June 5, 2003



VOTING BOARD:      Acting Chairperson Silas Little; Nate Chamberlin, Honey Hastings, Don Kraemer &

                                    John Pierce; alternate member Don Fonda was present but did not vote.

CALL TO ORDER:    By Silas Little at 7:30 p.m.


Case # 6/5/2003-1  US CELLULAR (applicant) & MANCHESTER NASHUA CELL. TEL. (owner)

US Cellular & Manchester Nashua Cellular Telephone have applied for a Special Exception under the terms

of Article IV, Section 13, of the Temple Zoning Ordinance. to permit the addition of six panel antennae to

their existing tower on Temple Mountain, Map 2A, Lot 63, NH Route 101, in the Mountain District.

Mr. Little explained the procedure for hearing cases. He then stated that he had, in the past, represented

Temple Mountain Ski Area, an abutter, and asked if anyone felt that he should step down from hearing

this case. The board felt that there as no conflict and asked him to stay on. He then read the application and

stated that all abutters had been notified.

Kenneth Kozyra of KJK Wireless, represented US Cellular, and explained that presently there are two types

of receivers on the Temple Mountain tower; analog and TDMA. The applicant wants to add 6 panel antennae

of CDMA receivers, an upgradable system. He presented plats of the proposed project and photos of the Temple Mountain tower as it is today and similar towers with more panels. He said that currently the tower has 4 panel antennae, 2 microwave dishes and some smaller antennae below the dishes which belong to Temple Emergency Services. He said that they would like to add new mounting hardware to the top of the

tower which will allow them to mount the 6 new panel antennae as well remount the existing 4 panel antennae. They will remove the 2 microwave dishes and replace them with two new ones which will be

located a little further down the tower and they plan to relocate the emergency services antennae further down

the tower as well. He said that the existing panel antennae are 51” long x 10” wide. The 6 new panel antennae

are 96” long x 11” wide. He said that the new installations will not increase the height of the tower.


Board members noted that the drawing on the plans shows that the panel antennae is higher than the tower.

Mr. Little read the 6 Special Exception criteria in Section 13 and the Board agreed that these criteria are met.

John Kieley said that the tower is visible from Route 101. He said that the most negative impact of the tower

is to hikers on the Wapack Trail who come out of the woods and run right into the tower. He asked if US

Cellular would be willing to mitigate this impact by possibly helping to fund the cost of moving the trail so it

doesn’t come near the tower. Mr. Kozyra said that if a project like that comes about, the group should write a

letter to US Cellular and they might consider it. He said that he could not speak for US Cellular in that regard.

Connie Kieley asked about health risks to people or wildlife from the radio waves. Mr. Kozyra said that the

FCC regulates radio waves that are allowed to emanate from each facility. This facility will generate less than

2% of the allowable level. At peak usage, the tower might generate 1,500 watts of output.

Mr. Kozyra said that all the antennae and dishes, except for the emergency services antennae, are used for US

Cellular only. They are willing to co-locate with other companies, but at this point only US Cellular antennae

are present.

Don Kraemer asked about the plan to relocate the emergency services antennae lower than they are presently

located. He was concerned that moving these antennae lower on the tower might interfere with the signal. Mr.

Kozyra said that at present 2 of these antennae are mounted at 41’ and one is mounted at 39’. The proposal is

to move them down to 30’. He also said that the owners of the antennae would be notified before they were

moved, and US Cellular would have to have their approval before moving them.

Mr. Kozyra said that since the new network won’t be operational until sometime in the fall, it may be that the

old and new microwave dishes will both be in place for a number of weeks or months until the new network

turns on.

                                                                                                                                    Page 2

                                                                                                                                    Temple ZBA


                                                                                                                                    US CELLULAR

Mr. Kozyra said that some towns ask that the panels are painted blue or gray or some other color.

Charlene Eddy asked how far the radio signals radiate from the tower. Mr. Kozyra said that typically the

distance is from 2 – 5 miles, but in this hilly region it would be closer to 2 miles.

MOTION: Ms. Hastings moved to close the public part of the hearing. Second by Mr. Kraemer with all in

                  favor. The public hearing was closed at 8: 15 p.m.

Mr. Little reiterated that each of the criteria in Article IV, Section 13 are met. His concerns were that the drawing on the plan shows the panel antennas to be located higher than the tower; that the board should

specify removal of the second satellite dish set in some amount of time; and that the emergency service

antennae, if moved, must have a good signal. Board members agreed.

MOTION: Mr. Little moved to grant the Special Exception with the following conditions: 1. that the top of

                  the new panels installed not be of greater elevation than the tower; 2. that there not be more than

                  two microwave dishes on the tower for a period of greater than 10 days; 3. before relocation of

                  the antennae used by Temple Emergency Services, a new location be determined which will not

                  be detrimental to the operation of the Emergency Communications Facility. This to be coordinated

                  with the Town of Temple and KCF415. The motion was seconded by Mr. Chamberlin and all

                  were in favor.

Case # 6/5/2003 – 2  JEAN AND ARNOLD THIBODEAU

Jean and Arnold Thibodeau have applied for a Variance from Article IV, Section 5, of the Temple Zoning

Ordinance, to permit an increase in the footprint of their dwelling, which will reduce their side setback to

19 feet, on Map 6A, Lot 53, 30 Fisk Hill Road in the Rural Residential and Agricultural District.

Mr. Little read the application and stated that all the abutters had been notification. He then said that Jean

Thibodeau used to work for him and if anyone felt that he should not hear this case he would be happy to step down. There were no objections, so he stayed on the board. Mr. Little read a letter from abutter Gail

Cromwell, which said that she had no objections to the Thibodeau’s project.

Mr. Thibodeau explained that they have to list up their house and replace their foundation because it is

disintegrating. At present they have only a one car garage under. When they replace the foundation, they

would like to enlarge it by 14’ –  from 26’ x 40’ to 26’ x 54’ to allow room for a two car garage under. They would like to increase the size of the foundation 8’ in the direction of the leach field and 6’ in the direction of

the side setback. However, because of the angle of the stone wall, the 6’ extension would only encroach into the side setback by 4’, reducing the side setback to 19’. He stated that they cannot add the 14’ extension entirely in the direction of the leach field without encroaching on the leach field. They have a pre-existing non-conforming lot in that the house presently sits only 23’ from the side lot line and the Ordinance calls for

35’  side setbacks, and the lot is only 1.5 acres and the Ordinance calls for a 3 acre minimum lot size.

Mr. Chamberlin asked why the house can’t be shifted entirely in the direction of the leach field. Mr. Thibodeau said that in addition to encroaching on the leach field, there is an issue with ledge and also some

large trees would have to be removed.

Abutter Dave Yetman, Fisk Hill Trust, said he was the closest abutter to the Thibodeau property and he had

no objection to the request.

Mr. Little went through the list of 5 criteria necessary to grant a variance request:

1.  He didn’t feel that granting the variance would diminish the value of abutting properties because the

abutters have all agreed to it and the abutting properties are substantially far away from it.

2.  He didn’t see any evidence that granting this variance would not be in the public interest.

4.  Granting the variance would do substantial justice because the structure is a non-conforming structure that

pre-exists the Zoning Ordinance. There is already a substantial violation of the setback requirement and Mr.

Little didn’t see that the additional 4’ encroachment, particularly in light of the abutters lack of concern, would

cause a problem.



                                                                                                                                    Page 3

                                                                                                                                    Temple ZBA



5.  He didn’t feel that the request was contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance because the applicants’

situation is beyond their control, resulting in the need to make improvements. He was sympathetic to the request in that since they have to jack the structure up and pour a new foundation, making some minor

improvements without having to shift the whole building is within the spirit of the Ordinance.

3.  Mr. Little felt that special circumstances exist relating to this property that are unique to it, such as the

pre-existing non-conforming location of the structure, and the need to replace the foundation. The placement

of the structure on the lot makes it difficult to comply with the setback requirement; lot conditions such as the

presence of ledge and the location of the septic system impede the ability of the applicants to move the structure to a location that would bring it into compliance. There is no public interest in the property which

could be adversely affected by granting the variance. The Zoning Ordinance as applied in this case is

unreasonable in terms of the imposition the setback requirement imposes in allowing the applicants reasonable

use of their property. He said that he was persuaded, largely because the abutters have no objection, and

because of the conditions of the lot and the conditions the applicants are undergoing, that this is not an

unreasonable request to make of the board for a variance under that part of the Simplex Decision.

Board members were in agreement. A question arose as to the accuracy of the 19’ measurement from the

stone wall to the new foundation. The board decided to use 18’ so that there would be a cushion for any

error, with the understanding that the applicants should try to keep the size of the setback at 19’ or more.

MOTION: Mr. Little made a motion to grant the variance request for a further encroachment into the side lot

line, no closer than 18’ from the boundary line, for the reasons listed above. Second by Mr. Fonda and all in favor.



MINUTES – 5/1/03

MOTION:       Mr. Kraemer moved to accept the 5/1/03 minutes as written. Second by Mr. Chamberlin and all

                  were in favor.


The board read over suggested rules of procedure and made corrections and suggestions. The clerk will make

the changes and bring copies to the next meeting.

MOTION: Mr. Little moved to change the days allowed for an appeal from an administrative decision taken

                  under RSA 676:5 from within 21 days of the decision to within 30 days of the decision. Mr.

                  Kraemer seconded the motion and all were in favor.


MOTION: Mr. Little nominated Don Kraemer as Chairperson, seconded by Ms. Hastings and all in favor.

MOTION:  Mr. Pierce nominated Mr. Chamberlin as Vice Chairperson, seconded by Mr. Little and all in


MOTION:  A motion was made to nominate Mr. Little as Clerk, seconded by Ms. Hastings with all in favor.

MOTION:  A motion was made to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor and the meeting was adjourned at

                  9:40 p.m.




Respectfully submitted,




Diane Nilsson, Recording Clerk


Posted 6/9/03