Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPR 71922 Formal Review SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET Date: July 19, 2022 Map:50 Parcel: 189.1 Applicant: Blue Sky Towers III, LLC Location: 1044 Route 28, South Yarmouth Zone: B-2 Persons Present: Amanda Lima Rick Sousa Esq. Kathy Williams Jesse Moreno Lt. Matt Bearse YFD Mark Grylls Proiect Summary Proposed wireless telecommunication facility monopole Communication Tower and ground equipment. Comments Building: Property is located in the B2 zoning district. Proposal for a 110' cell tower will require relief from several sections of the Zoning Bylaw. Cell towers are allowed in the Town of Yarmouth by Special Permit per section 408.4 of the Zoning Bylaw from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Section 408.4.1 states that the ZBA may alter or waive one or more requirements of section 408 if it finds that the alteration or waiver of the requirements will not derogate from the intent of the bylaw. Applicant requested several waivers from certain sections of the zoning bylaw in their application to SPR. The purpose of SPR is to identify plans that comply or do not comply with state /local regulations and bylaws. If necessary, waivers from the following sections of the zoning bylaw shall be requested directly from the ZBA from the following sections. The procedure for this is not clear, however, I would assume it takes place in person at the hearing. Section 408.6.3#1,#1 C—Scaled plans and tree cover. Section 408.6.2#5 &#6 regarding locations of other personal wireless facilities. Section 408.6.3#2A-Sight line representation. Section 408.6.3#2D—Visual impact photographs. Section 408.6.3 #3B— Security barrier cutaway view. Section 408.6.3#3D Existing and proposed tree/planting heights. Section 408.6.3#3E—Grade changes and contours. Confirm with ZBA that the criteria for 408.6.4 #7 (balloon test) has been met or schedule with ZBA. Section 408.6.5— Noise filing requirements, waiver? Relief will also be required from Section 408.7.1 General—All communication facilities shall be designed and sited so as to have the least adverse visual effect on the environment. Only self-supporting monopole type towers are permissible. Lattice towers, ort the use of ground anchors and/or guy wires are prohibited. In accordance with Section 408.7.3 applicant has burden of proving that colocation on another structure is not feasible. Must prove good faith effort to co-locate per 408.7.3.1#'s 1,2,3. Section 408.7.3.2—Applicant must provide written statement that co-location is not feasible to the ZBA. ZBA may request, at owners expense more information per Section 408.7.3.3. Applicant to seek relief from section 408.7.6.2. Height. General—Ground mounted PWSF shall not project higher than ten feet above or tree canopy. Section 408.7.8 Fall zones. Communication towers, whether free standing or part of another structure or building, must be set back from all property lines by at least the total height of the tower or structure and its appurtenances. It is not clear at this time if fall zones can include parking areas or occupied buildings on the same property. I could not locate a lighting plan as required per Section 408.7.11. Building Department will require as-built plans prior to final construction sign off. The ZBA will also require a copy per section 408.10. Section 408.11 requires inspection by owners expert(engineer) every 2 years and that documentation to be supplied to the Building Department for the file. Community Development and Planning: Planning Efforts & Zoning: Throughout the Cape Cod Commission Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process, comment letters were submitted by the Town Planner, Planning Board and Town Administrator expressing serious concerns about the height, location and aesthetics of this cell tower in a highly visible location within our main commercial corridor. Yarmouth is striving to better itself, with redevelopment of our Route 28 corridor being front and center in our planning efforts. Through zoning, growth incentive zones, opportunity zones, vision planning, wastewater initiatives and MassDOT streetscape improvements, we are concentrating resources and money to improve this corridor and create an environment that fosters investment. This Tower does not fit with our vision for our main commercial corridor, nor does it comply with intent of Section 408 of our zoning bylaw, requiring many waivers from these standards including: • 408.7.1 General. All Communications Facilities shall be designed and sited so as to have the least adverse visual effect on the environment. • 408.7.5.1 Scenic Landscapes and Vistas - Personal Wireless Service Facilities shall not be located within open areas that are discernable from public roads, recreational areas, or residential development. • 408.7.6.1 Height, General. Regardless of the type of mount, Personal Wireless Service Facilities shall be no higher than ten feet above the average height of buildings within 300 feet of the proposed facility. • 408.7.6.2 Height, Ground-Mounted Facilities. Ground-mounted Personal Wireless Service Facilities shall not project higher than ten feet above the average building height or, if there are no buildings within 300 feet, these facilities shall not project higher than ten feet above the average tree canopy height. • 408.7.10.3 Camouflage by Vegetation: If Communications Facilities are not camouflaged from public viewing areas by existing buildings or structures, they shall be surrounded by buffers of dense tree growth and understory vegetation in all directions to create an effective year-round visual buffer. Ground-mounted Personal Wireless Service Facilities shall provide a vegetated buffer of sufficient height and depth to effectively screen the facility. The tower is highly visible due to its height and the removal of the taller trees along the south and east side of the tower, essentially creating an open area and eliminating all significant screening from Route 28 and some of Forest Road. The proposed plantings will only screen the ground equipment which is not housed inside a structure, but is ground mounted in a fenced in area (screening of the pad mounted transformer and replacement of dead buffer tree should also be provided). The tower does not comply with the height requirements just because it is less than 200'. The bylaw says 10' above the tree line, but in no case exceeding 200' (in case there are very tall trees in the area), so a waiver would be required. Aesthetics: It is impossible to camouflage or screen a 110' tall cell tower which is further exacerbated by the removal of the taller stand of trees along Route 28. Another option would be to camouflage the tower in plain sight to make it a focal point rather than visual clutter. However, the applicant's attempt to address the aesthetic concerns of this highly visible site by designing the tower to simulate a "clock tower" is highly inadequate. The design as presented reads like a large sign from a freeway and lacks the appropriate level of details and design elements. It is also referred to as a church tower on the site plans and no clocks are shown. Without it being properly designed, the larger"clock tower" may end up having more negative visual impacts, with three large 2.5' diameter support poles and three 14' wide x 42.5' long "clock" faces, rather than an obvious monopole cell tower. Both design options are detrimental to the goals the Town has been working on for decades for enhance Route 28. Legal Control: The Applicant needs to have some form of legal control over the fall zones that also prohibits removal of the trees relied upon for screening in the application materials. Provide an easement for the stormwater swales and infiltration basin, currently shown outside of any easement area. Application Analysis: The applicant has previously discounted the use of a Concealed Antenna Monopole (CAM), use of other existing towers, and ruled out other alternative locations; and well as provided documentation on coverage gap and need for the location and height. As this application is highly technical in nature, the Planning Division recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals engage a peer review of the Special Permit application materials using the provisions of Ch.53G and provide input to the Board as part of the Hearing process. Conservation: Not present. A portion of the site is in the floodplain, coordinate with the Conservation Agent. Design Review: Refer to the attached June 14, 2022 Design Review Committee (DRC) Comment Sheet. Engineering: • Provide drainage calculations to support the drainage design plan. -- • Provide operation and maintenance plan. Fire: permits for fuel storage, lock box for gate, clear markings for gate access, some type of deterrent for blocking access to ladder or climbing pegs to prevent persons who may enter the fenced area Health: Not present. Water: No comments - LJR Read & Received by Applicant(s) Review is: ❑Conceptual © Formal ❑ Binding(404 MotelsNCOD/R.O.A.D. Project) El Non-binding(All other commercial projects) Review is by: ❑ Planning Board El Design Review Committee DESIGN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET Meeting Date: June 14, 2022, Room B Town Hall Map: 50 Lots: 189.1 Applicant: Blue Sky Towers III, LLC (dba BSTMA III, LLC) Zone(s): B2, HMOD1, ROAD,VCOD VC3 Site Location: 1044 Route 28, South Yarmouth Persons Present: DCR Members Present Yarmouth Town Staff Present Guests Charlie Adams Kathy Williams Att. Ricardo Sousa Chris Vincent Sean Gormley Dick Martin Ryan Monte de Ramos, T-Mobile Steve O'Neil (left at 4:30) Sohail Usmani, C2 for AT&T Jessie Moreno DRC Review for this project started at: 4:01 PM DRC Review ended at: 5:03 PM On a motion by Charlie Adams,seconded by Chris Vincent, the Design Review Committee(DRC) voted(3- 0) to adjourn the June 14, 2022 DRC meeting at 5:03 PM. Project Summary General Description: Communication Tower Continuation from 4/5/22 Meeting: Blue Sky Towers III, LLC (applicant) d/b/a BSTMA III, LLC, c/o Ricardo M. Sousa, Esq., Prince Lobel Tye LLP; Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River(owner), 1044 Route 28, South Yarmouth;Assessor Map 50, Parcel 189.1;Zoning Districts B2, HMOD1, ROAD and VCOD VC3. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 110' tall monopole Communication Tower for up to four carriers with accessory ground equipment. Supplemental materials have been provided from the 4/5/22 DRC meeting showing an amended cell tower design to simulate a clock tower, and a more detailed alternative siting analysis. Summary of Presentation: Attorney Ricardo Sousa, representing the applicant, introduced his team. He noted that his team looked at finding a more aesthetically pleasing design that still provided the needed coverage. The included supplemental materials show a 3-sided simulated clock tower to hide the antennas, and can include clocks on all three sides. He noted the photo-simulations at four locations and was looking for feedback from the DRC. He also noted the revised project plans. DRC Questions & Discussions: Chris Vincent likes the 3-legged concept and would like to see three clocks on it. Attorney Sousa also noted this could be a focal point in Town. Charlie Adams asked if the clocks were operational, and Attorney Sousa said they would be. Steve O'Neil asked if antennas would be located behind the clock panels and the material for the side panels. Attorney Sousa indicated the antennas would be located behind, using a radio frequency(RF)transparent material. Sean Gormley indicated the panel material was fiberglass and the legs are made out of steel. The clock is a special clock made to allow RF frequency to go right through. Mr. O'Neil asked about backlighting or illumination of the clock to be seen at night. Sean Gormley indicated he is not sure if the clock can be backlit. Mr. O'Neil appreciated trying to work on the design to camouflage the antennas, but was not convinced this is the best location and was less impressed with the alternative analysis. He felt they took the path of least resistance, and could reach out to the Town on Town-owned property, especially along Buck Island Road. He noted the process for disposing of Town property including Board of Selectmen approval and vote at town meeting. He suggested more outreach to the administration. Mr. O'Neil felt the certified letters needed to have follow up as there are some sites that might be viable, especially the Davenport properties behind the Job Lots. He would like to see more effort at looking at other sites besides this one. Charlie Adams does not feel enough has been done on finding another location. As far as the design is concerned, would be in favor of more of a colonial style similar to one of the examples attached (middle left) as the DRCs typically looks for cape cod style architecture. Sohail Usmani showed the plot coverage maps for the area including 99 Buck Island Road which did not cover the area needed. He noted they also looked at other sites and coverage maps and height scenarios as part of the Cape Cod Commission process. Chris Vincent indicated he was okay with the location due to the coverage needs. Charlie Adams asked about the tower located across the street at the post office. Attorney Sousa noted that the spacing inside the thick flagpole CAM (concealed antenna monopole) can't contain modern 5G antennas and provide all needed services. Also, Verizon is at the top and the lower levels would not serve the needs of AT&T and T-Mobile and wouldn't allow for 5G coverage, so they chose a different design. Attorney Sousa noted that the Davenports received a Certified Mail and spoke in opposition to the Cape Cod Commission DRI. Kathy Williams had provided direct contact information for the Davenports for the applicant to contact them. Sean Gormley noted they could not meet the fall zone for these properties(3a&4). Kathy Williams questioned the inability to provide the fall zones. Attorney Sousa felt they had gone too far in the application process and has gone through the Cape Cod Commission with a favorable decision. Attorney Sousa briefly went through the alternative sites that were reviewed. Dick Martin noted that he understands the need for coverage in the area, and doesn't think this is a bad site, but would like to see as much buffer as possible as the site is currently heavily wooded. He also felt 110' is tall and not thrilled with the design and wanted something that looked more like a clock tower rather than a large sign. Attorney Sousa felt some design standards can be looked at long as using RF transparent material and they are willing to modify the design. Mr. Martin asked about shadowing of surrounding homes and doesn't want abutters to now have shading on their property due to the height. Attorney Sousa noted shadowing may be to the west and north, but that is where the tree buffer is. Attorney Sousa noted that the height was reduced to 110' already, and every incremental change impacts viability. Mr. Martin would like the tower to be more attractive if need this location and height. Sohail Usmani noted that the three-sided design is needed as the antennas transmit in three directions. So this fits well with a 3-legged versus 4-legged structure. The fourth leg also impacts transmissions. Kathy Williams shared her version of the design elements which breaks up the tower to make it less sign like (see attached) and suggested orienting the clock faces to be seen from Route 28 traveling westward. Jesse Moreno said the 3-legged design meets the antenna setbacks and the"three sectors"set up to allow for propagation, so turning it may impact the RF coverage. The applicant indicated they would analyze reorienting the 3-legged layout. Mr. Martin inquired about the landscaping plan and asked about the circles on the plan facing Route 28. Jesse Moreno noted those are proposed bushes. Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards SITING STRATEGIES Sect. 1, Streetscape ❑x N/A 0 Meets Standards,or❑ Discrepancies: There are no new buildings proposed which could be located adjacent to the roadway to define the streetscape. Sect. 2, Tenant Spaces © N/A 0 Meets Standards,or❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 3. Define Street Edge © N/A ❑Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 4, Shield Large Buildings © N/A 0 Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 5, Design a 2nd Story C N/A ❑ Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 6, Use Topo to Screen New Development I] N/A ❑ Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 7, Landscape Buffers/Screening ❑ N/A ❑Meets Standards,or❑x Discrepancies: It is impossible to landscape/buffer a 110' tower. If this location is determined to be the only viable option, continue to embellish and redesign the clock tower based on the comments from the DRC meeting. The ground equipment and transformer should be fully screened with plants large enough to screen the tallest equipment at initial planting. None of the existing trees along the north and west sides of the tower should be allowed to be removed as long as the tower is in place as these trees provide some landscape buffering/screening. Replace any dead street trees and install new trees every 20'(where possible) along Route 28 and Forest Road to help define the street edge and buffer the property. Fencing around the equipment area should be cedar. Sect. 8, Parking Lot Visibility © N/A 0 Meets Standards, or❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 9, Break up Large Parking Lots N N/A ❑Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 10, Locate Utilities Underground ❑ N/A ID Meets Standards, or❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 11, Shield Loading Areas El N/A 0 Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: BUILDING STRATEGIES: The project does not include any traditional buildings for which the Building Strategies would typically apply. Consider illuminating the clock(no spotlights), consider reorienting the three legs to have clock face towards Route 28, and to provide some gaps to the long continuous panels. Sect. 1, Break Down Building Mass—Multiple Bldgs. 0 N/A 0 Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 2, Break Down Building Mass—Sub-Masses © N/A ❑ Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 3, Vary Facade Lines N N/A ❑ Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 4, Vary Wall Heights ❑x N/A 0 Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 5, Vary Roof Lines 1D N/A 0 Meets Standards,or❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 6, Bring Down Building Edges El N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 7, Vary Building Mat'Is For Depth 0 N/A 0 Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 8, Use Traditional & Nat'l. Building Marls 0 N/A ❑Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 9, Incorporate Pedestrian-scaled Features O N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 10, Incorporate Energy-efficient Design O N/A 0 Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Next step for applicant CI Go to Site Plan Review Return to Design Review for Formal Review On a motion by Chris Vincent, seconded by Charlie Adams, the Design Review Committee(DRC)voted(3-0) to approve these DRC Comments as meeting minutes for the June 14, 2022 meeting for the proposed communications tower and ground equipment at 1044 Route 28, South Yarmouth. Received by Applicant(s) l ^-4344,../ f ATTACHMENTS to June 14, 2022 Meeting(also refer to April 5, 2022 meeting materials) • June 14, 2022 Agenda • 415/22 ORC Comment Sheet • Examples of Cell Tower Clocks from Americlock • Concepts for Tower-Yarmouth Planning Division • DRC Application: o May 25, 2022 Letter from Attorney Ricardo Sousa o Photo Simulation of Clock Tower,four locations of existing and proposed o Summary Table of Alternative Sites o Alternative Siting Plans, prepared by ProTerra Design Group, LLC, dated April 20, 2022 • SP-Overall Site Plan • PS-1 -Partial Site Plan • PS-2-Partial Site Plan • PS-3-Partial Site Plan Site Plans: All plans prepared by ProTerra Design Group, LLC,dated 5/12/22 unless otherwise noted: • T-1: Title Sheet • C-1: Abutters Plan &Existing Conditions, dated 8/7/20 • A-1: Aerial&USGS Map • A-2: Compiled Plot Plan • A-3: Overall Site Plan • A-4: Compound Plan & Elevation • A-5: Planting Plan • SE-1. Siting Elevations • D-1: Details • CA-1 to CA-4: Co-Applicant Details • EC-1: Erosion Control Plan & Details - __—,-- gl Oil ......*•••""A t . ' IMMEI —...1111111111. ' , , 'lb- I . Iti14. 40. —. O IIII: O 11 1 - wil ' , iiii NEM 4 it Y _.- S(...f.) ''''. .. . O 4°-„..S' -I—, •r ' 1 ... . r ?...' = ... (13) I C3 ....,, i . \ - i 1 a O ' 4, ,-or - . . ,.., ... . • 'r,. ' -,... • - . ,7 grouir—.•-• , ,, 0 / •— E '-' . '...r\""..t.7_,:r ' '‘f 1 • . . . , . ( , . ,......_,. . . ,. 03 \ \\-. A ) .., w a . i ,... . . 1.... ' . ..,- . i @ ,. , . 1 . 4 ,. _ , s l 4'11. ,,, .r; —'''' ' 4. tri.,,r . ___ 00 ', , 0 ', elk , -ir * r i 41/41, ' i I 1 #14 . •,,‘ •. , - O 1,- ,. O , , .. .,. . - IMMIPM .. , U , . ..„... „,...... .., .... -• , ..„,,, 3,..... .., .,..., 11111111 , .... - ,0 : ''...: 0 A r— . ..., All : _ vi........, ..__. (1..) . „ . .... . ...... . U — ....t... „ sc.„.„ .,. (33NVN31l1(1ddy 153F4v04) JOUN NyhOl HONI1}0 (d) d01 T.rll (S1lve lk1HONY V NOt1YQNf Oj ON!Ort13N1) N3M01 H3NfHJ (d) d01 X,011 0�-U� SVNN3INV 13NYd 3 I9On-1 (d) b x,901 �,,,-« rzr - -- !.a oSYNN3IY 13Nd 1a1Y (d) 1 2,56 cu+Zo> cr^id — .ar yxu, ev (5N3,r10 x9) SYNNJ1Nv l3Nvd (.1) j 2,6o e a c `Na .,a o7 oa .. (Sd3H10 xg) SVNN3INV 13NVd 0) 1 F,Y4 rt.a, o? fa.� c o i I-. 111 u2 ge S¢Q o a < O°]ouKa.1, as x Sx YY Z z rfc. "V ) (e:2, ` t ( 1 S`~, cow•, f, } r--I( • 3JVJ 13NVd .F.SZa J I .. 'r ti J4 ....... (� r 1 1 -J I W I I_ m S JQ 9= N 1 41in % � I I__( !z a F (.1 u�o ko O J " rrKK7 lc7 W =O C Z R a f Z Ste J2= =Viz C t rc- �. o W v �m1.. i ` o QN oa ocf a z 4.“, -----;tc, .... 1--\Tl Wf a 11 N5 Li- ° r2 ztizz rany av r 4m arl. � c 1;-. 4 �72 ; S"S¢ 7Q l ti�wy} o w za • Oo OK (�i C \. t ilk 4x Cr� � n O _Q uOO uza 0 N. \ J&¢a Ct r o e .„���u� (y -W azo Z� O3 / ( ) O' 42 W' C.. � n ~C: N N d( z O H w «R. A r r ^- �». ._.�x.___ z V ..1 IW 1 __..,. .._� oEt g V A O to 11 t . u .5 cii 3 3 2 p1.1 0 g - �- o H U