Good evening and welcome to um a special meeting of the Greenfield, Massachusetts Zoning Board of Appeals. Today is June 18th, 2025. It is 6:30 p.m. and we are all meeting here in city hall in
Greenfield. Uh there's a statement that I read before every meeting which I will do again. Now, this meeting is being recorded by by the zoning board of appeals. If any other persons present are doing the same, you must notify the chairperson at this time. In accordance
with Mass General Laws chapter 38, section 20G, quote, "No person shall address a meeting of a public body without permission of the chair, and all persons shall at the request of the chair be silent. No person shall disrupt the proceedings of a meeting of a public
body. If after clear warning from the chair, a person continues to disrupt the proceedings, the chair may order the person to withdraw from the meeting. And if the person does not withdraw, the chair may authorize a constable or other officer to remove the person from the meeting. End of quote. All right. So,
roll call of members, all the members that are here. Peter Winger, Gimw, Charles Roberts, Maloney, Debbie Jokes, Eric Wayne, David Singer. Okay. So, uh we're going to get right into it. Um the clerk, can you read the
first uh action item, please? Board deliberation vote on the application of Ry Very Wireless LLC for property located zero Fairview West Street West Assessor's Tax Map R24 lot zone A which is located in the general commercial GC
zoning district for variance pursuant to sections 200-8.7 of the zoning ordinance in order to allow the construction of a new wireless communication structure comprised of groundbased equipment cabinets and antenna mounted on top of a monopole7 70
ft in height with an insufficient closet. Thank you. By way of summary, if anyone hasn't been watching these proceedings, uh just short and sweet, Veridian and AT&T have applied under our zoning ordinance 7.14 to build a cell
tower. Um the applicant claims that there is a significant gap in coverage along Route 91 and Route Two near the Rotary. Uh the applicant after performing due diligence has um determined that the site which is on
Fair View is it Fairview Road, Fairview Avenue, Fairview Street. Fairview Street. Fair View Street um is the best alternative and least intrusive site. And for for zoning permission, um the applicant needs a variance first from
the fall zone provisions of 7.14 and from the height limitations in the GC zone. Um, what I'd like to do is this. Um, unless there's an objection, I'd like someone to make a motion to approve the variance.
Um, for the following reasons, ending the motion that way and then we'll have a long discussion about why or why not. The motion could go down or the motion could pass. But this way, at least we're discussing something under a motion. Does anybody have any problem with that?
I'll make the motion. You're okay with that? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. So, read you have to read the uh so uh yeah, Eric second. So, yeah. So, what's the word I'm looking for? Uh
allow the variance. What's looking for that? Mr. Chairman, just a process point. Uh will Eric be a voting member on I'm sorry. Thank you. No, somebody else needs to. Okay. So uh before we do that, the members that are that will be determining this are Peter Rosen, Jim
Waloney, Debbie Jos, David Singer. Thank you very much. Okay. Now I need the motion um to approve the application to approve the variance application and uh approve the application. If you if you start with those words and then read
with I make a motion we approve the application of Verie Wireless LLC for property located at Fairview Street Wester's Tax Math R24 lot 7A which is located in general commercial zoning district for a variance similant to
section 200-87 of the zoning ordinance in order to allow the construction of a new wireless communication structure composed of a groundbased footman cabinets and antennas mounted on top of a monopole
measuring 170 ft in height with an insufficient fall zone for for the following reason. For the following reasons I have a second mark. Okay. So again, I I'm guiding you, but please,
you know, I really want to hear from you all about what the homework that you've done in this, but what I'd like to do is begin by looking at our variance ordinance and go through the three uh at least the
three stated it might be subcategories, three stated criteria for granting a variance. discuss facts if you need to and see if um if the applicant has been able to
provide the right set of circumstances for us to grant the variance. We can also refer to the applicant's um submission of last meeting and their reasons. If you wanted to do it by going through them and they're accepting or refuting them, that's okay with me. out
just so you understand this is our first time. What I'm talking about here is based on my interpretation of reading case law some of the things we discussed last week. We first start by looking at the request for a variance. The request for a
variance are two. One is a height variance and the other is the fall zone variance. We look at them under our ordinance and state law. If we if we grant the variance in that regard, then we move on to the special permit. If we can't grant the variance under state
law, then we have to look into the federal law and talk about significant gap in coverage and those type of factors. It doesn't mean we won't talk about significant uh gap in coverage when we get to the special permit part because our ordinance under the wireless
asks those questions as well. But but for purposes of just getting through the variance, either we approve the variance under state law or we have to go to the federal law. And if we reject it on both those counts, then um I the applicant has asked us to
go forward and go through the special permit criteria anyway in case it's appeal and they're successful on appeal. At least the special permit is there with our conditions and uh our discussion, right? But I I didn't mean to jump ahead by saying how we were
going to decide but just what we have ahead of us. So does anybody want to start off um with anything just to start getting the ball rolling? I mean in terms of hardship they've looked at all the other sites. This is
the site that gets selected. Accurate statement because if this is the site that's selected, this site because of the nature of the geography poses a hardship for them to deal with the fossil.
Okay. And that's one of the arguments I believe that uh that the applicant makes. Another thing we could think about is that we have a bylaw. Now remember, they're only looking for this isn't a special permit. This is just the bear. This isn't a situation where the
lot itself has kind of funky shape in general. What's going on here is that the applicant is looking to build a cell tower and it's 170 ft high and they don't have the distance to get to the to the border because of wetlands and other
things. So, it's a little more focused. Their hardship is because their intended use has a factoring which is the fall zone and we'll get to more discussion about that. So can I can I just Yeah, sure. Under the variance items one and two I
just discussed. Yeah. Oh, you did both of them? Yeah. Well, the first one is the hardship. Well, you if you're going to talk about the second one then can you can you talk about it not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located? Well, you look at that zoning district,
you know, that layup doesn't impact any of the any of the neighbors. Doesn't affect tractor supply, doesn't affect the neighborhood. So, you I'm just trying to establish that that that portion is it's is is not an issue.
So, it's it's a diff it's you're what you're saying is it's different than the other lots in the neighborhood. It's distinct. Yeah. I mean, it it's it's a distinct location for that tower to be put. And and again, I'm speaking just of the the variance because within the application for the special permit,
there's discussion about the other locations. I'm just saying on face we're saying that this location is the location because of what they need to do. Okay? Because we go if we go to special permit, those same things will be discussed, right? Okay.
Anybody else? Come on. Somebody's got something else to say. I've uh I got 45 years experience working on towers in New England down in uh down south and on the Cape. I've never had a tower fall on me. I never seen one break. I never saw one
burn up. We've been out at 2 3:00 in the morning with snow cap go up at all time because generator didn't start. So I'm not worried about it falling over, breaking or catching fire. Okay, that's that's a good point. That's
that I would think is part of the third criteria. Um, also Peter, I think one of the things too you're saying is that uh even though you haven't said it out loud, I want to be a little more specific is that this site has wetlands on it, right? Which makes it distinct from the
other parts that we have to say why even making a conclusion. Just trying to draw out the facts. It is a distinct location for all the surrounding areas within that area. And one of the things is the wetland, right? because that stops the fall zone and the shape of the lot. But
the shape of the lot, it's just the size of the lot, right? Size, it doesn't zoning, right? You're not really allowed to consider this that you're not allowed to consider the the the dimensions of the line in terms of it being a hard
sharp. Number two in uh in in item a an odd or unusual unique shape does not include deficiencies in the depth, width and area especially frontage is to justify a variance. So So there's another side to that as well. I mean I
think the fact that you know I believe in engineering and the fact if the since the tower is designed to to crumple it will fall inside the fall zone. So I mean our our ordinance doesn't really address the fact that towers can be
designed to collapse and fall within the within the fall zone. So so go on. So therefore there therefore I mean I I I don't technically I mean by by according to math and the engineering you don't need a variance
for the fall sign because this this tower was engineered to fall within the fall is going to make that point also but not only that but we it was peer reviewed by two other engineers to confirm that the design of that will be will will break and stay within
the new the fall zone their the new fall zone not 170 ft. Okay. In fact, I I think we we might consider recommending to the the count city council that the
uh zoning ordinance be amended to that possibility since when it was written apparently that did not exist. That's an option. Correct. Towers are built different. Anything else? Dep Mark. Yeah, we're we're still talking about um
one and two, right? I think people have moved around, but yeah, we can stay within one. Yeah, any one of them. Just blur. It's um it's not it's not easy to it's not easy to organize. I'll help you organize the thoughts, but just blur and then you
in going through these, you know, the one that I kind of got stuck on was number three. Um, you know, desirable relief may be granted without either substantial detriment to public good or without nullifying or substantially uh derating from the intended purpose of
this ordinance. It's this is a this is an opinion answer in regards to you know what determines a substantial detriment to the public good or um dergating the intended purpose of of the or of the
ordinance. You we we've heard a lot from the public in regards to their concern about the p public good. um some of the things we're able to consider, some of the things we just aren't allowed to consider based on, you know, reg FCC regulations. But,
you know, one of the things that going through this one is this is a general commercial district. Somebody referred to it a residential district in one of the meetings. I I realize there are homes there, but this is general commercial. It is well, it's number three out of four in regards to the
order uh in the or in the zoning um in zoning ordinance. It is It is one of the preferred areas. If we're going to put a cell tower, a general commercial district would be the place the footwatch. So, you know, I highlighted something to discuss, but
not, you know, I was undecided as to how much how much weight that had amongst the other two. One power beet in five small ones. Correct. And and you know, when we go through exorting the purpose, Dave, can I adjust the coldness in here? Sure. I don't Everybody too cold, too? I did it a little earlier,
but it certainly hasn't warmed up. It's over here. Oh, okay. I did that one. So, maybe you got the floor, but he got up. So, I didn't want That's okay. Keep going. Yeah. So, that's that's in regards to variance. The other part's going to be
the if we get you know when we discuss the special permit part I want just make sure we're staying we're only this only the var we have to I'm staying in the varian the variance has a high standard not that the special permit doesn't but the variance has a high standard can I
add to what said that there there was presentation that or comments made that it would devalue or change the value of the real estate there was a report submitted that there would be no degradation to the price of houses by putting a cell sell cell tower in place.
I think that I would think that goes under kind of item three because I looked at all the reports that were there and it didn't seem to have any major impact after those places. And the other thing in terms of visual impact, I go down country club road more often
than I want. There's a two 200 foot cell tower that I drive right in and very rarely do I look up to take a look at the cell tower sticking above the trees. I've been doing that for years and it's just, you know, it's not that I'm ignoring it. It's just I go by and I
don't see it, right? It's not that I not it's not there. If you look up, it certainly is there. So, I think most people looking at a cell tower, you know, unless they try to make a point of looking it really not going to notice it. Again, I'm and I and I live in a neighborhood where I see as I further go
down the street, I go by transmission lines every day and they are with inside my house and after a while I I don't see them. It's not that they're not there, not that they're not aggravating. They become part of them, right? They become part of the background. Debbie, were you
done or did you have more to say? Um, no. The only other thing I had to say in regards to um you know um No, actually, no. that that's going to be on the other part, too. So, so Chuck's comment is very interesting.
Um, I don't know exactly how to legally maneuver to the place that you're at, but let me tell you what my thinking was. Uh, A and B, I felt a little wishy-washy about those two criteria being, but you have to have all three. So, let's we we need to build that up a little bit. This the lot size and
topography and that kind of stuff. But the last one, we artificially created a barrier by saying that the tower had to be in a fall zone that was the same size as the towers. At the same time, recognizing in this in the in our wireless ordinance that these towers
would be tall because there's nothing in it about height because the general commercial district has a I think it has a 60 foot height, not a 40ft height, but has a 60ft height uh limit, but yet there's nothing in the wireless ordinance that talks about any kind of a height limit. So it anticipated tall
towers and for that was put in to overcome that. So for the public good. Okay. So the purpose of the of the item that they're looking to get a variance from the purpose of that was for safety. That
was the sole purpose. However, they come to us with engineering that that there's a break point and that if anything were to happen, it would it would everything would happen with inside of the fall zone, the so-called fall zone. So, the
fall zone remains intact, but the distance part is changed from the engineering uh advances. And because it's the same, we're not deraggating from the public good. It's not we're keeping the public good at the
same place. So asking for the variance asking for the variance keeps everything on an even keel if we're going to go through the v if we're going to look at it as having to do to approving the variance. It feels like if they're doing everything that the variance is that the reason for the variance is there to
protect then why shouldn't we grant the variance? But technically I mean technically the shape of the lot is man is made by the applicant. the applicant and the owner divided that lot into that size. So that's not it's it's not a historically sized lot. It's a lot
that was made at at their whatever economic reasons they did it. I get the feeling that the lot next door is also wet and has similar conditions. So you've got, you know, you got your you pick and choose what where you're going to go. So I would like to think that the
wetlands on that lot is really the piece that's different because I looked around. And I walked around when we went out for the balloon. I wondered if was that was a stream that just kind of ran along all the property. So every property had the same problem. It does not. That property which is now divided into three lots. That whole property had
the wetland prop. So that's that's the unique aspect of that property which makes it difficult to put that tower in which is something that our ordinance is welcoming in that district. So we're welcoming towers in that district. They looked for a piece of land in that
district. found a piece of land that had this unusual uh aspect to it which is the wetland and so that created that creates a hardship. I'm not I don't know if it creates an economic hardship but it creates a hardship because the tower
can't conform to the technical words of the ordinance but they have figured out a way of conforming to the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Now, when I first saw this application, I wasn't happy about it because I didn't want I didn't want this tower to fall past the
falls of that. If that had been the consistent engineering discussion, I would not be here saying that I would feel okay granting a variance because the public the intent of the of the of that um portion of the ordinance is to
protect the public, but they've done exactly what we've tried to do there. So, I don't know if we could say that we could ignore the variance, but I think we could translate the variance similarly to what you've said, Chuck. And um and so a literal enforcement
would create hardship. The hardship is the wetlands, the actual hardship, the topography, and the desire relief can be granted without changing anything if if now if we trust. There was some conversation. So I need to hear from people that that they trust the
engineering and the peer review that the tower will break. Then they they've done they they've created a situation that in my opinion adheres to the ordinance. So therefore the variance can be granted. Right. Yeah. Every time we walk into a building that's architecturally designed
and structurally engineered, we're trusting in the engineering. Understand? Yes. To to support health, life, safety, and welfare. Plus we also had it peer reviewed twice. Twice. Yeah. I say we've had multiple people look at it. It's I I'm comfortable I'm comfortable that
the tower is, you know, designed to do what it what it's intended to do. It meets all federal and state requirements also. And I think we also need to comment on the uh the issue of the wetlands uh that
we have engineering assurance that the base tower in spite of the wetlands being right there the base of the tower not or the hole that they'll dig to put it down. that that's a safe measure and
that that goes to the whole idea of the public good and safety that it in fact they have designed it to accommodate the wetlands that are there and that the base will not be a source of failure. So I think and they still have to have it
inspect. The building inspector still has to sign off which will be a condition as we go forward in the wayback machine way back at the beginning. Peter had a lot of concerns about the fact that you know they still have to do like a site test to determine what they need to do in order to build the base to make sure it works in in the
soil that they have. So that that has not gone away. That's still part of but as others have said we've been reassured by our own engineering study that in fact what the
the math of what they did the science of what they did is adequate and that presentation was also done at the beginning of the process there was a meeting between Verid and I think AT&T with the town with the board of you know building inspector the DPW called the uh technical review.
Technical review. So that was performed early on in the process even before it came to us. So they had that was part of their short commentary and review at that time and they also kind of they made accommodations to some of the comments that were made by the DBW and the fire
department in terms of that site design. So were soil borings done on this site to uh for the foundation design? Not yet. Not yet. Okay. But there was a design presented to the peer review. So they have to stick to that design or close to it. So the peerreview signed
off on a design that they felt was was they they from their experience they felt would be okay and when they because they there was a question about whether the applicant should go in and start digging holes and spending money and they said they wouldn't do it which is fine. And then they ended up sending a
design that corresponded with what they believe will happen there. So that if it if it's different from that then there's going to have to be a change. And there were two peer review at least with the building inspected lab. They had their own peer review and then we hired a peer review. So it's been peer reviewed twice in ter right and the the second one the
one that we hired was answer answering to us right and not to Vidian. Right. Both were actually um Okay. So, to just just to make sure for the record, Eric, um so we keep this if if somebody's going to appeal this, I
want this to be clear what we're doing. Under a the soil conditions, the wetlands is a unique soil condition that is different from the rest of the neighborhood that forces the tower to get closer to the streets. Under B,
we have set up an ordinance that invites people to come in build cell towers in our commercial district. And they found a piece of land they could use, but the but these characteristics uh brush up against the this the uh
portion of the ordinance that requires that the fall zone be exactly the height of the tower. So that's B. So that l a literal enforcement of the provision would provide hardship to them because they can't reach they can't meet the 170 people.
But I think the last one is is the one that really brings together because as long as the rel as long as what they're doing is the same as or better than the reason for that ordinance in the first place then um we're allowed to give them
the relief I believe because they're not making things worse. So um I would stand on that as does anybody want to add anything to that? Does that make does that work? You have experience with this speak Mark. Are you good? No. No. I'm
I'm in complete agreement going on. I'm great. So if we're all in agreement that we if we're if we're in agreement on those factors causing us to vote yes, we don't have to then not at this stage. We don't have to look at the other issues in the next phase. We are going to have
to look at the special permit but not for the variance and the variance is narrow. It's just the fall zone really. I think the height even though attorney Rosen is very cautious I think the height piece because of the way the ordinance is written it can't be that the height is 60 ft. I mean it's
somebody should have written another sentence in there. You know it actually part of the ordinance it does actually say the minimum height is to allow is to it needs to be tall enough to allow future use. That's what I'm saying. So I I think it's clear in there that there's not a restriction. Right. Thank you.
That's right. So I'm not even sure that needed a variance, but we can include it in the in the variance for much easier reasons, but for the definitely the full. Okay. So if we're all set then um let's take a vote. Uh so so the so the con so
Eric you have all the the reasons why that was your you feel clear you have the reasons why we're able to do it. Yes. All right. Any other discussion? Hearing none. Okay. All in favor of granting I'm going to go roll. Favor of granting the variance. Peter, what was that? And I'm
in favor. Jim W. I'm in favor. Mark Maloney. Hi. Debbie jokes. I David Singer. I Okay. Unanimous. The ver has been passed. Just heard an exhale. Okay.
Now we get now the fun. Now the all the little of the you know the wireless ordinance does cross reference the special per ordinance as
well. It it talks about like this is an addition to it. So I think we do need to go through the special permit. I I think I'd like to do is go through the wireless ordinance first to sort of tie because that's a lot of detail and then we'll go to the the special permit ordinance. We'll have all those facts
laid out so we can see if everything you know we can see if everything works. Does that work for you? Um I wonder if it would be useful for those listening at home to hear what the purpose of this part of the ordinance
pool. Would you please read it? Yes. So um 207.14 the purpose of this or should I move on to the second item? Oh yes you be much more. Thank you Peter. That's why
there's five of us. Seven of us. Go ahead. Board deliberation and vote on the application of Paridi Wireless LLC for property located at zero Fair View Street West Assessor's Map R24 lot 7A which is located in the general
commercial GC zoning district for a special permit pursuant to sections 200-4.9 D3 2000-7.14 200-8.3 and then 200-8.4 four of the zoning ors in order to allow the construction of a
new communication structure comprised of groundbased equipment cabinets and antennas on top of a monopole measuring 170 ft in height at this location. And sitting on this panel are Peter Ros, Jim W, Mark Maloney, Debbie Jones, David
Singer. Okay. Can I hear a motion to approve the application uh with uh for the following reasons and under the following conditions? I just need a motion. Same thing. You read it again with different I'll make a motion for the for the application
wireless LLC for property located at zero Fairview Street West Assessor's map R24 lot 7A which is located in the general commercial GC zoning district for a special permit pursuant to sections 200-4.9C3 200-7.14
2000-8.3 and then 200-8.4 four of the zoning ordinance in order to allow for the construction of a new communication structure consisting excuse me comprised of groundbased equipment cabinets and antennas on top of a monopole measuring 170 ft in height at this location. Okay,
I'm going to amend it a little bit. Approve the application is what you meant and uh for the following reasons and with the following conditions. Okay, I'll second that. Second that. Great. Okay. All right. Um now Debbie, go ahead. Read the now the discussion. So I I I want to
read the reason I wanted to um actually read this out loud is so that everybody understands I I guess mostly for me and hopefully the rest of the board this is the lens in which we're reviewing everything that comes after it.
So the town's ordinance states that the purpose of this ordinance is to encourage the development of telecommunications and wireless services while minimizing the adverse impacts of these facilities on adjacent properties, residential neighborhoods, historic or scenic resources and the environment.
Minimize the overall number and height of such facilities to only what is necessary and promote shared use of existing facilities in order to reduce the need for constructing new facilities. So that is the purpose of this ordinance. Okay. So let's page is wrong
but we'll go from there. All right. So let's go through the ordinance. This were those who are watching uh it's 207.14 that we're starting with. It's the wireless communications facilities ordinance. So the purpose with this red the
definitions um okay so the applicant talked about um that particular purpose provision and um made it clear that um that this application follows the purpose that Deb
just read into the record. It's a multicarrier facility. It's at the minimum height necessary in in the zoning district. It's on even though it's in a neighborhood, it's on a vacant parcel of land. And uh
there's a belief that we have to determine and agree with that there's um minimum impact to adjacent properties, residential neighborhoods, the environment. That's something we will have to discuss as we go through the ordinance. But that's the general
that's the general response that the applicant has given to us. that section. Um, as far as definitions go, does anybody have any problem with the fact that all these definitions part and parcel of what the applicant has submitted?
Okay. Um, okay. So, the exemptions uh so the let's see there are exemp certain exemptions. I don't think it meets it doesn't this this application does not meet any of the exemptions.
All right. Sighting requirements. The applicant has gone through a lot of trouble to let us know. There are four. Uh see how many are there? There's four. There's four. Okay. So, I'll read them out so people can hear. So the first preference is on an existing or approved wireless
communication structure or existing non-residential structure, general and planned industry districts, general commercial districts, rural residential districts. So for for the reasons I will discuss as we go along, the applicant has chosen the general commercial district after going through a uh their
due diligence to try to find locations that met A and B. Um and in their um in their final summary they have spoken about the fact that uh
this is a very feasible spot to put the tower and um that the applicant has tried has gone and looked at and they've represented I don't know if they showed us all 20 but maybe they did in in terms of listing them but we definitely talked about numerous sites. They've gone to
other possible sites, shown us maps, shown us the coverage, and made it clear to us that their target of the gap is along Route 91 and Route 2. This is the site that best supports, best provides them with what
they need to fill that gap. Okay. Can I please? Sure. In in their presentation, they they they define a specific target area that sets the the locations of the selection. So they couldn't select an
industrial park on the other top. They need to have it in this particular area to include their coverage. So someone says you even though you didn't find an industrial location here, you can put it someplace else. And there were sites that might have been in a residential neighborhood. So there would have been
more zoning barriers. Uh there would have been sites that were further from the Rotary in 91, which is their targeted site that would provided uh smaller coverage. Um, so and you know, I think the public
should understand that and and I'm not saying this cynically, I'm just saying it honestly that the federal law um requires us to um unless somebody would is telling us otherwise that the applicant the car the um AT&T
uh has to uh once they represent to us that they have a targeted area, we have to take it as good as a good faith representation. We hired a peerreview engineer to look at the presentation that they made about whether there was
actually a gap and the peer review proved that there was. So, this is the applicant's um this is this is the applicant's wants and needs for where they want to provide coverage. And the Telecommunications Act gives them those who know this business better than us
the right to pick the spot that they want to provide the coverage unless somebody were to rebut it. And as far as I could tell, even though there was one rebuttal on record that was that showed the uh FCC map, our peer expert said
that that that was not an equivalent to the maps and the drive test maps that were given to us. Therefore, in my opinion, and if anyone disagrees, let me know. I don't believe that had the same weight as what was presented to us by AT&T and confirmed by the peer review.
Yeah. Um just just as a case in point because that was such a bone of contention I actually went to the FCC website and I clicked on and I did a whole bunch of different varieties. Now there's you can create a map that shows coverage everywhere and when you start to hover over it looks like it's 100%. But then when you start ticking back
some things, you I mean you can go depending on what you click on there, it can look like it's 100%, but if you actually go over some sales, something to 43 or 78. And there's three different AT&T listings on there. Depending on which one you click depends on what you get
for stuff. So, you know, I'd say, you know, that information is a good rule of thumb. It's it's a generality. But to say that you're definitely going to, you know, just because it says 100% coverage while you're standing there doesn't necessarily mean that. When you go under mobile, you get different answers. If you click on to AT&T, you get different
answers. And if you click on all three or just one. So, um, I did do my due diligence there in regards to looking at site myself. And you can come up with a bunch of different numbers and it was all red. I'm like, "Aha, here we go." You know, and then I look at it says 43 coverage and 78% coverage. So it looks
good, but when you dive into it, there are definitely they're definitely one cell is 43 and the next one's 100 right next to it. And and to even add to that, we we mentioned at the last meeting that um AT&T doesn't have strong coverage in downtown Greenfield. There are other carriers that have that. So AT&T has
their own gap and this is a gap that they want to fill. So they'll now this community will have coverage that is broader. They don't need to compete for us for one zone. they'll we'll have coverage now from another provider in the western part of the city. Um okay,
the next thing is the height. So minimum necessary to accommodate anticipated future use. I must say again speak personally that when I saw the balloon go up and saw how high it went, I I was very surprised. It's very very tall. Thank you. I wondered whether um
it could be shorter. Um, I felt compelled to keep pushing for that, but um, AT&T did provide us with information that showed that as the tower gets shorter, I mean, maybe there's a 10-ft that we could get, but
but after that, the the loss of um of um customers is significant. And um you know I you have to weigh that against it's still going to be tall and and the carrier again has the right to
um to insist in good faith on the best coverage they can get for the amount of money that they're investing in the site. We I would like to talk at some point I'm bringing up now whether there is a rule about a 10% increase on the tower. I'm not saying that that's a right or wrong, but the tower they're
asking for at 170 ft would also allow 17 ft automatically. So just let's just think about if we say yes to that, there might be some way we want to tie back expansion to at least I mean I don't even know if we're allowed to, but to the extent that we can that they might
have to come back and ask for some show us something that is going on there, but that's that's not right this second. So, are there any is there anybody here who feels and this was a moment where I thought we might have some conversation feels that the tower should be shorter
than what the applicant has requested? No. I would rather if we're going to if we're if we decide to move forward with this, let's put it at the way the ordinance says and put it at a height that'll allow for future use. We already
know that they intend to expand. Our ordinance asks that that that's what we do. You add additional carriers, you might as well allow for that height now than have somebody having to either replace the pole or go looking for another place to put another, you know, another tower and another, you know,
cell tower for if we get to the point where we're going to approve this, let's make it what it needs to be now and and not have to mess with it again. Okay. Well, I don't feel like we have the expertise to say arbitrarily 10 feet off it. We don't know what that's going to do. We don't do some numbers in here.
It's it's it's it's split in hairs I think at that point. What was the height of the tower at the country road theater? 200 feet. Yeah. So I've seen that tower shorter than that one. Yeah. This thing you go by it's massive. Oh yeah. It's not so small. And it's on a hill.
Well, it's like the one when you're coming up 91 north up there in Deerfield or I don't exactly what but Thursday it's right there. And we put a condition on this that it not be expand that it not be raised to a higher tower that's
on later. I don't know if we can but I don't want to let's hold that for the end when we if we agree on all the things that they're asking. That would be the expansion uh will be a condition. So let's let's wait till the end. Can I just I think I think the ordinance says that there the
intent of this ordinance is to have a proposal provide extra space for future self right co so I mean I use location I'm sure in their analytical process they kind of took into account their their antenna and possibly two or two
other one or two other providers. The issue for me isn't whether the tower gets higher. It's whether it's whether going higher means they have to they have to come back to us or somebody to get permission to do it. So one question I would ask is if it goes higher is is
it still going to is the crumple zone still going to is it still going to fall within the uh fall zone if it Well, it's I think it's 10% that they can talk. You can help me with this. Is it 10%? What would be the tallest you you're allowed to expand it? Yes. 10% 20 ft whichever
is greater. Okay. And is the tower designed so that if it's height is at it'll still it'll still collapse and fall in the fall zone. I think they would have to show that too. But I think right now your question the tower that it's being designed right now and George you can
correct me if I'm wrong is not being designed to add 20 ft to the top of it. you have to build a bigger tower to support the weight of the effort going on which means if we're going to expand it we would come back to you with a new that's what that's that's what I'm saying George just correct me if I'm wrong
yes we would we are not building an expandable the pole that you have on your plans is not an expandable pole people do build expandable poles they're wider because they have to have the girth to hold the weight of the extra cables and the extra the extra antennas
the design you out because of the height and the gap above the tree line is already designed to accommodate I believe four carriers and one municipal location. Uh, so I I don't believe we can say that we
agree not to ever expand and we can't take away the federal law, but the design as it's in front of you today is not a full design to expand and it is designed to accommodate four carriers and one municipal like if the fire
department needs whiffs or things like that and 170 ft. Yeah. 170. So if you were going to expand the tower, you'd pick that tower down and put a new one up based on the tower we're building today. Unless the technology changes and the weights of the cables go down or the antennas gets
much smaller or lighter, it's so will the foundations be designed to support a heavier structure if it if it expanded. If it were going to be expanded, yeah, it would have the whole thing would have to be redesigned. It's it's being designed to support 170 ft. Right. So for the record, that's that's it's important. Okay. So for the record,
we're approving 170 ft. even 85 ft uh spot which is if I do my math right half that distance. So okay and which meets the b which is within the the shortest boundary. Correct. That's great because that that I think I I feel relieved by
that. I would not have wanted to see some I'll call it a loophole for lack of a better word in law that would allow you to do that without the town being involved. So based on your bylaw it's being designed to the maximum location. Okay great. Thank you for that.
All right. So, that takes care of that. Um, the balloon test I spoke of to the greatest extent possible cited off ridge lines. It's actually below the street, which is good. Um, there's no historic
value that I know about. Not to make fun of the neighborhood, not nothing historic there that would be impacted by it. Um, minimum distance from the base 20 property line. Okay. So we've already granted a variance for that. So I don't
think we need to talk about that again. uh we can incorporate uh Eric by reference we had that we are satisfied by both the presentation of the applicant and the peer review engineer that the break point at 85 ft is uh is
is the it creates an equivalent safety mechanism as the or refer to that as a hinge point rather than break point. Yes, correct. You like that better? Yeah, hinge point. See, it sounds more intense. Really? My language
in this is not the best thing. Hinge. So, I'm happy to be corrected. But the hinge points. Okay, good. Um, setbacks. I I believe Eric are all within the proper setbacks for the GC district. I mean, we correct, Mr.
Speaking of the mundane, but we I think I didn't I mean, I I assumed that that was the case, especially when I went there. the access drive properly designed the location of the uh the uh the other build out building structures meet all the setbacks and uh parking
provided for the maintenance film meet zoning um design requirements there's a list of design requirements it's my impression uh from the tech review and from talking to Eric planner that uh the application and the submission of plans complies
with all of those requirements correct yeah in fact And just as a point for those uh listening um or may not be familiar with it, our ordinance actually says only freestanding monoples are allowed. Thank you. So it's it's designed to meet our order. That's
that's a narrow it's only one type of monopole, right? Uh okay. The next is the procedures how to go through this process. Uh the applicant is well we're well into that. we we were we were given peer review
access under our witness by the applicant. Thank you. And um so that there's been compliance and satisfaction there uh for sighting. Um again, Eric, I presume from the documents that were
presented that uh all the requirements in in this section haven't kept up with the exact. So we're in number three 110. No, we're on page 11. Oh, and it's not page number 12. We are app designing promise miss
citing a new wireless facility site plans will be prepared by a professional engineer with this type of you know it says all sorts of details and that whole list that's been with the the applicant contends that that's the case I'd like us to say that we confirm is that true
everything has been according to our ordinance according to our ordinance everything has been submitted uh except a sample lease agreement should another carrier desire to colllocate. It was in the ordinance that they were
to there was some language in there about that. Every other item listed there has been is a yes. Is that something to provide readil? You don't have anything. It's provided. How about a front page that and a last page that shows that there's a term and
there's a signature. We uh submit the memorandum of the agreement which is just one page, you know, has no details. You have a notice of registered. Is it recorded? Yes. Memorandum. No, it's not recorded.
But you have you you can give you can give us that the memorandum and it has the terms of the lease in it and it's signed by the parties. Okay. That's that part. Yeah. All right. So, thank you. Is that one of the
Which where where is that? That's number focus map. H5 2 H5 H7 that Well, this is I'm working off of Oh, I was working off of uh Eric Rosen's
ago. So what you what you say it was G 2 G5 G but David this is this kind of the broken out ordinance that yeah the one that I on page seven of that teased out
ordinance that you sent us to take notes on. I just want to make sure too many sections. All right, we know where we are. Um, so all of that has been done.
A locus map for scale, description of soil and surficial geology has been done. Color photographs, many balloon photographs, map showing the signal cover areas. Yes. Proof of approval of permits. Have we gotten
that? Uh, can you reference where you are, Mr. Chair? Yeah, I'm I'm on attorney Rosen's uh memorandum from So, in the ordinance, it says proof of approval of all federal, state, and local permits required for construction and operations. Is that
what you're Yes, but I'm trying to find it in the gave. It's on page seven of the thing that um David sent us. I didn't I don't know what page it is in the actual Yes, but
that has been supplied, Mr. Here we are. Okay, I'm on page 111 of the book. Okay. All right. Now, we get to the needy part. Um, in granting a special permit for a wireless communication facility, in addition to the findings required by our
ordinance, the zoning board shall find the applicant clearly demonstrated that no existing ordained structures can accommodate the wireless communication devices plan for the proposed structure. So what I could make a general answer of yes is
anyone want to fill in the yes. We we feel that uh I think it demonstrated that they had options and that they chose this one. I wouldn't say that there's no other existing structures or approved. I believe that I agree with them that logically when you go through
everything this would be the one I would pro I would pick given using their criteria but it's not the only one. There are others that just just doesn't but it doesn't provide the coverage in the areas they're looking for. So I don't want to split I'm not looking to split hairs there. I'm just saying that
you know it says any other you know it says any other or it's the only clearly no existing or proof structures can accommodate well existing or approve others had existing or well the radio station tower that had that had a problem even though it was in and yes
and there might be churches in the area where the steeple's not maybe not high enough or the churches in uh yeah no reading this different I'm reading this a little bit differently than I did at home and it's existing workers and that some of the ones that we might be splitting hairs on were
neither existing nor yet approved. So So the proposed wireless Oh, the size and the height of the structure is the minimum necessary based on representations of the applicant and uh our peerreview expert that is true. There has been no rebuttal that would
say otherwise except for the obvious next thing which is that the wireless facility minimizes its impacts on adjacent properties, residential neighborhoods, the environment in areas of historic or scenic value. The environment does not mean the idea that there's radiation coming from the tower.
The environment to me means wetlands or so and the wetlands has been um this the conservation commission imposed conditions. So that's been done. Adjacent properties. Um well the the owner of the adjacent property is part
of of this. So seems like that person is is full of we've heard not except for the residential which I'll get into a minute. None of the commercial uh enterprises in that neighborhood have objected. I guess the rub always is is that these
cell towers are an intrusion to residential neighborhoods. And um I like anything else in the law or anything else that we do in life, it's a balancing test. So, you know, if this was in the middle of a residential
neighborhood, I would say that it was intrusive. It is in a residential neighborhood on Newton Street. And don't misunderstand me. I I I do feel badly that this is in front of them, but this zone is a general commercial zone and it
anticipates this type of use. So I think to the extent that it's below grade, there are trees around it, you know, you have you have at least as it's not just sticking right out in the
parking lot across the street of the of the commercial site there. Um I think they've done the best they could. So, but but not to say that I think itizes the pain of especially the people on on Newton Street, but for purposes of what
this means, I think they've done everything that they could to minimize the impact, which doesn't mean no impact, right? And that's the ordinance says that it's going to try to minimize that there's going to be zero impact whatsoever. I mean, that you can't do
that. I don't I don't mean to sound flip about it, but I also I mean, if there was a sense of arrogance the way this was coming in and that there were other options and there were things that we could conditions we could impose, I think we would. But I think I think the applicant has demonstrated that they
have they've read that portion of our ordinance and they've they've worked hard to comply with it to the extent that they can. Um okay that it yeah all wireless communications I'm
maintaining good on repair I mean these are conditions that we're going to cross reference the ordinance into the special permit anyway. So this will have to be done um the extension or replacement so it's right in the ordinance. Uh we might want
to state that condition. And we might even want to state these conditions out loud and repeat them. But these conditions clearly by incorporating them into the permit, they'll be uh they'll have to comply. Wouldn't I mean just if I get a point of reference for
anybody who hasn't read it, one of one of the conditions of use is that it has to be, you know, certified annually demonstrating structural integrity. So it's like this thing's going to go up and then no one's ever going to look at again and check on it. Um and a extension construction
replacement means that they have to come back to the zoning board and the build and the planning and building department. Uh there we go. So the regulatory compliance um if the AC FCC or FAA change their regs, the operator agrees to uh bring the
facility into compliance within 90 days. Again, that's going to be incorporated into the permit. Um, so written notice. Um, now I I when we get to the conditions, I'm going to add something about, but the
the applicant knows ahead of time that if they're out of compliance, there'll be a 90-day notice to them from the building inspector and then removal, post a bond. That has that been done or Well, that's obviously a condition. You haven't done anything at that yet, right? No. and uh shall be
removed within one year of cessation at the owner's expense. I would like to put a provision there and I'm happy I don't have it totally written and happy to negotiate Rosen but I think I think because of the disparity in size and economic power. I'd like there to be
a provision in here that if we if we give after giving proper notice to the applicant or the less of the property and their or their successors and and they don't and there's non-compliance and we have to take legal action against the applicant that they will pay our
costs in attorney's fees. What is their reason? if they had to seek non-compliance and they had to pursue us. Well, I I'm not asking for your permission, but I am willing to uh if you put that in as a condition,
I don't think I would appeal your decision. Okay. But the bond takes care of the the removal. But but he's saying if it's a non-compliance issue, okay, like the FCC changes a rule and now says any tower over 150 ft has to be lit. Right. Okay.
Where it's currently over 200 feet or it's a a much higher standard. They lower it to 150. Building inspector sends us a letter and says FCC regulations say you not have to light your tower. You have 90 days to light your tower. On day 91, we haven't lit
the tower. and the board planner or the building inspector have to send us a legal notice for failure to light the tower and hire a council to compel us to light the tower. We're going to pay for their lawyer. And how long do we need to have 90 days? Is that what it says for
that? No. Yes. Well, but it's not only the non-compliance, it's the removal as well. I don't want I don't want I don't want the city to have to keep hounding the owner or the lei about removing it and then hire a lawyer and then at the final second after we've we've used up a
lot of attorneys fees and cost they say yeah well we'll do it's just difficult in New England with the snow and the weather so on removal you have one year okay fine yeah I was actually going to say okay yeah four seasons
okay one year on removal Okay, that that should actually be added to the other question. Procedurally, if you're if you're complying with FCC or FAA regulations, aren't you the operator being one monitored by them and you'd be
notified by them for non-compliance? One would hope. I think so. for you. I've never gotten a notice on that. But again, I don't usually say to Dave's point later, I can tell you which towers I built if we drive up and down the
pipe. Uh but but if you're being regulated by those two organizations, I think it would be citing you were not the city of Greenfield. I'm more worried about I'm worried about the removal. But you're No, no, but but I'm just trying to say,
you know, that's one issue. And then if if there's if they're moving they're they're they're giving up their license or whatever if that power becomes obsolete obsolete you know which it will. So yeah I don't want you to stand I don't want to hang out there for ever but I want to make sure that's only
that's our only legal entanglement of this. I mean all the operation of this is on them is on them. Okay. I just I just wanted to I want to understand I heard that magazine that aren't going to be around that long
be No, I mean someday they will. Yeah. So I'm just protecting the future generation of Greenfield as I try to do. Um all right. So special permit. Let's now go to that section 8.3. So we're done with the we're done with the
wireless facility. going to merge it with so the vote is that section and the special section. Uh okay so all of the sh Okay so we've comported with the rules
in 8.3 to the extent that we've gotten extensions. All right. So, let's look at the criteria, go over them, however tedious that may be. So, this is
8.3F. So, provision shall be made for convenient and safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site and in relation to adjacent streets and property. uh the service level of adjacent streets will not be reduced to the added traffic volume. The answer to that is that
that's been taken care of by tech review. It won't overload the capacity of water and sewer systems, storm drainage, schools, solid waste disposals, and other public facilities. It's kind of in in that regard, it's a benign use. the design of the project adequate methods
disposal of sewage refues or other waste generated by the pros use I don't think there's that much but I but certainly a condition of the is is in the plans do you have a way that you do if you have to take away any
waste I mean if you have a generator there is there any waste that'll ever that'll ever be generated at the site from the operators construction debris but will I mean you can make a condition that be removed like this cardboard for the cabinets and the generator and we usually will either
commit or get a condition that we'll remove and properly dispose of any construction. Can you put that in there in your notes better because you and I are going to sit down and write this up. So generate any waste. It's just it's like putting a computer. Will one parking
space be enough? Yeah, it will be. Okay. Well, there's also they could probably park on the road too. The proposed project will not increase erosion, flooding, or sedimentation. consistent with the wetlands protection act. That's really the jurisdiction of the conservation commission and it'll be subject to their uh permit to not
created significant adverse impacts on the quality of the natural environment including vegetation, air, surface and groundwater during or after construction. Uh well, as far as air is concerned, we don't
know. We can't comment on it, but let's just say that uh that we'll let that there's nothing we really can do in that regard. Design the project and and they've represented that the standard whatever the FCC standard is. I think I've I've read this number of times in the application or in the presentation
is 2.5% of the maximum radiation level consult from correct. So it's not even at the level that Dr. Chamberlain said would be sort of the level the FCC allows. It's 2.5% of that level that would be FCC allows 100 or 2.5 right.
Okay. So I think based on the 2.5% that's we don't need to say more about it. S project earth removal volume of cut and fill grade changes removals existing trees and vegetation again you know construction does have the removal
of trees but I think uh I mean I think the project's going to allow for that to happen and I I assume you're not I mean is there any need for us to protect anything beyond the tower the trees and everything? I mean you're not you don't intend to clear cut the land do you? No, the way in the way we got an order of
conditions that No, that that specifies what we can and we can't do that on the on the site outside of the road. Okay. And the compound the way the way it's designed to have an angle so that you're not even
cutting a clear driveway in. So you won't be able to stand at the road and look. There's no crates down. Correct. Through that M. So we went we got conservation approval. We then went and did the TRC uh fire department had comments into TRC. Then
we went back to conservation amended conservation and then apply here. So we we've already been through conservation TRC conservation again. And it's kind of designed like serpentine going down to the bottom. They had to because the slope but so that will rather than a
straight drive where there'll be a few after cut but in the way in which it's being cut it will there'll always be some screen proposed project not um not have a significant adverse fiscal impact on the city in terms of balancing
as near as possible the cost of public services and public revenue. through taxes other income. That's that's okay. Project shall be compatible existing uses and other uses allowed by right in the districts and not to track from the character and scale of neighboring
properties. Well, I would say that while generally this might be a more like but might be something that we would take a deeper dive in because there's a special wireless facilities ordinance. I think that kind of is what we looked at to deal with this. Otherwise we would have
had a different it would have been a little the way we would have looked at it might have been a little different because the wireless the wireless facilities ordinance is welcoming the facilities. So I would say C uh you know 7.1 design the project to minimize
visibility of visibly degrading elements. Yeah, I think that's part of the methanos project should be consistent with the purposes intent of this ordinance. Not this ordinance but is that 7 is it 7.10
or 7? 7.14. Cool. Thank you. Uh may establish development phasing. We're not we don't need phasing. um responsibility for least uh see for at least a residential development. None of
that no phasing. So that's NA. All right. So in granting a special permit, the special permit may in accordance impose conditions, safeguards, limitations uh and may may include but are limited to the following. Front side and uh rear
yards greater than the minimum required by the ordinance. Uh I think that's happened, but we don't we don't need to impose that. Well, we don't need to impose it because it's all part of the application. Uh screening that's already been done.
Done. Modification of buildings. Done. Done. This is all tech review. Uh environmental pollution. I would consider that the narrow scope would be the wetlands.
That's uh the Hong Kong. Interrupt me if I'm saying something that nobody performance bond. Yes. other conditions to protect the public safety and welfare. Anybody have anything that they want to add besides
my lawyer thinking legal thinking? I want to incorporate everything that's been submitted by the applicant into the special permit. So, there's going to be a phrase to do that so that I don't have to name that stuff. Um,
and I guess the change of height is built into the ordinance. So that's not going to happen. And there's been a representation that that's not the way it's been designed. Any other conditions anybody can think has thought about.
I'm just read. Yeah, keep going. And then I talk specifically about any substantial change, alteration or expansion. So I mean we could say that section I with relation to expansion up is uh will be a violation will be under
this jurisdiction. So again it's going to have the general language of incorporating everything in the peer review and everything else. So that ends the bill. So to summarize,
we've granted the um we've we've we've talked about 7.14. Um it's not going to be built any higher than 170 ft. Uh it's complied with or it's complied
with all the other provisions. that are generally applicationoriented. We've agreed that um that one that no other existing approved structure can accommodate the device,
the size and height of the structure is the minimum necessary. The proposed uh the communication facility has done its best to minimize its impacts. And then there's going to be, you know, the attorney's fees uh condition and
incorporating by reference every all the applications and the peer review and that's it. So if there's you think we're ready to vote. You have everything. I have everything now. today. So, I'm
I'll sit with Eric and sort of work out the how this is going to read, but uh it'll it'll be what we said. Okay, no more discussion. So, um I'm ready to vote. Everybody ready to vote? Absolutely. Unequivocally, huh? All
right. So, if you're in favor, say I. Peter, I Jim I. Mark I. Deb I. David I. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's still late out. It's still a two
hour ride, right? Got to go someplace to eat. It's probably time. We went to no off. savings and postings. That's nice. Made in America. That's right.
Done your service, haven't you? I got an oldbody. Oh my god. So I sat in a meeting there. Oh, you got to close. No, I just we got another vote.
Um you all know as attorney works uh they'll take a little time to write up the uh opinion the the decision sign it submit it to the clerk's office to submit it post office have 20 days they'll have they'll be 20 days for
those who wish to appeal it to appeal you'll have to the court you know the clerk will give you the certificate George will come to Georgia extend up the decision and always it may be appealed. So, uh, let's see.
The main story is just pitch. The main story quill is a good start. I like I like it. So, I just I think it's on the right in the corner.
Okay. Meeting. Move on. Thank you, gentlemen. Nice to meet all of you. We appreciate the attention. We appreciate tomorrow night. What time is it? It is like dial away and says
I don't know why they didn't go to Ice Valley this evening. But I couldn't believe Ice Valley, you know, all I don't mind, but say triple's driving. I don't know. We'll see. I
know. Just want I just want to say couple of to the board. Ron, right? Yes. Go ahead. Um, first of all, those of you who read Alman's piece in today's paper, this board has
demonstrated the highest level of integrity of listening to the public, giving them all the opportunity that they wanted to speak, asking questions. Those were the three points that he made. And this board was not referenced
in that article. and it sure as hell should have been and applause given to this board for the way it handled this very difficult decision. So well done. I got read that again. I'll leave you. We have two things to do. Um the other
thing I want to say is uh you may have sensed as this went as this developed that I started out being really opposed to this project. I had a lot of concerns, a lot of questions. Um, a lot of it was really
difficult and I disagreed with what they were proposing much as David expressed too. Um, and I think that the process that we use for asking questions and going through all this, even though it took six months, was well worth it. And
it six months. Yeah. It changed it changed my mind about what was necessary here. Yeah. And um I'm I'm I was surprised that I changed my mind because I was really against it
from the start. But I think that the questions that I asked and the concerns that I raised were addressed and thank you David for allowing me to have a bring that negative point of view and giving me the opportunity to change my mind. Well, I want to thank you and
Chuck for your input tonight in the deliberations. Uh it's very helpful. uh you know being an alternates doesn't mean you don't participate. So it's important and you got to get your feet wet too. So yeah, the only thing I want to say is uh it's interesting Eric will know this of how I responded when the
application first came in and um I was I was not happy about it for a long long time. But I did watch and I think there are other members of the board that felt the same way as Eric has stated, but I did watch as um all of us were able to ask for the
right things and and make good decisions about how to go forward. You are a very good board. You should be really proud of yourselves. This is a very good zoning board. You did very well and a rough year. I was uh I was very impressed with how everybody came here
and uh and spoke about it. We simplified it. It's not even 8 o'clock. I mean, considering six months of work, we didn't we knew what we were going to do. We spoke of it very quickly. So, thank you all for that. All right. Now, to the mundane. Uh may I hear a motion to approve the minutes of the June 4th,
2025 meeting of the ZBA? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting from June 4th, 2025 and June 12th of 2025. Can we do another step? Sure. Thanks. Okay. Approval of the minutes of the
meeting of June 4th, 2025. Thank you. Second. I'll second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Let the record show as unanimous. Peter, please. Uh motion to approve the minutes of the meeting June 12th, 2025.
I'll second that. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? I want you to know as we finish this meeting that we're going right back into the fire because there's the next meeting we're
going to have an application for the development up on Stone Farm Road. So, take a deep breath. That's the only thing. You have a lot of experience now. I know there's like six or seven. There's a lot. Well, don't talk about any more than that, but we have that
application coming in. So, uh they'll be in July. We'll be we'll be back into having a you know, more sophisticated uh stuff before us. In any event, I hear a motion to adjurnn. So, moved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor say I.
Good night. Good night. Thanks everybody. Good night. [Music]