Skip navigation.

Minutes posted at this web site have not been checked for consistency with the printed minutes that are available in the Wilton Town Offices. If you need the definitive minutes of a ZBA meeting, please obtain the printed minutes from the town offices.

June 8, 2010

Board MembersChairperson Neil Faiman; members Andy Hoar, Carol Roberts, Jim Tuttle, Joe Poisson, and Alternate Joanna Eckstrom.
Agenda
  • 5/11/10 - 1 Sylvia Horsley
  • 6/08/10 - 1 Lincoln Geiger
  • 6/08/10 - 2 Habitat for Humanity
  • 6/08/10 - 3 T. Arthur Babineau 1997 Trust
  • 6/08/10 - 4 Marois Joint Revocable Trust

Chairman Faiman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

A MOTION was made by Ms. Roberts and SECONDED by Mr. Tuttle to approve the minutes of April 13, 2010 as amended.

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Hoar and SECONDED by Ms. Roberts to approve the minutes of May 11, 2010 as amended.

Voting: 4 ayes; motion carried with Mr. Poisson abstaining.

Chairman Faiman reviewed the agenda, introduced the Board Members present, and reviewed the ZBA meeting procedures.

Case #5/11/10–1 — Sylvia Horsley

Carol Roberts stepped off the Board as a voting member and Joanna Eckstrom stepped on the Board in her place at 7:44 p.m.

Chairman Faiman explained that Sylvia W. Horsley has appealed a decision of the Wilton Building Inspector that an apartment in the dwelling at Lot J-13, 21 Dale Street, is not a legal nonconforming use due to discontinuance. He also noted that this item was continued from last month as the applicant did not want to be heard before a four person Board.

Wil Sullivan appeared before the Board for the applicant and explained that the applicant bought the house in 1992 and her sister and her sister's family of nine lived in the house from 1992 till July of last year. He stated that the building was a duplex when she bought it and it has not been physically changed as today the two units are still separate structures and one cannot get from one unit to the other without going outside. He explained that the children that were over 18 would occupy the small unit and when they grew up and left others would move in. He stated that it is the applicant's position that since there has never been any physical change to the property and since it was occupied by adults, even though they were members of the same family, the building is still a duplex.

Mr. Sullivan noted that at the last meeting Mr. Tuttle raised the issue, as a member of the Water Commission, that the tenant stated that there was only one unit and the Water Commissioners reduced her bill; he stated that this was done without the applicant's knowledge.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Ms. Horsley explained that, according to the bank, when she bought it the building was rented as a two family. She explained that she is trying to rent or sell the building and has made upgrades because the previous Building Inspector stated that improvements were required such as adding an egress upstairs and as proving that adequate parking exists.

Mr. Faiman asked for evidence that the building was a two family building prior to zoning and noted that one of the letters presented refers to a conversion in the 1980's.

Ms. Horsley presented a 1986 tax assessment card that notates the building as having two units and she noted that the one cannot communicate between the two units and they have separate kitchens and bathrooms.

Ms. Eckstrom also noted that there is evidence in the form of a letter from Frank, a prior Building Inspector, to the Board of Selectman regarding a previous owner who wanted to convert an L structure to a one bedroom apt in 1985 and in 1986 the appraisal sheet shows the building as a two family dwelling.

In response to a question from Mr. Hoar as to whether there is record of a Building Permit, Mr. Faiman stated that the letter from Frank states the owner applied and was approved for a Building Permit for a conversion in 1985 and that a variance should have been obtained.

Ms. Horsley noted that she put the egress in in attempts to make the unit up to code.

Mr. Faiman stated that if a unit is sufficient to live in independently of the main unit then it is considered a separate dwelling and noted that there does not appear to be any evidence, other than the tax card, that the unit was used as a two family dwelling , prior to 1985.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Ms. Horsley state that there was sufficient space for three cars which would mean two cars for the main house and one for the apt as it is only big enough for one person.

John Shepardson stated that there were periods of time when there were two families living in the house but it was never a legal two family residence because they got a permit and the Building Inspector told them they needed a variance which was never applied for or issued. He stated that in the early years when the Fire Chief and Frank were involved there was no egress on the second floor and although the Horsley's carpenter installed a window it is not big enough to be considered an egress. Ms. Horsley and Mr. Shepardson discussed the qualities of a legal egress and Mr. Faiman noted that it is not a concern of the Board.

In response to a comment from Mr. Faiman, Mr. Shepardson read a letter dated 1989 from the Building inspector to Mrs. Streeter, the owner at the time, stating that she needed a variance and noting that there is no escape from the second floor.

Ms. Eckstrom explained that the letter also states that the Building Inspector noted that the Building Permit had been approved and the conversion was done.

Mr. Shepardson read a letter from the Board of Selectman which stated that the owner had 90 days to fix the unit or the apartment would need to be vacated. Mr. Shepardson stated that the permit was issued but there is no record of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Chairman Faiman called for public comment and heard none.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Shepardson explained that as work progresses at different stages the Building Inspector will inspects the work and approve it or asks for changes and when the work is completed a final inspection is done and a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.

Mr. Sullivan noted that he built his house in 1978 and it was never inspected.

Ms. Eckstrom stated that she built a greenhouse and garage in 1989 and has never received any certificate.

In response to a question from Mr. Faiman, Mr. Shepardson stated that the building was used as a two family but it was never legal.

In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shepardson explained that the tax card is an accounting of what the tax assessor sees when he inspects the property; it is not concerned with the legality.

Ms. Eckstrom stated that previously the town had an inventory of properties and the information was transferred to the assessment card so the tax card information comes from a variety of sources including the assessor and the owner. Mr. Shepardson stated that that process still does not make the tax card legal.

Mr. Faiman stated that there is a question as to whether there was ever a legal second dwelling unit in the building to which they have limited, and possibly contradictory, evidence and also, assuming there was a legal dwelling as of 1992, there is a question as to whether it is still a legal dwelling considering the possible failure to maintain the second unit as a separate dwelling unit.

Ms. Horsley stated that it was a two dwelling unit and it was used by a family with 7 children and while no rent was paid for any of the house it was occupied.

Mr. Faiman stated that last month he recalled the applicant stated that although the boys were living in the apartment they were probably eating with the family so while they were sleeping in the apartment they were not living there independently. Ms. Horsley stated that she was not there but the apartment has a kitchen, it was never removed, although she is not aware how much it was used.

Mr. Faiman question if one has a separate apartment but does not use it that way whether it still maintains its separate dwelling unit status.

Ms. Eckstrom stated that if one has an in-law situation where they are using their own kitchen but have some meals in the main house she does not think that would change the status of the separate dwelling.

Mr. Shepardson stated that it is his recollection that, unknown to the applicant, the tenants went to the Water Commissioners and had the house's status changed to one unit. Mr. Tuttle agreed and explained that her argument was that it was a large family and that they would be willing to not utilize the second kitchen in order to reduce the cost of the water.

Mr. Faiman noted that maybe the egress issue does matter, if the space never reached valid residence because the building improvements were not made.

In response to a question from Mr. Faiman, Mr. Tuttle referred to the assessment documents and stated that the entire house is 1467 SF.

Ms. Eckstrom noted that the first floor is 20' x 13' but it is unknown what the second floor is.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Hoar and SECONDED by Mr. Poisson to close the public hearing.

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Faiman read the equitable waiver clause.

Ms. Eckstrom stated that when it was issued in 1985 the Building Permit was valid and she stated that she is having a problem fixing a mistake that was made 25 years ago.

Mr. Hoar noted that it was an error on the part of the home owner, not the town, as indicated by the letter from the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Faiman read the letter dated November 6, 1989, stating that the apartment does not meet safety standards and giving the owner 90 days to make the improvements or to vacate. He further noted that no vacate order is in the file.

Mr. Poisson questioned when the town started issuing occupancy permits.

Mr. Tuttle questioned whether the applicant would be allowed to start over again with the safety standard issues. Mr. Faiman stated that if the applicant wants to argue that it should be allowed then that would be a request for a variance but what they are asking is that it was and is still a valid dwelling unit.

Ms. Eckstrom stated that it is a two unit house on a small piece of land and suggested that the bank would have required some evidence that it was a legal two family building when the property was purchased. She noted that banks often rely on the information that is found on the tax card. Mr. Hoar stated that that still does not make the second dwelling legal.

A MOTION was made by Ms. Eckstrom and SECONDED by Mr. Tuttle that the Board find that Ms. Horsley does have a legal two dwelling residence but that before the second dwelling can be used it must be brought up to parking and egress standards.

Mr. Faiman stated that he has a hard time agreeing and a hard time being convinced that it was a valid second dwelling unit at the time that it was created as it was not legal and there is no evidence that it complied with zoning when it was created nor any evidence that it was maintained as a two family unit.

Ms. Eckstrom stated that there was also no evidence that there was any enforcement such as an eviction notice.

Mr. Poisson questioned whether if one has a garage that is not used as a garage but rather for storage is it no longer a garage.

Mr. Hoar noted that there is a letter stating that the owner needed to bring the unit into compliance and there is no evidence that it was ever legal.

Vote: 3 ayes; motion passed with Eckstrom, Tuttle, and Poisson in favor and Faiman and Hoar against.

After discussion the Board noted that the applicant will need a variance if they are unable to provide the required four parking spaces.

Ms. Eckstrom left the Board and Ms. Roberts returned to the Board as voting members at 8:50 p.m.

Case #6/08/10–1 — Lincoln Geiger

Chairman Faiman explained that Mr. Geiger filed a substantially the same request last month and the Board requested that he re-file the application as a commercial use application.

Mr. Geiger explained that he would like to expand the income possibilities at the farm by processing the food they grow and serving it at the farm in the downstairs of the house. He stated that the addition of the café would not produce any substantial change in the use because there are 100 families that come to the farm and there is already traffic from Pine Hill and High Mowing. He stated that the café would have the same patrons as the farm and the schools. He further explained that there is a 99 year lease for the farm but the house is not included in that lease.

In response to a question from Mr. Hoar, Mr. Geiger stated that he can do the necessary renovations without altering the outside of the building per the Historical Society agreement.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Geiger stated that he will not be using commercial stoves but rather two ordinary stoves, there will be 14 seats, the will use gas, and the restroom facilities are already adequate.

In response to a question from Mr. Tuttle, Mr. Geiger stated that they will be using the same space the daycare previously occupied.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Geiger stated that he will have to change the sink and if they serve on paper plates they can have 14 seats or only 7 seats if they serve on non disposable plates, so they will be using paper plates. He noted that there is already a dishwasher present.

In response to a question from Mr. Poisson, Mr. Geiger stated that the there is a brand new septic system that is rated for up to six bedrooms present which would allow for 14 seats.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Geiger stated that the café would be open from 8 am to 5 pm, five days a week and closed on Sunday and Monday.

In response to a question from Mr. Tuttle, Mr. Geiger stated that he is debating as to whether to use the old front door which would be nicer but he is not sure which is more practical.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Geiger stated that no alcohol will be served at or brought into the facility.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Geiger stated that the three farm partners will run it and they may hire one or two people to help. He also noted that there is appropriate parking for employees and customers.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Tuttle and SECONDED by Mr. Hoar to close the public hearing.

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Faiman read a letter from Ray Hill, from LCHIP, stating that LCHIP does not see an issue with the proposal but they would need to complete a new review if changes to the proposal are made.

A MOTION was made by Ms. Roberts and SECONDED by Mr. Tuttle to reopen the public hearing.

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.

In response to a question from Ms. Roberts, Lynne Draper, of the Wilton Conservation Commission, stated that the building is under the jurisdiction of the Heritage Commission and because everything in the proposal takes place in the building it is not an issue for the Conservation Commission as long as no paving takes place which Mr. Geiger represented would not happen.

In response to a question from Ms. Roberts, Stan Young, of the Heritage Commission, stated that as long as the outside of the building is not changed in anyway the Heritage Commission has no qualms with the proposal. He also noted that the building is listed in the state historical records and asked if they had been notified. Mr. Geiger stated that he has emailed and called the office but has not received a response yet.

A MOTION was made by Ms. Hoar and SECONDED by Mr. Poisson to reclose the public hearing.

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Faiman noted that the state statues are very encouraging of agricultural work.

Ms. Eckstrom expressed concerned that the only food that would be processed is that which was produced on site.

Mr. Hoar noted that there are items which they cannot make at the farm such as flour.

In response to a question from Ms. Roberts, Ms. Eckstrom stated that she does not want to see any big trucks delivering products to the site.

Ms. Roberts noted that the application speaks of nurturing the product that they grow on the farm.

Ms. Roberts questioned if the applicant was planning on selling any products such as canned pickles and whether that would expand their market.

Ms. Eckstrom stated that they already sell items like that at farm stand.

Mr. Faiman stated that the law looks favorably on agricultural uses and noted that farm stands require that 35% of what is sold comes from the property.

In response to a question from Mr. Poisson, Mr. Faiman stated that the proposal includes a standard 4' sign.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Tuttle and SECONDED by Ms. Roberts to grant the variance with the following conditions:

- Open 8 am to 5 pm Tuesday through Saturday

- Parking as shown on the plan

- No more than 14 seats

- No changes to exterior of the building

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously with Tuttle, Roberts, Faiman, Poisson, and Hoar in favor.

A MOTION was made by Ms. Roberts and SECONDED by Mr. Tuttle to adopt the reasons for approval as submitted by the applicant.

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.

Case #6/08/10–2 — Habitat for Humanity

Chairman Faiman explained that Greater Nashua Habitat for Humanity has applied for a variance to section 5.2.3 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a house on Lot K-96-1, 21 Maple Street, at the corner of Russell and Maple Streets, which would be closer to Russell Street than is allowed by the Ordinance.

The applicant appeared before the Board and explained that a similar variance was approved two and a half years prior but it expired six months ago. He submitted the decision notice and minutes from the last approval to the Board to refresh their memory. He explained that this proposal includes a smaller house with no garage and the house location has been shifted so they no longer need the Maple Street variance. He stated that it is a 900 SF two bedroom residential home and if they were to follow all the rules they would have less than 12' to build a house in. He also noted that the porch will now be on the left instead of the right.

In response to a question from Mr. Faiman, the applicant stated that the house is more than 50' from the brook.

Chairman Faiman called for public comment and heard none.

Mr. Hoar stated that today a lot this small would not be created but it is does exist.

Mr. Faiman stated that it is consistent with the neighborhood.

The applicant noted that the house is on town water and sewer.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Hoar and SECONDED by Ms. Roberts to grant the variance to Section 5.2.3 as requested by the applicant for the hardship reasons stated in the application.

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously with Tuttle, Poisson, Faiman, Hoar, and Roberts in favor.

Case #6/08/10–3 — T. Arthur Babineau 1997 Trust

Chairman Faiman noted that this application is a totally different application than the one sent to the Board a couple of months ago. He explained that this is a limited request and he assumes that the applicants have considered that in order to create an access road they will need a wetland crossing, but whether they can create the access road is not the issue at present. He also noted that this type of case is required to be heard at two consecutive meetings.

Wil Sullivan appeared before the Board for the applicant and explained that the applicant is not going to appeal the denial of the variance that was issued last month. He also stated that the purpose of the current application is to get across the wetland to the lots they can build on. He stated that the applicant will want to get timber off the lots at some point and two thirds of their land is on the other side of the strip of wetland and the proposed crossing is the only way to access it across the wetland.

Mr. Sullivan introduced Tony Bassau, of Keach Nordstrom. Mr. Bassau explained that the site is located at the end of Holt Road and it has Mill Brook and Stoney Brook running through it. He further explained that the property is sliced in two by a wetland that runs north and south throughout the property and the only way to get to 86 acres of the property is to cross the wetland at some point. He stated that they chose a narrow spot that is near the Western lot line of Lot D-021 and on Lot D-020 which is a 51 acre track. He stated that the crossing will create 1765 SF of impact or 72 linear feet of impact total to an intermittent stream. He stated that the applicant is proposing to install a 60" culvert to allow for the natural movement of wild life. He stated that their proposal is in compliance with the soon to be adopted stream rules, creates a natural flow and mimics the stream as it is now, and minimizes the impact. He also noted that the proposed location is not near any significant areas of wetland and while there are some vernal pools on this site the crossing is not near those habitats. He also stated that the proposal has been before the Wilton Conservation Commission and submitted a letter from them supporting the crossing.

In response to a question from Mr. Faiman, Mr. Bassau stated that the crossing will access lots D - 071, 70, and 21.

In response to a question from Mr. Tuttle, Mr. Bassau explained that the other culverts on the plan are there in order to provide treatment of the stormwater runoff from the driveway and are not there due to any wetland affect.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Bassou explained that the treatment occurs in the swale and then goes into the level spreader over 120' from the wetland.

Mr. Faiman stated that in order to use a road for the purposes of being able to build it is necessary to obtain subdivision approval from the Planning Board and questioned whether the applicant was planning on taking a plan to the Planning Board. Mr. Bassau stated that they have not discussed to what level they will be taking the project. He explained that he laid out a road at minimum road standards to show that he could do so without impacting any other wetlands.

Mr. Faiman stated that he is concerned about approving a road that cannot be used without approval from the Planning Board.

Mr. Bassau stated that if the applicant decides to move forward with development they will go to the Planning Board if necessary.

Mr. Faiman stated that he is concerned that when the applicant goes for approval from the Planning Board that they may ask for a different road location.

Mr. Bassau explained that the state mandates that the crossing occur at the narrowest location farthest from the other wetlands and this is the location that he chose.

In response to a question from Mr. Hoar, Mr. Bassau stated that it is 1400' from Holt Road to the end of the proposed road but noted that the purpose of the proposal is just to prove that one can cross without impacting other wetlands.

In response to a question from Mr. Hoar, Mr. Tuttle stated that Holt Road is 2,000 to 3,000 feet long.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Bassau stated that they are not changing lot lines.

In response to a question from Tom Hurley, of 67 Holt Road, Mr. Bassau stated that the culvert area was initially staked out but he is not sure what still remains. He noted that if they are required to hold a site walk they will restake the area.

After a discussion as to whether or not this site is in the Watershed District, Mr. Bassau stated that he will research the issue further and noted that the runoff water will be treated.

In response to a question from Mr. Lovorme, Mr. Bassau stated that there will be some clearing associated with building and they will need to import gravel for the road bed however they anticipate that the majority of the materials will come from onsite.

In response to a question from Mr. Lovorme, Mr. Bassau stated that Holt Road is not closed to trucking; the work will be done as lightly as possible and will have temporary impact.

In response to a question from Mr. Loverme, Mr. Bassau stated that the frontage is on Holt Road so the proposal is to take access from Holt Road.

In response to a question from Mrs. Loverme, Mr. Bassau explained that during the planning they are required to look at that the tree cover prior to development and then in the post development condition in order to mitigate the impact of removing the trees. He noted that they will have stormwater measurements in place to treat any additional runoff.

In response to a question from Mrs. Loverme regarding required frontage for landlocked lots, Mr. Bassau stated that he is just dealing with the wetland crossing at this point and if the applicant decides to move forward then they will do so with the Planning Board.

In response to a question from Mrs. Loverme, Mr. Bassau stated that the only option other than Holt Road is Putnam Hill Road and that impact would be massive so this is the only access point.

In response to a comment from Mrs. Lovorme, Mr. Bassau stated that these lots do not touch Sand Hill Road.

In response to a question from Mr. Poisson, Mr. Sullivan stated that the applicant does not know what they want to do yet but any option will require a wetland crossing and at this point they are just considering timber removal.

Mr. Bassau noted that this is the only impact that will be allowed from here on and they are currently proposing a driveway because that is all the applicant has discussed.

In response to a question from Mr. Faiman, Mr. Bassau stated that there is not a lot of flexibility in the crossing location due to the Department of Environmental Services' regulations and he noted that they made it wide enough to accommodate future plans.

Chairman Faiman read a letter from the Wilton Conservation Commission stating that the crossing is appropriate for the situation.

Mr. Bassau asked the Board to continue the application to August and heard no objection from the Board.

The Board decided to hold a site walk on July 31, 2010 at 9:00 am beginning at the end of Holt Road and asked that the applicant flag the wetland crossing and some portion of the road.

Chairman questioned if the Board felt any external engineering review was required.

The Board asked the applicant to prepare calculations for the Board showing how they chose to use a 60" culvert.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Hoar and SECONDED by Mr. Tuttle to schedule a site walk on July 31, 2010 and continue the application to August 10, 2010.

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried.

Andy Hoar left the Board and Joanna Eckstrom joined the Board as voting members at 10:25 p.m.

A MOTION was made by Ms. Eckstrom and SECONDED by Ms. Roberts to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m.

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.

Case #06/08/10–4 — Marois Joint Revocable Trust

Chairman Faiman explained that the Marois Joint Revocable Trust (John and Kristen Marois, Trustees) (owner) and Florida Tower Partners (applicant) have applied for a variance to section 15.3.4 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to permit the erection of a 114 foot "monopine" personal wireless service facility (cell tower) on Lot B-39-3, 303 Curtis Farm Road, which is eleven feet higher than would be permitted by the ordinance.

John Springer appeared before the Board for the applicant and thanked the Board for letting them start the process tonight and proposed that they give a shortened version of their presentation and then schedule a balloon test.

Mr. Springer stated that the proposed site is 303 Curtis Farm Road and explained that the notice says 11' above the permitted height but they are actually looking to be allowed to be 30' above the permitted height. He explained that the applicant is proposing a monopine tower of which a few feet of the top of it will be above the tree line. He stated that this is a permitted use on this property so the variance they are requesting is not for the use but for the height. He explained that the ordinance says to measure all the trees within a prescribed radius, take an average tree height, and the ordinance allows for 20' above that height. He explained that the average tree height is 64' with 33 trees less than 50' , 77 trees that are 80' or less, and 55 trees which are 80' or higher. He further explained that even though the average is 64' if one were to lower a blanket on top of the trees it would sit between 80' and 90' and that's what the antennas have to clear, which he noted the ordinance recognizes. He stated that the tower will not be lit, will have no noise or fumes, and he is confident that even 30' over the average tree height it will not be very visible. He stated that they will fly a balloon test at 114', go around and take pictures of the balloon, and then photo shop in a monopine tower. He stated that they try to fly the balloon early in the morning because the wind is less and they try to keep it flying for 4 to 5 hours.

Chairman Faiman encouraged the public to attend the balloon test and in response to a request from John Weaver, of 309 Curtis Farm Road, asked that they fly a balloon at 83' also. Mr. Springer stated that he can to that but that the balloon may pop at that level.

In response to a question from an abutter, Mr. Springer stated that the tower can hold four arrays which are 10' to 12' across.

In response to a question from Mr. Faiman, Mr. Springer stated that the average tree height is 64'.

In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Springer stated that that the tower is 2' to 3' at the top and 4' to 5' at bottom.

Mr. Springer stated that they will clear 100' x 100' and there will be no guide wires.

In response to a concern from an abutter about the location of the stakes, Mr. Springer stated that he can meet with him and discuss the flags.

In response to a question from an abutter, Mr. Springer stated that removing the trees will have no effect. He stated that they will be removing 50 to 60 trees and noted that every tree is tagged with a number and its measurement is recorded.

In response to a question from Marsha Gibbons, Mr. Springer explained that there is a significant gap in coverage as the other tower is too far away.

Mr. Faiman noted that this issue will go through the Planning Board which will be a much more in depth application there and the general question as to whether this is an appropriate place to put the tower is not relevant here.

The Board decided to hold the balloon test on June 19, 2010 with a rain date of the June 26, 2010 starting between 6 and 7 am and remaining in the air until noon.

In response to a question from Mr. Faiman, Mr. Springer stated that if there are specific locations which the Board or public would like to be photographed to please let him know.

An abutter asked that pictures be taken from Carnival Hill and Mr. Desmaris asked that pictures be taken from his new development on Pead Hill.

In response to a question from the public, Kevin Brewer, RF Engineer for AT&T, explained that AT&T is on every tower in the area that they know about, except for one, and further explained that they operate at 1900 MHz and can only transmit about 50% what the other carriers can.

In response to a question from an abutter, Mr. Springer stated that three additional companies can co-locate on the tower.

A MOTION was made by Ms. Roberts and SECONDED by Mr. Tuttle to continue the application to August 10, 2010.

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.

A MOTION was made by Ms. Roberts and SECONDED by Mr. Tuttle to adjourn the meeting.

Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Faiman declared the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Heather Loewy Nichols
Clerk