David Forbes (Chair), Liz Ryan Cole, Jamie Thaxton, Dean Whitlock (Recording Clerk)

Thetford Planning Commission May 5, 2020 – DRAFT Minutes

Present: David Forbes (chair), Liz Ryan Cole, Jamie Thaxton, Dean Whitlock (Recording Clerk)

Absent: None

Selectboard liaison: Li Shen

Guests: Nick Clark, Andrew Welch, Kevin Llewellyn, Patricia Smith, Keith Merrick, Kathleen ?, Jesse Anderson, Didi Pershouse, Erica Ko, Lynda Day Martin, Stacey and Steve Glazer, Alden an dDuncan Nichols, Jennifer Hauck, Alex Cherington, Mark and Donna Richardson, Michael Snow, Don Blake

1. David called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.

2. Public Comment Jesse Anderson of Thetford Center said he was shocked by the proposal from AT&T to build a 200-foot-tall cell tower off Sawnee Bean Road. He said he was opposed to the tower, would like to know if the Planning Commission was opposed, and would like to know the process involved in reviewing the proposal. He also asked if the project would be in compliance with the Town Plan. David explained that the Town Plan was currently in transition, a draft having been approved by the Planning Commission and submitted to the Selectboard at the end of last year, with the Selectboard’s first hearing scheduled for this coming Friday, May 8. However, the draft Town Plan doesn’t include any reference to telecommunications. There is a Telecommunications Ordinance, which follows state rules closely, but nothing in the Town Plan. Liz pointed out that this was the Planning Commission’s first opportunity to discuss the proposal. She wanted to know if there was cell service in the neighborhood around the tower, and whether lack of service there an issue for the Town’s first responders. Li Shen said the tower was intended to cover areas along both Routes 113 and 132 that lacked cell service. She also said that FCC rules might override the Town’s rules. The review would be made by the Vermont Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and the Town is automatically a party to their proceedings. The Town Plan and some ordinances will be considered, but AT&T has many lawyers. The have filed a notice of intent to apply for approval; it’s not the actual application. Li said she had spoken with one lawyer who told her that our pending Town Plan might have weight in the review but advised her to check with the Town Counsel. David said he had spoken with Keith Merrick of Post Mills, a flight instructor at the Post Mills Airport, who had some knowledge of previous tower projects. Keith was present and said that there had been one case in the past where a cell provider had proposed to build a project similar to this one, having 1 very tall tower instead of several smaller ones, which would have been located on top of Potato Hill to service the Connecticut River Valley. A group of people associated with the airport had proposed an alternative project that installed one smaller tower off Route 244 near the Thetford/Fairlee town line and a second smaller tower in Fairlee at the

Planning Commission Minutes for 5/5/2020: DRAFT Page 1 Perrys’ farm. Keith added that it was his opinion this tall tower would be a hazard to planes and sailplanes flying out of the Post Mills Airport and probably to balloons, though he suggested checking with Brian Boland about that. He felt smaller towers would be a better solution to filling the holes in cell service. David said this was the equivalent of building a 19-story building, but that building more smaller towers would probably be more expensive. Erica Ko said that, for the most part, she supported expansion of telecommunications to support first responders but was also concerned about conserving resources and energy conservations so would like to find a compromise solution. Kevin Llewellyn said he was not opposed to expanding telecommunications but this tower would be much higher than any local hills and the viewshed shown in their documents is actually smaller than the actual viewshed because it was based on a 140-foot sample tower height. It would be the first thing anyone saw when they came into Thetford, and it might need permanent lighting due to the proximity to the airport. Li said she was mystified by the choice of location on the side of the hill. She thought they could have found a better location to achieve the same reach without having to have such a high tower. David noted the very steep slope of the access road, which could be an issue. Li said the regional planning commission (TRORC) had noted that the location was in the middle of one of the Town’s largest unbroken forest blocks, which the legislature has made an important concern in town planning. Jamie suggested asking AT&T to respond to these issues. Nick Clark said he was emailing the Town Counsel to arrange a meeting to discuss the best way to communicate with AT&T. This was not discussed at the last Selectboard meeting because the agenda was already full before the notice arrived but it will be on the next meeting’s agenda. Liz asked what role the various town boards might have in the proceedings. Li said that they would be parties, as would abutters. Dean said that a friend of his who appeared to be an abutter had received a notice and wondered if anyone within the viewshed would be a party. Several of those attending said they had not received a notice even though they were in the viewshed. Jesse Andrews said he was concerned about the 60-day length of the notice period, and David agreed that any efforts to oppose the construction would have to move quickly. Erica Ko said that the proposed access road traveled over a right of way that was already deeded to Joel and Anne Legunn, who live across the Ompompanoosuc River at the junction of Route 113 and Sawnee Bean Road. She wondered if they would be able to block the project by not allowing that use on their right of way. They would need to check with a lawyer soon. Liz said she was concerned that our personal feelings regarding the tower had us pushing forward without enough information. We needed to check with the Town police and fire departments to see if lack of cell service was an issue. Liz said we also need to know what power municipal bodies have before writing letters to AT&T. Nick said that Thetford’s first responders are able to use radio receiver/repeater equipment in their vehicles to achieve coverage in 70% of the Town, so a cell tower could help improve the situation. However, he has looked into alternatives, which include using more lower towers but also small repeaters located on existing telephone poles. These could provide equal coverage to the one tall tower. He recommended speaking to the Town Counsel and make any contact with AT&T through the counsel. Liz agreed that would be a stronger approach, to find out our options, what power we have and how to make sure the powers that be hear our message.

Planning Commission Minutes for 5/5/2020: DRAFT Page 2 Jesse Anderson suggested speaking with other towns that have dealt with similar issues to find out what solutions they came up with, so we could develop a strong case before approaching AT&T. Li said it would be best to make our arguments to PUC before AT&T can formulate their rebuttals. Erica Ko said we should also continue the conversation with TRORC, since it will also be a party. Nick suggested that the Planning Commission and town counsel meet in a private session next to clarify their respective roles. He also suggested setting up an email list of the attendees so they could be kept informed easily. Dean suggested that everyone use the Chat function to provide their emails and to make sure they were all listed properly as having attended. Jesse Anderson volunteered to develop the email list so the group could act separately from the Planning Commission; however, he is a member of the Development Review Board and the list should probably be handled by someone not on any town board. Lynda Day Martin asked if the Town Manager was available to be a point person for communications and to address the proper order of addressing questions and concerns. Nick replied that it wasn’t part of his job description; this would fall more to a committee or the Selectboard, but he would be kept informed and could provide advice. Liz raised concerns about the technical difficulties regarding proper posting of the announcement and Zoom link on the Town website prior to the meeting. Didi Pershouse agreed that the problem could limit public involvement. Nick said they were being addressed and it shouldn’t happen again. David pointed out that the warning had been properly posted in all the other required locations and on the listserve. There was some concern and discussion about the timing of the notice of application. Dean said it had arrived on the previous Tuesday evening, April 28th, but that he hadn’t looked at it for a couple of days, thinking it would be about a normal subdivision. He forwarded it to the commissioners as soon as he read it. It hadn’t been sent to David, the chair; instead it went to the previous chair. The Selectboard learned of it a day or two later. Several other attendees expressed concern about the short notice period and how they had learned about it only third- or fourth-hand. Didi Pershouse suggested that there be a Town-wide forum about it soon. Didi Pershouse also raised several environmental concerns regarding the proposed access, which would travel right beside the Ompompanoosuc River in an area prone to flooding. There was also concern about the very steep stretch running up the side of the hill to the proposed tower location. Didi also said their were health concerns regarding cell towers, not so much about the cell signals but about other devices that could be mounted on such towers. The proposal would allow AT&T to lease space to a sizeable number of other providers. Their additions might not be as safe. The Chat function postings are included at the end of these minutes.

3. Review of the minutes from the 4/14 meeting. The minutes were accepted as amended.

4. Selectboard Report Li reported that the Monday meeting had been pretty full and gave a brief summary of the topics. The draft minutes will be available on the Town website by Saturday the 9th, if not earlier. Of concern to the Planning Commission was the discussion about the Post Mills workforce house

Planning Commission Minutes for 5/5/2020: DRAFT Page 3 project. There is a restriction on the deed to the property which appears would limit the number of houses to two. The Affordable Housing Committee is researching ways to move the project forward. Also of interest was the Selectboard’s decision to purchase two lots adjoining conserved properties to expand the conserved area.

8. Discussion of Thetford PC listserv and Google planning.gov resources (relative merits) Dean, by mistake, skipped to this item on the agenda. There was a discussion of an email from former commissioner Stuart Blood, who advised against dropping the Planning Commission listserve completely in favor of using the new Planning.gov resources for a group email address and a google docs directory as a way of sharing documents. It was decided that more information was needed and the topic was tabled to a later meeting to accommodate guests from the Thetford Energy Committee.

5. Discussion of Thetford Energy Committee emails a. Siting of Buildings for Energy Efficiency ( March 15, 2020 @ 9:17 p.m.) In February, the Zoning Administrator had forwarded a message from TRORC regarding new guidelines and template language for siting of buildings for energy efficiency. The commission had discussed them and added a paragraph to address it in the existing Section 3.2(D) – Site and Lot Layout: Siting for Energy Efficiency, which already had a couple of relevant clauses. The new language was sent to the Thetford Energy Committee for their review. They had finally replied with comments and suggestions. After reviewing the reply, the commissioners discussed possible changes to the language that would make it more objective and also allow the DRB to take into account the costs of achieving the most advanced energy standards. Liz moved that the commission adopt the suggested language and delete the word “advanced”. David seconded, and the motion passed by unanimous vote. The introductory text and first subparagraph are replaced by: “Because all new building construction must at a minimum comply with Vermont residential (RBES) and commercial (CBES) building energy standards, the Board will encourage developers to consider best practice approaches current at the time of application, as well as to:” Dean also proposed to reformat the section so the final sentence would be separate from the second subparagraph, since it applied to the entire section. This was accepted by consensus. b. Changes to the Town's Floodplain Designations? (e.g., Hurricane Irene & Climate Change). This was a query to determine if there had been any official changes to these designations due to the damage caused by the increasingly severe and more frequent weather events. The answer is that there has not been any change since 1999. Since these designations are made by federal agencies, review and change takes place at a glacial pace. The Town has no control of these changes.

6. Review of Thetford vs. Newbury 'Steep Slope' Subdivision Regulations Postponed until the next meeting.

7. Synopsis and Review of SAHC Site Feasibility Analysis (Post Mills Workforce Housing)

Planning Commission Minutes for 5/5/2020: DRAFT Page 4 The deed presents a sticking point. The Estes family had set up a trust ownership with a deed restriction specifying that the parcel could not be subdivided into more than two parcels and only after a certain period of time. The time limit has passed, but the restriction on two parcels indicates that the family did not want to see lots of houses on the land. There is apparently a possible way forward by purchasing the deed, but that has to be researched further. Until this is resolved, all other considerations are moot. The Affordable Housing Committee will keep us informed.

9. Discussion of proposed Sawnee Bean Road Communications Tower (governance and guideline compliance): https://drmpllc.sharefile.com/d-s5c98c2c7e574c10a) See 2. Public Comment

10. Discussion of Subdivision Regulation revisions hearing format (Zoom vs. 'in-person') Dean said that he felt this issue should be discussed and voted on so that there will be a record in the minutes explaining why the hearing was not held in an open meeting format. Li pointed out that the legislature had passed and the governor had signed a rule that allowed hearings by Zoom. There was a brief discussion about the differences in an online versus a public hearing and whether it was a significant deterrent to attendence, but in the end all agreed that the pandemic was not anywhere close to ending, which made Zoom hearings the only possible way to move ahead with this important Town business. Liz suggested that the conversation be continued later while the commissioners researched what could be done to make the hearing as accessible as possible. The others all agreed.

11. New Business David said that the schedule of his wife’s surgery had been changed and he would very likely not be able to visit her in the hospital due to the COVID situation so he would be able to make the next meeting. David said he was examining Thetford’s building codes in regard to the abandoned and derelict Hatch’s Store building in Post Mills to see if they could be applied in a similar way to procedures followed in Windsor to remove a building. He emphasized that the legal issue is health and safety, not aesthetics. He said he would appraise the commission of his findings. Liz suggested that everyone look into ways to make Zoom meetings more bearable.

The next meeting will take place on May 19th at 7:15 p.m., via Zoom. The Selectboard will open its first hearing on the proposed Town Plan this coming Friday, May 8th, at 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission members would be welcome but their attendance is not required.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Dean Whitlock, Thetford Planning Commission

Planning Commission Minutes for 5/5/2020: DRAFT Page 5 COMMENTS POSTED IN THE ZOOM CHAT FUNCTION DURING THE MEETING 19:39:36 From Didi Pershouse : could you repeat your question, Liz? 19:40:44 From Liz : I want to know if there are problems with cell service in the area to be served. I have my own experience, but it should be more than anecdotal 19:42:36 From Glazers : sorry i missed the beginning of the meeting, but i don't know where the tower is proposed to go in. There is no cell service on sawnee bean road if that is what you are asking. 19:42:57 From Didi Pershouse : Some questions: have they purchased the land? Does the town currently have any ordinance that would prevent this?Would other cell phone providers be using the tower? 19:43:24 From patricia smith : the tower is going to go up on the hill across from our house, accessed by the dirt road/driveway to the left just after the bridge 19:44:06 From Kevin Llewellyn : I oppose the tower and feel it will be an eyesore - it will be 1240 feet tall which exceeds the height of all surrounding hills and will be THE single focal point of our community. Is that what we want - a ridiculously high communication tower? 19:44:19 From Liz : This is a link to the application, which includes many details 19:44:23 From Liz : https://drmpllc.sharefile.com/share/view/s5755e3173f9427db 19:47:07 From Didi Pershouse : Once you get a very large tower up, they will almost definitely be renting space to other providers, and for other uses other than just cell. I am not opposed to expanding cell service if we can do it in a way that makes sense. This to me does not make sense. 19:47:58 From Liz : The application does say they will make the tower available to other providers 19:48:29 From patricia smith : My feeling is that this tower as proposed is absurdly huge and totally out of character with the town. 19:49:36 From Didi Pershouse : Given the fact that we now have EC Fiber, the need for cell service is less urgent than it was. 19:53:28 From Liz : is anyone on this call a first responder? Have we hard from the police? 19:55:32 From Didi Pershouse : I would NOT give them our case up front, because they will put a big pile of money into proving us wrong. I would actually say we put together a rock solid case behind the scenes , and then ask them to please consider other options. 19:56:12 From [email protected] : Another concern I have is the timeframe in which we have to take action on this issue if they will be submitting the application in less than 60 days. 19:57:40 From Glazers : i didn't get a notice and i live less than a mile away i believe 19:57:48 From Glazers : this is the first i have heard of it 19:57:56 From patricia smith : We got a notification. We’re at 168 Sawnee Bean. 19:57:57 From Didi Pershouse : I did not get a notification and am in the viewshed 19:58:59 From Alden Nichols : Henry Alden and Duncan Nichols here: we're in support of trying to find a way to decrease the size of the tower 20:01:21 From patricia smith : The other thing is that the proposal calls for making the access road (now the very narrow right of way) 20 feet wide. That’s a big change and it would run RIGHT along the river.

Planning Commission Minutes for 5/5/2020: DRAFT Page 6 20:01:50 From Didi Pershouse : I think there is an environmental case to be made as well. 20:06:10 From Nick Clark : Light reading for anyone interested: 20:06:11 From Nick Clark : https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/30/005/00248a 20:07:46 From Didi Pershouse : I don't think approaching their lawyers is a good idea until we have a full on plan. 20:08:57 From Andrew’s iPhone : I agree with a Liz. Town should seek advise of counsel before crafting our strategy. 20:09:24 From Andrew’s iPhone : oops. advice 20:09:51 From Liz : Thank you Nick. 20:10:02 From Didi Pershouse : What is the PUC? 20:10:09 From Nick Clark : Public Utilities Commission 20:12:06 From Didi Pershouse : TRORC is Two Rivers Ottaqueechee…? 20:12:19 From Nick Clark : Yes 20:12:29 From Nick Clark : Regional Commission 20:12:35 From [email protected] : They are the regional planners 20:13:53 From patricia smith : an email list of the residents affected would be great 20:14:42 From Kevin Llewellyn : Kevin Llewellyn [email protected] 20:14:44 From patricia smith : Patricia Smith: [email protected] 20:14:49 From Glazers : [email protected] (steve and Stacey glazer on the meeting) 20:15:01 From Didi Pershouse : Didi Pershouse [email protected] But I know there are a lot of people who want to be here who can't. 20:15:14 From Didi Pershouse : and a lot of people who don't know about this. 20:15:56 From Richardson : Mark and Donna Richardson, [email protected], [email protected] 20:17:47 From Didi Pershouse : I think this is an issue that most of Thetford would like to know about and will have opinions about... 20:17:48 From Lynda : Is the town manager not available to be a point person with most efficient order for this group's response and questions? If there is a time factor can't we have him figure out proper order of addressing our questions and concerns? 20:18:01 From keith : Keith Merrick. w1timkrm@ gmail.com 20:18:20 From Jesse Anderson : Good question re: Town manager 20:19:14 From Lynda : well hey let's ask him at least for protocol? 20:20:34 From Lynda : Lynda Day Martin [email protected] Thanks! 20:21:08 From Jennifer Hauck : [email protected] Jennifer Hauck 20:21:34 From Lynda : Thanks Nick 20:21:51 From Didi Pershouse : are you taking comments from public? 20:21:58 From Lynda : I'd like to highlight Didi's environmental concerns!!! 20:23:15 From Glazers : I'm just concerned that this is a pretty big project that I live very close to and just found out about this third- or fourth-hand today. how are other people finding out about this? 20:23:57 From Didi Pershouse : Yes I second the Glazers' point. This is a town-wide issue, and there should be a town forum on this very soon.

Planning Commission Minutes for 5/5/2020: DRAFT Page 7 20:25:14 From Liz : Does anyone know if the Valley News has received a copy of the application? 20:26:22 From Didi Pershouse : The zoom meeting link was not on the town website, I think. 20:27:02 From Lynda : Please please try to make sure that folks without a computer can find this out 20:31:05 From Jesse Anderson : Still missing a few email addresses I think: Don Blake, Michael Snow, Andrews iPhone? 20:31:15 From Michael Snow : [email protected] 20:31:33 From Jesse Anderson : Thanks! 20:31:38 From Andrew’s iPhone : the packet of information to the abutters was dated 28 April. 20:33:07 From Jennifer Hauck : Alex Cherington [email protected] 20:34:51 From Michael Snow : Apologies, what was the last comment? 20:35:36 From patricia smith : Thanks! 20:35:38 From [email protected] : Many thanks 20:35:42 From Glazers : thanks 20:35:50 From Jesse Anderson : Thanks All! 20:40:14 From Erica Ko : Wow, you are setting the bar high for meeting minutes - I’ll have to let the Energy Committee know... 20:40:26 From Nick Clark : Heh. 20:43:28 From Nick Clark to Kathleen’s iPhone (Privately) : Hi 20:43:34 From Michael Snow : Is it possible to read or learn about details of these conversations, ie Senior/Worksforce housing, or Ely Mountain…? 20:44:56 From Michael Snow : Thank you - 20:44:57 From Erica Ko : http://thetfordvermont.us/wp/departments/selectboard/selectboard- minutes/ 20:45:16 From Erica Ko : No problem! 20:48:33 From Erica Ko : Apologies, did I miss agenda item #5 TEC emails? Or did the agenda get reordered? 20:55:17 From Nick Clark : I think I missed it too. 21:05:27 From James Thaxton : From Wikipedia: Solar access is the ability of one property to continue to receive sunlight across property lines without obstruction from another's property (buildings, foliage or other impediment). 21:07:43 From Michael Snow : I agree, it seems like the incentives are very important - given that the language includes no “must” or “will” or “shall”… 21:39:11 From Michael Snow : Thank you -

Planning Commission Minutes for 5/5/2020: DRAFT Page 8