities are endless. We are entitled to some Variance. Referred to the Wayland Case and the Provincetown, MA case. You are almost forced to consider the Variance. You can’t just deny this particular site, you must have good reason. There has to be some specific reasons why this tower should be denied. A copy of the Federal Law was included in the application package.

This doesn’t really apply. There is a residence already on the property. It is located on a Class VI road. Agree that we have a property that is essentially useless for other than this use.

b. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest;

Our purpose is to preserve the character of the Town. We are not putting it in the village, etc. There is no injury to public and private property rights. This does not affect anyone in a negative way.

On the positive side, there is a public good. Your Police Chief and Fire Chief have expressed a need for services. Will involve GPS and rescue services. There are public safety issues. Everyone has a cell phone. There are presently 130 million subscribers. This will create a public benefit.

c. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it;

Stated they have selected a reasonable site.

d. Granting the variance would do substantial justice; and

e. The use would not be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.

At this point in the meeting, the Chairman asked that they address the questions at the next meeting. He also stated that he was trying to follow the answers as written within the application and they differed from the answers Attorney Grill was giving etc. Stated it was also getting very late and people were losing their concentration powers.

Attorney Grill submitted a sheet showing proposed conditions of approval which the Board could use for making its decision. (attached)

David Nault stated he had a number of questions and concerns as follows:

1. Asked if they were asking the Board to only consider a 180 foot tower.

K. Kozyra stated this is the best solution.

2. Stated you say this is visible from 11 places. I am sure there are a lot more. Would a 100 – 120 foot tower be as visible from 5-6 locations. As far as I am concerned, shorter tower is better. There will be multiple visits on Powell Lane by all of the carriers. There is no upgrading proposed for Powell Lane.

The Town could have a second spot which might be the best spot for the Town.

Mr. Wells stated there were tradeoffs by dropping down to a shorter tower. Would be limiting co-locations. There would have to be compromises and limit the ability for co-location, etc.

3. Asked about a possible public viewing of a balloon. Would get better feedback. Showed an ad in the Bow Times where Bow is having a public viewing, etc. Asked that we do this for this Tower.

K. Kozyra stated that the balloon is not the most accurate, etc. After discussion, the Board agreed that they will schedule a balloon viewing and will advertise in the Bow Times. The scheduled balloon test will be for Monday, August 25 and Tuesday, August 26 from 6:30 am to 12:00 noon. D. Nault requested that the balloons be flown at three different heights; 100 feet, 150 feet and 180 feet.

4. Stated we have heard from you that the SBA site is not feasible. This is just your word and hearsay. Would like something in writing from someone knowledgeable about towers and their capabilities.

5. This tower will be visible from much farm land in the Gorham Pond area.

6. Noted he would like the applicants to look at towers which looked like trees.

Alison Vallieres stated that she would like the applicants to consider shorter towers which looked like trees versus the 180 foot tower. She stated she thought it would be better for the Town if we even had more towers but 100 foot and like a tree versus the 180 foot proposed tower. Several towers in strategic locations might give better coverage for the Town.

Members of the Public:

Don Prior – Asked about the elevation of the tower.

K. Kozyra stated it was 180 feet above the 766 AMSL of Route 13.

Ron Slocum stated that Dave Breault had given him considerable information regarding cell towers which he needed to know if Dave wanted it to become part of the record.

At this point, Dave Breault stated that he did want the information to become part of the record. (attached)

Ralph Fellbaum – Stated he would like to see the Tower on Town owned land whereby the Town can receive the money so everyone can benefit. Would like the Board to consider Town land.

Attorney Grill – Stated the law says you have to let us close the gap. Realize the one Tower is the cheapest way to go. Towns have to give us a reasonable opportunity to have a Tower.

Nick Holmes – Stated there is one on the Ralph Pill Building that the Board should look at. Also would like them to look at the church. Put it on an existing structure.

Steve Harding – Feels that most people would like to see more towers not as tall as this one.

Ken Alton – How many US Cellular customers are there in the Dunbarton Corridor. How much of this corridor are we covering. We are not really picking up that much. Going to look a lot different when it is really there. Still don’t agree that it will fall within the tower. You can’t depend on anything engineers do because it doesn’t always come out the same way they think. The Twin Towers weren’t supposed to fall either but they did. Asked about how the SBA Tower came to be there. He stated no matter what, it is still ugly.

The Board noted that the Building Inspector gave them a permit to add on 25’ feet higher than previously. Was a microwave tower repeater.

Margaret Watkins – Stated this was difficult for everyone. The applicant has several hours to present his case and then when it is very late and everyone is tired the public has their chance. Would hope that if this goes through, the site is taxed as commercial property and the Town gets some benefit from it. Strongly urge structure bonding. The cost to take it down years from now may be a lot higher than it is now. What is the process going to be?

At this point in the public hearing, the following motion was made:

MOTION:

A motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously that the Public Hearing for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from U. S. Cellular on behalf of the owners, Richard and Nicholette Hecker (C3-5-7) to allow them to construct and operate a 180 foot free standing tower with 12 panel antenna and a 12’ x 20 ground equipment building at their property on 12 Powell Lane in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH be continued until the September meeting.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Alison R. Vallieres

Secretary