this is a meeting of the Greenfield special meeting of the Greenfield Zonoting Board of Appeals We're at City Hall on the second floor meeting room at 14 Court Square in Greenfield Massachusetts It is Thursday April 17th 2025 It is now 6:30
p.m Chair Statement This meeting is being recorded by the zoning board of appeals If any other persons present are doing the same you must notify the chairperson at this time accordance with math general laws chapter 38 section 20 small section B no person shall address
a meeting of a public body without permission of the chair and all person 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 still does not withdraw the chair may authorize a console or other officer to remove the person from the meeting Okay All uphill from here Um all right So the let's do a roll call to
members Members present state Mark Maloney Jim Wyn Debbie Jokes Eric Green Charles Roberts and David Singer And sitting on the panel today listening to these matters will be Peter Mark Maloney Jim W Debbie Jokes David Singer Thank
you Mr Clerk would you please read the uh we're we're we're going to uh well do we need to vote to come out to come out of uh we continue we don't need to vote need to vote Would you please read um the applications for both the variance
and the special continued from April 9th 2025 application of Vidity Wireless LLC for property located at zero Clearwood Street West Assessor's Tax Map R24 lot 7A which is located in the general
commercial DC zoning district for the branching exceptions 300-8.7 the zoning ordinance in order to allow the construction Construction of the new wireless communication structure comprised of ground base equipment cabinets and antennas to be the top of a
monopole measured 170 ft with insufficient volume Yeah Continuation from April 9th 2025 Application of Verie Wireless LLC for property located at Zil Fairview
Street West Assessor's MAP R24 block 7A which is located in the general commercial GC zoning district for a special permit pursuant to sections 200-4.9C3 2000-74 200-8.3 and 200-8.4 four of the zoning
ordinance in order to allow the construction of of a new communication structure comprised of groundbased equipment cabinets and antennas modeled on top of a pole measuring 170 ft in height at this location Thank you All right so um tonight we're going to hear
from the concerned citizens Um this night is open for you all to speak and your representatives to speak Is there somebody that's leading the concerned citizens tonight in terms of how this is organized Should I know that you have an attorney uh
waiting Do you think maybe the attorney should be speak first sir Uh attorney Campanelli Hi Good evening Hi Thank you Hi Would you like to wait or would you like to go first I think she had uh I think one of my clients had an expert uh to go before
me Um but I'll I'll do as the board wants but Oh I see I see Dr Chamberlain I'm sorry Thank you Yes I'm going to press pause on you Thank you And uh Dr Chamberlain hello Hi How are you Uh I guess would everybody be okay if Dr
Chamberlain spoke first Okay Would you uh would you state your name and I guess where you live for the record and why you're here Thank you Okay Yeah My name's Kent Chamberlain and I'm uh from Durham New Hampshire Profer Professor
Ameritus And the reason I'm here is that I've been asked to weigh in on a tower And in addition to that I've served on a state commission in New Hampshire where we explored wireless radiation in depth And I've been working in that area ever since So I'm an expert in radio
frequency engineering And I'll be going over my credentials as I give my presentation or before I give my presentation So you'll get a sense of what my background is and how it might be applied to the the question you're considering today Is that a question
Oh and can I break in here Unfortunately Alana is held up Her babysitter is not there Is there someone Eric I think Alana sent you um Dr Chamberlain's introduction Would you like me to read it or would somebody on the ZBA or
public like to read it to introduce Dr Chamberlain so you know his background I didn't receive that So I thought the board's board chair's perview Okay Um anybody have an objection with Safe Tech
Board Um my name is Pam I'm sorry My they again your settings don't allow me to change my name and I'm a colleague of Dr Chamberlain's Okay please do Give me just a second here Thank you Okay so Dr Chamberlain is
the past chair and professor Emoretus in the department of electrical and computer engineering at the University of New Hampshire In more than 40 years of his work in academia he's performed research for over 25 sponsors including the National Science Foundation He's
received two Fulbright awards including the prestigious Fulbright Distinguished Chair He's also served as an associate editor for the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers the E and he regularly performs reviews for them and
other technical and scientific publications Dr Chamberlain also served on the New Hampshire State Commission that was convened through legislation to explore the impacts of wireless radiation Since serving on the commission he's been active in carrying out the recommendations of the
commission by working with legislators and community groups around the world Dr Chamberlain is a founding member of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields which is an international group of renowned scientists with expertise in
radiation and the biological effects He's the president of the environmental health trust and last summer he engaged in a speaking tour in Europe where he presented the findings of the New Hampshire Commission to a group that included the Royal Society of Medicine in London So Dr Chamberlain we're ready
for your presentation Thank you very much for reading that I know it's a mouthful but I do want to give you all a sense that I'm not I'm coming at this not as a a lite somebody who hates technology Far from it I uh I do have
some things that you know show I talk I will be talking about that reflect on the bad sides potential harms of technology but at the same time being a radio frequency engineer I know of solutions and I'll be talking about some of those as well but I think maybe to
the best way to move forward is to start showing my slides which I'm assuming you can see now yes thank you fantastic so I also need to have this conflict of interest declar claration You know so many people do that that you're going to be hearing from regarding this issue
have very much vested interests I don't I'm not being compensated to do what I'm doing and I don't have any tie or any tie to the outcome If you choose one way or the other it's not doesn't affect me So I'm really speaking to you today
as citizen to citizen And I should let you know also in addition to what Pam read uh I serve on a school board I'm chairing a school board and I've been on boards not dissimilar from the one I'm looking at right now for most of my career I've kept a hand in as a good
citizen or trying to be a good citizen So that's where I'm coming from And the next thing you'll want to know is okay is this guy qualified to give us comments And I'm not going to go through this in great detail I know it's a busy slide but you do need to know where I'm
coming from what my credentials are that allow me to say the things I'm going to say or to have you believe the things I'm going to say And uh seeing how uh you're looking at the screen you may not be able to see everything but I'll go through some of the highlights I started my professional career as a co-op
student working in electronic countermeasures for the Air Force So I got an understanding of what it jamming is and uh what the the basic parameters are Then I went to Ohio University and I did work on well avionics and so I did
computer modeling and made measurements on navigation communication systems including the instrument landing system microwave landing system the VHF omni range which is what VR stands for airto ground and ground air groundtoround
communication system So I in that in in that position I went out and I would create a model first of all or use somebody else's model and then validate the model was giving accurate results And that very much applies to what you're considering because you're
looking at coverage maps And that's what I've done through a lot of my career is taking models and making sure they give the results you want them to give Not no I better rephrase that that they that they give accurate results Uh so I did
develop my own models and I've published on about those models and I've worked for I think almost every government agency in helping them in predict you know where a signal will and will not be I then moved to uh from Ohio University
and became a faculty member at the University of New Hampshire in New Hampshire here and continued some of the same thing I did modeling and measurements of meteor burst communication for the air force I modeled uh air ground data link for the Federal Aviation Administration I
developed adjacent channel and co-ch models for the Federal Aviation Administration I did uh perform measured and modeled lowaltitude propagation effects for the US Navy Uh and then using measurements and modeling tools to evaluate alternative cell phone
communications for the Department of Justice and that's going to be particularly relevant to your issue when you're looking at alternative ways to provide coverage So I've developed and taught courses in computational electronics my electromagnetics my whole career and that includes having students
create their own propagation models So in terms of having the knowledge to be able to answer questions that I suspect that you would have uh I hope that I' I will have satisfied them or I can go into greater detail about each of those bullet points
So let me move forward and just what's my motivation for being here for presenting to you and that is after serving on this state commission and it's a formal state commission that was about five years ago I saw that there was a lot of misinformation going around about wireless
communication and some of that misinformation led to people being harmed and and I can go into greater detail about what that harm constitutes Ed and so kind of took it upon myself feel duty bound to spread the word I
found out something that does impact people's health and well-being and and and and then other things beyond that and I'm not going to I'm going to be able to provide to you I hope this evening So I can see that there's a fair number of people in the
room there and there may be a fair number of questions So I'd like to have this conversation be pretty much guided by you I have I could go on I can go on for the next hour easily with no interruptions but I want this to to to
when we're all said and done this by that you walk out of there going "Yeah I I have a pretty good idea of what's going on I have a much better feel for the issue So I don't want to just simply get up here and yak as I can do I'd like to have this be interactive." So if and
the reason I'm saying that is if you have questions if I say something that really you don't quite get or maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear on feel free to stop me So I I also want to note that I I'm not going to be providing you a detailed engineering analysis I'm going
to give you an overview and let you know what questions need to be asked And so I hope that the the answers that I give will help you make uh the right decision regarding the variance that's being sought So having said that I'll take a
breath and a sip So what's going on now is that you know cell towers are being put up near residential areas Uh and we saw that when we when I was serving on the commission commission ended in 2020 and
uh even during that time we saw this huge roll out of towers in and near residential areas and we wanted to know why So there were big changes then and are and now in where and how cell towers
are cited and things are changing and escalating and we're seeing a significant escalation in telecom companies citing towers or attempting to sight them outside their normal zoning areas because they are zoned for for industrial as you know and so they're
being put and varants are being sought so that they can be put in people's neighborhoods near their schools or even on their schools So that was one thing that we saw on the commission and it really raised some questions You know what's going on here
We are seeing people trying to put in cell towers in areas where there is already clear coverage clear cell phone coverage Why are they doing that Well the answer is it's part of a business model So let me run through this and
it's something that you're probably already familiar with Maybe not by looking at this but from the ads you've been hearing for wireless home internet because what you're looking at now on the left uh is what is wired And that's what most of us have
today That's what I'm talking to you over is wired internet And so it goes into everybody's home It doesn't matter if you have a cell tower nearby You still have lightning fast connectivity to the internet So the I don't know if you can see this very clearly from your
vantage point but you do have a cable going into each home and you can hook it up to your own in a wireless uh router if you want or you can just wired it to your computer In fact after serving on the comm commission I have it wired to
my commu computer now So that what is what exists right now and I have to pay a wireless provider I'm sorry a wired provider every month Now what telecom is seems to be shooting for this seems to be their business model and it's been confirmed by a number of people and that
is in instead of having these uh the wire having the internet go into everybody's home they've pulled it out of the homes and hooked it up to antennas near the home And so what the idea is is with wireless home internet and some of you probably are very
familiar with this You go to your local Verizon office or AT&T office and buy one of these little boxes It's a wireless home internet and it's got one plug on it and you plug it in and voila you have Wi-Fi in your home You don't
have to deal with that cable guy anymore And so it does offer a convenience and that is the idea and uh it's why that you need to have nearby strong signals in order to to make this idea work the
wireless home internet but it does have drawbacks So it's definitely going to be more convenient and the beginning and in the beginning it's going to look a lot cheaper You're not going to have to be dealing with that cable guy So it's taking one bill that you don't have to pay But it does introduce some major
problems And one is that it's a far greater exposure to wireless radiation I'm not sure what your feelings are about exposure to wireless radiation but on the commission we we felt that people should have the
opportunity to opt out In other words if they didn't want to be exposed they should be able to turn off their own devices and have very low exposure to electromagnetic fields But if you have wireless home internet it's likely that you'll have a tower close enough to your
home where you have no choice You're going to be exposed And uh I've done work with the Department of Justice and it shows that wireless communication can be unreliable and I don't think that'll surprise anybody Uh but they they u may not be
available in an emergency and that was one of the things the Department of Justice asked me to look at as a researcher You know what happens if cell towers become saturated be in an emergency situation when everybody grabs their cell phones and and what about
their hackability The fact that you have a signal being radiated out where anybody with an antenna can receive that signal means that you're not going you're going to be far more easily hacked than a wired solution such as the cable guy paying the gay cable guy And
and here's a surprise for a lot of people wireless devices can be jammed very easily and for example just do a Google quick Google on uh cell phone jammers and you'll come up with a lot of options for reasonable prices and why
that matters or there by way using them is illegal so you don't want to do that if you want to buy one be really careful that could get you in trouble but what you can do if you have one of these and you are a unscrupulous type and you want
to rob somebody and you know that they have wireless home security devices You don't like the uh you know the sensors wireless sensors wireless motion detectors wireless window opening detectors You simply go up to their home turn on the cell phone jammer and
everything shuts down including their connection to the internet if they have wireless home internet So they go in they burgle you they turn their jammer off walk away and you never knew that what hit him hit you So there there are issues like that cyber security issues
that you should be aware of as a zoning board And there's another thing and I don't know if this is something that a ZBA will consider but by if people do go to with you know a large percentage of people go with a wireless home internet
a lot of these cable companies are going to dry up making the only way to communicate available to the internet is going to be through the that uh the wireless approach So just saying that
there are a lot of problems associated with this with the wireless home internet and I don't know how you uh what you need to assume or what you need to know about that and I can maybe give you a give a pause here and see if you
have comments or say Kent you're going in the wrong direction or can yeah can you tell us more about something because I I can tell you a lot more about this Well and Kent can I pop in What I'd like to mention too is that um some of you in the ZBA have probably heard about a
month ago or two there was a lot of reporting on the transnational gangs that were going around the country that were robbing people's homes Oftentimes there were athletes that were targeted and they were using the jamming that Dr Chamberlain's talking about A lot of more fluent areas have been targeted
this way And unfortunately with some of our convenience we're seeing some vulnerabilities that have some pretty significant consequences that we need to be aware of when we decide about how we're going to site the infrastructure in our communities right Um and so what people uh what the
companies the telecom has to do sometimes is they have to seek these variances that Pam just mentioned And doctor yes sorry to interrupt Be hard for you to see I have a woman in in the audience who wants to ask you a question Can you It's a quick question Can you just identify yourself please Julie Page
owner Nine Miner Street Thank you My quick question is this We can't get landlines anymore because of what's happened with the cable company You know no matter what it is you're trying to put in you can't get a standard landline I'm an EMTN firefighter for the fun of
it I do disaster response for fun I became a ham radio person because when the systems go out that's all you've got left to communicate between ambulance and hospital If we're stuck with only wireless any from what you've seen in
your studies any chance landlines traditional landlines might come back Well that would be great if they did come back And I would say keep your wired connection if you can because I even if our phone goes down of course our fi phone is tied in with breezeline
So yeah you could have robust phone communication with wired connections that you won't be able to enjoy with wireless Thank you And thank you for your service by the way Um so let's say that you're a
telecom company and you want to you're trying to justify putting in enough infrastructure to make this wireless home internet work Well what do you do You have to show you have to demonstrate a gap in coverage in many cases and
that's what's going on in your case as I understand it And so the ways to show that one would be a dropped call log and that is the gold standard And so if you have a company that's claiming there are gaps but they don't provide a the gold
standard for you I would look at that very much a scance I'm not in your position right now I'm not serving on your board but that's something that I would really demand knowing what I know now And that's why I think you're you're listening to me right now is to find out
what somebody who's been in this field a while knows So no dropped call log There's probably not dropped calls And I'll back that up in just a moment uh measurements and probably the best way is just if the there's a claim about
gaps a gap in coverage question go and oh doctor I'm sorry Dr Yeah you you said it was okay to interrupt you but yes absolutely Absolutely And uh I'm the designated interrupter So
nice to meet you Nice to meet you too Uh my name is Terry and Can you see Terry or hear Terry I can hear Terry Terry It's kind of a question Sorry full name and where Terry Kashner Street in Greenville Yes Thank
you Um is this really about what he said or is it about a variance Is it really about coverage or is it about whether you're going to grant a variance I mean all right Can I can we put that question aside for now
Okay good question Let him continue and people can ask him about his presentation and there will be a point in time when I will you can come back to me if I forget but I will answer your question Okay All right Thank you because it will take more than a minute Could I ask Okay wait If is your
question relative to Dr Chamberlain Yes please And name Kami can't please Can Okay Milan Dragovich on High Street in Greenfield Thank you Um thank you for this presentation Kent Um you mentioned
that it's increased wireless radiation Can you maybe you're going to get into this uh a little bit later in your talk What is the nature of that wireless radiation What in fact does it do to the environment or the body Uh I've heard
various things over the years Cell phone comp you know we all have these smartphones in our pocket The smartphone uh companies deny that there's any u causal effects Uh it doesn't seem to interest the media much from what I'm
gathering Main main mainstream media So what what are what is the latest I guess on the this wireless radiation and you're saying it's much higher with these with these towers and what what does that mean in terms of real
oh my gosh you have asked the question that perhaps I should hold back on I when I agreed to do this it was suggested that I really focus on the engineering to begin with I have a full presentation that I can give to tell you
what an independent uh commission of experts found that answers your question directly And I hope that we can get to that And I hope I'm allowed to present that information because that's really key Even though you can't use the healthy or in the environment to to turn
down a permit you can you should know it as being board members you should know what the harm is c what c is caused by exposure to radiation and I definitely can can answer that question in excruciating detail if you'd like but uh
perhaps the best thing for me to do now is just get through some of the engineering questions and then I can go right and I'd like to go into what we found on the New Hampshire commission does that sound like a a reasonable sure please name name My name is Shannon
Yes Can you stand up so we can Mr Chairman please Just a procedural thing for the minutes It'd be good if they could give their numbered address for the meeting so I can do the meeting minutes Sometimes I can't catch the name but if I know the address I can look it up Did you not get the address No they
they all just said the street name Nobody gave us a number Minus 210 High Street Thank you sir Go ahead Can you give it again Can you please stand up Yes it would be helpful trans and your name and address again My name is Shannon Tink I'm about 49 Thank you And
all I'm asking I know that and said he hopes that he can get to the health stuff and I know that for myself like my family's here I know some like three other neighbors of mine are here and even some other people that I know that we're all here for that information So
if we could definitely cover that that feels like the reason why we're here tonight Um so I just hope that we could get to that far as I probably Okay by a show of hands is this why most people are here Yes Well I'm glad to to have that
information Okay that's fair Um and that said Kent and just for the audience to know Dr Chamberlain does cover this You know he wanted to meet the asks of the ZBA that he used his engineering um analysis to be able to discuss the variance So there's a short presentation
on that as well And then if you want him to expand on the public health piece he's capable of doing that Um that's up to you guys You guys do it but it's going to be it's up to me Thank you Thank you
Um All right So I need a minute to think about this I do want all of you to get the information from Dr chamber So I'm going to allow him to give that information to you You all have to understand if you're also
here to oppose the tower and you think this is the reason that the tower can be opposed That is not true Our board does not have the power to get involved in that aspect of
this permit And don't misunderstand me I may feel after listening that I don't like anything he's saying and that I want to react to what he's saying in some way but that is not what I can do on this board So I'm happy to do this because
we're all citizens together and let this happen but I want you to understand So if you have things if if I will let Dr Shaman speak on other matters but it's the other matters that matter to the variance and the special permit not this it is something that I need I mean
can I be any clearer than that I'm going to let him speak but I just have a clarify yes but you're saying that even if he was to say the worst thing that it is absolutely terrible for people's health and it should not go into a residential
neighborhood that will not play any part in your decision- making process and you'll just ignore it regardless of what we say No I didn't say that at all So but you're saying it's not coming into the equation on how you can you know get these people Is that there's an equation
in which we get from point A to making a decision There's an equation call it an equation if math is the thing This is not part of our equation Now we can condition the tower to follow
FCC guidelines so that you know that the whatever the US government says is safe is going to be followed with it But we cannot incorporate this information into our decision Number one And number two that would mean that the applicant would also get a chance to bring their expert
to tell us maybe that this isn't really what's going on at all So we're not this is not our jurisdiction but I'm happy for you all to hear this If you think it's a good tutorial and if it's good for our city councilors and it's good for other people that are legislators
and you think you want to talk to them about this that's fine We are we're judges We're not legislators So we judge based on what is in our jurisdiction to judge I'm just telling you that that if we were to incorporate this into our decision it would be appealed and
overturned and the tower would be allowed So you do not want us to make this the reason if we decide not to have the to grant the variance So you just have to understand that I'm saying that from my heart So you have to understand that's the way it
works I'm happy to have him speak I'm happy to listen Maybe some cells in my body will be affected by what I hear but I am not going to put that into any of the decisions We're not I'm not going to allow this to be a part of where how we decide the case Yes Just to be sure that
everybody fully understands Does it make sense to just provide the context around some of the federal laws that say that this isn't our choice as a ZBA not would it be helpful if I gave a little tutorial about I think you need to provide that context for folks Okay I
think you should So ordinarily people come before us and we have jurisdiction over the case based on state law and local law Our ordinances and our ordinances have a lot of power
and the courts especially uh have said that localities have a right to control their existence through zoning to some degree especially health and safety Okay So that's the norm
What we've all had to learn is that this time there's a federal law that specifically says in it we know that these local communities are not going to be happy with us putting these cell towers in So we're going to write language that uh the constitution allows
us to write which is that because this is interstate commerce we get to supersede the local laws on some levels It it does pay lip service to local control but as you read the cases you you understand that that local control
has to come from a place that has nothing to do with the radiation I'll I'll start with that But it comes from a place of is this tower safe if it falls We have a safe we have 170 ft safe zone Is it safe if it falls Do they have a hardship on the
parcel Is this parcel shaped in a way that they it's impossible for them to achieve the 107 footfall Which is a fact They can't They were pushed over because of the wetlands and now the lot has different uh attributes And they're
asking us to say "Oh that's tough luck We'll grant you a variance." So that's what they're asking us to do under state law The special permit I think is more straightforward is that in our zoning laws if we don't want
something to happen for free like you can just walk in and get it done and your neighbors don't know anything about it nobody can comment on it and it just happens Those are called things that are allowed by right Then you have things that are allowed by special permit and those are things that we would like to see happen
but we want to give you all an opportunity to come in and tell us what you think about how they're approaching this particular use or structure and either tell us that it's totally out of line which is probably a hard standard to achieve or we want conditions on it And so your input and the applicant's
input all come together and we give a special also has to be compatible with the neighborhood and all those kinds of things But a special permit kind of means that we're looking for people to make that application A variance is make an exception to the general rule
And the law in Massachusetts provides certain factors that we have to look at And they're a sum they're summary They're not or one plus this plus this They all have to they have to meet all the criteria And it's difficult to get a
variance in Massachusetts Okay The circumstances really have to be I'll call for lack of a better word unique So I know your I know your brains are all moving around but just let me continue So now we're back We're circling back to the federal statute So
this federal statute says "Oh by the way if the carrier comes and proves that they both have a significant gap in coverage that needs to be filled because we the federal government are we we created this statute because we want
these gaps to be filled That's our primary purpose This law's primary purpose is to fill gaps in wireless cell service So they have to prove that this is the only place they could do it And if we say
no that there will be a tremendous gap in service area causing distress in the system that they're pro that they're that they're legislated to protect So if that were the case then that those
factors are defined as hardship like in Massachusetts variance law So now you have a federal statute defining hardship as not the shape of the lot or any of the unique factors or anything else But if they can't get sell surface guess what That is a
hardship And you have to consider that a hardship And and you have to consider the degree of that hardship when you're making a decision So those are the things that interest us Have they proved this a significant gap Is this the only place they can put this
is the 170 now that there's a remedy that they're proposing the applicant's proposing which is that there'll be a uh a part of the tower that will be softer than the rest of the tower So if there's a monumental event the tower will break and fall in the middle So it will land
within technically the the zone that we've created the 170 ft or whatever the the the distance is So in line with the federal statute they're also pushing us by saying well you've enacted this ordinance because of safety but we can overcome the safety concern and now you
have to look at it like the regular factors in in zoning and you know and we have a hardship here and you have to let us have our talent So those are the things doctor and I know attorney uh Campanelli will speak to all those things because those are
the things that we can really focus on But because you're all here to listen to this and thank you for listening to me uh I will go forward but I I'd like it to be maybe 15 minutes because I know you could probably give us all the without going into much more detail
So I'm gonna let you proceed for 15 minutes on the effects of radiation Well this is not the effects of radiation This is what you need to know to and what you need to do to justify and show that you have a gap And if you don't have talk about that if you want I
think people here want to hear the health effects of the radiation That's good Okay And I so I can jump right to that Okay Whatever they want It's your Okay I don't think there's a first of all I would like to make the statement on the record that I don't think there's
a gap uh look at what it takes to get a good phone call And I know this is a busy slide To have a great signal it's minus50 to -79 dBm That's just a rating of power Good signal is - 85 to - 89 And
then when you look at their map they're showing you know as good as everything that's greater than minus 85 So in other words I'm pretty confident you could go into this area right here and you'd be able to make a phone call just fine So I don't think there's a gap and
I can throw the question out to to everybody there Is is there a demonstrated gap outside You know can people go out and make a phone call Yes Yeah Oh yeah Yeah All right So this has not I don't think this has anything to do really with
complying with you know or filling a gap This has to do with putting up the infrastructure that will allow industry to put in wireless home internet So enough said And because people want to hear the the health and environmental impacts I'm simply going to join go
forward This the the commission I served on was formed by legislators They were the legislators were being told by their constituents that they were being harmed by wireless radiation And yet these same legislators were being told by industry that no it's totally harmless and you
need to put in more infrastructure So what did they do The legislators ca formed this bipartisan commission or this and they through bipartisan legislation that was to convene the right number of people to ask the right
number of questions to answer once and for all we had hoped uh whether or not wireless radiation is harmful And so in the end we ended up with 33 commission members This happens when I try to go quickly and I want do want to get quickly because there's some
things that I think you need to hear So in the final analysis we had uh people with backgrounds in medicine we had two medical doctors physics toxicology electromagnetics that was me epidemiology bioatistics occupational health etc So we had the expertise of
nonbiased experts of unbiased experts to make the to answer the questions that were being asked of us and I'll just give you the first question right here and that is why does the insurance company and why including uh Lloyds of
London they recognize wireless radiation as a risk but there's not an insurance company there around that will insure against it and there were a number of other questions that were pretty obvious you know there there clearly is a problem that is not being recognized in
with the limits that are set right now So what did we do in our over a year of the commission meeting We looked at peer-reviewed publications We we invited the regulatory agencies but none of them would come talk with us and provide us with the information about the harms of
wireless radiation or or whether or not or even if there were harms And we brought in outside experts people recognized nationally and internationally with expertise in the relationship between wireless radiation and health And all of them all of them
but one said "Yeah there's a problem." And they demonstrated why they thought it was They showed us the information they had that demonstrated that there were problems And that's except for the one presenter who was brought in by the telecom industry And that was the only presenter that was paid to be there And
that's why in the beginning I made it really clear that I wasn't getting paid to do this because the only people that I've ever heard claim that there are no harms associated with wireless radiation are those with some affiliation with the telecom or yeah with telecom So uh what
we found in our study is that the uh the only problems or the not the only uh to jump here um the mechanism is well known but the way that the long-term exposure to cellular cell phone and
wireless radiation it works on creating oxidative stress within the body And I think most people are familiar with free radicals and the fact that they're something you don't want to have because free radicals oxidative stress lead to chronic inflammation that lead to a host of diseases including the one shown
right here And I'm don't have time with a 15 minutes to go over this in detail but if you look at what's been going on in this country in the past well 25 years or more you've seen this very significant increase Alzheimer's for
example has more than doubled since the year 2000 You look at what's going on in diabetes You know it starts out with relatively low in 2004 but then as the years increase the incidence of age
adjusted diabetes type two diabetes has been increasing So what happened between 2004 and 2012 Well that's when the iPhone came out 2007 So we're seeing these marked increases in these diseases
that have been shown to be associated with radiation exposure And then you can see the same thing for tumors an increase in tumors and brain tumors not necessarily malignant tumors but tumors By the way a tumor doesn't have to be malignant to
kill you A brain tumor in particular So we're also seeing this increase in Parkinson's disease And and notice the break points on this curve Wow I mean that's really significant I I know people that have Parkinson's and I now that I that never I knew people never
before knew that people that had Parkinson's So I'm going kind of quickly so but but feel free to interrupt me So what has changed in the period of time roughly between well the 1990s
and present day is our exposure to electromagnetic fields And I'm we can judge that by the wireless network density in the United in the US start off 2004 and you can see that as we step
forward in years to 2008 to 2012 to 2019 my gosh at 2019 which six years ago it's hard to find a place where you don't have exposure to electromagnetic fields So another one that can very much convince the commission that there was
something going on You know it wasn't what industry was telling us Industry was saying which some of you I think somebody just said there that it's harmless Well uh this is something that has been known for quite a while This is a 2004 report And that is if you do a
comet assay on uh DNA here's a single cell of DNA a control You pluck it out and you do the assay on it It's nice and symmetric You expose it to equivalent of in this case 6,600 chest X-rays You
would expect to see a problem As we know that X-rays are ionizing radiation and so you'd expect to see this type of effect And but you see the same type of ex effect when you expose a cell or DNA cell to wireless radiation like a mobile
phone as is shown right here So clearly something is going on Um something else and I I I'll try to go through this quickly because this answers some questions very directly and that is uh death rates from cancer versus distant
people live from a cell tower And this is very much applicable to the question you're addressing And this is a peer-reviewed article uh and explored the relationship between cancer deaths or the death rate and the distance people lived from a cell tower They
collected the data They the the researchers used a government database to find out you know when people died of cancer where they lived with respect to a a cell tower And so they were able to come up with the death rate versus distance people live from a cell tower
And so they looked at a large number of cases you know over 7,000 cancer deaths for over 800 towers And if you are understand statistics you realize that having these large numbers gives you a high degree of confidence in in the
results obtained Now what's important here is this study was done between 1996 and 2006 And the reason I say that's important is that during that time frame not many people in that area in the area where this test was done the study was done had their own electronic devices
had their own cell phones And so what we're looking at is simply the effect of living near a tower and not the effect of their own electronics So the results of the study can be shown in a single slide which is this one right here And what you're looking at with the
blue line is the death rate by a cancer as a for the population in general What you're seeing in the red trace is the uh for people in the study who lived within a kilometer of the of a cell tower what their death rate was And it's monotonic
as you can see So the farther you get away from the cell tower the closer you get to the death rate by cancer for the population in general It's pretty clear and pretty convincing The the New Hampshire Commission chose 500 meters as
a reasonable place to be reasonable Uh frankly I'd like to be farther than that but we realized that by our recommending a setback distance farther than that that wouldn't be acceptable to industry So we just said 500 meters that seems to be
reasonable Now this is not just a one-off study uh there have been other studies and in fact since then there I I need to update this slide there have been a lot more than 38 studies as you're seeing right here a meta study is where you take the results of previous studies and you combine them all
together to come up with even more believably statistically significant results and most of them showed that yeah they're er effects they're negative effects and uh something that kept appearing is that a distance of 500 meters from a cell tower appears to be a
reasonable I don't I'm not saying safe Some people will tell you there are no safe distances for radiation of this type So at this point you might be uh wondering well what are the standards How were they set And this is uh there
were turns out that they were actually set in the 1980s So the standards that are set for what we are exposed to today The standards were set in the 1980s and they're based on behavioral studies of monkeys
shortterm behavioral studies lasting an hour or less And this is for our 247 exposure And the way they did it is they said well the only thing that's going to hurt you from a cell phone or cell tower or wireless radiation is the heating effect And so if it doesn't heat you up
like a microwave would heat you up then it's not going to harm you So that was their assumption And what they did is they took these animals These animals were food deprived and they had been trained to push a lever to get food So they were food deprived at the beginning of the study They were put into a cage
and then they ramped up started ramping up the exposure the radiation they were exposed to until the animals could no longer push the lever and get food That's why it's called a behavioral study And that would that upper limit at which they could no longer press the
lever for food was designated as that the threshold dose Now some of the monkeys had burns on their faces at that point but they said that's the threshold dose and then they took that value that number divided it by 50 that you know
the number of they represented the exposure divided it by 50 and said well that's the exposure that should be safe for the population in general By the way if you're dealing with chemicals uh and looking at chemical exposure you would
take a safety factor of in the thousands But in this case it's well 50 should be fine It's totally arbitrary It's not based on any relative risk that they were trying to achieve because they don't know the relative risk And again emphasizing that this study was done in
an hour or less And the reason that is just not a good way to do it is let's look at long-term exposure because that's we we know to be effect to be the problem You know if you look at only the short-term effect of smoking for example
we could do a study where we would have people smoke a pack of cigarettes each within an hour and if they all lived we'd say "Hey smoking must be safe." Well we know that's not the case So let's look at this uh the slide that's in front of you right now Here you have a mast on the left and then uh 465 ft
away from it you have a tree and back in 198 I'm sorry 2008 looking pretty good but you go seven years after that and my gosh what's happening to the left side of that tree and if you go another seven years four years they had to finally cut
the tree down and what's important here is if you look at uh what's in in the red circle right here is that the exposure on the left side of the tree was only 0.03% of the FCC limit I mean it's the
long-term exposure that we're concerned about and it's why we're so concerned about kids in school being exposed It's why we're so concerned about people being exposed by cell towers in their sleep And the values of they might see in their home from having a nearby cell
tower could very likely be greater than the values that I'm showing you right here So why is this happening And I think this is something else you need to know and it certainly had an impact on us in the commission and that is captured agency How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated
by the industries it presumably regulates This is not from some extremist website This is from the Harvard University Center for Ethics And what it shows here is that industry controls the FCC And they have this
revolving door here where people who run the FCC well they then one year they're going to be running industry or have a high position in industry the next year and they'll keep going back and forth And there are plenty of examples of that that are documented in this report So
you might want to Google simply Harvard FCC captured and you'll come up with this report It's it's good reading And what that report shows is how the industry is keeping us in the dark And that's why I feel compelled to be out here talking to you tonight because
you're not going to be hearing this information from many other sources because who has a huge influence on the media but one of media's major advertisers that is telecom and also who owns a lot of telecom telecom is own the
people who will own telecom off also own a lot of media outlets So uh they use a lot of money and they know how to use it Yeah Kent I'm going to I'm going to interrupt you for a second Yeah I I appreciate all that you're It feels like you're off the health issues and you're more into
telling us a little more information that I appreciate but um we're running you know time is is is important So are you done with the health presentation Uh let me make sure Uh yeah Yeah I
really am But just remember what uh you I can't see you guys well enough to know if you're old enough to remember commercials like these but cigarettes do not cause cancers It be careful when you have people from industry funding things like this that
tell you it's okay It's not But you can see that it's something that it radiation low-level wireless radiation is something that happens over time and you don't want to have it near your home Okay Thank you Uh are there more are there more things relevant to the
factors that I expressed regarding the variance for example Uh you said you were going to talk about some safety issues Well the safety issue was in the middle of talking about dropped calls and I'd like to hear that information Okay I'll go back to that Okay So yeah you need to
prove it If you have you're claiming that there are dropped calls how do you prove it And I did want to say things about mapping because uh I'm going to go back to the map and show it show it off Um and I certainly understand the time
crunch So if you look at the maps that are provided and I I did right So once you got me started I I jumped away from this and right here you should see it Um it they show this gap in coverage Well that's for they're only showing in green
things that are a very good and strong signal But what it's pretty clear to me is that you have uh plenty of signal in this area right here You you don't have an issue You don't need another tower unless you want to put in the 5G home
internet Now I'm not a believer I'm a I'm a very much a believer in modeling but what I am not a believer in is looking at just modeled results that are just tossed at you I I I've seen too many times where there's an effect
called GO Garbage in garbage out And so they're just presenting a map How do you know it's right And so the thing that is oftentimes required when you're providing model data is you have to at least have some calibration point and
some validation information Okay Yeah What if they gave what if they gave us the dropped fall data How would we know it's I mean how would we know it was honest either I mean how we we the only way we could know this is this is
accurate is one to bring our common sense to it Yeah And the other based on what you just said is um you know what is it that we want as a community and uh you know if the community wants 5G internet then maybe maybe that tower is
a good idea So you know it's all I so I thank you very much Are there other things that um that you that are different from the is that was he helpful That's fine Um
No no please Um is there anything else that other areas that you want to talk about Then if there are people here that want to ask you questions that's fine but I just want to get an idea of what's left for your presentation Well I mean I I whipped through some things and I could
have spent more time in explaining more deeply but the bottom line is that you take a commission of of experts uh who have expertise to answer the question about the the effects of h on health and the environment of something like wireless radiation And we came to the
conclusion that yeah it's harmful and you should do things to protect people against it And towers should be located no closer than 500 m which is 1,640 ft from where people live work or recreate Okay Well that's that's a good point and
thank you We we did get that Go ahead Small quick question about name again just for the record just so we can hear it Page nine Minor Street um 5G 4G 3G whatever Antique buildings
my 4G and my 3G work better than 5G especially when I'm in an antique building which we have a lot of around here And so to try to get coverage I work in a spot on Main Street and if my cell phone goes off I got to
walk out to the sidewalk to get it to work I didn't have to do that with my 4G when you're looking at these coverage and dropped calls is the fact those calls to be dropped under 4G at all part of the equation
Actually I'm glad you asked that question because I was going to talk about inbuilding reception I've got a lot of experience with that But there are lots of solutions There are some buildings where just for any of the G's just do not get inside that building For
example buildings with rebar metal roofs low e-lass those are have huge amounts of tend attenuation And so the solution there and it's a solution that I've implemented for people in the past is to get a a booster And so you can have an
antenna outside and then you have an antenna inside and your reception is perfect It's beautiful So that's that's one solution And you know that when you go into certain tuh tunnels like in some of the Boston tunnels you get great reception How do they do that Well they
use boosters Another thing that you might want to consider which is what I use also is uh Wi-Fi calling Wi-Fi calling works fantastic And so if you have Wi-Fi calli calling turned on on your phone and you don't have a signal
from the cell tower you get perfect reception from Wi-Fi and it works great So that would be my recommendation is just simply go onto your phone turn on Wi-Fi calling It's one of those one little switch and you'll find that you do have coverage that you need assuming
that you're connected to a Wi-Fi network in your in your building in your work You won't have to go outside again Okay Thank you Uh anyone else You have a question please Uh Kent this is Peter on the on the board At our la at our last meeting we had several community members
fire chief included that indicated there is a need for improved cell service in a need for better communications He did it from a operational sense So I know you're talking about definitive details but certainly listening to him giving us
examples of where he needs better service and other community members who indicated they did not have good service you know are part of what we've heard So you know for me it's hard to sift through that everything's fine yet we're having
people who provide community services for fire safety that are saying they're not Well I'm really surprised to hear that I've worked with our local fire department on their communications needs and they all all fire departments and police departments that I know of have their own independent communication
networks And so and the same thing is that if you're talking about there being able to use a cell phone in their buildings you can use a repeater or something like that a booster and and they work fine And I know that from experience So there are
always almost always uh other ways of doing things other than putting up a huge tower that's going to change the nature of your community and also make it so that some people cannot avoid being exposed there's this issue and I didn't talk about that and that's called
you know it had been called electromagnetic hypersensitivity it's real and that's what we found on the commission that's where there are people when they get near a cell phone or any type of RF generation generating device they can't be near they get headaches
they get nauseous this is it's a very real thing now people in industry will say no it's all in their heads it's not it's very real and that was a finding of the commission So you don't want to simply put up that tower And that's why really why I'm here and saying there are
always alternatives that can give you coverage Uh you saw the the level of signal that you need to have a robust call and it's not anywhere near the type of exposures that people would get living near to a cell tower
Okay Thank you Yes Alana can you Alana 167 I just want to acknowledge that I spoke last week uh around my in-depth interviews with the fire department in
Greenfield with the police department and the emergency responders the ambulance contractor And in all of those conversations no one indicated to me that there were significant gaps or any gaps that they were struggling with with cellular coverage and they use a radio
system as a backup Um the manager of the dispatch center at the the ambulance contractor said to me and I quoted it last week that the coverage in Greenfield is good There are no issues even up in the hills So what I'm trying
to say is that we had uh the fire chief say that to us last week Um I interviewed those those people in those different emergency responder um departments who contradicted that and because of the contradictions we need
the the town of Greenfield could take a deeper look at where are the coverage gaps and really explore this in a compreh comprehensive way The question we are looking at regarding this tower at this location is not the answer I
mean this is AT&T is coming in They're claiming a coverage gap that to me has not been substantiated with data a significant coverage gap And the these are you don't want to conflate what the fire department chief said with oh because he said that we
really need to look at approving this tower They're they're two different issues and I hope we can see the differentiation here If there are people want good coverage in Greenfield I acknowledge that I respect it People deserve it But there are ways to achieve
that in ways that do not harm neighborhoods and have the impacts that we're talking about Um and I'm not just talking about the health the health piece that Kent is talking about which is significant for many of us here There
are other issues with property devaluation The aesthetics of seeing a 100 foot tower looming over the sky for so many residents safety issues There are many many things Kent was talking about the home internet market and the
jamming of lines and the cyber security issues So I just I I understand that the fire chief brought this up that he pointed to two areas in Greenfield that have he has seen some areas that need improvement I understand that but please
I just don't I just want us to differentiate the two and focus on this application at this location There may be other way There are many other ways to improve cell service in Greenfield without putting a this 170 foot tower in
an area that is not zone current and requires a variance Yes ma'am Suzanne Flurry 97 Newton Street We're right across the street from the storage unit We saw the balloon test go up the other day is going to completely ruin
the aesthetic of the area from our our location Um it's insanely obvious It's far above the tree line Uh I work in it I work from home 3 days a week I have no
problem with cell phone coverage Uh I use Wi-Fi calling inside of my house and when I step outside my house my service is better Um I have not experienced dropped calls Uh I can see the highway I
can walk to the highway within 5 minutes Um I can walk to the offramp within two I don't see the need for this Yes I'll go back I'll get back Uh Stacey Jar 79 Newton Street Can you tell me
your last name for this Gig E Thank you Did you say Newton Street Yes 79 Thank you Um I also gave the test on Saturday and it confirmed to me that that tower is from my front door It's going to be
about at my 1:00 very close to my house Um and it's going to tower over the trees Um I definitely have some safety concerns There's a freight train that rumbles through the neighborhood several times a
day um that has not been discussed and I understand that there are provisions built into the tower to supposedly allow it to fall out of point but I'm not sure how much I trust
that or pieces flying off the top of it from such a height Um I additionally have concerns about devaluation of property Thank you Thank you I'm just taking notes so I'll be right with the next person
sir I live at 481 very I have two young children one is two five and u no expert I've been around for a long time
77 years old and at one point in my career I was the responsible building nuclear site police security force for a whole year during that time we took lots of courses in health
physics and the dangers of of But the building is for lowle radiation Every day we wore seminars okay which measured how much radiation you got And every day we were sure that you're not getting enough radiation get
more from the sun than you could which was it was it was all nonsense It was all they were all surveys they've done that that moved in in the direction of a vehicle the company that owned the
power point at the time Just coincidentally at that time uh 1980 pretty well only happened and plans to build Pilgrim 2 suddenly were show and that was because two there were
a couple reason One of them was that Pilg had the worst safety reason breathing in the whole country Okay we would bring people in to do work in the nuclear reactor okay And they would go into areas that were
hot but they would work for maybe a week and then they had to they had to take the rest of the gear off because their accumulation lowle radiation was so high that it was caught Now again they told us time and time again there
was no nothing to worry about but every day I would get a dose reading they I would write it down I went to a doc my doctor because my hair was falling out at that time and I I had here and it's it's left but I don't blame it on the nuclear side
both But um I went to the do my doctor and he said if I were you I'd find another job Something that doesn't expose you to lowle radiation I don't the one the one reason alone I stick to my mind but I have children and that
means we're going to be they're going to be exposed to lowle radiation that they would not normally be exposed to And I'm not talking about sunshine talking about real lowle radiation don't want that for them I'm at the point where if this
tower is approved I'm I know my property values are going down I'm going to move I'm not going to be within the area of that cell tower Just like the people who moved away from one okay years and years later surveys later showed that people who live just in proximity got cancelled
Why Oh little radiation dose of doses of it after a while I mean and that's just that's just I'm speaking from experience here okay When I first got there at the nuclear site I was terrified There was lead bricks floating around puddles in
places where they had meat And if you walk if you walked underneath the power lines with the with a light bulb it was kind of a joke When they were generating energy the light bulb would light right up Boom So what you can't see can't hurt you Okay I don't care what they're
selling at Thank you I just wanted to make a suggestion because we had um our presenters scheduled to speak first today That's what we were hoping So I was going to suggest that if there are people who
have comments and they cannot stay like later for other public comments maybe you should say yours we need to leave and then we could get back to the presentation I just want to propose that I don't know if Ken has finished his
presentation I know we still have Andrew Yes Michael I just want to point out that Mr Campelli or Attorney Campelli has got his hand raised for a little bit Yes sir Want to make you aware that attorney Campanelli is your is is that
on there because you want to speak Yes Okay Thank you speak Thank you Good evening Uh for those of you who don't know me my name is Andrew Oh hold it Is it Is it to make your presentation or did you want to Yes Oh yes Well I wanted
to make a comment earlier but it's a little late for it So I can wait for the presentation It's up to you I'm gonna ask you to just hold one more You've been very patient so I'm I'm going to I'm going to use your patience to my advantage Um okay You folks are This is your
presentation You know who these people are We'll stay here and listen for a reasonable amount of time which for me is a for you is a long period of time So I need somebody to be in control You seem to be in control of the events You do you want to ask what Can I can I make one more comment as part of the comments
Yes Um my name is Buana Disovich 2 High Street Um I'm nowhere near the area where the tower apparently is going to go up but I wanted to bring to your attention a case that is currently being fought not far from here Maybe some of you are familiar with
Pittsfield There's a group of uh residents in Pittsfield Massachusetts who has been battling a very very long and glorious case with Verizon tower going up in their own neighborhood And the tower in 2020 was built in a
residential neighborhood Shortly after the residents who live near the tower had started experiencing health issues including children uh the uptick of illness has gone has increased so much that few years later the department the board of
health of Pittsfield had to be involved and I will read something just uh so that I don't misinterpret their um information Basically the uh the group of residents has sued Verizon um and has
asked them to either remove the tower or lower the emissions And I'm just trying to exemplify to you that once the tower goes up is it's such a hard it's almost impossible to get them to change or take
it down because they hide behind the FCC outdated emission laws that as um our presenter had mentioned have not been updated since uh 1986 way before we had cell phones and
wireless um radiation So they're absolutely inadequate Um so in 20 uh two years later in 2022 the board of health um in Pittsfield this is what it says In
February 2022 the board after reaching the health impacts of radio frequency radiation emitted by the tower issued a cease and desist order to Verizon unless the telecom giant agreed to discuss removing or relocating the tower Verizon
of course sued and they have been in limbo ever since So if you make a decision to build that tower in a residential area you're basically con convicting these people to either relocate or for them to become
permanently sick And I will I will just read one last quote from one of the residents who is the plaintiff and who has been injured by the cell tower The injured neighbors still living in Shel Town want to live safely in their own
houses without feeling dizzy nauseous without experiencing palpitations aids cardiac issues migraines and other neurological symptoms We have been begging for help for the last four years 7 months and 21 days And up until the board of health became involved all we
had is fingerpointing on whose responsibility it is to deal with the community health problem It feels like Verizon just wants us to shut up and die So I think we have a precedent of what happens when a cell tower goes up
in a residential neighborhood where he doesn't have any business of being in Thank you Thank you Thank you for sharing that information Um okay So Campanelli is Yes Oh I'm sorry I left
my eye behind I know I know you didn't get this Can I ask you to fail Are you on the paper No Let me know what you're doing Okay Thank you Does allow for people's rights to their privacy
I have a question for Kent Chamberlain Uh Eric Green on the zoning board of appeals My question is this Have you heard about other bodies such as this zoning board or planning boards
who have successfully challenged uh proposals to put up a cell a cell tower and where there was a question about the gap in coverage and if so what data was used to
successfully challenge the um claims of the cell phone companies that they had a gap in coverage that needed to be filled so that we can have some guidance on what kind of data we need to have at hand to make a a challenge if that's
appropriate Well Attorney Campelli probably can provide you with some good information there himself but what I've I Yes the answer is yes I've seen it happen in multiple municipalities where people are first of all are unaware of the harms of wireless radiation So they
are thinking along the lines of initially like what I heard somebody say a moment ago and that is yeah they want to have greater cell phone coverage that seems to be a priority but then once people hear about the harms of wireless radiation then they take action So I've
seen people be successful at the grassroots level and one way to do it is to go into the claimed areas of gap you know just have people do this you know go in make a phone call from in within the gap areas and then you know uh sign
an affidavit say "Hey I you know I was here and I was able to place a phone call." And that to a large degree discredits the what's being said by the or in the claims of gap areas existence So that's just one thing You you also want to have a well-known and and very
successful attorney like attorney Campanelli to kind of guide you through that process What is it that you need to collect What is it that you need to do to be successful in denying a tower and people are doing it so it's not like this is you'd be the first No not by any
means Lots of communities have done that And then after that yeah my question was specific and perhaps attorney camp will address this to challenges that have survived the appeals process in the courts because there are plenty of
places that have turned down uh towers but that was then overturned by uh the courts as not being sufficient Yeah I think attorney Campanelli that probably wants to address it But again attorney Campanelli your patience is just so thrills me
So how about uh Kent are you are you ready to wrap up or are you going to stick around in case there are other questions or how what what's Well actually I have to leave I'm going out of town and so I need to go pack and have dinner
Okay that's good Thank you Thank you very much for coming No other questions right Everybody's good Okay Thank you Thank you so much Yeah Yeah Attorney Camp I'm going to ask you for like the gold standard of patience which is that we're going to have to take a
five minute break because you could see how old we all are So we will be back and then we're going to be ready Obvious otherwise it'd all be our legs will be moving up and down You know what I'm saying Okay Let's take a five minute break Thank you David
figure that out Welcome to the This might be a little better than this chicken That is the general question
editors first So many ways to solve that So many ways to solve it It doesn't involve often times I don't understand the whole else I
also think about against all locations I don't I don't know where to get you a copy of it but it's in bottles It's warm out Yeah it's getting warm That's good
That helps That's on medium Too young No never too young to retire What Oh no You have to work 40 years to get 80%
Yeah I mean some people have reached 80% but they've never worked anywhere else their whole lives Maybe I've traveled the world [Music] and merge all that But I'll have to
still I keep telling everybody it's an individual decision You wake up one morning and you know when you want to retire I mean work to me has always been a job not a career No I enjoy it Yeah Yeah So like people life is a job No man The only
reason I work is I have to work See I don't but I never work I got called my wife at 2:30 in the morning 91 in hard I was 66 years old our asset
retiring I'm down here with a crew We lost a highway One guy was 10 years Another guy was 20 years with a bad guy Nice oldest guy I'm getting out of here
Connecticut was the biggest I just read a posting from LinkedIn The jobs like radiation therapists and neutral ear technicians had 65 60 million job openings last year Not us What is our next the last one
that I was made one at this point for us made it's not it's not there is ours thank you September we had to be done by the end of May
right yes May 30th is the cut off okay they ask for another oh yeah they could you sign an agreement the board we have to make every effort to get to the finish line by the end of May It's possible to get to the end of the
finish line by the end of May Then we'll all know it and we'll figure it out But are you optimistic It depends on It depends No I I I Yes I am on some levels that let's put it this way I'm optimistic that we will move
forward in good faith to get to the right answers and whatever wherever that leads us We all know what your summary was really good I thought it was very good at pointed out to them That's because I
I've been learned not around the cell phone but the development was the same kind of thing but our procedures process but they don't have they don't we we
have our concerns because of what we're allowed to People need they have they have different they have different concerns rightfully so if I lived in the neighborhood I'd have a different concern not the missing tic tac alcohol we're starting
across the way You know what I will take you with that story moved We need to finish You good Attorney Campanelli thank you again in sincerity
for being so patient Your your turn Go Okay Thank you So I'll be very brief in my introduction My name is Andrew Campanelli I'm hold Can we please respect our speakers and allow them to have the screen so everyone can see that So we have to
change the view just like we have done with Okay this place if you ask a question happy to help you but that's not what you're doing So what is it we like to do So as
we've done with other speakers um we have it doesn't matter what we do with other speakers What would you like us to do We enlarge it so we can see Yes I think we can try to do that Okay Uh Eric can we try to do that I can try to do it I can't guarantee I can do
it but let's see View View should be the option Let's see Speaker Hey It wasn't hard You all set when you are we good Good Okay So again I am an attorney I've been
handling uh wireless cases regulations since the Telecommunications Act was adopted back in 1996 So it's over 30 years I've handled cases not just across the state of New York and Massachusetts but across the entire United States of America I've dealt with every type of cell phone issue you can possibly think
of So let me start with some very intelligent questions that were asked by members of the board with regard to evidence Um Dr Chamberlain was correct that this applicant has failed to provide you with any probative evidence to establish there's an actual need for this facility either for a significant
gap in personal wireless services or a capacity deficiency Now um in I hope that each of you have seen the memorandum opposition which I previously submitted along with the exhibits in opposition Normally if there was an actual gap in service what a carrier
would do is they would come to you and say look based upon the topography in your city the minimum signal strength we need to maintain reliable wireless service is minus 98 dBmi they will then do a drive test where they record the actual signal strength throughout the city Then they give you the signal
strength data that shows you three things The existence of a gap the locations of the gap and the boundaries of the gap They didn't do that here with good reason because there are no gaps Attached to the exhibits that I've submitted to you as exhibit
F is the actual coverage map from the FCC showing that AT&T has no gaps in service at the precise location where they want to build this facility The signal strength does not drop too low to maintain a call In response and this is
particularly troublesome the applicant's attorney sent a response dated April 8th and pulled what I call a bait and switch in their response trying to explain away the fact that according to the FCC there are no gaps in coverage and by the way they have to provide AT&T has to provide
the coverage data to the FCC to get federal grant money and when they do so they do so under threat of criminal penalties for filing false instruments so usually the FCC's maps are the most accurate maps of coverage that you can possibly get so in response they claim
that if you if I would have looked there would have been disclaimer and if I look at the FCC's map with the disclaimer it shows that the FCC's map is close to the map they presented to you but it's not If you look at the map they presented you right on the top it says FCC
National Broadband Map invehicle mobile coverage So I provided you the actual map for their cellular phone coverage and in response they pull a bait and switch and they give you a map for their broadband coverage They are two completely different things You are not
required to allow them to build a cell tower for boardband This is exactly what Dr Chamberlain was talking about This has nothing to do with cellular coverage Now one of your board members asked about what evidence can we get Well here's the way it works Under federal
law you get to decide what evidence you can require an applicant to produce to prove number one that they have a significant gap in personal wireless services that requires the building of this tower or a capacity deficiency You also get to choose the weight to give
any piece of evidence they submit to you This applicant doesn't get to walk in and say "We have a gap so you got to give it to us." It doesn't work that way So let's talk about the evidence you can ask for You absolutely positively can call ask for the dropped call records They're called denial of service records
I know that because I get them on a regular basis In fact as we speak today I'm representing the county the county of Mammoth in New Jersey in a case Verizon Wallace Wireless versus the County of Monmouth New Jersey It's in the United States District Court The
index number is 23-CV-18091 I did not handle the zoning application case After the zoning application was denied Verizon sued MAME claiming that they had a capacity deficiency and thus the denial was an effective prohibition on the TCA And I walked into federal court New Jersey and
said if they claim they have a gap excuse me a capacity deficiency they have to produce the dropped call records And the federal judge ordered them to produce the drop call records And there were thousands of pages of records regarding alleged drop calls which shows they don't really have a gap They were
claiming that existed So you absolutely have the right to demand they provide probitative evidence of the capacity deficiency And those are denial of service records i.e drop call records And they can do it very easily They can hit a few keystrokes into AT&T's computer and they can print out a list
of all drop calls to any geographic location for any chronological period in time Now what about claims of a gap in service The same thing You can demand actual hard data You can require them to do a drive test Um I would ask you to look at the Xanet case Very important
case for your purposes Xanet Systems versus the village of Flower Hills The citation is 617F sub3rd 125 Eastern District of New York 72922 This was one of my cases Xanet went into the village of Flower Hills
and wanted to build wireless facilities every 150 ft in a residential neighborhood for broadband claiming it was for 5G They refused to provide data other than data regarding 5G service and their attorneys produced evidence claiming that they established that
Verizon had a gap in its 5G service Based upon May recommendations and their lack of evidence the village turned down the application Verizon sued in federal court Here's the citation The court threw it out The court said to prove that there's a gap in service You can't
just prove there's a gap in 5G service The applicant has to prove that one of its customers cannot use its phone to connect to a landline That's what they said and the court explained how it works If for argument sake Verizon has a gap in 5G service and someone's driving
through the village on a phone call using 5G service and the signal strength drops too low to maintain the call your phone will simply downshift to 4G or 3G or 2G and the user won't even know it And so simply proving
that you have gap in one frequency which is precisely what they're doing here does not establish a significant gap in service as a matter of law It's clear So you have the right to say to the applicant you got a gap in service give us the drive test data Give us the
actual recorded signal strengths You got a capacity deficiency give us the denial serer records also known as the drop call records You have the right to demand it And more importantly you have the right to choose how much weight to give whatever evidence they've given you And the propagation they maps have given
you I respectfully submit to you are nonsense They don't address all of the frequencies at which AT&T provides its services They claim that to have good service in the city they need a signal strength of between 400% and 21% higher than the signal strength that
AT&T needs to provide wireless services anywhere else in the United States It's nonsense And just so you understand the way the dBA measurements work is the closer you get to zero the stronger the signal strength Every 3dBM you change the signal strength doubles So in most
of my cases all across the country Verizon AT&T T-Mobile say the signal strength they need for reliable wireless service is minus 98 dBm If you go down to 90 95 it's twice as strong If you go to minus 93 it's 400% stronger They're
claiming they need minus 83 Why didn't signal strength 2,000% stronger in your city to provide wireless service than they need anywhere else in the United States If you can figure that out you're smarter than I am Now the first thing you're dealing with is a variance
application The variance of law is very clear Oh let me back up The reason this is so important and why you have to make a factual determination as to whether or not this applicant has proven number one it suffers from either a significant gap in personal wireless services or a capacity deficiency and
number two its proposed facility is the least intrusive means In fact the only viable means of rememing that gap and there are no possible alternative locations is because if and only if they prove to your satisfaction both of those things that nothing else matters You
have to grant the application even if it violates every other section of your code But you get to make those factual determinations not them Now putting that aside because I don't think there's any probative evidence through which they can claim to have established those things You look at the standard for a varian for a variance You know what they
are has to be a substantial hardship by the applicant Without proof that they actually need this to provide wireless services there is no substantial hardship Also they have to show it's their burden that granting the application won't nullify or substantially deviate from the purpose
of the zoning regulations There are reasons you adopted a special use permit requirement site plan approval requirement and distance and height limitations for and they were to prevent the precise types of adverse impacts that the irresponsible placement of this
facility at this location will inflict upon the nearby homeowners You know what they are Number one you're going to have an adverse aesthetic impact It's clear I cited in my brief the Omnioint case What how can you prove that there'll be an adverse aesthetic impact Well federal court omnipoint which is cited in the
brief said the persons in the best position to both know and understand both the nature and the extent of adverse aesthetic impacts that homeowners will suffer are the homeowners themselves And so they provided you with letters which rise to a level of substantial evidence And they talk about how the colossal proposed
tower equivalent to a 16 or 17 story tower building would be visible from all the side and rear windows of our home These are the precise types of adverse aesthetic impacts you adopted your special use permit requirement and site plan requirements to prevent in the
first place So granted this variance much less the special use permit not only violate your code it would inflict upon the nearby homes the precise types of adverse impacts that your code provisions were adopted to prevent in the first instance Then if Kaishi got the fall zone there's a reason that all
jurisdictions across the United States impose setback zones for cell towers In most cases the standard is 110% of the height of the tower It's to protect the dense the dangers of structural failure ice fall debris fall fire Please go to
my memo the exhibits on my memo and take a look at exhibit B Exhibit B shows many examples My favorite is the Oswiggo cell tower collapse This is a 165- ft cell tower that was supposed to be able to collapse on itself that only two weeks
after it was built went from being 165 ft tall to being 172 foot long crushing a fire chief's vehicle in the process And I always ask town board members and village board members planning board and ZBAS if they can't build tower stand up in the first place what makes you think they're going to be any better at making
it fail the way they want it to fail And the answer is they can't Look at exhibit B and you see plenty of examples where cell towers collapse to a distance greater than the actual height of the tower So there is no way they can justify obtaining a variance for relief
from the minimum distance necessary to protect the surrounding properties from the potential danger of structural failures which happen on a regular basis By the way does any if anybody has any questions please ask me Um you guys asked some very very good questions
which shows you know what you're doing Um and I really appreciate that Sometimes I deal with boards that really just don't understand the process So and anytime somebody has a question please let me know Um there's talk about the fire department or the police department needing this There is no evidence
whatsoever in the record that your fire department or police department would derive any benefit whatsoever ever from this tower Let's talk about it Okay As many of you may or may not know fire departments and police departments work on their own frequencies They use UHF
and VHF And if in fact there are gaps in those services you have no idea if there are or where they are The way that should be addressed is if you have concerns that either the UHF or the VHF coverage either the fire department or the police department has gaps It's the
same thing They do a drive test They record the signal strength for their coverage and it would show you gaps If and only if they provide that coverage data are you then in a placed in a position to figure out if either your fire department or police department is going to drive any benefit whatsoever
from this tower And if to the extent they want to use cell phone coverage or cellular coverage to make a call well we're right back where we started There is no hard data no probative data whatsoever showing actual signal strengths anywhere within the city No
hard data showing any gaps the location of the gaps or the boundaries of the gaps Now um bear with me one second I'm sorry As far as the adverse aesthetic impacts I heard the applicant say at one of these many meetings where they droned on for hours oh they're going to be it's going
to be totally shielded by foliage Foliage This tower is going to is going to tower 100 ft above the tree line It's going to dwarf any tree in close proximity It is physically impossible for anything to shield a 17story tower
at the location they want it Not to mention that once it's built if you permit it under the middle class tax relief and job creation act of 2020 202 if the applicant wants to increase the height after it's built they can increase the height an additional 20 ft
and you will be powerless to stop them So if you think the fall zone is not sufficient now or the adverse aesthetic impact is bad now think about when they raise it to 190 Think about the potential there And by the way based upon the drawings and the base being
32.6 ft deep the base is designed to accommodate a tower of up to 199 ft So that being said I respectfully submit number one They haven't shown a substantial hardship which is one of the first criteria for granting a variance under your law And they certainly haven't shown that granting the
application would not substantially deviate from the purpose of the zoning regulations You're going to have adverse aesthetic impacts You're going to have a property value adverse impact It's going to be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood You have an insufficient fall zone Um if any of you have not seen it or read it yet please
read my memorandum in opposition um because I make sure that I guide local boards so that if they choose to deny an application they do so in a way that does not violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996 There's just one further point I'd like to address and it has to do with one of the questions that one of
the board members asked about citations to cases where a local board turned down an application and it withtood challenge in federal court Because when local municipal attorneys do research on federal courts they don't know it but they looked at the wrong universe I'm going explain to you what that means I
have never had a case in 30 years where I created a proper record before a local zoning board and I don't care if it was a planning board planning council ZBA board of trustees when I counseledled a local board or appear before a board and advocated for denial and a proper record was created sufficient evidence was
entered into the record to serve as a basis for the denial and they denied the application They never got sued If there are 10 applications and in eight of them the board denies it pursuant to their local laws and consistent with the procedural requirements of the Telecommunications Act they deny it
That's the end of it It never makes it to federal court The only time a town county or village or city gets sued in federal court are in those cases where they didn't understand what they had to do And so they violated the TCA and they get sued And so in 80% of the cases where they get sued they lose but only
because those are the cases where they violated the TCA So the the pitfall for local municipal attorneys is when they go to their classic research tools like Lexus or West Law and they look it up they say "Oh my god 80% of the time the town gets sued." It's because they only
bring the cases when you don't have a proper record before you And you I respectfully submit have a proper record This applicant has not placed you in a position to ascertain to any agree number one that this tower is necessary Number two that anyone would derive any
benefit whatsoever from the tower being built And number three that this tower would in any way form or shape be consistent with smart planning Your goal should not be to stop cell towers They are a necessary evil But your goal should be the same as every other local government across the United States
which regulate wireless facilities and adopt ordinances just like yours to achieve three purposes simultaneously You want to have these towers strategically placed so that you you will enable the carriers to saturate your city with coverage while at the same time minimize the number of towers
you need to provide that coverage and avoid unnecessarily redundant wireless infrastructure and number two prevent the unnecessary adverse impacts due to the irresponsible placement of wireless facilities like this one and to preserve property values And right now this
applicant has not given you any probative evidence to suggest or even to place you in a position to figure out if this would be consistent with smart planning because if there are gaps and this doesn't cover the gaps they're coming back six months from now for another tower probably for broadband as
well But that's what's happening here So thank you for your time Thank you for your patience and if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer Thank you before before I I recognize you sir Anybody on the board have any questions [Music]
Take advantage of the fact that I looked over here but I see Do you have a question I do But is it a question of the of attorney Yes Please please ask your question Eric thank you for this amazing presentation Uh repeat your name again for the record It's Milan Reggie Savage High Street Thank
you Milan Thank you Thank you for this really uh persuasive diligent uh presentation I have a question about what you said about the f the um debate and switch about the 5G
meaning that just because something is 5G you said it can downshift to 4G 3G you'll still get coverage and not necessarily know it So it's not a question of the 5G Can you go over that one more time Sure So most of your wireless carriers well AT&T T-Mobile
Verizon they provide wireless coverage on at least 10 different frequencies And so there are 10 different frequencies upon upon which an end user of an of their services a customer who's got a contract with T-Mobile or AT&T there's 10 different frequencies on which they
can use their cell phone to connect to a landline And this was all addressed by the federal district court in the XET versus um the village of Flower Hills And so they went before Flower Hills and they said "We have to put these wireless facilities every 150 ft in residential neighborhood." There were like 40 of
them And so they said "Here's proof that we have gaps in our 5G coverage." And the board based upon the record I created denied the application And they sued in federal court And the court said "Wait a minute You have to admit that there's nothing in the record about your
4G coverage or 3G coverage And you also have to admit that if someone is driving through the village on their phone using 5G signal strength and the 5G signal strength drops too low to maintain the call the user's phone will downshift to a different frequency It can downshift
from 5G to 4G to 3G to 2G to 1G and the phone user won't know it Their phone call will just continue And so the court said to prove a gap in service you have to prove that Verizon's customer can't use their phone to connect to a landline
In this applicant's application they've only provided one or two frequencies of the 10 or 11 that this carrier uses So as a matter of law they've not established the existence of a significant gap And they certainly haven't established that one of its
customers can't use a phone to connect to a landline and backing it up with a broadband map which has nothing to do with cellia coverage proves absolutely nothing Thank you [Music] Thank you Address please David Levit for
Fairview Terrace Um can it be so subjective that aesthetically um we could win because eight people that are inside of the tower uh
feel that it degrades their peace or their whatever it be that aesthetics affects them from that I know it's very subjective and and so I question that Second aspect I have is we only know of
this site I think in a prior meeting uh or two there may have been other sites that they considered but this is the prime location for them because maybe it's the least financial outlay and maybe there are other places that cost them more but still do the same service
like Home Depot's lot or the fairgrounds property Yeah they might have to rent the land in perpetuity and pay more but it's it's less residential per se Um thank you
Can I answer that or respond please So it's critical for the board to understand that the grounds for denying this application does not come from the Telecommunications Act It comes from a local zoning code And so the best I I I tell local government boards is put
aside the Telecommunications Act right now And now just look in your local zoning code and treat this as any other 17story tower If someone came before you and asked for a variance to build a 17story tower how you would treat it Now
aesthetics is a huge impact in terms of zoning We spend billions of dollars on Home Depot and Lowe's for aesthetic purposes Federal courts recognize that And so federal courts across the entire United States recognize that potential adverse aesthetic impacts are a
perfectly legal valid ground to deny an application for the installation of a cell tower if the adverse aesthetic impact is signi significant enough by the ZBA who should treat this like any other zoning application The same goes
for failure to have a sufficient spall zone around the tower or reduction in property values or even that the proposed location being so close to residential homes would be inconsistent with the res residential character of the neighborhood Any one of these is a valid legal grounds to deny the
application Thank you Thank you Anybody else have a question 65 street I just wanted to know did you say that the roof of a cell tower goes down 32 feet
Yes The the standard for a cell tower like this uh the base is a cylinder usually six foot in diameter typically goes down 32.5 ft or 33.5 ft depending on the ground The little cylinder goes down Okay
Attorney Campanelli were were you when you made your when you said 32 feet were you generalizing or had you looked at the engineering for this application I'd have to go back I thought I saw 32 33.5 on this one but I I admit I haven't looked at it now in a couple of months
but your comment the question I just want to make sure we're apples and apples your comment before ca the source of that comment I thought came from your memory of reviewing this project not generally that all cell towers go down
32 feet I believe that I saw the base because I looked at it trying to figure out if this tower is going to be 170 or 190 I could be mistaken because I've handled probably 40 cell tower cases between the now and the past two months Um but their plans are going to show it Just look at their plans Yeah No I don't
know I I I just didn't want people to be leaving with some general assertion and I didn't think I didn't think you made that general assertion So so he I think he's commenting and those plans are on public record So correct and I'm sure attorney not not tonight but attorney
Rogan will talk about that at the next meeting We can learn But that that that information I I believe he was talking about our particular matter I'm not going to guess I'm gonna pull All right You you have some time there Are you asking him a question or you
making a comment It's a question but I don't He probably doesn't know the answer When is this being decided by when it's being decided Yeah And have there been other sites that have already been
denied or they've gone through and said this is the best one but there's a couple set this one and we're going to pursue that Okay Thanks for the question Did everybody hear the question Um I I don't want to speak for attorney
Rosen's client Um I my understanding is that through a method they rejected other sites numerous other sites came to us and there were different sites that had
different reasons or outside some in Greenfield and some just outside of Greenfield I I again I don't want to be I don't it's not fair for me to say that but like up on the trail for example and I think that's still great you know the tower
um and then there's you know there's Deerfield right below us so I I I'd have to look at the map but it's generally in a circle that starts I think somewhere around uh oh actually I don't have I don't want to say anything so what would
the second question when are we going to decide it and Um so federal law requires us to move as move at a certain case and so we've kind of built momentum in this process There were a couple of
months of not really being able to sort of get started and now we're into the spring So it's been a written agreement between the board the applicant that by May 30th we will make a decision Now to say
this if we think we need more information we will ask the applicant for more information And if that requires extension then we'll see how that plays out But the the thrust of it is that we're all trying to act in good faith to
get this that to the second If I can just add to that that May 30th date is an extension of that so that well I that's not really true because your
you as the applicant reads every extension that we did at the end of the meeting So my point Mr chair was that we have been cooperative with the board Yeah I will confirm with that sentence Yeah
Um uh did I help you answer your question Did I answer your question I is there a pursuing business I don't know That's a business decision But the zoning board's only really the zoning board is is being presented with
what they've done and comparing that to what attorney campelli and Rosen have that they believe is the law And so that's all we can look at at least as far as I understand Yeah I want to go to the board before just for just to provide a little additional context I
would say uh three or four meetings ago If you go back on the counter to town's calendar and find the zoom video there was some discussion of the other sites that they had considered prior to submitting this application and what led them to submit this application I don't
remember the exact meeting date but in the past two months if you just looked through those CBA meetings you would be able to find what where a few of other like hypothetical sites were discussed and kind of the path that led them to choose the current site there I would agree with that So that that would be
the maps were provided by AT&T of what the pros and cons of the strength of signal were at each of those sites if you haven't if you've missed those meetings anybody here I would suggest you do them and you'll get you'll get the answers to those questions I I don't
want to paraphrase but thank you Thank you for that Mr Chairman Just for clarification sake we don't post the Zoom meetings on the website Oh no You make a public information request and I will get you the Zoom recording Oh sorry I city council My bad The minutes The
minutes are online Yes Okay As it says no reason to deny the request right Oh no Grant the information that they presented was in the packets that which you may have Yeah Under the uh board when you go look at the board's agendas and minutes the if you see a packet
click on that and then it'll have the data as well Mr Chair I need some clarification I think it was the last meeting of the previous meeting We put a framework how to review information to make a decision A framework to mean that I gave you all
Yeah To the board Yes And I'm trying to refresh myself with what that was and then all the information we had going into that process How much of what I've heard would be blended into you know kind of the overview which I give him of things
that he could consider making soon Okay Well I'll relate it to attorney campelli That's what's right So for the record I provided the award uh and I guess you could all look at it but it's it's it's it's an outline of how I think we need to look at this in the context
of the federal law being part of this process So they help us all be on the same page including cases that were cited by the lawyers I believe that it's my experience that attorney campanelli is
giving us the correct um tests that we need to look at in order to figure out what to do I I I assume attorney Rosen will agree with that to some degree Maybe there are things that he might not agree with specifically but I think what attorney
Campanelli is saying to us is like as if we were a jury which we are I guess that um that if you take the tests as they're presented in the cases as I showed you right the the gaps and uh and the and we
can't prohibit to prohibit uh cellular service that he believes that they they haven't given us enough information and he's trying to explain to us what that gap in informations I'm not going to comment on what I whether I how I what what weight
I will give to what he says but from from the limited experience that I've had I believe that he's telling us what he's telling us is the correct law And he's just saying if you look at the law the way I think you should look
at the law you'll come out with an answer that says X Attorney Rosen is saying if you look at the way at the law the way I think you should look at the law take my facts and blend them with the law which is what we're going to do when we deliberate then you should uh you should vote for
the permit Um I the reason the reason I sent you those things is not that you have to understand them in a minute It's that if you read this stuff and then the
conversation keeps repeating itself you're going to begin a light will go off for each of the concepts Maybe the concept in the abstract doesn't make any sense when you first read it But maybe at a meeting somebody asks a question or attorney campanelli makes a point or attorney Rosa makes a point or any other
people and you say "Aha now I okay now I know how to connect that with the standard because I I you know that that's what I'm trying to train us to do." So by the time we get to deliberate and I don't want to deliberate now I won't even have any conversation about
deliberation but we start to deliberate we're going to ask these questions of ourselves and we're going to go around the we're going to go around the table we're going to say so do you think and if you do why and do you think I don't why and you're going to have we're all going to have to substantiate to each
other the evidence as it's been presented to us now that we're in this conversation I'm hoping that um by Tuesday uh not not Tuesday the next meeting I think was the next meeting in May the first meeting in May Yes That
part of the meeting will be the rebuttal and then part of the meeting will begin that conversation so that we could tell ourselves whether we are satisfied that we have enough information to go forward with this decision If we don't then I'd like people to
bring that up at that meeting and then we can start asking people to to provide Let me ask another question Sure Have a registered professional designed self They put their credentials on that
design They did We hired a peer review registered professional engineer who certified that what what they're proposing to do is sufficient What what ability do we have challenge professors who put their license in
position saying this is adequate protection That's a really good question Um I think I think we have to peel back the onion How did people actually this
profession certified that the calculations they've done they're really standard thank you thank you thank you well they suddenly review something they look at all the data and they feel what has been proposed to their standard is
sufficient because if I want to make a decision I have to understand how I can differ with that unless You hire another peer review Well we did not hire a peer review to form an opinion about how they
arrived at their gap coverage No I I'm just talking about Okay So wellap I'm talking about well the structure the structure but we the structure has the structure has
been reviewed by a peerreview and I I guess if you wish to give great weight to that evidence you can because you have an expert that is telling you that the tower is safe to begin with and the tower will be safe with the uh soft part
in the center to the collapse part and So I'm providing great weight with that every but all but poor people have to but that but that's how it works Yeah but I mean that is documented information I would attorney attorney's
going to sure challenge it but I'm just saying for me I you know we went out and hired that expertise Yeah I think in the end Pet if this helps you Peter I think the end you know when we go through our deliberations and we talk everything through we'll have to decide how much
weight we're going to give that particular component as part of our decision whether it's to the you know to the positive or negative That's something I mean we need more time to discuss in here because I'd like to go back through and just see when they did the peer review there I to me it was a
math check It wasn't a I agree that this is safe it was their math was good That's how I took the peer review to be So that's something we'll have to discuss and decide as a board how much weight we're going to give that So to to add to that I think we have to decide on what
basis was that opinion derived I bring this up as one of Yeah that's a good question I've got a whole sheet question Can we All right Can we hold Can we hold a little bit I I that's a great question If there are other
questions that are helpful um you you're okay No I've got a I have a question for Please I've got a board member question before Second Okay My question is this you you said that
um AT&T would have to provide us with drop call data and um drive test data to determine signal strength um in order to prove that there
is a gap I believe that was paraphrasing what you said If that's correct then um what is the significance of what we were told by attorney Rosen last week which was that AT&T refuses to provide
that data Um and is that refusal alone cause for uh dismissing the the idea that there is a gap Well what I can tell you is again under federal law it remains within your jurisdiction to require of a def of an
applicant whatever evidence you deem reasonably necessary to enable you to make the factual determinations you need to make And you also get to weigh the evidence and you get to weigh the veracity of anybody who testifies And so if you believe and you've got now you've got the map from the FCC which shows
there is no gap So one might say that it's reasonable that you require them to produce probitative data Um and I will tell you that I've had I would say within the past 18 months at least three cases where the applicant was requested to provide drop call data and they
provided it because it was necessary for the board to ascertain if in fact they have a capacity deficiency So if they don't want to give it to you you can what would you do if this was just some other type of zoning application Forget that it's a cell tower Treat it like any
other zoning application And suppose you asked an applicant to provide you with certain types of evidence and they refuse to do it How does that how would that work under Massachusetts law Bear in mind I'm not admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I have been admitted to the federal court of
Massachusetts and I'm admitted to the circuit court But under the standard under Massachusetts law are you allowed to ask them for evidence And if they refuse to provide it what is within your powers to do can deny based upon that That's governed purely by state law not federal law Thank you We we understand
it's it's again it goes to our bringing our our uh perspective to what we're listening to Um okay I'm going to go back to people Somebody behind me want to have a question Oh you you had the original
question remember That's right You haven't spoken yet have you Yeah Let her talk She's been waiting forever Amen Address please There was one other person who spoke I think my question is for both you and the um there was one other person who
spoke up here who said if the tower goes up move and has young children I also have young children I'm not as close to the cell tower as that person but close enough that I don't like it and if the
cell tower does go up I will also look to um and so solar weight is largely most 89% income based housing that would be a
big financial hardship for me to move but I have little children I'm not willing to be exposed to that type of regular basis what like does that if enough people are saying if you put this up I'm
moving that like does that impact this at all I'll let I'll let attorney Keelan speak first You can't Did you hear the question I'm sorry Yes Um what is the impact of people saying they're going to move
Now it can we I think your question is because people will be if if an if a large if a large enough large enough number of people decide they are going to move because of the fears associated
with health risks Let's use that as an example or for whatever reason Oh let's just use that of the cell tower Well it it's for reasons for whatever reason Okay Is that is that evidence for the board to use in making its decision No
No Uh three things you cannot use You cannot use people saying they're going to move if the tail goes up Um you cannot unfortunately use concerns over the environmental impacts i.e the health concerns And third if someone you know if if a thousand people sign a petition
and send a position petition to you that also is not a valid legal grounds to deny the application The valid grounds for denying it are set forth in your code They're black and white They're very simple I thank you for that support Thank you Um well it was a clear answer It was a
very clear answer Yeah Uh I won't I promise But if there's somebody else who hasn't spoken there is one financial day that will affect the town because what happened in Pittsfield is those people can't give away their houses and they had to declare bankrupt These are working class people slaughter and that will happen up there if enough people
move out of there and nobody wants to buy it and then you've got your little mini turnover happy day people's not getting their taxes So this will affect the town one way or but that doesn't mean it's not the board can look at well don't try to financial
impact does affectction please don't try to second guess what we're going to do I mean you can speak especially those that are out of college yeah I'm sorry did I not did I fail to get your name and address my name is Diana I'm a business in Greenfield at 6
Thank you One behind you Go ahead I have a question Jonathan Marin4 Avery Brook Road Charlemont Thank you I have a question for attorney campell You still there Yes Um my question is it seems like if
you just give a little broad overview of all the cases you're working on nationally it seems like generally um your carriers are not immediately forthcoming with job call data and you know they have to be requested repeatedly um and sometimes they say yes
sometimes they say no Can you give us just a quick sense of if that information which is what Dr Chamberlain described as the gold standard If that was routinely given as a matter of course um could you give us a little
sense of what how that might impact um their business plan overall Well what I'm seeing across the United States with the alleged 5G roll out is in the vast majority of applications the towers that are being applied for are not necessary for voice coverage It's
not 5G or 4G or 3G It's broadband It's wireless internet That's what the vast majority of applications are for And yet the applicants come in and say "We need this for 5G and 4G." And because they have 4G and 5G coverage they can't provide the data because the data will show that there are no gaps And as far
as providing it the federal court last month just made it crystal clear in Mammoth County New Jersey United States District Court in the District of New Jersey Um the applicant wouldn't provide the drop call data and they filed a lawsuit and the federal judge said if you claim you got a gap a capacity
deficiency you have to give them the drop call data So I got a federal judge saying that and that's from 2024 I want to follow his follow question I want to expand it Um let's say they gave us the drop call
data What do you expect we would find Number one and what's wrong with the data that they've given us They haven't given you probitative data Um I could prepare a map showing you the locations of all chunky cheeses
listed located on the Gaza Strip in Israel It would be completely untethered from reality but I could give it to you The maps they provided you have no data backing them up Consider yourself a jury a judge You
You want the applicant to provide evidence The maps that they've given you would not be admitted as evidence in any federal or state court of anything Nobody's verified these maps They don't claim they're based upon actual data They are desktop created maps Somebody
sat at a computer desktop and used software perhaps a and just created a color map without data b without the data that it was created from It's the functional equivalent of giving your grandchild three colored crayons a car on a piece of paper and say here here's
the coverage map And I don't mean to sound facitious but if anybody ever tried that to get in court with that in front of a judge it'd never be admitted Yeah thank you Questions behind you We have some
members here that have some obligations So so they Why don't you tell why don't you I don't know who I know this woman does Kate and I know other people comment question So I didn't know if you're if you if there's a time factor you can speak on a comment or you
can ask a question and address 9th Street Um and first of all I'm a technologist I am technology and I love it And so for me
wanting to be able as you mentioned um this is to me not about uh do we need service Do we need more We're always going to need like out of the bottle or is this going to become a neverending voracious beast beast right
So but what we're not really here to talk about is there were enough specific proposal at specific locations that we're talking about and I mentioned
that by Zoom at our last meeting in terms of funding and the issue of scale and tar but right now I just have questions Um so far especially after watching these um presentations tonight I just
don't get a sense that wireless has met three criteria for bearings Uh the first one being hardship um I don't believe that they would impose serious hardship on them um if they were to hit some
weight for um since they don't own the property Um should they not be able to build this tower they would suffer any loss Um because they entered into this conversation knowing that we might
not be special um they chose a site that would not accommodate them right that's their choice but they chose a site that knowingly they could not accomodate with that one specific way and that's what they consciously
decided to take um but like this were things that they do by leaf uh they kind of just searching for a possibility they they test to see and then just work they not going to any suffering on their part
So to me I feel they have to invest in their lives they can go find even if you're nearby still help um number two has to do with conditions
um site chosen cell tower it's not unique any way the building of it um it's not the language or the topography uh it's the problem but rather they're proposing to build tower are so much higher uh that is allowed for this
property Uh so any points made about conditions of property are points and therefore it's qualified Um and number three regarding no public good Um this third criteria
states branding guarante regulations and so in addition to this comments he purchas also numerous submissions of evidence from residents showing identified such as fire zone evacuations
cyber security and health uh something consider um she so based on those things notion not
to based on what you mindful not please apply for the other first Oh thank you for um my neck hurts May ask again Name your
neck Name address again Dan Flurry 97 Newton Street Greenfield Yes Um Justin Rock when the balloon went up the other day Take a look I just feel the need to mention also in regards to the aesthetic
Um there are far far fewer trees between my house and the location of that than there are some of the other residents around um particularly on Newton Street um due to the fact that the storage facilities there and a lot of that was cleared out of trees for them to be able
to build So it's far far more obvious from my perspective than a lot of others Okay Thank you Uh go ahead Mine's actually again name again Just sorry Julie Paige That's fine Hi minor
Um the attorney said that petitions and signatures and things don't matter But then earlier this evening it was said that individual app and David showing you do from cell phone users showing they do have coverage and they are not
dropping falls in the areas in the maps proposed that those do matter So I'm a little lost on the petition versus affidavit I don't and I'm also like looking for people who are concerned if we know that
defeating the tower is going to be based on proving usage exists and the tower is not needed Can people turn in something that says "Hey I got good cell phone cover here." Would that be of any value
All right that's it for any uh I I I can answer it but I need to collect my thoughts Do you have a quick answer Sure Um so there's a distinction between a petition and the other things you mentioned Um someone just gets 2,000 signatures on a petition that says we
don't want the tower That cannot be used as a basis to turn it down That's not a legitimate objection to the tower By contrast if you say um it's going to have a dramatic adverse impact on my house because if it gets built every time I look out my bedroom window this is going to be dead set in the middle of
my view that is substantial evidence of an adverse aesthetic impact that counts Now as far as phone calls and say you know I don't have dropped calls I will tell you that in most cases if people say you know I've lived here 20 years I use Verizon out and I drop calls The
wireless industry argues that that constitutes what's called anecdotal evidence It's not enough of a statistical sample to be deemed reliable evidence And so that's why the burden should be placed on the applicant to provide the evidence because they have
it at their hands It's easy to provide the evidence that the board needs to enable it to make a decision That's where the evidence should come from Okay I want to add to that I I I don't mean this personally I right now unless somebody tells me otherwise I'm not
accepting affidavit from people that tell me that they have dropped calls or not All that says is I swear that something happened but it's not evidence of any more than that Just like I can't get He's much better at the analogies but I will not accept that I'm not going to have a thousand people walk in and
tell me that they do or don't get Yes Um I'm Elizabeth 911 Just however if you tell me anecdotally what you've experienced I'm glad to hear But it's not Yeah I don't bl
[Music] uh many of my neighbors are here Um I'd like to read this Okay Why was asking for a variance that exists from having to comply with
zone the height of the cell tower They are proposing 170 ft or 14 stories That may be a inaccurate 17 ft 14 stories Well it's 170 ft Let's let's stick with that Yeah stick with that This is not
acceptable to the residents It puts residents in public against their very unnecessary risk The various stages surrounding cell towers and inadequate fall zones of but are not limited to
cell tower collapses cell tower fires and failing cell falling cell tower debris During last public hearing on April 9th RCBA chair shared that he had spoken to an
engineer that would not tell him that the hinge design that the applicant has proposed for the cell was as safe as a fall zone safety and protection The engineer told him
that an add was the only truly assured protective measure with regards to a guarantee of safety for the residents Need I say more Thank you And I ask that you deny
this request for variance What I meant to say in a what I'm being quoted as saying the meaning of my quote was that yes the engineer said that he could not say that the that the brake was as safe
as the fall He didn't say that the brake wasn't safe He just said it wasn't as safe as the false That's that's a true statement But other than that we have to give it weight credibility So that's don't don't get all excited Yeah Yes I
have a question Please say say your name again just so when he reads when he takes the notes Thank you Yep Um I have a question in that Um this the cell phone company
it's AT&T Um are they're motivated by money They want to make money Everyone in this room is motivated by safety and health and security of our families and our home values Good things Motivation of
money is the you know expanding business is totally different What if suddenly like they they were like oh you know what we have come up with that information about all these problems Is there a way for them to date such a document And how would
they how would we know how would you know that it's adopted false Do they need to provide proof where it comes from Because I honestly don't really trust a company like that to not try to do something that because they're
you know I I understand what you're saying I can't say that in my life I haven't or that I still don't have concerns about the things you're expressing But when applicants come forward and they and they do it in in good faith which I believe this
application is totally being made in good faith and good faith just means they believe that what they're doing is important for them in relationship to the laws that govern how they can proceed with this type of infrastructure
Um I I just I actually question him Is the attorney still there Does he know Well I just want to answer but I I went off on my phone Is that a question for him It's a question for him Go for it Did you I didn't hear the question Have
you ever seen companies try to falsify documents to say that they do have dropped faults And how would how would a board know that a document is falsified Well two different questions First question I would say that in the applications that I see I would say in
90% of the cases applicants file either false or materially misleading documents in support of their applications I do not I cannot say I've ever seen falsified drop call records I think they'd kind of be hard to falsify Um so
I I I will trust job call records more than uh than a a coverage map with no data backing it up I don't want to I'm not ending on this I'm not ending on this note You have the right to your opinion and I appreciate it and you're the experienced guy and
but you go all over the country and you deal with the rest of the United States That's not what happens here So you don't we don't people never lie to people It's not about lying You can tell when you you it's up to us to go through
the evidence and figure out whether we find it credible If we think it's not credible then we'll make a decision that it's not I'm not going I I don't want to have I want you clarify how you would know it was not That's what I was asking just because I want you to have the
right information or be able to tell if something's fake You don't think that this board could tell whether they're being given information that's Well I I assure you that we can And if attorney Campanelli has an
has some tips for the board about how to make those decisions I'd be happy to hear them But I I I feel like this conversation has has kind of gone off the rails for me Yeah Sorry I I'm really not meaning this in an offensive way I'm meaning it you may not mean it in an
offensive way and I'm not trying to say you're being offensive I am not going to have a conversation where we're standing to have the applicant of oil I'm not if someone were to do that the basic concept of interest I I think I didn't know like
for example the propagation maps when I saw them I was like oh oh there's a coverage gap oh when I was in the first meeting I said oh gosh there's a coverage gap who knew and then we learned those maps are not based on
actual data now I would like to ask the did you know that did you know that there that is misleading did you know that there are other more accurate did you know that it was in conflict with what is on the FCC and on the AT&T said yes I I would ask you we have questioned
those maps since day one and that's all I have to say okay but I didn't know that as coming to all these meetings I thought that this was new and like I thought I took it as oh wow there's there's the gap so for me it's been a learning experience I hope it has been
for the ZBA as this is an application you haven't seen um before we haven't had an application for cell in this town for over 20 years I will say something else We what we've been doing here is given the applicant their opportunity to speak and present all their evidence
We've then opened it up to the public to speak and present all of their evidence and in count the board has yet to have those conversations amongst themselves Those have to be public And so if you
guys just can get through this wrap it up Let's if we have anything to say let's make it new and relevant and move on so we can get to the point where we can deliberate and then you can hear what we want to know what we want to think We spent a lot of time hearing
everybody else The board has yet to have their opportunity I'd like to make a we made a very diligent effort over several meetings listen to all kinds of input We've digested it as best we could you've been asked that questions in multiple ways
we're trying to focus on what are the malicious so you know to start coming at us you know for wait please you know we we've we've made an exception effort to try to digest all the information like I we're going to use that very precisely
to come up with a solution but it's not going to be an easy process so you know yeah with all due respect my comment wasn't intended to say that the CBA is not doing that my comment was to say that information has been presented and then it's been we've had Kent and Andrew
say well this information that was presented by the applicants actually misinformation is not representing a true action look at so for me like but that's but that's their opinion and so we're going to decide whether we believe
their opinions to be credible and then we'll weigh all that everybody has said and that's opinion or fact I feel like I feel like attorney campanelli has provided It's you guys have provided you haven't proving the fact that there's an FCC map and then it's different from the other
map Yeah that's a fact and we'll put weight to it Okay that's but but because they did that because the applicants did that I think attorney Campanelli has been excellent in telling us in explaining to us especially from your point of view what weight we should
give the evidence of the maps uh that that were given to us He's saying give it low So we're listening and we're going to we're going to listen to what everybody says and we're going to put it all together in a
reasonable fashion in a thoughtful fashion If we were to ask AT&T for their uh data I would assume like every other applicant that comes before us by the time that what they're tell that we've asked for it and they're telling they're
giving us what we've asked That's how it works That's how you work That's how it works If you came in for a permit if you came in for a permit if anybody is not we don't take testimony We don't put people under oath you all have done an excellent job of
bringing our attention to things that are outside of what they brought our attention And so that's been very useful but I don't think it's fair even if you didn't mean it to have this discussion about whether or not they're going to
lie to us It's it's not a conversation It's a speculative conversation I know you want to speak I I just want to I just maybe attorney that I didn't he say though factually I don't think it was
another opinion that the broadband not being provided actually is not getting any data whatsoever 5G that's his opinion no I think that's fact it's not fact it's his opinion I have no idea it's fact and 5G are different things that's what he said okay so if you want
to believe that and that's fine I just think it's important to say that it's not a matter I'll tell you what if you want to make a statement that you think that his evidence should be considered by us with great weight I would welcome that Yeah there you go Thank you very
much I mean I think that it's very Thank you very much saying that is is you know is the same thing Okay And and I honor and respect what you say and it may be a great way to have no weight but I I appreciate you saying it That's the
reason you're all here is to give us evidence But I I but I have to draw the law David I'm just curious if we turn this down and voted to put it in the fairgrounds How many people here at this
meeting would object fairs I just curious Sorry Mr Chairman Yes Um just so you know there are some hands raised from the internet world Stephanie Dupos had end up for quite a while All right Uh attorney Campanell
are you done I mean you don't have to leave the meeting but can I take you off the full screen Yes you can Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you I know how to view Can you pin Okay There we go
Still got a hand up Yes I'm sorry I didn't know if I was being recognized It took us a moment Thank you for your patience Thank you Um my name is Stephanie Dlo I live on Chapman Street in Greenfield Um I want to reiterate the
email I sent is a uh bonafide um offer for remedy Um I don't know if that's been forward to another attorney But that's uh something that I believe that fell under the second um consideration for the variance Um also as a longtime
cell phone um user for various companies I know that in the past when I had dropped calls significant enough to impact important you know emergency um issues that the companies then credited
um my bill with a um either a discount or a um a promotion or something But that may be able to reiterate you know a potential call log uh discrepancy that you know how much is your real financial loss I mean if you're you know it's just
an inconvenience for your customers you know we you know I just traveled all the way up to New Hampshire and back and you know there was a dead spot in Northfield but it doesn't mean that I would want to um you know have another cell tower in Northfield and degrade the aesthetics of
that Um also that um there is other options to the customers themselves They can go out and get a booster Um given the location of my home and topography as well as the um insulation of my home
it does it does impact uh what my ability to make some calls at at times But I but the company offered me a booster so that I wouldn't continue to call and say "Hey my service has been interrupted." Um and I did have a question because I I
have been watching the FCC uh um teams that are working on the new technology of 6G So um not quite sure how that impacts maybe what they're putting up but I'd be concerned with not having the evidence if that's going to be a 6G
tower And if the people really wanted to I mean Chevron deferences overturned So if you want to challenge the FCC go right ahead I think you guys have a lot of evidence that would support especially given the testimony from um the I think his name was Kent in the very beginning and I hope that his
documents or his slide presentation um is entered into the record regardless of whether or not you put weight to it Thank you Thank you Anybody else that wants to talk on the internet Anybody else here want to talk
Stephen pardon me for interrupting but he's been trying to talk for a little while He has Well I don't I haven't seen his I've been raising my hand I don't see Thank you Um it's a question for you Dave Yes How did we formally
request data from AT&T to provide drop call data to provide uh drive test data and to provide maps showing signal strength at lower levels because I
believe those are three factors that have been stressed by attorney Benelli in uh making it if if we should decide that they have not proven that there's a gap in coverage and if we haven't it hasn't
come formally it hasn't come from the chair I well I know that it has come it was informally discussed but the response that we got was no we're not going to give you that information you did formally ask last meeting he did we
were he said it was proprietary data and they would not Oh I did ask yes I did ask that question that was formally request Was it theoretical Is it if I asked you the word Yeah I thought I thought you didn't say if I asked that I think we should formally request Yeah
But thank you Yes Okay Hold that in oance for a second Well question mentions or something So the applicant has the right to say what they want to say because
it's their application So they get to have the final word Know that folks who would like to have the final word Also I don't know if I'm going to give you all the final word but if I do have questions I'm happy to go back to folks and have you clarify things for us I'm
not leaving you out but the it's the applicant's application you've given us a lot of information and it's important information but it's their application so they're it's um thank you So um the
next steps are that at the next meeting Rosen and others will probably rebut what was said tonight in some way shape or form Uh I have asked I do I have made a request that the engineer come and
talk about uh how they gathered the data for the mapping and they're going to be there on the next meeting to talk about that and answer questions about that So we didn't make a specific request as uh member Green had said but we did we
we were prepared to um we expect that um AT&T will come to the next meeting prepared to answer with the background of how they provide how they obtain the data So we we from the last meeting and and a meeting further back and attorney
campell brought out the point about drop call information We've been very aware of uh the importance that information in the context of discussing this Yes Just hoping I I need to leave home I
just wanted to have a statement I wanted to read um before I leave So good evening We are representing myself 22 others and nearby residents of the proposed tower
We request that you deny the variance for the tower as the applicant has not been proven or quantified any aspects of their assertions The applicant has been asked repeated repeatedly to explain methodology they used to evaluate the other sites the specific process they
use and not just state the takeaway is like it's too close to the name of regularization They need to provide their detailed reports on each of the other sites they present Again details testing reports and results not just the overview they gave The CBA has every
right to see these reports and data and the applicant has likely not done it The fact that the Hampton Inn was presented as hypothetical but they did not consider it truly viable location sounds like they likely did not choose other sites that would be viable and did not
do their due diligence into evaluating them They also failed to identify last week any other sites that were chosen on a hypothetical basis The criteria for the variance is not that they shield a dozen sites they know will not work to present the DVA but that they identify
other valid patients It does not appear that we have done that and we don't currently have evidence for that Also wireless has claimed a gap in coverage for one singular carrier AT&T They have not as we've talked about tonight follow quantified this gap in
terms of its size the number of customers affected by this potential gap The ways this gap was measured to calibrate or prove that to this location would cover the alleged gap The telecommunications act allows for some dead zones but small gaps or dead zones
aren't enough to warrant a loose cell tower It is a significant and true gap in coverage that would be demonstrated to necessitate the construction of a child which to date has not been meaningly demonstrated On December 2nd 2024 I
requested copies of information provided by the applicant to refill to substantiate any gap in coverage including dropped call logs and dropped emergency calls area I recall that David approved that this request be sent to the applicant but it
has been email We don't have the date of that I brought your email to say okay thank you I raised this issue again at last week's hearing when the applicant noted to the ZA that they would not provide this information because they considered it proprietary
I will note that other carriers as attorney campaign has data tonight to provide drop logs and data to demonstrate a signific significant gap coverage and there is established legal precedence to that effect Tonight we are
submitting documentation of a legal case regarding the release of drop call logs and Verizon submitted drop ball logs and data that was provided in Ithaca New York a municipality for an application approval hearing The drop call logs
information is necessary to determine and validate a true gap of service The ZBA has a well established right to ask for these records and data as a requirement of variance for their residential and
ski The applicant is unwilling to provide information to quantify their position which should make them ineligible for the variance they have requested As you can see there is a pattern of the applicant not providing quantifying information to support their apt
assertions and claims to meet the criteria for the variance These claims must be fully supported and demonstrated by fact We have not been provided with the information necessary to prove the assertion that have been made or to meaningfully make the assessment need For these reasons and more we urge you
on behalf of the neighborhood and community to grant to not grant experience to find another more appropriate place Yes Go ahead Tom power solar quick comment
Um I mean first of all I thank you for all the work you do I mean not on the board zoning board but on the board of trustees in my neighborhood that there's like a lot of information Um but I wanted to talk about like we were talking about before
like how how are you going to evaluate data and evidence like that And I I'm not attempting to impugn the good name of the applicant but I think you absolutely can put in like as you're waiting list like they have an interest
in putting that up And I think that's a fair comment and and like the lawyer who's hired but the people who are from like who are going to live next to it really don't Their interest is preserving in their interest their health and and their sex and those
things So as you're waiting the evidence I would really urge you to weight it in in appropriately And I think that the the information that gentlemen just provided express must be asked for and
received before you approve um the whatever you have to prove in my opinion Thank thank you for the way they express and and lastly no this isn't good for me but like look people want 5G that's
important to them they can put a cell tower like that their house but I think it's really unfortunate that like people living there don't have control of that and maybe they don't want 5G and why why are the rest of us as a community forcing these people have to live under
cell phone it is a con well It's it's a judgment but it's also something like I know you have to use criteria in federal law but there's always going to be interpretation and you have that political power interpretation We I can assure you that every member of this board will listen
Any else I'd like to make a statement on this again Mention your name again Thank you Thank you Um I wanted to add some clarity to some comments that we made last week at the
April 9th hearing regarding bill's overall cellular coverage needs First as has been discussed on a number of occasions the purpose of these hearings is decided of the applicant This project project meets the requirements for the press variance
special do not do a comprehensive analysis agree those bigger picture cellular capacity needs public has been asked to stay within this various variant scope and we hope that these proceedings will also stay within this dedicated scope and it seems
like you are We are talking about one cell tower that is not allowed to be built by right in this location The tower needs a variance special use permit from the city in order to be built near a residential area supposed to escape the inadequate fall zone much
smaller than the one necessary to protect residents in our community We cannot conflate proposed cell tower as the solution for the extra needed coverage to bring to the community We feel some coverage is not reliant on any
one tower or this cell tower There are issues of coverage around the city This needs to be addressed separately The city of Greenfield will need to do a deep dive in testing mitigating creating a strategic master plan to address any further coverage and capacity needs the
city might have Conversation last week was centered a good deal around the field's overall cellular coverage needs which doesn't apply to this variance request for a higher 14tory cell tower built in a residential area school in our community for joining many of the
residents both here and on Zoom this evening and asking for your denial of this cell tower for an alternative placement Thank you Thank you Thank you Okay go ahead
Thank God For the record this attorney brought you brought up the as we talked about last week is about taking painting a picture and those facts and the picture people are going
to be described by Tar's people's I think at the end of the day does not have an enviable job and filtering through everything and trying to figure out distinguish between fact and opinion
what's been presented what has been presented I'll give three examples last week there was a discussion about how we were asked to provide structural data when we start the tower told we never provided it which in fact was incorrect
We actually have provided it and the board actually confirmed that the adviserss were raising the issue that we would not number one example Number two tonight what Mr Chamberlain presented he represented to this board that he would
show you AT&T's map and he had a circle that was claiming that that was our map when we presented it I don't even know what's on that map It's not our map We didn't present that map We never have I want to thank attorney campell because he's the third example At one point
tonight he said that we were trying to put in a 32 foot foundation and that would support 199 ft tower However later in the discussion he said "Let me verify that." And he actually went to his records to determine whether or not he accurately read that or not because
there was some confusion While all of you who are facing the audience and having the discussion attorney I want to thank you He he did a a chat on the screen to acknowledge that in fact that wasn't correct But it's about having the
right information So here's my recommendation Mr Chair you raised a question at the last meeting You commented that when you hired T you thought they were covering everything You didn't realize they weren't covering everything
What we'd like to do is we would like to set aside an escrow Like to provide you with a $5,000 escrow We'd like you to hire an RF engineer Somebody who's capable and competent to provide this report They are independent third party opinion I
think that somebody was talking about earlier Let's get independent opinions from other people I believe Mr Roian mentioned that Let's get an RF engineer who can help you kind of weed through fact versus opinion He can tell you what is customary in this industry He can
tell you whether or not the material because you know quite frankly and and Mr Chair I thank you Um we were being accused of lie and with all due respect I've been doing this for a long time I've done several hundred hearings No
one's ever accused me of lying I've had plenty of people tell me they don't want the difference in their backyard So I think I don't I think I think I was trying to point out that even when you're not accusing somebody of lying directly because maybe that wasn't her intention by saying what she said it's
no different than if she was sitting there and she was about to begin an application for a special permit and somebody in the audience said "How can we believe anything she said?" You know it's so so I we we shut it down It's not going to happen again Don't we don't need to please let's leave it But I want
to fix the problem Yeah So what I'd like the board to do is if they could vote on engaging an RF engineer project I would ask that we work with RF to for you to identify here qualified no conflicts
just like T We will expedite all of the information that we have to get it over to them with a goal that they can have a report back to you by May 8 and possibly even appear at the hearing on the Maya It's we are so confident that they will
confirm to you that what we've done is consistent with industry standard It's consistent with Massachusetts law It's consistent with federal courts in Massachusetts of applicants for sale powers And it will help you sort through
the the various paintings of the information that have been presented to you by opponents proponents applicants adviserss and the community to help you short what you're going to need to do on
future meetings deliberate on the application So that would be my my offer to this board and we're happy to cooperate with that um to the extent that that's something the board would be interested in and I think that's an easy way for the board to know that you're
getting information that's reliable and having it peer reviewed by independent people What that suggests is to develop scope of services that's mutually agreed upon by AT&T and the communities expert So when that when that those findings
come out there's not a debate back and forth as to what those that sound frequency concerns as as a point of conflict What's the point Well the point is that I think on the
top of your mind is the radio is the health effects which I totally understand But in terms of the legal system which is a it's called like a game of chess um what he's what what attorney Rosen is saying is that there's
been it's been suggested by attorney Campanelli that what they provided us is meaningless and we have no way of knowing because we're not engineers So they're suggesting that they pay the h they pay for us to choose somebody totally independent from them So they wouldn't control that choice and that
person would come in and help We haven't even said anything about it yet but I'm just phrasing what he said And that expert would come in and be our expert the board's expert And we would say well we have this question that question this question that question this question that question this question And the expert would be able to
answer those questions from the position of someone who's very familiar with how this information gets gathered and then presented to boards like us So theoretically that person might disagree with attorney campelli and say that their the maps that they sent us do have
validity for the following reasons Or the what attorney Rosen is challenging is that and and maybe it won't work out The engineer says their maps are all wet They're meaningless But we would have an engineer that had no stake in the game except to make sure that we understood
what we were doing So that's third person impartial Third person would have the ability That's what he's suggesting So the expert would be somebody that would help us and I guess in
essence help you Yeah sure I haven't finished the answer Am I all set with the answer I'm Are you done with what you were saying back I'm not trying to interrupt you I know Okay I didn't want to give her a chance Um so all due respect to attorney
Rosen in the the generous offer of an RF engineer I've been at many many cell tower hearings in the area over the last 10 years Uh and I've never seen an RF engineer who didn't have um basically a
long history of working with industry one way or another Um so the idea of an impartial artifact here that you're just going to magically find is hard to imagine for me and the other thing that you know my understanding of of the
neighbors concerns is you know obviously there's people concerned about health There's no argument the RF engineer is not going to can't say anything about health They're not going to say anything else except that they're going to say this tower is within the SEC guidance
which would be absolutely true What we need what the abuters need and I'm speaking on behalf of the at this point because I'm feel is prohibitive evidence as attorney Kemp has called for in other words data So although I appreciate the generosity
of of Attorney Wilson's offer and you know $5,000 but what I what would actually be an interesting offer is to say well Verizon we have examples of Verizon providing drop call data that we can send you this evening It's not an industry secret to them it seems is
just asking for job data and then you know rather than prolonging because your time's running out that would be my sort of meaningless nobody's time is running out please I'm not suggesting that we engage our engineer to dispel any
healthy aspect I am suggesting we hire an RF engineer who can analyze the efficient Not not I appreciate what you have to say
and he will he will Yes Would the RF engineer be in place of not getting drop Uh we haven't decided anything Yes The suggestions are made The board hasn't had a chance to talk about it So that's a
good I I guess if I imagine what the RF engineer would do is we could ask the RF engineer So compared to what they got us what they sent us is drop call data like 10 times better I would hope the ARF engineer being our engineer would say
yes it is And then you know so there attorney Rosen seems to be confident that if we ask that question that's not going to be the answer but at least I think because he's seeing where things are moving he wants to give us a chance to feel independently
uh educated and and and comfortable that um that we understand the data as it's being given to us So that's a good point that you made but I want you to know the distinction is that the expert is the one that helps us understand whether the methods were used properly
or what we really need to have Drop call data is something that you all have insisted that we get and you've told us that that's the gold standard but we don't have any expert that's told us that that's the case We I mean I'm not saying attorney camp is not an expert
and maybe he's right but I'm not going to rely on the attorney for the concerned citizens to be my expert because he couldn't do it anyway because he's having a kind of conflict So it looks like there might be a gap in information So we're going to now discuss it So I'm going to give the you
folks you can wait you can listen you can sit and be here And by the way Attorney Rosen will be given the privilege of speaking with us even if I shut down the public segment of this So I don't want anybody to feel the hurt feeling So this is your last chance to say something if you need to guess
Just wanted to note that it was actually the experts from UNH that called the drop data the gold standard not the attorney Okay Thank you Um well I would suggest that that you could also save $5,000 and just have Ken
Chamberlain who is an expert in be your your but don't you understand he's he's not objective you think he's objective but we no longer think he's objective So even though he's given an opinion and I and I'm sure he's the best and I there's
no reason for me not to appreciate and believe what he's saying you brought So we're now we now need somebody for in our camp So I appreciate that and thank you Thank you for bringing that up I I just knew that somebody said it and I
feel like I need to know for I need to know from somebody's I could you know independent of all the back and forth about this Go ahead Yes Just I mean but they are the ones Let me Yeah But you have a you have a zoning code and you have and there's a federal
law that says especially the federal law that says that these are people that we elected to Congress that that that voted in a staff that said we want to sell powers all over the country So they come to us and they ask us for this
information that they asked us to decide yesterday Yeah I was so we we didn't initiate this I I don't think I just think what you're saying doesn't make sense as the question Yes Is it as simple as if we
have a zoning restriction that nothing can be built taller than three stories that that suffice for this to be dated But there's a federal law that says if they have proven that that they need this above and beyond everything else
then that's considered hardship So that's a factor for the variance So that's why that's why we we have to pin down the facts and make sure we feel comfortable with the facts so that when we compare
it to the law we know we can make a decision that is what we consider to be the proper decision And please don't misunderstand me anything I've said tonight even if I've shut down some things We're we are your community
Okay we're not this isn't like you didn't go to Boston for this We're not and you know we're we're your community Okay so we're here to do our job appreciating that we all live in this community but we have a job to do So you're just going to have to trust that
we're going to make every effort to do the right thing based on all those variables And that's all I can say I know we're committed to it So that's and I I can't say enough how I appreciate everybody coming out and all the information that you gave us and um
now we're going to deliver it All right Anything else Good Good Okay So um I think we should make a motion Maybe Eric do you want to make a motion Oh wait wait hold up First there's attorney Rosen's there's attorney Rosen's suggestion Do we want
to integrate it with uh something that we're going to talk about Some I mean how are we going to discuss his offer In the context of Eric's offer separate together What do you want to do Eric's offer Well Eric's proposal is that we ask for certain things Attorney
Rosen's is saying we he's going to give us money to hire an engineer but that engineer will collect all the data that's now available He has not agreed nor has AT&T agreed that that data will include any of this information It would be the information that's already in the
record So I guess here's my question that actually came up with the whole notion of having to make a formal request for the data Is it our job to like excruciatingly pull the evidence of need out of the applicant like or is it
the applicant's job to give us the data that they think best makes their case and then we judge based on that the latter So why do we have to make formal requests for information If this is the best information that they can offer to establish need great If there's now a
sense of we actually think that we could throw some money on the table to help provide stronger evidence of need great But I kind of I don't really love the idea of formally asking the applicant to give us information to help make their case That's their job So I'm
kind of torn on this I would like to have a better sense of the need So in that sense I you know I guess if if if they want to throw some money into retain somebody to help establish that that's fine But I I chafe a little bit
at the notion of having to make a formal request of the applicant for information for them to make their case That's their job I we've commented on the map several times repeatedly you know in regards to this seems pretty close What's you know what's the difference between this map
and that map and they've and we dance around the dance around the subject Yes point I'm prepared to just kind of deliver it based on the evidence that we've got and I don't necessarily I mean if this RF if this RF expert is going to
drive around and give us the hard data about signal strength and or provide drop call data all that this engineer is not going to provide that and they're just going to say yeah these colored apps look good to me I don't think we need them You don't need think we need what I
don't think we if all the expert is going to do is just say "Yep these these maps are good without anything anything further than we don't need them to spend $5,000 We already have the maps." Okay let's let's let's dig a little deeper on that
Yeah Is there let let's just independently do we do you think that we need an expert to help us with this No I'm happy with the maps I can read them I can understand my
concern I I would like to look at I I I personally would like to see data substantiating the maps because I have gone on AT&T's website and their map is different I've gone to the FCC map
That's different I've looked at these maps They're different Now you go to the AT&T map says if I wanted to be a new customer come into you got great coverage They're beautiful Now there's a disclaimer in there and you go there and it talks
about the topography but everyone's website looks like that So which map is accurate The one AT&T provides the one FCC provides are the maps here because they have stated the maps that are here are proposal coverage They have said
themselves that we believe this is the coverage you're going to get with this if we put this tower up I don't personally see a radical difference in the maps in regards to the coverage because the maps do stop at that point
83 or or whatever it it is I personally watch my own phone roll from 5G to 4G to 3G and I don't lose calls So I do not believe at this point that they have provided evidence that coverage is needed I want that data
I'm I'm pretty this is my take as well If people feel like an external consult like I'm happy to continue to have as many meetings as we need to help Let's go I'm gonna hold uh Rosen I'm one
of the board but that's just that's um Eric Uh how do you how do you respond to that I I I agree with what I believe Deb was saying which is we've got a bunch of different what's
supposed to be information before us but we don't know We don't we don't know which one to believe It's not clear and we've got conflicting opinions coming of whether it's accurate or not accurate whether
it's incomplete And even if we got the data which I believe we should ask for just so we have more information to make a decision even if we get that data I think we need somebody to help us interpret it and understand what it
means and what it says because if somebody puts drop call data in front of me right now I go I don't know what it means I mean it's they had he had up in the board at one point um you know a bunch of drop call what looked like drop
call data and I'm looking at it going I don't I don't know what that means I just don't and a lot of the stuff we've been presented I don't know what it means So I am in favor of having somebody help us to sort this out
Doesn't mean they're going to decide for us We have to decide and I think given the time constraints that we ought to ask now for this additional data the drop ball data and the um the road test
data so that we'll have that data available If the expert that we hire comes in and says "Oh you can disregard all that You don't need that." Great Then we know that we don't need it But without it if we don't ask for it we
won't have it You know I think if we had been more experienced with this we probably would have asked for the um RF engineer earlier on as part of the peer review that's uh we're entitled to the
ordinance So you know the question is do we want to take advantage of that I I I don't I mean he's offering Attorney Rosen's offering it but I think we could have asked for it as well So good for him for jumping ahead But um so the question is
and then the the second question is what is if we don't make a request for the drop ball data then why are we hiring the engineer Because the engineer is not going to be helping us with if we don't have all that data Good Go ahead Suggestion Yeah I think we we should get
a peer consultant but I would not do that But we need to define what we have to get both entities to kind of participate When you say both entities being AT&T you know community and yeah whether it's you
know this attorney but have them say okay here's what we want that peer peer review to perform have each side agree that they're they've got the proper credential so we don't keep getting going back and forth they disagree they disagree we need a mutual
agreement whoever we hire and then what that drop they what what data do they need bring forward to have that done okay I I we're going to try to select an independent consultant I don't think you have the expertise to do that we need to determine who it is that
we want to have perform service I I agree with that state the only thing is and and I don't mean to offend anybody but I think it's our you know we should make the determination about what we want You had made some comment about that I I I kind of want to
get I I I think we're at a point here we need to kind of move away a little bit about tit for tat on both sides of of the issue and find the information we need to go forward I hear you but you know we heard a lot of information if we're going to do that reflect back and
health So if we're going to put a scope of services together that does answer all the questions Yes I I absolutely agree with that Not saying we need to be biased in any way but I think if we're going to develop a scope hire someone we need to take all the things we've heard say okay and we all need to make a list
of things that we would like that person to do and say here's what we want And that others that get into hiring right and I have said I my apologies I thought you were saying we would ask each side what they would like to be too and I was like no I don't think I want to go that
way I think we ultimately make the decision but we need them to participate as to what we're trying to accomplish So that ultimately we've heard everyone make all kinds of comments We need to decide which ones are important right here for us to decide on That person works for us not
that I I'm going to give a counterpoint to what you said I think I want to so I want to take what you're saying I'm just going to bring it just to the other side Just say you know it's on the same line but it's a different look I don't I don't I don't
want to get the applicant or the abuters involved in us hiring our own expert That's for us We decide how to do it We now know what we're doing We're going to talk to that person If they don't like the expert that we picked if Kevin doesn't attorney Capelli doesn't like
the expert we picked they can voice their discomfort But I I just focus What I'm saying is listen to what they said That I would happily do I'm not I'm not asking them to participate Great Okay I'm just saying all the things they've said we compile it from all the notes
that Eric has taken we've heard Okay And we use that as the basis part No I'm not asking for their participation Okay I misunderstood you then that because it sound to me that's what it sounded like So I was like we've heard all kinds of stuff I'm in full agreement Yeah Multiple people think we should take all
the equipment sift through it and pick the things that we think are pretty you know I'm really the the idea that it's the applicant's responsibility to do stuff resonates with me a
lot But the other hand is you know who's controlling this process us So you know I want to make the best decision that we can make so that I know at the end that was the best decision
I want all the GD information that I could get at my disposal so at the end of the day I could look everybody in the eye and say we made the right decision here because we had all the information that we really needed to do
it and and so so it's hard for me to go that what I just said and also believe in that and and I think there's a message that we're giving to the applicant and it's a it's loud and
clear Uh I think we should ask for the information that we want and then it's on them if they don't want to give it to us and that that speaks for what it speaks for Um and I think we should take advantage of the engineer uh and um have somebody that we can ask
you know we've asked proative questions of everybody else's experts like somebody that we know is our expert and then at the end of the day when we make our decision we'll have an expert that we could cite in our opinion who was set to us so we relied
on it which is good So again I think attorney Rosen obviously either he's I mean I I don't want to he's here so he could tell me what you're doing but it's a wise move to to jump in and to do that because he could see where things are
headed So uh I think we should vote to take the offer and uh Eric if you feel firmly about the request I think we should vote and make the request If this is what we want we're going to ask for it We're going to get it We're not going to get it We're going to ask for it and
then we will weigh all that stuff later and and make it a totally full boat of information Good Okay So uh I'd like to make a motion I I don't know about the
timelines Michael um because sounds like it's going to fall on me to figure out how to organize everything But in general I'd like to make a motion to um accept Attorney Rosen's offer for $5,000 to be available for us to hire an
independent RF engineer uh uh that's suitable to us I'll second that Um yeah And we'll provide a scope of We'll decide and provide a scope of work for the for the engineer Yes Yes Well we
decide what Yeah If you want to add that Yeah What if the engineer's fee is more than $5,000 I thought about that Then I'll go back to attorney Rosen and say "What do you think?" Because we're back to the we don't we're telling them that we
need this information If they're not going to help us then the message is clear right So it could help us make our decision Yeah So uh any any other discussion Yeah Are we trying to get this done by May 8th I'm not going to commit to May 8th
but I will commit to doing we I think we have an obligation to move as reasonably quickly as we can but yeah Well if you give me authority I can talk to attorneys and we'll figure it out
Um I think I think at the end of the day we want to get through this but they also want to make sure that they he doesn't want to feel like he left something on the table So okay Uh any more discussion All right All in favor say I I Any opposed Any extensions
Voting yes I don't think that's okay Why don't you try I let the record show that everybody including the alternates voted yes Okay Now the more difficult Uh go ahead Make a motion Eric I make a motion
that make it speak a little louder just like make a motion that we request the information regarding drop request formally request the drop call data and uh drive test data signal
strength So that point what for the areas in question Yes Uh that sufficient for everybody to be used by our Yeah To be used by Yes views by us in in making our
determination I can add that Eric you got that right Yeah that that would actually be helpful if we ever come to a place where we burn it down because they have improved Do I hear a second I'll second it Any further Okay now go Eric Any further discussion
You want to answer that Any further Everybody good Ready All right All in favor say I I Thank you Chuck Any opposed Any extensions Let the record show unanimous Seven all the members He's not he's
any you need any clarification No guarantees on the eight but I will work with you to see Anything to help Okay Um All right Anything else about these two hearings All right Let's let's take a vote to continue both matters May
8th 2025 I'll make the vote I hear a second Second Okay Any discussion All in favor say I I Any oppose Let the record show all seven of us Um Okay So that's what we Well we have minutes We have minutes
that we need to approve Did you give us minutes or Yes Minutes of April 9th Motion Make a motion to approve your second five minutes here Uh second Second Any discussion All in favor say I
I post Let the record show everybody said yes I'll take a motion to ensure any other business I know you God I can't I didn't even breathe out Uh any other business Okay Go ahead Make a motion to meet and be adjourned Second All in favor say I I Any oppose Let the
record show We are adjourned [Music]