okay I'm going to convene the meeting at 6:30 taping Yes Mr Chairman 6:30 p.m on April 9th 2025 Meeting of the special meeting of the zoning board of appeals of
Greenfield Um I think I said the date already so I'll read the chair statement This meeting is being recorded by the zoning board of appeals Any other persons present are doing the same You must notify the chairperson at this time In accordance with Mass General law chapter 30A section 20G quote "No person
shall address a meeting of a public body without permission of the chair and all persons shall at the request of the chair be silent No person shall disrupt the proceedings of a meeting of a public body After clear warning from the chair a person continues to disrupt the proceeding the chair may order the
person to withdraw from the meeting And if the person does not withdraw the chair may authorize the conible or other officer remove the person from the room Also I forgot to say we're meeting tonight at the brand new fire station in Greenfield Your tax dollars at work Um
okay So I've called this to work Is anyone Oh is anyone recording on this paper [Music] um okay Persons sitting tonight are Jim David Singer Eric Green Debbie D Hey
Mr Clerk would you agree with this is a continuation of two hearings on the application of Birdie Wireless to build the cell tower special permit and variance application Can you read the in the record please application of Verity Wireless LLC for property located at
zero Fair View Street West Assessor's Tax Map RT 24 lap 7A which is located in the general commercial GC zoning district for a variance pursuant to section 200.7 of the zoning ordinance in order to allow for the construction of a new
wireless communication structure of ground mounted groundbased equipment cabinets and antennas mounted on top of a monle 170 ft height with insufficient following That's the first portion That's the variance An application of
the Veridia Wireless LLC for property located at zero py street west assessors map R24 lot 7A which is located in the general commercial GC zoning district permit pursuant to sections
200-4.9C3 200-7.14 2000-8.3 and 2008 8- excuse me 200-8.4 four of the zoning ordinance in order to allow for the construction of a new communication structure comprised of
groundbased equipment cabinets and antennas mounted on top of mountable 170 ft in height at this location All right Thank you So the the way this meeting is going to be organized the uh applicant is going to get a half hour to speak um and then I'm going to open this
up to the public both people that are here and people online So uh I'll give people a reasonable amount of time to speak I think the board is really interested in hearing what people have to say and I thank the public for their patience Uh and I'll let the applicant
begin Please introduce yourselves for the record Mr Chair Uh first of all welcome back Thank you Um and members of the board attorney Michael Rosen uh with George Chaness uh and Steven Harbert who's online uh from
Veridi Um and Ed Par is council for AT&T Martin Lavin who shows up as ML on the Zoom uh who's from CS squared and Kevin Mason who's from SAI Um so one quick point of business I always ask so
forgive me for asking Uh has Mullen and you have I signed it Yes I did Thank you Thank you Um excuse me for for the people who are listening in order for any person who listens to a zoning matter on the panel here in order
them to proceed to deliberation if we miss a meeting we have to watch the meeting and then sign an affidavit that says that we have So that continues that way we can continue being on the panel So I I did watch the meeting and I signed an affidavit to that effect Last
meeting you heard Mark Maloney do the same thing Peter Wnjak had to do that one meeting So that's what this all means Thank you Thank you Um so this evening uh in in the half hour we were going to cover two things Um the first was going to be the balloon test Yes And
the balloon test obviously as everyone saw the weather this past weekend did not cooperate So we also are scheduled for this coming weekend And as we're looking at the weather it certainly appears that the weather is not going to cooperate again
Um you know I understand is saying April April showers Um we would like to offer a suggestion if the weekend weather does not improve Um and the reason I'm offering the suggestion is I would still
like to have the balloon test before the next hearing because at the next hearing I believe it is uh permitting the experts uh for the community group to be able to present and I would like to have them have had
the opportunity to see the balloon before they present Uh so what I'm going to suggest is that we do the balloon test on Thursday if we can't get it done this weekend And what I'd like to suggest is that we do it at 2 PM but I
would like to do the reverse order of what we've been talking about for the weekends So when we were discussing the weekends we were thinking we would all try and get to the site around 10 so we could observe together and answer any questions and then if we wanted to go look at alternative uh view sheds to see
it from different locations we would keep the balloon up from 10 to 2 and people could do that What I'd like to suggest on Are you talking about tomorrow there is no week No no A week from a week from 17th This is the suggestion before our next hearing So so what I was thinking was we would do the
exact opposite We'd make sure the balloon was up by two any member of the community if the opposition group council if attorney was going to come into Greenfield to speak that night they could go while it's still daylight out and see it But also recognizing that people have jobs and have other
commitments I was thinking that we could ask and meet at the location maybe at 5:30 That would give the board members an hour to view it from a common location and ask questions if they had any and possibly go look at other sites And then we would commence the hearing
as soon as we get back to the meeting room And maybe that means the hearing instead of starting at 6:30 starts at 6:45 But it's I'm trying to balance the ability of the of Butters and and the the community to see it before the next
meeting with the board's schedule and the time and effort that you guys are already putting in by adding extra meetings for us So I throw that out as an option Obviously if if that doesn't work then the next thing we would do is we would look at a following weekend Um
so I throw that out there but I felt like that was a way to give the uh the the abuters and the community group a chance to see it before the next tier Thank you You're welcome How do members of the board feel about that couple I can make that work Y So what
what time would be concerned citizens any objection to next Thursday at the balloon being put up at 2 all meeting at 5:30 and then we'll come back here for not here We'll come back to city hall for the meeting Any objections to that
okay Sorry bad weather two weekends in a row We try and and just to be clear we're not saying Saturday or Sunday this weekend is canceled yet but my guess is we're going to know within 20 people we will let people know if it is not We'll let people know if it's canled without
assume having you assume that it is can if you'd like if I can You may just have to let me know you are That's all I have Thanks Mike there's just a loud fan back there that's making it hard to hear I know we've had that at the We had it at the community center when we did those
meetings I don't know if that was in the budget Do we know what the fan is can we turn the fan i spoke with him He said it's not something they can It's coming from there and they can't really speak from this table if you'd like We can maybe go to the end and that way we're facing Can
you hear us a little it's just there there's a competition from the All right we will talk louder Please raise your hand if you cannot hear That way we'll repeat what we have to say Thank you for that Thank you Mr Chair Uh so we we had discussed addressing two things tonight
So the first was the balloon test The second was there were a lot of questions about the Hampton Inn And so with that I'm going to hand off to uh Attorney Par and he is going to walk through that uh with his board Thank you
Uh good evening again My name is Edward Perry It's P A R E I go by Ed So please uh go please use that Call me Ed Um yesterday I sent Eric an email I brought some copies this uh tonight of a letter
that I put together with some attachments Uh I want to turn to the side so everybody can hear Uh so at the last hearing there were a couple of me couple of board members were interested in the impact of
using a hypothetical tower or hypothetical facility at the Hampton Inn That seemed to be the focus and at least two of the board members and I don't think one of them is here this evening but uh so in looking at it I realized well you know we could do a little bit
more due diligence here give the board some better information So uh in the letter I've explained what we did was we provided a coverage plot If we were to use the Hampton in uh Hampton in a fourstory building the property card
it's about 11 ft per story So it's about a 44 foot building We typically do a rooftop mount uh that we do them throughout cities uh other communities U we can screen it and so forth So it gets us an antenna height a center antenna
height of about 60 ft So this hypothetical site I had them run a coverage plot You'll see that's on the left hand side of the I think the second page and I did provide full copies and you could see the the maps themselves and you'll see that there is a
significant difference in coverage between the Hampton end at 60 ft and the Varity Tower proposal at 166 I'm sorry When you mean 60 ft from the ground or 60 ft up from the roof 60 ft from the ground So it would be basically a 15 or 20 foot installation on the roof That
would be typical of what we would do for a rooftop installation So we wouldn't be constructing a tower on the roof but you know we we acknowledge we do do rooftop installations We do them throughout the cities uh throughout Boston and that's generally about the height We're
probably given it more height than we could get but it at least represents what we could do from the roof And you'll see the the lack in coverage the gaps that still remain open would be significant I had
Martin prepare our population count loss and area count loss And you'll see that at the Mega 83 DBM Yeah we'd lose threequarters of the coverage between the Hampton rooftop and the radio tower
proposal I have a question When you um I was one of the board members who questioned uh questioned that Yep So um Hampton when you did the initial proposal in the map that we saw originally it was at 166 feet and I was like can you explain to me why the difference in height i'm going I'm going
to and we're going to get to the next page and I'll do that So when you take a look at the Hampton Inn parcel there's no way we could put a tower And as I told you it's a it was a hypothetical tower at 166 ft but we wouldn't meet any fall zone requirements
The building takes up most of the property And if you take a look at the property card you know we would be probably somewhere between 40 feet off the property line as compared to you know 90 or 100 feet as we proposed So our ability to put a tower there and
satisfy the zoning viol zoning ordinance would be the same as we're dealing with here But there is some coverage loss I'm going to get to that on the next page So this coverage loss is the rooftop The reason I went to a rooftop is because that is doable So when I said it was a hypothetical tower at 166 feet we could
actually do a rooftop somewhere around 60 feet in totals But this is the coverage we would get At neg 83 we'd lose about three quarters At neg 9 93 we'd lose about 2/3 So that's just not something that would
replace the vidian proposal But because you asked questions about the coverage and we had a little bit of difficulty using the map saying well it's a little bit here a little bit there We get this neighborhood I had to prepare and you should see in your next in the next chart it won't be in a map It'll be in a
tri like this third day Jen [Music] probably can I ask a question please i mean I I hear what you said and I hear what's happening now but it's just a bit frustrating to have seen that data presented as if that's real information
What's that when you showed it when we looked at the coverage that Debbie was referring to I mean if that's a hypothetical it should have been pointed out say gee that just shouldn't be here Well we did I mean I said it was a hypothetical It was a tough but you know in the you said that but when it was
presented to us it was it was in a in a report you know shown as a possibility as a hypothetical tower at 100 it would be 170 foot tower on that parcel if we could build it So if I might so what they did for every single site is they
did 166 ft They did them all exactly the same on the theory that what you might want to look at is an applesto apples comparison Um because based on what Ed is going to explain to you next even if we could do
166 feet you're going to have a coverage loss compared to the Veridi site We didn't think twice about looking at each site and saying "Well what could we actually build would it have to be lower?" After we came out of the last meeting we we obviously did that Like by
way of example I went and I pulled all of the zoning records the special permits the approvals Um they didn't even have adequate parking for what they have there now They have to have there's a condition of their special permit that they have to locate some of their parking on an adjacent site and have a
permanent transferable easement and a right to park on adjacent property So little things like that We didn't delve into all those details because that's just spending more money and more money But when we looked at them all at 166 feet as that is going to explain the Vid
site is head and shoulders above the other sites and he'll explain that to you Now if you go to the next page in my letter let me make sure I have since I just have a recap You go to page four of my
letter This is this would be the Hampton Inn Up at the top lefthand corner you'll see 170 ft So this is the 170 foot hypothetical tower that we couldn't build there But you can show the coverage and the gaps that would be produced And you'll see that at neg 83
we'd be looking at about a 35% reduction and somewhere between at the NEG 93 somewhere between 13 and 15% reduced coverage Now again that's a hypothetical tower If it could be built there it's not going to be built there It can't be
built there But this was the comparison to show alternative locations Just like when I mentioned the fairground the fairground would produce coverage The fairground isn't in the preferred zoning district It's not going to be permissive Any other questions before I
All right So um as we are beginning to focus in on the law especially there's two things that we have to contend with One is if there's a significant gap in coverage which I think you're addressing now and
the other is that this is the best site possible the one you're proposing So the way I understood it in the beginning when we first came in was that you know you have a duty to do due diligence around the area and try to
find as many sites as you can and then when you pick the site you then compare them to the other sites and then you uh you advocate that this is the best site So in my thinking about that because you
had like that's several sites maybe eight to 12 sites Yeah Are are you now saying or and and I don't want to hold up tonight's meeting but this would be good for the next meeting to start off with Are you saying that many of the proposed sites that kind of go through
that exercise in order to get to the Bid site that those were all I want to know which ones of those were hypothetical and could never happen in a million years but you you were going to put up a tower at 160 feet and this is what you just like you're doing here I I'm now
wondering you know again I'm not saying you did it for all of them but I didn't look at it that way I thought that for example the Hampton in 160 foot tower was a real possibility Yes you're going to have you're going to have constraints with the things you're talking about Um so if you think you did that in the
literature then you don't have to do anything more You can just point it to me But if you didn't I'd like to know that I'd like to hear from each site a little more about uh the reality or not reality because in our making a decision we have to factor in that you know a lot
of specificity Again I may have missed it I mean there's a lot of material I've gone over the material over and over again You're used to it We're not It's hard for me to find those places where that information is So I have to we have to uh rely on your representation So so
so that's that's question one Question two actually why don't you finish that i can remember my question I'm young enough So so we came when we came in at first at the first my first hearing which was the last hearing Yeah I brought I submitted a letter and I
submitted six eight 10 coverage maps which was was basically analysis of coverage that we would get from each location in a hypothetical situation So when I say hypothetical if you have a
big lot just blank space a huge you know acreage of property that works for us I mean if we have access from the public street we can drive to it You know we can create a lease if we can construct it But there is feasibility So that the one good example is the fairgrounds It's
a large parcel but it's in a residential zoning district which we went through last time Your bylaw doesn't give preference there So the first thing and I want to not not step away from Verity but as I said in my test or my
presentation advocacy last time Yes We're here to provide service So if if we had a tower on the lot next door we go and attach to the tower Cheaper for us It's easy to get permitted We go and we do it When we look at
alternatives like Bid brings us a site and says you know here's what we have we supply to the board What else did we look at you know is there a water tank nearby is there a tower nearby so in accordance with your or not a bylaw in accordance with your zoning
ordinance we have a duty to eliminate existing structures and I think we have that duty under federal law also to a great extent if they're less intrusive and to demonstrate to the board that we are picking the best location In doing so
we supplied to the board a list of eight or 12 alternatives we looked at Some are you know far a field I mean there's no way Some are up near the college One was a town property Again huge vacant parcel feasible You know can we construct it
who knows but you know I can't say we couldn't put it there But I can come to the board and say if I put it there it's not as good as this one It leaves us gaps That was the purpose of what we did And you should find a coverage map for each of those locations We did go
through each one of them And the issue with the Hampton was when you look at the maps you really can't tell You see green you see some orange And you know we went back and forth about this neighborhood doesn't get coverage This one does
This will give you a zoom in on exactly where would be lacking the coverage population-wise business-wise and area wise streets and so forth So it's just a back and forth of hypothetical As I said to the board we I don't we couldn't
put 20 foot tower on the top of the roof That's not the building wasn't designed that way It would look foolish So that's the purpose of the alternatives only to give the board evidence that we actually went out searched the area and we winnowed down
to what we think is the best location Not everybody agrees with us as you'll hear Yeah Well from a concerned citizens point of view they might think that you had a duty to find another spot not theirs And you're telling us that theirs is the only one you can do and
the one it stands out so uh incredibly that that's the one we want to use So if you take if you take a drive by that's where I'm think and they're going to they're going to now weigh in on how they think about it So how do you feel about it and if you take a drive by the site which I did this evening I would
say that it is a great location but that's my perspective That's what I advocate for You know the the variance that they're seeking is a fall zone variance The only property the only thing that if the
tower fell over which it won't I mean we build it to coat it so that it doesn't tip over from the from the base It's a road Nobody gets impacted Nobody knows From my perspective after doing this this long this is a really good site but
I know we have a good Okay the next question I have is this minus 83 dBm - 93 dBm Can you explain to everybody who's watching um I think something I read the 83dB game is actually the best frequency The negative number lowest
negative number is the best frequency and then as you move up what's something maybe the it's the low it's the lowest frequency the worst frequency So you know and I did discuss this a little bit in my letter that I submitted yesterday So neg 83 is the power level that we're
getting from the the signal So the antenna propagates it propagates at different signals You know they have different bands We've talked about the 700 band 1900 you know 18 1900 is better than 700 It's not 1900 the same thing
They're all frequencies They're all radio frequencies The middle frequencies are the better corre Well they give a better footprint So what AT&T and all the carriers do is they use their base like of 700 600 whatever they've acquired from the
FCC whatever they've been licensed for and it provides a big footprint but the more users and the more people at the edge of that footprint start draining the system So what they do is they use higher frequencies which have smaller footprints It's all backwards So the
1900 is something that AT&T has They'll place the 1900 on top of the 700 so that people close enough to the 19 attached to in layman's terms attached to the 19 and they leave the 700 alone so that 700 doesn't shrink down because everybody's
using 700s So it's just a way for the carriers to layer their service And when you get up into the high real high range like I I've been doing sites now in the you know megahertz range and you know some of them go quarter So but when you
have a real concentrated area like in the city of Boston you start with that high frequency you get people onto that high frequency but because it's a small footprint you then build with 19 and then you build with 700 So I have Martin here There's no need for Martin to you
know weigh in but if you have any technical questions Martin Lavend is here I probably will but I'm not gonna I really want to stick to my schedule But I I again I think I want things are starting to come into focus for members of the board about you know what we're listening to and the more you know you
get you gave your overview Now we're digging deeper So so the NEG the NEG 83 is what AT&T considers as optimal coverage That's that will get us inbuilding coverage we propagate if we can get neg 83 the power level out to you know into the community it's going
to come through it's it should penetrate buildings vehicles etc that is the optimal coverage and you'll see that is what we when you look at the coverage maps that's what you see is green as I said at the last we're not going to get green everywhere we're not going to have neg 83 everywhere though AT&T doesn't
design to neg 83 contrary to what some people suggest and I clarify that in my there but they do design to the neg 93 AT&T wide So that that's why you'll always see we'll supply plots at NEG 83 which is our optimal and then neg 93 So
8 you do not provide 83 you provide 93 No we provide both 83 and 93 it's proximity to the site So that's why you'll see closer to the site you'll see neg 83 nice green So your phone knows to pick up all pick up the signal Is that what you're saying your phone is smart enough to know what signal it's going to
grab based on its what frequency it's going to grab So the neg 83 is not the frequency The frequency will be the 700 in 19 And what's the name what would we call this this would be the power Martin would you refer to it as the power level i don't excuse me That's the receive signal
strength Uh the power receive the the coverage threshold at any given frequency Right Um is there anything else you want to add to your presentation i don't I would al also just refer you to my letter with respect to some of the
comments that were made I you know I thought there was some great comments made by the attorney that's representing some of the residents uh with respect to the FCC coverage maps the AT&T coverage maps I put that for your information I don't want to let I don't want to let
things be stated out there that are incorrect and then they become truth at some point So I lay those out there We agreed to keep our presentation short We will we can deal with that later I think there's going to be I think there's going to be questions along that line
But again I I want to give them the concerned citizens a chance so we have the whole picture and then we can as the chair and the board we can we can conduct the conversation because we know what people are thinking All right As promised at 7 o'clock I'm going to now
see um now I do want to say this to folks You can mention this I guess because I know it was a concern that came up early about the frequencies and its effect on health I just want people to know that um we have no jurisdiction
over that aspect of this application Once the FCC determines a frequency level and they determine it to be safe that's the frequency level if that if I'm using the term properly Uh however we would if we were to allow
this we would condition the frequencies to remain at that level So if people are going to if people are going to talk about worried about health issues with frequency I'm empathic to that I might even feel the same way personally as you do but it's not relevant for us So I'm
not going to say you shouldn't say it but don't dwell on it because it just isn't relevant Um it could be part of your concerns and that's so just wanted to put that out And uh I'll now take usually have a signup sheet but you know I'll take people by everybody's going to
speak We have time so I'll take it by hand And I need All right I'm gonna let you can start Your name address for the record please Do you mind if I come up just because I'm not hearing come up here
thank you Good evening everyone My name is Alana Kersbomb I live at 167 South Shelurn Road in Greenfield I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight I'm here representing myself along with
22 other abutters and nearby residents of the proposed tower Last December we submitted a 70-page legal brief outlining the substantial case for denying the application for the 170 foot monopole tower at 112 Newton Street also
referred to as Zero Fair View Street West I believe I want to take this opportunity to outline various critical issues we have for continuing to oppose a tower at this location Over the last three meetings
including this one tonight Verity Wireless has presented for over four and a half hours In that time they have not provided substantial information that indicates they meet the requirements for approval of the variance special use permit
We still do not have a proven significant gap of service or the data that calibrates and verifies the applicant propagation maps that we have seen to demonstrate their accuracy These propagating maps are just
estimates with a number of influencing factors that affect their accuracy Their information cannot be considered accurate without the drop call logs for the outlined area and the actual on the ground measurements that calibrates their
accuracy It is only after these things are done and this data all aligns that there can be confidence in using the model We have been requesting this drop call data from the area since December 2nd
from the applicant since December 2nd 2024 Here we are four months later and still operating without this quantifying information that demonstrates the validity of a significant gap Dr Chamberlain who will be presenting next week is an expert in
propagating models and he will be discussing the limits of the model and the needs that go along with accurate assessment in a given area Equally important is that there are clearly demonstrated other locations where this tower can be placed away from
residential homes and these sites have not been fully explored At the December meeting the applicant was asked by another member of the ZBA about the criteria and methodology and process that was used for eliminating the other
viable sites they were presenting And again we are now four months later without this quantifying information as we never received these answers regarding the process that was used to evaluate To date we have heard a case
presented by a company with a very vested business interest in its outcome but we have not heard meaningful substantiation for the claims that have been stated in regards to the necessity of this variance There are still many
questions One qu and one further question is the tower's construction regards to the fall zone which is which is outlined in the application is a major safety hazard We have been asked to believe that this tower due to its design would not be a hazard in a collapse or fire situation Again without
any quantifying data on this the residents formally request data and on how many of these specific types of cell towers with proposed hinge designs are placed across the country and their specific locations for reference We also
request substantiating data on their failure rates We hope that you will require this information prior to your ruling on a variance and allow a decreased fall and allowing a decreased fall zone With regards to the design the
applicant able to certify that there has never been a structural failure in any of these towers If not what are they basing their complete assurance that this tower will not fall outside the fall zone who will provide this evidence and testimony the public is not assured
with verbal asurances without specific and comprehensive data to support the claims The unexpected in life happens all the time and it is proper zoning that protects the safety of our residents Hence the need for our zoning
and variance requirements One question that we do have more data on is the question about first responders Over the course of our meetings the applicant has emphasized the need to have this tower to meet emergency call and response demand So I
discussed this issue with emergency responder leaders in the community who all confirmed that they utilize multiple technologies and are not fully relying on AT&T's First Net I spoke at length with Lieutenant Jason Hackin Haskins at
the police department Captain Alex Kulie at the fire department and dispatch center manager Tim Cunningham at AMR which is the medical and ambulance services to gain a clear understanding of their emergency protocols in relation to the usage of technology and equipment
They all reported that they utilize a radio system to communicate with other emergency responders called COMRS which stands for Commonwealth of Massachusetts interoperable radio system which is now the primary
communication system used by Franklin County Fire Police Emergency Medical Services and their dispatchers The technology relies on radio towers and not cell towers In speaking with Tim Cunningham at AMR regarding their rugged handheld cell phones that utilize AT&T's
First Net and do rely on cell towers he stated "Green Greenfield has good coverage and is even excellent in places further out as the area is pretty hilly." When I asked "What percentage do you rely upon cell phones with FirstNet or the radio system in an emergency and
why?" He responded "It's pretty evenly distributed The systems are redundant and one may work better than another depending on the situation If a cell tower were to be down it's not going to hurt us I hope this provides some further
substantiated data and clarity on that issue For these reasons and more the residents assert that Vidity Wireless has clearly not met the specific criteria required for variance and you as a ZBA do have the right under the
federal law to uphold your ordinances and variance requirements It was very notable at our last hearing that the attorney for AT&T AT&T stated that AT&T wanted this location for their tower because it is how they want to
build out their network A member of the ZBA responded that it was not the ZBA's job to give AT&T what it wants It is the ZBA's job to assess the need and do what is right and best for our community The residents agree and we hope you will
take all the necessary steps needed to ensure this for our community Thank you Next somebody want to speak from uh the screen Leah Nor 17 has raised hand
Is am I reading that properly you are on the phone Yes May I unmute oh you're good Please state your name and address Yes I am Leonora Alanise and I live at 19 Canal Street in Turner's
Falls also known as Great Falls across the river And I would like to speak I How How much time are you giving i I would give you five I'll give you five minutes but if you're just
finishing I'm not timing anybody but Okay good I don't need that I probably don't need quite as much So I um am very concerned about the towers period But more from that point of view which you declared as being not
relevant for this meeting My concern has been for years that of health the impact on health and also the disfiguring of the landscape So I am asking here am I witnessing here that the Greenfield
zoning board is in the process of deciding where toxic radio frequencies are visually the least offensive while they maintain their toxicity Toxic radiation is toxic
radiation wherever it covers the landscape or neighborhoods That's why we call it coverage Does it become less toxic when it does not offend the eye when it does not reduce property
values there are people who will seek out today on a map It's called the the map for towers fleeial tower These people will not buy property in municipalities and in areas that is
peppered with towers Rather they choose to buy land and property where there are few towers preferably where there is broadband Has Greenfield considered broadband at all such as the town of
Leverit has years ago over a decade ago I will continue [Music] um the uh toxicity radiates not only humans but the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom
So I want to read something that pertains to the town of Pittsfield where their health department has clearly established the health
hazards and I don't have it here but it can be found and maybe the residents of Greenfield are familiar with that case where the residents 17 residents had to move out years ago They're still not back in their homes Talk about property
value They don't even live in their places where they um pay property tax too And Verizon was ordered by a court order to remove the tower and they have
ignored it Also there are thousands of studies that say that the FCC standards are completely outdated have not been upgraded since the 1980s With that I finish my testimony and I thank you for the opportunity to
speak Thank you Okay I see Kate Go ahead Kate Can you hear me yes Okay Okay I got I got two different microphones Okay so my name is Kate
Vatton at 94 Meridian Street Um I live approximately two miles from the proposed cell tower So even though it would not be in my backyard I am here to support our fellow precinct 7 neighbors and to express my opposition But I would also like to get some clarification
regarding criteria that is stipulated in the special permits section of our zoning ordinances Specifically this would be section 200-60-f and it would be paragraphs 8 and 9 So paragraph 8 says "The project
shall be compatible with existing uses and other uses allowed by right and shall not detract from the character and scale of neighboring properties." So I feel that that the the folks
representing the cell tower project don't really know our neighborhood and really haven't taken the time to get to know it So let's take a look at the proposed locations as it relates as it relates to character and scale So there are two neighboring property clusters
that would above this tower So the properties in group one uh comprise a tightly settled neighborhood which shares both urban residential and suburban residential Um the properties in group two comprise a mixed commercial area
with retail dining and service businesses bank gas stations restaurants etc Um all of which fall into the general commercial designation So now when you walk through the neighborhood portion of the abuing parcel you will see closely situated
densely populated single family homes Within walking distance of these homes is a church a Masonic lodge one corporate office park emphasis on corporate one small manufacturing
business and two retail/service business after supply and premier self storage When you walk or drive through the commercial section abing the proposed tower side Mohawk Trail between River Street and the traffic circle
there is a mix of retail dining and service establishments The way I would see it this is the kind of general commercial mix that is in scale and in character with the abuing residential districts
There is not a single structure in this entire section of precinct 7 that is taller than two stories The architectural character and the scale of the existing structures are compatible and overall convey a sense of
a tightly settled urban neighborhood So how could one possibly think that a cell tower rising 100 ft above the tree line is compatible in character and scale moving on paragraph F9 states "The
design of the project shall minimize the visibility of visually degrading elements and maximize the use of screening vegetated buffer zones and open space Now the section of the Mohawk
Trail which spins off of the route to 91 I91 traffic circle is the gateway to Greenfield It provides the first impression and the last impression that newcomers and regular visitors receive when they come to stay and visit our
city This important corridor leading to the heart of downtown can either set the welcoming mat or be a total turnoff The sight of a cell tower rising 100 ft above the tree line is not going to be an asset in our efforts to attract a
hotel a conference center or other businesses that could help generate tax revenues and enhance our community quality of life This cell phone tower would indeed be a visually degrading element that could not be concealed by
screening or vegetative buffer zones So in conclusion I believe in growth I very much believe in the future of Greenfield but I believe that Greenfield needs smart growth I hope that you the ZBA members our fellow residents will do
the smart thing and reject this application Thank you Thank you Uh anybody here live that wants to speak yes sir Name and address please Uh Andrew Vernon 17 Sunset Square Greenfield
Massachusetts I'm also an employee of Greenfield Community College I've lived at 17 Sunset Square for 15 years and I am also a FirstNet user Uh I am not myself a first responder I'm not a
police officer am not a firefighter but I do have first net service for other reasons So ser cellular service needs to be improved in our community
I've lived there for 15 years From the rotary northeast through southeast of the roundabout the rotary the cellular service needs to be
improved The best example of that which I could offer to everyone to at least consider is the big Y parking lot It is frustrating for me as a resident
to see all of the other residents in Greenfield not have a service regardless of vendor regardless of carrier It's not an AT&T thing The cellular service needs to be
improved Varity is offering a solution to that problem I live behind Big Y If you draw a line from Big Y to Greenfield Community College I am squarely halfway in the middle As I mentioned I lived there for
15 years The cellular services are diminished at best Cellular service needs to improve in that geography Cellular service also needs to be
improved to Greenfield Community College as well and inbuilding coverage So I am in support of this tower for the service that it offers and provides I can affirm as a firstn net
user that those firstn net service is diminished throughout this 2 and a half mile area along 91 So I am in support of this tower uh for the service that it
can potentially offer and should potentially offer Uh I would also mention that in that area of town is Greenfield Community College and there is a great number of not only residents
but students and employees who have cell phones who need that service to be improved Thank you Thank you Anybody else
uh yes Go ahead My name is Heather Newell You can go That's fine Everybody's gonna get a chance to speak Go ahead My name is Heather Newell I live at 33 Laurel Street here in Greenfield I'm approximately 10 houses down from Buckley Nursing Home which is
pretty close to the site and seven from the bottom of the street They talk about dropped calls Um I would have dropped calls if I didn't have my cell phone on Wi-Fi calling It happened a lot A couple years ago I turned on Wi-Fi calling so now I don't get to drop calls But if I
had it on cellular service in my house in my backyard believe it or not I get the railroad bed and I'm more down the street But I do I get drop calls right there in my kitchen It's not It's not pretty I learned about this back in December on social media that this was
happening So I came to the meeting and I didn't I didn't speak in December Kind of wanted to listen to everybody and what everybody had to say Um they talk about property values I think I've been at my place for 29 years I think my property value is worth less
having no cell phone service than it would be with the tower My opinion is where the tower is I feel bad for the people that live right next door but it is sort of a secluded place compared to where it could be with more houses around the area Um I really want this
cell phone tower So I was listening at all the meetings and then all of a sudden came up the first net piece and I wasn't going to bring up this part so much um because I wanted to keep it kind of personal and private but um I have
first net I'm a public safety dispatcher and what I'm hearing about first net right now is not what I believe it to be You can ask them this First net towers what I understand is supposed to be if there was a huge event
like an active shooter god forbid right here where everybody's on their cell phone everybody's on their cell phone and it jams up the cell phone towers what happens is only people with per my understanding get to use that cell phone
tower to do communications and won't let other people through so the emergency people can get what they need I use my personal cell phone which has first net It goes I have a laptop at work so I can hotspot to this and get into my computer
at work and have access to see just NCIC maps um building schematics all things that first responders need and need to get to Yes you have radio but as a dispatcher I will tell you that the radio chatter can be so crazy during an
event Firefighters police officers ambulance everything You don't need a cell Keep the radio white because you have to listen for important things from first responders to respond to them and a lot of stuff you do besign behind the scenes on cell
phones That's very important So I just I couldn't keep quiet about knowing this case I'm not an expert but I've done it I've been I was a 91 dispatcher for 11 plus years Cars these days connected vehicles Back when I first started with OnStar it was satellite No longer have a
cell phone So if you don't have that cell phone to connect to your car it's not going to tell you if you're crash if you're in a dead zone it's not going to send that signal When we ping a cell phone whether it's a a person that's suicidal appropriately before um domestics
homeless in the woods here they have domestics So you ping a cell phone and you can get from the cell phone tower from when you call whatever company you get there's three sides to a tower So the PAPs of the 911 places they ping off
which side of the tower it is how many meters or kilometers away and then with an accuracy a lot of times it's a mile away that little place on 91 that it will include is it you might think okay
I'm on the phone it's going to drop for a second but with that car there's a lot of accidents in 91 Um I think that's probably about it I think it's it's an excellent thing There's lots of lots of information that
first responders need and and they say "Oh this coverage is great." Now I don't believe that's what FirstNet is First Net is not "Wow I got coverage today." First Net is if the network gets DM'd up these people that have FirstNet can get that I have four people
on my cell phone plan Three of us are First Net people because we are first responders state trooper dispatcher and then DDW worker which also so water infrastructure they all use you know a lot of those people do also use first
but me personally at my house I I don't think my property value down I think it's down because I don't have that oh and another argument I heard um before just researching arguments they were saying how it could hurt GET in town for
internet service on my street We don't have GET We don't have the option for GET And the reason being is GET says they can't get permission from the pole owners to put GET up my way up by the government So that's not an option for us So we're not hurting GET by using our
cell phones I guess that's it Thank you Thank you B My name's Elizabeth N I live at 191 Fairview Street West Five houses down from the stop sign where Mson
Street comes around where the Robins Churches I've been there only for six years Here's my experience I have never had any problem with a computer or anything else and or
my cell phone my very next door neighbor who was in her 90s and living alone and had her husband there until the day he passed Wow We had so many I can't tell you how many times we have called on
behalf of this couple but and also my neighbor and we continue to do that We look in on her We have never had a problem Boom Bang They're there Wow Great So that's my experience Only
telling you my experience I'm just a resident up there So I have walked down that street Fairview Street West down the hill tractor supplies over here As a matter of fact two days ago I walked down that hill And when I walk down that
hill I look over and I look at the land The land is low The land is wet The land is low the land is wet and it's always been that way That to me is a scary place to try and put Now I'm not
an engineer I'm just a regular person but to me that's no place to erect that Um and because it's not solid It's It's just not a solid place Um I'm not an engineer so that's pretty scary for me
And I know exactly where the lines are now cuz I've seen them because I've walked down the street So I know where the lines are now And I look down there and I go and this is six years of walking that street maybe once a week I
know that So I've had no problem Um and I am not worried and I hear everybody and I respect them I understand them But I have had no problem I'm just a plain old person Um I I would like to see good
cells service in Greenfield I just want it in a safe place This for me is not a safe place for the many reasons that have been brought up But again I'm probably going to be walking down there in a couple of
days and I'll look at it and that scares me Yeah When you take your site visit I don't think I don't know Have you taken your site visit yet uh I think we probably have all driven by it but next week Yeah Really
so that's really all I have to say I am a commoner and I'm scared Thank you Uh I can't see the name all the way to the left Right behind your gate Michael You bet
Amin eman Armen Yes Armen I'm sorry I couldn't see the R but I was close enough Thank you Yes Good Thank you Um my name is Armana Marggoian I live at 186 Petty Plane Road and uh in in
Greenfield and I've been here for almost 20 years Um I think that these people who are the residents who are living in in the neighborhood close by to to having to be subjected to this tower I think that you
know if they're deciding that this is not the right location they don't want it near their homes I don't see why it you know Greenfield cannot respect their feelings about not wanting to have for whatever reason if it's health safety I
mean I think the health and safety is like number one uh reason not to want to have the cell tower near them And it seems like the cell tower would be better placed like somewhere in that commercial zone um away from homes Uh
nobody needs to be subjected to that And I think that you know there are a lot of neighborhoods in Greenfield and we're all kind of subjected you know it's like victimizing neighborhoods Why are you doing that to to the residents of these nice little small neighborhoods and um I
I think it's it I think it's um alienating and really not valuing the lives of the residents um in these neighborhoods in Greenfield It just seems like Greenfield doesn't appreciate um their residents So that's what I have
to say I do not I do not support a cell tower um being placed in that location It's it's it's it's um not a good thing to do Thank you Thank you
Um anybody else live yes ma'am Hello Uh my name is Laura Josephs and I live at seven Conway Drive Um in Greenfield In Greenfield Yeah Um I came a little bit late so I don't know if this has been brought up already
but um I have a child who's going to attend the Newton Elementary School So that's one of my concerns because of the proximity of the tower to the elementary school kind of especially where the kids play outside at recess So like a health concern in terms of the radiation from
the cell towers um also concerned about property values and definitely uh what Armen was just saying just empathy with the people who live so close to the tower who feel like they're not being heard and respected
and if there is a more appropriate site um that would spare really close residences from having to deal with the impact of such a big tower Okay that's okay [Music]
Um we got to pull on a board Yeah I I would just like to say that the zoning board is absolutely dedicated to the health and safety of the res So I don't want anyone to doubt that
that's the case But there is a federal law that has jurisdiction over this matter which means that we have to look at what's happening
under the rules of that statute along with the rules that are local So so while it may seem like an ordinary
situation where the board can just say "Well the residents don't want it so let's figure out how to make that happen." Um that's not how this works
So we have another meeting next week and it behooves everyone to understand how the law works even in layman's terms and if you can address the factors that are part of the
law that would go a long way towards helping the board understand how to balance your interests and their and the interests So basically they have to prove there's a a significant gap in coverage because the Federal
Communications Act was enacted to set up a nationwide system of cell towers understanding that people probably wouldn't want these ugly things in their neighborhoods And so they set it up so that there's a balance between the
federal law and the state law and we're going to have to achieve balance when we make the decision So um I just want people to know that we're very empathic We understand what you're saying
but only telling us that we shouldn't do it because you don't want it there isn't really how we can move along with this uh application So uh is whether there's a significant gap in coverage and you
could tell us why you think they haven't proven that That's fine That's fair game And um if there is a significant gap in coverage then is this the best location and by us not allowing this location
we're effectively prohibiting a tower to be placed in a place that will provide what's needed to prevent a significant gap in coverage So I just want you to know that we're very sympathetic and and we're all residents here We understand what you're
saying but our duty is not to go down that path in determining what to do next So thank you for sharing those feelings And if people want to continue to share those feelings that's fine I'm I'm open to it I will not interrupt you But that
is not the test that we need to administer to this situation We are a quasi judicial body that needs to respond to the law and the facts
So again there's another meeting next Thursday The kinds of things we need to hear are significant gap in coverage Is there really one and is this the best location so that there's no other location that could provide this kind of
service and therefore our actions would be prohibiting uh the use of the cell of uh telecommunications in this area So I just so just understand that we're we're part of your community That's our job
Okay We have two more hands Sure I can't uh Darene Uh yes Can you hear me yes Thank you Okay So my name is Godia Richard and I live in
uh um so I'm not going to be close to the tower So but I just wanted to give my support to the community who didn't want this tower built next to their houses Um because I became um very ill
because of electromagnetic pollution And I know that maybe there's a law saying that we can't stop a tower because of that But still we are humans and it's very important that we talk about this subject and that people are allowed to express themsel because it's very
serious um subject and anyways they have to change this law because it's totally inhuman and totally kind of like unlawful law Uh so we have to express ourself about that and
um I guess yes I just wanted to give my support of uh even though I live far away because I know um that people can be affected um by this tower
Are are you finished thank you John Thank you Mr chair Uh my name is Jonathan Mirren Uh 224 Averbrook Road in Charlemont So um at the last meeting um Attorney
Campanelli really outlined in detail why these coverage maps uh being provided by AT&T were not uh sufficient to prove a a gap in coverage As uh Miss Kersianbomb said the
residents have been asking for drop call data to prove a gap in coverage since December 4th And you know I I'm happy to get into a little bit of a back and forth with you know because I I really hear you Mr that you need to decide based on your zoning bylaws But my I
would implore you and the board at this point to simply demand given you know that residents have scraped together attorney's fees Um AT&T didn't necessarily have to scrape together attorneys fees just had them available
to and submitted a a comprehensive legal brief with 22 23 signatures demonstrating that there's not a significant gap in coverage I'm on unfortunately I'm not with you in person right now I'm looking at the AT&T coverage map You know they're
advertising to potential customers There's no gap in coverage in this area on their coverage map In fact most of it says 5G plus which gets back to um you know Mr Vernon's point uh about wanting improved
uh coverage and and I believe Mr Vernon also spoke at the at the previous meeting and while I completely respect his views it's not the board's job to allow or support AT&T's goal to provide
if the goal is to provide um streaming video but actually the goal is really to have sufficient coverage to stream two movies at the same time three movies at the same time four movies at the same time What is the end point actually the
law just requires you to make sure excuse me to make sure that that a call is not dropped That's the extent of your responsibility A call
a phone call uh not not to compete with GET not to compete with Elon Musk just to make a call So according to AT&T's coverage map they they have full coverage in this area
And in terms of safety copper landlines AT&T is busy um advocating for the stripping away of uh basically neglecting and and removing residents abilities in states around the country to use their copper
land lines which are in fact the best the best safety net in when it comes to emergencies um you know if there's an earthquake the cell tower you know is is going to go down be way before the copper landlines So lastly I'd like to
close by saying that um I've run a theater company uh up here with my wife called PT Theater Company since um we first started offering our first performance was at Greenfield Middle School in 2008 Uh and we've been serving the Greenfield public schools in different
ways with performances and residencies We were part of the early Beef Fests Uh have continued to be involved in Beef Fest over the years We created Dofest with Picumpt Valley Memorial Association I'm personally and our company is deeply invested with in Greenfield and in the
character of Greenfield And as Miss Broton pointed out this is basically putting a 170 foot cell tower as the greeting to Greenfield Greenfield's at a critical moment where there's an opportunity to kind of capture this you
call it a brand I mean um this identity as a home a safe place a sanctuary city if you will and a city that supports pollinators and and has this deep natural history uh connection with
dinosaurs There's all kinds of amazing ways that Greenfield can continue to reinvent itself having a 170 foot cell tower is not in that what I see or what seems to be when I connect with people who live in Greenfield that that's how they want the image uh you know sort of
a wel welcoming beacon of the town to be So in terms of your bylaws they refer to character and this is clearly not uh there and and very last thing is that you know we've gone door to door and talked to the people who live right on that street along between the tower and tractor supply Some of them have written
in some of them have showed up some have not I really maybe during the balloon test I just you know I think you'd be welcome to knock on a few doors You'll find people who are just like many people just struggling to survive You know a single dad with two kids a guy
struggling with cancer you know just people who are not necessarily you know maybe some people who don't trust that our public institutions still function on their behalf Um I just encourage you to meet those people and talk to them See what they think about 170 foot tower
decreasing their property value They put their whole lives their whole savings into into um you know creating some some health um some wealth for themselves here in Greenfield Thank you very much for your consideration Thank you Anybody else want to speak
yes You want to speak uh if you want me to Yeah I think it's important for the 5G Okay Uh if I can I'll come up there Shingers Uh now Chief you're you I know I think you you live in Greenfield
correct i do My entire life Okay Are you uh speaking as a resident or speaking as the chief so I have been asked to speak as the chief and the emergency management director for the city of Greenfield to um give the perspective from our point of view from based on
facts Um uh I sit here really really uncomfortable um because um my what I'm going to say goes against the people that I've sworn to protect uh and their feelings about this particular
issue And uh I try not to get involved in any type of political one way or another Um but I have been asked to speak on behalf of facts uh and facts that I know as the emergency management director and as the fire chief And I
will say in a broad sense not specific in in support or or non-support for this project or any project I will just tell you my perspective as the emergency management director and your fire chief um uh I will tell you that the cell
coverage in this town um is in very much need of improvement Uh we have been working with FirstNet for a decade and when we originally went to FirstNet um uh we
identified certain areas of town that we have very poor coverage um poor coverage meaning that um calls get dropped People are unable to make calls Um they may be able to make a call but it's dropped Um I can tell you that happens I can tell
you that I've experienced that on multiple call multiple emergencies The areas we've identified is the route two um rotary and 91 and the area surrounding that We've identified areas in the north end of town and we've
identified areas within the center of the city Uh places that you would think that you would not worry about coverage Um yet we have challenges with coverage Um there was comments made um where the
emergency services have been brought up uh in regards to our communication and and yes we have gone to a very robust statewide emergency system for our radio system uh which has improved our coverage v o over our old systems Um we
still have penetration issues in buildings with this system We've had to uh buy in in vehicle repeaters to penetrate Um but our system overall is very good and very robust That's not the future of emergency communications The
future of emergency communications whether we like it or not is this We have just implemented over the first net program because we do have coverage issues with our radios a system where our radio is built into our phone
So I can bring my phone up right now and I can click on a button and talk on our radio system to our dispatch without having a radio physically in my hand That's the future of emergency communications The other future of emergency communications for us is the
ability for enhanced 911 We've upgraded our 911 system where where shortly if somebody sees a crime if somebody sees a fire if somebody sees something with their cell phone they can FaceTime they
can video in live time to the dispatcher what's going on All our emergency trucks rely heavily on on cell coverage Uh our mobile data terminals within the trucks which tells us mapping which tells us information
that we need is all on cell coverage Um and I will tell you there's areas of town where that just doesn't work It works in the firehouse because we built out the red systems that when the call comes in it captures that data So when
we go to areas that aren't covered that data that data is built into that device and won't drop it But if we're in an area that doesn't have the greatest coverage we have limited ability for that I will tell you my personal experience of what happens when cell
phones when cell towers don't work Dur Irene before there was a mandate that cell towers in this in in in nationwide they weren't they didn't need gener uh generator backup power backup we lost
our main tower we had one at the time on the country club which is a 200 foot tower we lost that tower and communications during that event for two days going on three days was very challenging trying to get emergency information to the feds to the state uh
and to our emergency partners Uh that has since been corrected and and since that has been corrected the power losses we've had community-wise we have not lost our cell coverage We have a reverse 911 system We've captured a lot of data from the
landline systems uh within the city because that's public record Cell phones are not public record but the landlines are public record and we are able to get out emergency notification I will tell you the majority of people especially young families especially younger folks
don't have landlines anymore and rely very heavily on their cell coverage use So um as we talk about communications and whatnot cell service whether we like it
or not is not going anywhere and is not going to be replaced And we need to be able to in my opinion and I mean no disrespect to anybody else that feels differently than I do
um we we need to take care of people that don't have the access to a good cell network Now I don't know if that's this site or a different site or whatever That's not my place I I've looked at the coverage I'm thrilled with the coverage increases that this this
provide but that's not my place I'm just saying that we have areas of town where people have challenges getting on and making phone calls and and and and I think we need to just be aware that that does happen in
this community And so um I'm happy to answer any questions about that I will tell you uh another experience that I have um I travel across the country and I was assisted at major emergencies uh hurricanes and and whatnot I will tell
you my trip to Puerto Rico the number one uh issue that they had was the lack of cell cover uh power so people could use their cell coverage to talk to their family members And so by the droves by thousands people would go to their local community mall to get power to power
just their cell phone Um the cell phones are critical part of of communication for everybody uh in an emergency uh to the point where emergency planners throughout the country small towns to large towns your
cell coverage your cell power or whatnot is one of the top priorities for critical infrastructure in a community to protect So I just throw that out Um I hope it's um again you know it's uncomfortable Uh
because like I I I I know there's strong feelings against that and I'm not trying to speak either way I'm just trying to give you the perspective from the emergency side of of my 30 years in emergency services Anybody have any questions does anybody
have any questions for the chief um I have a question So [Music] um it sounds so FirstNet is a distinct service It's not the same as me having
AT&T service and calling people Correct So FirstNet is a federal program that that came out of September 11th 2001 What they found was when the towers collapsed and and and and and chaos was everywhere in lower Manhattan everybody
got on their cell phone and overloaded the cell phone networks and the people that needed it the most was the first responders and they could not make telephone calls because the network was was inundated That's happened here in our community in smaller emergencies
like like um Irene had Um but because of that the federal government came out and took away the old pushto talk that's that and and reclassified it and made it a different and and then mandated the the the federal government mandated that
they provide a network for first responders Uh and AT&T got the contract to do that What it basically does is that cons the way that it was explained to me years ago was consider the cell coverage like a like a highway right and
you've got different levels of cars on the highway and when there's an emergency that that highway fills up but the your emergency traffic needs to get through And so what it does is that it takes the emergency responders traffic
and makes it the priority puts it in the fast lane so that they are the ones that the cell phone everybody else all the other cell car carriers get prioritized less than the first
responders because it was a real problem in Manhattan when when the first responders becau uh couldn't talk One of the reasons why they couldn't talk is because their main communication towers for FDNY and and NYPD were on top of the
tower And when the first tower fell they took their communications So all they had was cell phones and nobody could make a phone call So FirstNet was put in mandated by the federal government to say when the system fills up we've got to get our first responders priority
traffic And that's why that's why it is now AT&T got the contract to facilitate that but firstn net is a mandate from the federal government You can correct me if I'm off base there but that's my understanding of it
So at minimum is if first net is satisfied by this tower going up you're satisfied In other words we don't have to go beyond everybody having coverage different uh different companies having
uh ability to put space on this tower people having regular coverage Uh that's your priority is if there's a first net access from this tower to help with the rotary and the center of town that would
satisfy what you want as the fire chief So you may have personal So I'm going to tell you that the federal government is the one that has mandated the coverage for first responders including their goal is to have full cellular coverage no matter where you go which has been as
challenging is here having that conversation It's been very challenging up in the hilltowns to have that conversation Yeah FirstN Net My understanding from my education that I took years and years ago as they spun FirstN Net out before AT&T even got the
contract for that was that that was the goal to provide communications for your first responders regardless of where you are Um I did happen to notice um you know driving today coming home from work I I I noticed you know the 200 foot
tower that's at the country club and then if you look north there's another 200 foot tower and if you look to the east down route two there's a like unfortunately or fortunately whatever way you want to look at it the cell towers that's in order for
us in order for us to have the coverage that we need we need to have the cell towers I am sure that people had the same conversation when the first utility polls went up Um uh and I don't mean to minimize
that but the world now whether we like it or not runs on cell and the capacity not just the ability to make a phone call is important It you know that's not the only importance now when it comes to
cell phone Most places are are are are ditching anything wire and and in emergencies provided the the pole is up and the power's on which is where the generators on the cell phones don't go down I will tell you we've lost whole neighborhoods when a tree takes down a
power line and takes the wired line down Uh we've had it happen in you know um the Burnham Heights where they lost telephone uh for the whole neighborhood for three days because a tree took down and it took took a while to get the
wires back up Um I only say that from a factual standpoint I don't say that as an opinion standpoint Um and and if it's coming across like it's my opinion I apologize for that But um you know that's the world we live in Uh and and
and and I'm telling you the majority of people have access to cell phones I don't know anybody including my mom and my dad and and uh uh that that don't have cell phones Um and if you're going to have cell phones and you build out the capacity of the cell phones whether
it's internet whether it's TV or whatever sometimes there's necessary evils that go with that Okay Thank you Great Thank you Chief Thank you Okay Anybody else want to
speak anybody else want to speak again oh that's us John has his hand up again Go ahead John Sorry You know I I just want to circle back uh especially after the chief's um statements and and I want to thank him for for sharing that point
of view you know would given that that this decision is really seems to rest on the crux of is there a gap in coverage or not and there's evidence to suggest that there is no and then there's AT&T's map and then there's anecdotal evidence
So given that this is such a critical question in this uh for you the board would the board endeavor to consider at this moment to require dropped call data so that it's just definitively settled
and you're not going on my opinion or the chief's opinion or their map or our map or whoever's map just just settle it and require would you could please consider asking them to to provide drop call data for Thursday's meeting
Thank you John Uh Judy Judy Yep Can you see me y I just have a Oh sorry Judy Shear 73 Mson Street Greenfield Yes My question is um how will people be
notified when the balloon test will be if will it be Thursday will it be on the weekend how will you let people know when it will be well Alana is my contact person I'll let her know be April 17th So it she will know
whether it's canceled or not and then you can connect she'll she'll send out a she however you're communicating with her she'll communicate with you if you're not if you're attendant of the concern group that that submitted the brief and is is this a woman that's part
of the concern group what is her name my name is Judy Sheer But but how will other neighbors who have not been involved how will they know how will other people in Greenfield know the only way that they would know is if we we
post we on the calendar we posted the balloon test So like that sorry the green field calendar the town calendar Yeah the town has a calendar which tells you every day
what's going on in officially in town Uh since all of us might since a number of us uh DBA members might be there I think it could be considered an open meeting So it will be posted on the city calendar Okay And last weekend was posted on the city calendar It's been
changed to this weekend And if this weekend doesn't happen it'll be changed again It may cause inconvenience if somebody comes and it's not happening but it will be posted for the 17th at 2 o'clock Okay Thank you You're welcome
I'm sorry Go ahead You want to speak again yes I just want to add again world street Um the fire chief is talking about the trees going down the wires going down I have Comcast for my Wi-Fi So if something like that happened or lost
power I no longer have a landline I got rid of it because Comcast start it used to be a discount to keep that landline whether you wanted to use it or not Now they charge you more for it So I finally just got rid of my landline So it's just this So if my Wi-Fi goes out I have dropped calls And on that map it shows
fight right now for me Yeah I'm not worried Okay But I just want to make sure that Thank you I don't know if it would be sh calls because I'm on Wi-Fi right now Say again your name Andrew Vernon 17 Sunset Square Greenfield Mass
Um so I just wanted to al so there's so there were there were some comments made about G set I think it's terribly important that this is ver this
is for an application for a cell phone a cellular tower This has nothing to do with G set or alternative means of connectivity or phone calls This is
purely an application for a cell phone tower So it it's the alternative methods of things like wifi calling is not what we should be discussing here We should be discussing
the facts of the cellular tower being made available and the service that it offers not the alternatives of things like Wi-Fi calling um or proper lines of any carrier AT&T or
otherwise This should only be a discussion of the cellular tower and cellular communications not of alternatives I just it's frustrating to hear that we
should talk about those alternatives when we're only talking about a cell phone Okay Thank you Chief If I didn't say it thank you for speaking I jumped right to the next person Thank you very much
Um Mr Chair yeah Yeah Can that screen be made to You're not that I'm unmuting my name It's under safe tech forward because your Zoom setup doesn't allow for people to write it rename So it's something in your
settings when you do these meetings you have to allow the speakers to rename and it's not allowing it's not allowing for renaming All right Safe Tech Go for My name is Pam Wallace and I am actually one of the directors of the environmental health trust and I've been a part of these meetings and I'm a close
colleague of Dr Chamberlain's who's going to be speaking next week And the reason that I wanted to speak was just quickly that I do these hearings all over the country and have for a number of years And one of the things that I think we want to differentiate when you're talking about you know variance
and what meets the requirements We're not having a discussion about whether Greenfield has a adequate self coverage tonight completely We're having a conversation about whether a very sightsp specific conversation whether this site meets the criteria and what
the applicant put forth was did he meet the criteria she meet the criteria for saying that they have you know they have the need for this variance We're also again first net is not reliant on this tower sight specific There can be other places in the community maybe industrial
areas other sites that fulfill this There can be things like small cells and repeaters and other things that can be put into place at the community college in these areas to fulfill this So I think the criteria that you guys are discussing is does this site meet the
specifications needed to grant this variance not is this going to be the holy grail of cell coverage in green field So making those distinctions just like we're making those distinctions about health and safety I think is in quite important you may have some issues and just like Jonathan mentioned if you
do it would make sense to do the full gold standard analysis of the community and see exactly where those gaps of services are Again beyond the propagating maps that are just estimates do the deep dives do the quantifying pieces and find out and assess where
your needs are and then fulfill them But again that doesn't have anything to do with this sightspecific question So thank you for your time Anyone else i have a question Is
it is it required that uh every city use firstn net i know there are other carriers that offer first responder networks and um as far as I know I don't think it's mandated that
they have to use it I mean they probably choose to that's fine You don't have to use it I mean it's a service provided through AT&T You could government is your your representation is the government wants that service has the right to make that service available
The government mandates the service be available whether municipalities subscribe to it or not It's a different story That help anybody else Okay I if somebody else
can be I No I have a question actually G said I've heard that Yeah You want mentioned a few times i I don't know what that is I mean we just tried to Google it here but Greenfield Community TV internet and TV So under the state law where you're allowed to have your own your
broadband service Thank you GCE That might help you find it GCE Okay G Yeah I was looking GST GC energy technology Um yeah I'd like to use it If if if board members have questions of the applicant this might be a good time to
go through that I'll let others start but I certainly have some questions I I guess I'd like to start the variance here for that and the height Yeah but I'm
just saying the height is is because they can't meet the height restriction for a follow for a variance Correct But you've proposed cell power that has a mechanism that has been engineered and validated as being correct Correct Stay
safe So that correct Technically if that's the case then you are now adhering to the requirement for satisfying technicality I I'm trying to separate all the conversation about coverage because I think that similar
conversation is going to take place when we go to talk about the special permit Certainly I mean you know one of the thoughts that I've had since the last meeting was uh we are definitely focused on the federal law and its application
to granting relief But the truth of the matter is um you might actually be able to make a decision based on 4DA alone and put the the federal law aside on the basis that you have a land that's uniquely shaped So when you look at the soil the shape
and the topography of the site it slopes downhill it's wetlands it's not going to be put into a productive use because of its location and the condition of the soil So one could argue that a variance might be appropriate on the basis that while we do need a height variance we're
taking advantage of the slope We're taking an advantage of a um a limited use lot and we're going to put it into a productive use by designing something that needs relief but it can be granted in such a way that it's not more detrimental than
if we didn't have the relief I.e we're designing it based on um um solid engineering that was pure research See I'm trying to I'm trying to look at it as an engineer Yeah it well yes and I
and I appreciate it Somebody earlier had said no facts were presented no data was presented and and I think that actually wasn't correct In fact I think I remember handing you the technical data at the last meeting and that technical data was shared with the the city's peer
consultants and the peer consultants actually confirmed So there was like somebody mentioned there was no data there was no review of it that that it was just our our representation that it works and like sometimes what people say becomes the truth Um at the end of the
day we are trying to design a site that would satisfy this board that um the reason I bring that up excuse me for interrupting you presented a number of other hypothetical cases Yes
you just ruled out I mean because the one at the at the fairgrounds it was ruled out because you feel because it's in a neighborhood that can't happen Well technically in the ordinance it does allow that It's probably not a preferred one and we probably would have as much of an outcry from the public about
putting it there but that's still that still is a possibility to put it there and meet the fall follow requirement You know I mean I'm trying to somehow for me I'm trying I'm trying to separate the engineering and technical requirement for the construction of the
pool where he's proposing Yep And and then look at all the other issues about coverage drop calls and all that kind of stuff because if in fact that technicality gets met then without without considering those
other opportunity this is the only site that you're saying works Correct Well no we're so we're saying and I think this is something we actually agree with some statements in attorney campelli's memorandum which is we believe that it is the least intrusive site And so when
you look at um the fairgrounds so number one I I don't believe that it's a lower ranked zone I believe it's not an acceptable zone Well as I read the ordinance it's the fourth one It doesn't I don't think it prohibits it Okay So the second thing is I don't think it's
less intrusive because there were more residences within a closer proximity and there were more residences Yeah Yeah No So I'm explaining the logic to how we would get so is a balancing of the different factors and criteria Um what
would be the balancing process to that i mean I again our years of experience doing this I mean I don't I don't in any way mean to be disrespectful because you might have different opinions than we do but um Ed's Ed's been doing this since
the past and we've gone into communities I've probably done 200 you've probably done a thousand um we hear what communities have to say um keep them away from residential neighborhoods design them in a way that they can accommodate
collocation Always look and see if you have an available existing tower first Uh take into consideration whether or not you can find a location that is less impactful than other locations So in this one um you know by the time I was
involved I think they had already looked at 12 or 13 or 14 sites and I looked at this one immediately and I'm like it's immediately adjacent to the highway It's on a lot of land that can't be used for anything else It sits 20 plus feet below the road So even though you have a fall
zone issue you're here Could could could an individual make an argument that a different site is the least intrusive site yeah absolutely Somebody could um and somebody could say that well the
neighbors in the fairground they would much rather have the cell tower over there That's less intrusive because they're not upset about having it whereas the people on Fair View West and on Newton Street are upset about it and they think it would be more impactful to their property values It it there
there's some objective criteria that goes into this and there's some subjective criteria that goes into it and it's kind of a blend of both Um and I respect everything about your credentials don't get me wrong No but we're going to have an expert come in
and take give us a different presentation Correct And I want to be able to set at some point step back and say I heard what you say and I'm heard what they're saying I'm have to we're going to certainly I'm going to try to evaluate which are the information I
receive I'm going to feel comfortable making a decision So my opinion would be as follows Think less about what the lawyers are saying and think more about the facts that are put in front of you As the lawyer my job is to paint the
picture for you But I am not creating the colors That's why C squared is involved That's why SAI is involved That's why Valmont is involved We actually have engineers that are going out and testing and designing We have engineers that are designing the pole in
the fall zone I'm the painter but I didn't So I didn't I'm I'm given the tools and the supplies as the lawyer I am responsible to present all of those to you But I do think and again I I'll
go back to the point I mentioned earlier Somebody said that we've never given you any facts with regard to the structure But that's that's that's what somebody can say and I can sit here and say well I did give you facts At the end of the day you have to sit here and say who's correct Did someone give us
facts or didn't someone give us facts i I know you know we gave you facts because I handed them to it the last meeting It's going to be the same thing next Thursday night and it's going to be the same thing when we rebut in four weeks If we rebut on something and we're
not backing it with um Martin Lavin or um um we lost uh Kevin or Kevin Mason if we don't have somebody on our team supporting that Um we gave you a written um um appraisal analysis The did the
abuters go out and get a written appraisal analysis So yeah I'm I'm for lack of a better term I'm the mouth piece as the lawyer But everything I'm telling you I'm basing it on reports that I'm handing it to you And my hope is that at the end of the day you hear everything everyone says including the
abuters including the fire chief including all the lawyers but at the end of the day I I do think the law comes down to a decision has to be made of based on facts of record Um so my opinion and again I like the way the fire chief said it He's not giving you
his opinions He doesn't want to be up here giving you his opinions but he's trying to give you factual information My job is to try and do the same thing And if I do speak and you think it's just my opinion say "Well isn't that just your opinion where's the facts that support it?" And it would be my job to
get you those facts that support it Could I could I just add I'm sorry question I know in some communities they were required to make it look like a pine tree make it blend in They have couple down long roots Was that to satisfy the community
so it wouldn't stand out like a sore thumb or I think early on when cell towers first um were starting to be proliferated The the big buzz word was stealth Okay It was all about doing it stealth trying to make it look like it
was something other than a cell tower And then at the end of the day people realized it's far more natural to drive down the street and see a telephone pole with wires on it and see a cell tower than see this thing that um looks like
an upside down toilet brush that's uh of a color that looks like an upside down toilet brush So but when they when you talk about like things in the city and putting them on the roofs of buildings yeah I'd be happy to drive you around Boston one day and I'll point out elevator shops that actually are cell
towers Um uh fire stations are phenomenal cell towers Do you know why they had to hang their hoses to dry So the height of the the the the towers connected to firehouses held the hoses They can hold the cables and you can
stealth and you can put them in One of the things so I represented Nexttel back when Nexttel was a carrier When they merged with Sprint the attorney for Sprint continued that work and I did not One of the things that I picked up along the way because I had done one for Nexttel was churches And the next thing
you know I'm getting calls from different churches Um you'd be surprised to know how many church steeples have cell powers in them Again more densely packed areas where you're trying only to get a signal a half a mile but you got something that's 75 feet You take the
panels off you put in stealth installations you put radio frequency trans uh uh transparent materials and you rebuild the church steeples Um so there are lots of different ways to do them when you're in uh a densely populated area but as you said when
you're out on route two and you drive by it you're looking at a toilet brush not a cell tower I I personally again opinion not fact I'd rather know there's a cell tower there you have something I I would just to go to your point we talk a lot about
the federal law and those standards whether we have a significant gap or not but there is a step first that's your zoning ordinance so you do have to run this through that sausage grinder to say I mean when I look at a zoning ordinance I just try to follow the rules so if you
say you can't imagine how many times you've heard I hear Why are you putting it in this residential area there's a highway right over here You can place it next to there That's where all of the carriers went It was easy to do It was right along the traffic area So we try
to follow the rules as you lay them out in writing That's we follow the law We respect the law So we have a site which from our perspective is a good site except your bylaw says go into the industrial areas go into the commercial
areas first First and foremost find communication towers if they're there So that's why that scrub is done But before we get to gap least intrusive run it through your zoning ordinance first And I know variances are zoning boards always struggle with variances They're
very difficult standard to meet But in this instance you do have topography issues You do have wetlands issues And your fall zone is difficult on any property I mean if if we go over to the Hampton Inn if you take a look at that
parcel we need more of a or they would need more of a variance if we use that The fair grounds is in a zoning district that the ordinance doesn't prefer We don't come in and say well let's take something they don't prefer and try to force that you know through some kind of special permit They want us in the
commercial district So you know like like the fire chief mentioned I'm sure the first few telephone polls people weren't terribly happy with I'm sure the first few transformers people were very upset with And then when you look at the conglomeration of wires and some of the
hornets nest I mean we're dealing with that with some of the small cell stuff that we do in in in the municipalities where we're really dense we have a you know a tower or you know cell phone site nearby and we're placing something on a telephone pole
and we get opposition to it So it's really we're trying to follow your ordinance You say we want it in commercial areas A lot of municipalities do Some prefer large lots and they put in their zoning ordinance Go find a you
know 5 acre lot if you can We don't care if it's cleared We don't you know these are our preferences We try to follow We respect your preferences That's why we're at a site that's in the commercial area As I said I drove by the site I understand there are some houses along the way you know further
away but there there is commercial development there We're right across from a tractor supply business And the land's not terribly useful I mean it's right along an interstate highway which is key for us when we have a gap there I also think I
mean somebody let me just I I would also distinguish between argument and evidence So you're going to hear next week lots of argument Listen for facts Listen for evidence That's that's what you base your decision on not whether some lawyer tells you here's how you should do it
You should say well what are the facts what evidence do we have to support those contentions those arguments i think if you look at our application we've supported everything may not hear from everyone Martin is always available You know we try to give
a summary We're respectful of time Look through the material We I I didn't spend the time We don't spend the time doing these maps drafting up these legal briefs They're important That's part of the evidence that's submitted
Not how I argue whether something is a gap or not but it's based on science It's based on an engineer not somebody arguing well they don't have a gap We have a gap You want to say something
um the only Well I I plan to speak at the next meeting to address some of what's been said just now but I do want to just um address Mr Rosen Is that Attorney Michael is fine as well when you were addressing the ZBA moment ago
you referenced uh some technical information that you passed on to the ZBA I'm sorry Yes Okay And I don't know if that is something that we can review because we haven't seen that We've seen some other documents Let's let's clear
that up for a second The the uh packets that you gave us especially beginning and and continuously do those packets have the information that you're talking about no they do not Uh let me explain if if so at the last meeting where you
were not here Um I believe that I walked to the table and I handed Mr Wniaak that would be to show me because he had asked as the member of your board that has engineering background for the the supporting engineering data I I believe
and Eric correct me if I'm wrong we might have emailed you a copy of it as well but we printed a copy and brought a copy for Mr Wnjak and it's the data uh that went into the design of the tower Are you talking about the data that the
engineering of the tower correct Yeah You It's also used in the peer review and it was also used as part of the peer review That's that is what I provided So I'm not sure you received the peer review results It was a pretty big It was all right So can we send that out
so this this is just this is just factually true to the extent that these things happen I don't know the underpinnings of it but we hire they we hired a peer review you know that because you've been paying attention and they came in and said all
the things that the applicant is is doing comply with all the standards that are required to build the cell towers um in America if so I'm happy to give you that information and you can if you if you
could come back and say that's not even though they're making that representation that information isn't true that would be fine But my sense is again that we have limited jurisdiction over telling them how they can build their tower as long as the federal government has said that
what they're doing but but that this is how you do it safely Now there there are exceptions to that and I will get the board will get into that as we get closer to deliberation but would that be helpful if you got that information we'd like to
be able to have it Okay So that will happen tomorrow You'll get it sent to you Um okay Eric if there's anything that you don't have that you need just reach out to me and I'll send it So anybody else have questions are you done i'm all set Okay All right You have
questions i'm all set at this time All right I I'd like to talk about what may be the elephant in the living room here which is Starlink Uh Starlink Starlink is a
cell option instead of building towers in satellites and is currently in beta testing but is actually only a few months away from being available for both um text and voice I believe in July
of this year will be available for voice And um if that were available today that would provide the cell coverage uh as I understand it it would provide the cell coverage that um we're lacking
and will be used not just in Greenfield but in all kinds of remote areas where cell tower construction just isn't feasible Um now I realize that T-Mobile is the one that's putting
putting out the uh back coverage and it will be available to T-Mobile subscribers Um First Pursnet would not be using that because of the government contract with AT&T
but it would certainly be available to um anybody and it and it will be available at a cost at a small fee to anybody who wants to have that Is AT&T planning to sign on to Starlink or a
similar system that uses satellite coverage instead of building cell towers and how will that affect this power that is being proposed here yeah not that not that I'm aware of whether it's Starlink you know the company or the technology I
don't think satellite's going to replace cell phone coverage Um as far as I know there's no plan for AT&T to contract with Starlink And whether it's feasible or or would replace cell phone coverage is
yet to be seen And at what cost is the significance determined I'd suggest it's not a small fee but not quite It's not a small fee represent as you stated not I'm not I'm not being rude when I say what I'm about to say but I think he just gave an
opinion probably gave an opinion about what you think Well that's what I was asked because we don't have we I don't know We do have a contractor engineers here or could come next week and testify to the
satellite technology and what that means Marin are you available are you still there yes I am I was going to go to mine Did you want to Did you want to weigh in at all or do you want to uh Yes Um AT&T is
working with AT&T Yes Martin Lavin Cqued Systems on behalf of AT&T Uh AT&T is has is in development with um AS which is a satellite company
Um the service that is being offered by other carriers right now is only in beta test Uh it is only um text right now um super it's the footprint it is intended and I'm sure
AT&T is is working this way to use it to uh bring some service to extremely remote areas um nothing that would ever do this nothing that would ever have enough capacity to keep up with um first net requirements uh the first responders
of these satellites I think have a 10 to 15 mile radius footprint uh with one um highfrequency um carrier that the phones will use Um so you're talking about covering an entire metropolitan area with one
channel whereas the towers we have are loaded up with 10 or 12 different frequencies to serve a an area 1% of that size Um it's intended to bring some kind of communication for emergencies to send a text maybe to give
your lo say I'm in trouble at this location and hope it gets through Um you're going to have to have wide open view of the sky Um which is difficult when you're in a car or injured perhaps Um you have to be doing it just as the
satellites going over um it takes a a long time for the text to go through If it does go through replies take a long time And again it's whereas we're talking about millions of bits per second they're talking about hundreds Um
it's it's really only going to serve to if you're out in the middle of absolutely nowhere u in a yuseite or someplace that has no towers for 10 or 20 miles and and never will allow any for you to have basically
an emergency possibility of being able to contact someone to um to express that you're in some square difficulty Um there's there is no way in the foreseeable future certainly that this
could ever um substitute for um first net coverage or for first responders or for everyday cell phone use for all of our customers Great Thank you I'm going to uh due to an important request of the chair we're
going to take a fivem minute break Thank you We we all appreciate that Yes Won't go any further I'm in So all right Is that your question yes Debbie I have to
I don't I don't singles Are they Are they uh single bathrooms there's two bathrooms Open up the administr one She only drank an inch of the soda I know I mean I'm milking it
Yeah Yeah No I Yep Gina G said is the local municipal internet service gentleman's closing and they want to make sure that they preserve some of their uh artifacts and they couldn't
find a home from it so I said it'll sit in our homes said it's the alternative um okay so kind of Wi-Fi content So she said the alternative this one is
street Montreal must have been conceptual from Yeah but still there not yet Not back then back then was
70% Jewish I do too They used to have How are you do you remember me [Music] from control
switch up the first knife Me and my wife 911 happened you know Good thing everything got over that happens Yeah So
now you get covered It was interesting hearing his speak because everything we talking about So my son's in college last year they had a fake shoot where they all sheltered in place and like the way getting to see the way force network and getting to see
how all that information got circulated quickly around a college campus We still have to allow for their expertise and so we're not going to do any deliberations [Music] until
special might be able to get started one of the kind of data from his phone and all property information Just wild how much they borrowed the 20 cents Yeah Well we learned the hard way what happens when a
cell loses power Yeah You missed our very first night our first meeting but I was explaining the coming home from college My son's at Bucknell So he was driving through the Poconos and I told him to stay at school because it was snowing I told him to
come home the next morning Drive home too much Nothing else around here Yeah I mean we've gone from
people guessing where they are You can get there in a minute Yeah [Music] 20 miles You get cell service Find out I'll get the officers responded to the
incident homestead when there were a couple of individuals up 91 They ended up ditching their ditching the car back in that neighborhood Yeah
I love those toys Who's coming in next year i don't know Noticed or realized but during that Dr Chamberlain but it was also so like set up So like
call setup was failing on first net We're just gonna have to suffer I figure nine is a good time to Yes Right now user it would take you 25 30 seconds for a call to be
made It's on my phone I mean I had to go too but I figured so I would say when you have the opportunity never know what the mic's in there
And and so that would be You've seen a lot near you know you're using apps on your phone Everybody back to knock on that last door Make sure no one stop All right At
uh 21 of nine we're resuming the meeting Um Okay So here's a couple of questions Michael you said um least intrusive site before You believe that that's a sort of a a criteria for uh
determining whether we should allow or not allow your application or are you saying that you're sensitive in your approach to this ahead of time and so you come to us with the least interest of sight is I
haven't read anything that says that we have to use that as a standard Uh you know that our standard is that I'm not saying whether we will or we won't allow this I'm not saying that so much But my understanding is that
we can't deny it if we can't deny your application if if it effectively prohibits correct Okay And so that the factors into that are did they really you know did they try were there other sites correct But I never heard it said that
that way Least intrusive So hypothetically we could go to the fairgrounds You could go to the fairgrounds You could come running in here with a request for a variance and a special permit Um everybody in that neighborhood might be jumping up and down Correct
And we could say based [Music] on you know the engineering uh we could grant your variance and special permit and you could have the power there So I I just want to understand what
you're saying I I know I know you spoken in the context of talking to Peter but I don't see that as a factor for us that may be a factor for you in coming in here with this particular site But if we as we uh
deliberate I don't see that as a test unless you can point somebody I for your board I would defer to your bylaw and I think it is your bylaw that governs what you're going to date and I think that's
your primary criteria So it's it's all of the factors in your bylaw Then um I think secondarily you you probably should have the same analysis that I would have when I look at a site which
is what would happen if it got denied and got appealed So I think the least intrusive criteria is a criteria that courts have referred to in discussing whether or not an appeal has valid uh
claims in it when you're bringing them in front of a court So in Peter's memorandum he references uh least intrusive as the criteria that he would look at for why uh he might be able to win on an appeal
is if we didn't show you that it's the least intrusive site So I would answer uh attorney campanelli by arguing that I do believe it's the least intrusive site And if I were in a courtroom my argument would be well they rank the priority So the
community is telling me that a site in a residential district is based on their ranking more intrusive than a site in a commercial district And so by the face of your bylaw my argument would be um I'm going to start at your top criteria
And to me that helps But but again it's a combination of objective and subjective So as part of the the um objective part of it that you have a criteria ranking So I look at your criteria ranking Another criteria that I
might look at in your special permit provisions are the two sections that were actually referenced earlier uh 260 F8 and N So nine one of them is can can you minimize viewshed and maximize screening well so if this were one that
we were debating my argument would be yeah we minimize view and we maximize screening We're putting it on a heavily wooded lot 20 ft below the road I I I would So again I would focus on your criteria My arguments before you would
be based on your criteria If you ask me what factors I used my experience to help me determine that I think in my opinion this site meets those criteria I'd start with your bylaw
I would always start with your bylaw I would always think about your bylaw But in the back of my mind I would also think about what does 4A say and what does the Federal Telecommunication Act say Okay Um and I have a question for you Sure Can I piggyback on that just a just just
a smidge because that was my the Well I I think the board and the courts have warned that board should also run it through the federal telecommunications act to make sure you're not violating So as I said I would run it through your ordinance I think that's what the courts are
requiring I think that's what the First Circuit requires That's the standard There's also some FCC orders that you'll hear other people kind of ignore but those are very important because when if in fact it's denied and if in fact there's litigation we don't want to pick fights I've said that at the last
hearing We want to get approval We want to provide service whether it's their tower or a tower across the street We want we want to provide our customers with best service we can The court's caution you know or they've stated you know a smartboard would also run it
through the telecommunication act standards Make sure you don't violate those four You know got to be based on substantial evidence not based on health or environmental effects that it doesn't prohibit or effectively prohibit It's the effective prohibition that you're talking about that is for a circuit So
you'd run it through and say you know is there substantial evidence to show a significant gap is this the you know only feasible under the Cranston standard is it the only feasible location now you know Cranston
kind of warns that look this might be a back and forth You know Hampton came up last time We dealt with that with with evidence with facts engineering facts If there's another site then you know that's something that should be
discussed but that wouldn't comport with the ordinance is what I'm is what I'm laying out there other words Yeah I think what you're saying is that if it's it it it's it's superficial just
to say that's another site unless you peel back the onion and understand what it would take to get that site app approved in relation to how you're trying to get this site and what the factors are in this site So if you have a set of factors in this site you might grade it B+ getting a variance and
another site which would be technically an alternative site like the fairgrounds that continue as example You might rate that as a C minus going forward and therefore you would say I Michael used the word intrusive but maybe the the
whole the concept is this this has a better likelihood of success or this this has a clearer path or there's less minds or whatever the standards that you whatever the vocabulary you use So you picked this spot because in looking at all the other spots you graded them lower even if they could provide similar
service or because this one has a lot more positive factors that the board could look at to grant you the permit where the other ones you would you're you' be fighting a battle that would have a less in your mind of success
Correct And I think the one twist to the variance standard because I I get the issue with the variance It's a very difficult standard of the safety of meet well just meeting of meeting the general meeting the general criteria of a variance very difficult to achieve but
there's very clear mass case law on you know having a hardship which is a significant gap so it kind of feathers you know because it recognizes a state the state law and the state courts are recognizing a federal standard I guess to say this
could you know significant gap is one of those hardships And if you go to the Whailing case or the Swansea case it's no different than solar in Tracer Lane It's it's like at the end of the day if you have a solar bylaw that precludes solar whether someone needs a variance or doesn't need a variance Tracer Lane says
you have to give them their permits if your bylaw has the effect of prohibiting solar if the and you you said it best earlier when you said effective other than effective prohibition and that so I'm going to turn to a little bit I'm going to move in a little bit of a
different direction um more of a like a negotiating direction um when the balloon test is it possible to lower the balloon at all to other heights at any time during the testing
I don't I don't think they do Is there like a guy that standing at the bottom like Ben Franklin yes Who's doing it davos Dave Asho Um we we've done I I mean if we just
talk I guess you know you're paying him so I don't want to Yeah They can float What he can do is he'll put the balloon up and then he'll have like ribbons or you know something else that's visible so you can actually see some different heights So he should be able to
accomplish that I'm just trying to by putting maybe a ribbon or a flag on that We do it all the time You know either a second balloons are very difficult to do but they'll do it so that so when you see photographs you'll be able to see it Yeah Okay So so you'll be able to see it at 170 and he could probably do it at
150 or something but it you just need to coordinate with David So I want to give you a chance to respond to how I look at this I I have a lot of concerns about the height of the tower with respect to
safety [Music] Um you're you know you've you've told us that there's a you've told us that there's a design in engineering where the tower would collap would collapse or break I don't think I I I've yet to see
you and I asked the question it may have just passed by but I've yet to see you produce any evidence that that engineering has actually worked in real time Maybe you can maybe you can't If you can that would be helpful but if you can't then that leaves open a question
So let me can I ask a question well you can but I just you know my thoughts Roman you ask a question ask my wife I'll forget exactly what I was saying So um so I'm thinking that you know reducing the tower size is
an important piece in this process and the way I'm seeing this is that there's the first net service which can be at some point on a tower at some height and I don't know what that height
is and you've kind of gone from 170 down telling us how you're going to lose um uh customer base or you're going to lose something There's a loss occurring but from 166 to 146 as an example I mean I I would I would actually like to go
lower than that but just to give it as an example you're losing 13% Which in my mind is not so significant but I want to give you a chance to talk about that And um and why you need why do you need if
if if if if if it can work at 130 or 40 feet for the s for the part that the fire chief is concerned about why do we need the extra 40 feet why do we need the extra 30 feet what is what what part is that and and there's a cynical part of me I must
admit that's like well that's for AT&T because they're not going to make the investment unless they can get all the money they can out of it So they're coming in with their biggest their best shot is what we want Over 170 has problems So 170 and plus you know how far can we push this over the you know
the variance issue Um but there's a gap uh between the fact that there's an emergency service need which I believe can come at a lower height It's I'm based on what you're
presenting us and then the idea that if we go up to 170 feet that's for your benefit which is something I want to consider seriously as I deliberate and I want the board to consider seriously deliberate because
um that goes back to the circling back to these federal statute You know if I start at the variance and we want to get strong about the criteria for the variance and you can build the tower at 130 ft not 170 ft then that's a different story than if
you have to build the tower at 170 ft because we're not prohibiting service If we're giving you a chance to go at a lower height even though you need a variance for the lower height maybe that tower falls on the right of way technically but it doesn't fall all the
way across the road And so I'm laying some of my cards on the table because we're getting closer to the end and I'm beginning to understand things and I'm letting the board understand the law through our communications not nothing more than
just letting them know what the cases say And so I need to hear I mean I know you're gonna I I I'd rather you didn't advocate but I because I want an honest answer from you about it And uh so that's it
fairly straightforward Okay so the first thing is if you just look at a single carrier tower So let's just say it's AT&T So the goal is to fill a coverage gap not fill 80% of a coverage gap So So that's the first concern is if you're
not filling the coverage gap you are still effectively specific about that Sure I I mean we can get the data on what a lower poll does and how much of the coverage gap is still there Uh the second point is that may require the need for a second tower So I I would
think that one of the things your bylaw and as I read your bylaw in its totality Uh you want to minimize the number of towers that you have in the community So having to build a second tower means that we could be back here in a year in another area where there are other
citizens that have I don't want to look at it I don't want it in my neighborhood I don't want this side of one So it it would potentially mean that there would need an additional tower And the and the third criteria is third factor is uh
your bylaw um promotes and actually requires collocation So if we build it at the lowest height possible and we only put one carrier on it that might not get all of their coverage uh you're inviting either a second tower somewhere
else or maybe even a third or fourth or fifth tower if another carrier comes in and can't fit on that pole The last thing we want to do is build a tower and then have to take it down and use a different pole and a different technology and a different structure to build something that's going to hold two
or three carriers two years from now or three years from now when we're going to be out there spending seven figures to build a tower We want to build a tower that's going to provide you with the opportunity When Verizon or T-Mobile comes in in a year and says "Hey we want
to put a tower on the fairground." you're going to say "Well why doesn't the tower that Vid built work for you?" And you need to go look at the Veridity tower first before you come back to us Just like we had to start and look at that radio tower that had the issues
with it but we started there And so I think the theory is when we balance all of those things and and again starting with your own bylaw your bylaw advocates collocation And so we're trying to satisfy that need and that at
the end of the day will potentially mean that you have one tower instead of two or three or four somewhere down the future Okay So can I what's your what's the issue with the fall zone because I I I have difficulty with that Um I do these all the time We put break
we don't even put break points in some of them I mean if you go and look at the Florida circumstance when hurricanes hit I mean talk to you You you Well I was gonna actually if if I can cut you off one second The question I was going to ask you when you said don't ask the question because my wife will tell you I'm going to forget and I almost forgot
So the the second thing I was going to say is we may not be able to show you one that successfully snapped at the break point What we may be able to successfully show you is these just don't fall down And I think that's going to be the more probable is is I don't
think um you're going to have a monopole that has a break point that falls down that doesn't break I mean the these things are built to withstand what 170 mph if if if you look at what happens in Florida from hurricanes and talk I mean
don't take my talk to your you hired a peerreview engineer talk to te talk to te call pick up the phone and talk to them and say or ask them to come to the next speed what happens so all of the weight is in the antennas that's what creates the resistance for the pole
pole steel it's you know it can be designed overdesigned they put brake points And you know the biggest push back I get when I ask for a break point in the tower Why do you need it we designed them not to fail They don't tip over So the idea that we're arguing over something beyond all of us it'll meet
the code If you look at I've been to enough of these hearings and listening to structural engineers all the antennas are all up at the top That's where the wind loads are So when the hurricanes hit in Florida the wind loads push the tower over They bend over and then the
steel hardens or TEP This is what you hear So they just kind of like lay there So the antennas just make the tower buckle Now if they put in a break point which is what we try to do to satisfy concerns it's going to snap there So
talk to TE about that Don't take my word for it Talk to them about it You know what is this technology the towers aren't going to snap at the base if they put that fail safe in So from our perspective and our engineers
we have difficulty with put in the break point No we designed it We designed the foundation specifically to deal with wet We we designed it specifically It might be a you know mat foundation which is just like a big square that they bury I
mean these foundations are huge or a quesanine where they go deep and they pour you know cement truck after cement truck worth of of cement So talk to your talk to T then please because it it should not be a concern if it meets the code Why you have a fall zone like that
in the ordinances i don't know A lot of communities that have these fall they do You know what most of them are for to keep them away from residences and in this instance that the unique thing about this is we're next to a highway and the only even if the pole fell the worst case is it falls onto the roadway
Now do you go down the highway do you see any monopoles out there i see them everywhere I do Well same situation I mean the the federal government that you know the state government is allowing towers right on the median strip I
guess from the from this side of the table Hey my job is to make everything that happens as safe as possible I talked to the peerreview guy and he could not tell me that the breakpoint was as safe as the fall zone He wouldn't
do it He said fall zone is the safest bet Falls It's going to fall It's going to fall down the height of the tower You can be guaranteed it's not going anywhere else So that's my that's So I have a concern I I just want to leave it at
that We're not deliberating but I have that concern So having that concern which I'd like of course again not being facitious I'd like you to take seriously Um tell me about 130 ft and 140 ft
I think it starts to get too it it gets too low point So why would anybody invest in something that gets you 90% there i mean these aren't free You know there is huge expense here These are everything's six figures So there's
nothing cheaper than that You know AT&T is interested in providing maximum coverage So when you say 13%'s not bad it's a big deal for us because on both sides of that tower you know if you think about this and I'm going to advocate a little bit here but that's right You think of it like a jigsaw
puzzle and I put in my memo it's like a honeycomb So we create these blobs of coverage They're not perfect because terrain it you know hits trees and all this crazy stuff But if we have all these asymmetrical circles that all overlap a little bit when you move one
it starts shifting all the others around So you don't give us 13% here Somewhere on the periphery to the north we're going to be short and need another site Eventually think about the entire United States We're building hundreds or
thousands of sites because you didn't think 10% was a big deal It is a big deal Now is there somewhere that it's not going to make a tremendous amount of difference i think we could have that discussion but it's not going to be there Um
uh want another question to give you time Thank you Have a question Go ahead Yeah Um one of the things I noticed in reading the cases the case law was that many of them specified no lights Um are you planning to put lights on the towers
and if if so why not a federal requirement on the height It is federal requirement on height Do we do we need it on those towers i don't believe I don't think we do I don't think we're in a flight path anymore Oh I am But can I So but they can't be
prohibited So you can't say you can't build a tower because it needs a light because the light is a safety function for the FAA So I understand that but I I thought it was I don't believe this one has to be lit but that's a question that almost every case I think all I didn't read all
the cases but the ones I read all specified no lights So I was a little surprised We'll confirm I don't think we did There's not an airport in the flight path There's one in Turner's Falls but that wouldn't be in the flight path I don't notice the lights around when I
drive but here's here's my question So there's been um so the credibility of your data is being questioned by the concerned citizens All right Wait wait Right I'm not saying that I'm not saying that as a rhetorical statement Okay
Um we have no way unless we were to hire an expert which we have not done of knowing whether you're telling us stuff that's that we should be really paying attention to or you're telling us stuff that's self-s serving So
um how do we know the credibility of your data as compared to what they're asking you to do so I I'll address the elephant in the room right now because I know that John is still on and he's heard me say this before We will not provide drop call
data We consider it confidential It's a business issue It's proprietary Attorneys can argue to the contrary AT&T's not going to provide it We've not been asked for anything else We don't we answer to you We come and we present our information to you We don't
respond to everything people raise I mean people are going to say "Well the tower should be invisible." Well we can't do that We're not going to respond So if I ask you for the drop call data what are you going to tell me we're not going to give it to you We won't give it to you We won't give it We don't give it to any board that asks for it So the drop call data affects our We're also
competitors You know we compete with Verizon We compete with T-Mobile We compete with Dish AT&T considers it proprietary confidential It's not going to happen Now if there's some you know you didn't request a peer review again I we submit there's no
reason to doubt CQ C I mean look into what CQ does They're reputable They They're not AT&T AT&T gives them all of the network information They put it in there That's smart lab and ML
All right So you're saying that you go to them and say we're hands off on what you're doing no no no no We AT&T retains them right to prepare the report in your best interest or in in in this in the context
of they can they're independently assessing stuff and you're taking the information Yeah I I wouldn't say they're independently assessing They're taking the information and basing it on engineering So it gets a little dicey when you say well and and this is what
we hear from the abutters owners whatever you you're calling them concerned citizens concern well we hear from the concerned citizens that it's all bogus Martin Lavin is a wellrespected engineer works for C squ and frankly that's insulting
so I'm not that's not what I'm saying you look at his qualifications you look at the reputation of C where we weren't we weren't asked You didn't hire a peerreview
person for it You didn't you know that's not something that was done Again we answer to the board We're not I'm not answering to Mr Campanelli If you know he says well you know your coverage maps you know on the FCC website are different Oh look at the whole website
instead You know I'm not going to argue He's presenting argument not I guess what I'm saying to you is that we do have the right even without a peer review to determine the credibility of what you're giving us Nobody here is under oath There's not it's not like a
place where I can put people on the spot cross-examine them So I have to rely on your information is being credible Y So they're telling they're trying to tell us that maybe it's not So it eventually So
we we went through this process with you giving you a lot of time to make your presentations because we wanted you to have a chance to do it We also had to come up to speed to learn what this was all about And so for me it's a question It's not a
It's more like so I'm going to then when we deliberate have to raise the question of am I going to rely on your information as the source of the data that we need to determine that yes there is a
significant gap in coverage Um I never I I never knew until I heard from others that there was another way of analyzing this which is the um you know the drop calls data which you're now telling me is data that you collect
It's not like a and I guess somebody could actually drive around and do it themselves right maybe they can't because you provide the service and you get to keep the information and you got to be it's in car versus in building There there's
way more factors than just getting in a car driving but let me let me let me offer a suggestion What I'm saying 100% Okay So I don't mean that as an insult to anybody Martin I'm not insulting you I am the one that said it earlier At the end of the
day I'm painting the picture There are people that have the facts and the people that have the facts prepared reports for you You have to assess whether or not the facts in the report that they prepared for you were credible or not credible When it came to structural you got a peer review and the peer reviewed it and gave you his
opinion You didn't ask for a peer review with regard to I thought the peer review was actually going to do everything So when I when I did find out it was just the structure that I was Let me make the following suggestion At a minimum we should get you Martin's criteria We
should get you his resume You should understand his training his background his area of expertise a list of representative communities that he has provided evidence in front of or maybe even been a peer consultant in another community so that you know that this
isn't just somebody that we went and said "Hey like as you said how do I test the credibility?" I I would rather I I'm going to assume his credibility I'm going to assume his credentials are fine Okay That's not my issue with his credentials My issue is I want him to
explain deeper how he how he gets from point A which is you're supposed to find this out for us to point Z which is this is what I found out I'm drawing green here and this there and white here and everything else What did I do to get
there so So Martin uh unmute for a second Martin you hear all of this correct yes sir Okay So you will speak early on the next hearing that we're speaking at which is in May Okay Certainly Thank you
More than happy to So the question is how did you I want I want to get I want to dig deeper into how you came to the conclusions that you came to Go ahead Go ahead No problem Oh did you say no problem or no problem
no problem No problem Okay All right Is are the board okay with all that yes That work yes I I guess I just want to make one comment Um you know in regards to you know I understand the law I understand we need to follow our you know go
through everything the variances I understand all that I guess I do you know there's a lot of talk about facts and and things but I guess I just want to remind everybody that you know this is not just I've filled out I've checked all the boxes This is just about I've
checked off all the boxes I'm allowed You wouldn't be before the board So I I don't want to lose track of you know there's the objective but there is the subjective And you know your opinions and your experience everything you know I I respect that 100%
But you're making you know you've made your decisions based on on those experiences and we're going to make our decisions in regards to our experiences and and the community So but all we ask is that you make your decisions based on your ordinance and what the law is So
that you know this the special permit criteria We've explained how we satisfy that We've explained how we satisfy the variance notwithstanding the difficulties with it but that we're following the rules at the same time That's how we should I think one other
factor which is uh with certainly no disrespect intended you have one cell tower that you pered 20 years ago So your experience is the country Yeah We didn't that our ordinance is is post oh so that okay so then you have
one that you haven't none So you have not and and so I would hope that um you find our experiences and our explanation of them credible to the board because you have not had the benefit of being out in the
in the Oh absolutely I mean and I certain you know this has been a great education I've learned a lot about things I wasn't sure I ever really wanted to learn about One of the reasons why I like being on the board but I I guess I just wanted to make sure you know it it is not just a matter of saying I've checked all the boxes It
it's Yeah we're good to go Agreed 100% What you might what you might consider like I guess I just want the reason why I'm saying that my tent here is saying what you might have dismissed and not considered based on your experiences might be something that we would we would consider on our on our end The
best way I can explain to you that I think that your considerations matter to me is we have rigid time deadlines and we would have the right to come in here and say no we want our decision or we're going to go to federal court And that's not what we're doing We we've we've
extended times We've given written waiverss We allowed the the uh community group to speak Um we've invited them to speak at our last meeting At this meeting we're going to let them do the whole full presentation before we come back for hopefully knock on wood one
last meeting after that We want you to hear everything from everybody In an ideal world we believe that you will agree with our position on this and our hope is that you do But I have found in my years of doing it that the best way to
do that is to give you the time and the information that you need to make those decisions And I think in a respectful way and again the board's been great I appreciate the respectfulness in the board You ask great questions And I'm not sitting here on my fist and saying
no to any of it I think you need the time and the information you need to make the right decision I hope we've given you that I hope we're continuing to give you that Um you doing the second balloon test Um we're happy to do it because there were things that you
have raised and explained to us why you have these levels of concern Good question We're going to get a we're going to get a presentation next week about coverage I'm sure in detail but assuming assuming we pay
their mean covered from the concerned citizens Yeah From from their expert you know Now whether he does it or not that's that's that's not maybe maybe an issue But having you're you're going to be here I would assume you know ML will be here It'd be nice for him to hear what they say and come back and say
"Okay I've heard that not based on my expertise Here's my responses to that." That is ex exactly what our plan is to do is the reason that we were allowing them to do that is and we we are not going to bring our experts next next week They're all going to watch it on
Zoom the next day and they're going to sit down when they have the time to watch it and and when we come back in May that way we're not interrupting um Chamberlain or Campanella the floor is theirs the meeting is theirs with not one small caveat which is if we do the
balloon test first and you want to ask us any questions about the balloon test if we don't get it done this weekend we're happy to answer those But our goal at the next meeting next Thursday is it's their presentation Was Martin gonna start the meeting telling us how he
peeled away the onion or No I was going to have him do it on the 9th on on May 9th He said he'd do it in May I wanted I I wanted him to have the opportunity to hear what Attorney Campanelli and Mr Chamberlain had to say as well um because I don't I think it would be less
beneficial to you if he has to speak next week and then again two weeks later So this way he can give you one presentation based on the concerns you've raised tonight and any additional information he hears next week and we would start off the next meeting with
Marley our next meeting One other request if you could and you you both have spoken to it today if you could take the the various sites because you ruled out Hampton and you ruled out the you think based on that here's the criteria you could without I'm looking
for tremendous efforts to say okay here's how you with your expertise how you went through the process to get to this site how you move out those sure you know I made a comment that we couldn't put a tower on top structure
it's not capable it you have falls on just some brief bullet items to pull my yeah my anal this about see how do we go these sites and narrow it down to one Okay that would make that would provide a level of
detail Now I'm not looking for dissertations just the things you spoke to So by way of example so on the Hampton end we read their special permit So they don't have enough parking they have parking on the adjoining lot We would have to they would have to shut
down part of the Hampton Inn in order for us to be able to build it anywhere other than their roof Boom That was criteria So we're putting it on their roof It's going to be 64 feet high Yeah I can do that for you for each site I'm not looking for a huge amount of detail We're just gonna feel comfortable that
here's how we got to the site Y points Yeah And you spoke of uh you said "Well I won't go down 30 feet but I could go down some." I' I'd like the I'd like the flag to be on the
spot that you feel comfortable with Talk to I'll talk to AT&T and see if there's a compromise See this yeah So this is this is the conundrum is that we all
want sell service except if you live in a neighborhood That's but this is why we're here because you want cell service No no hang on There's somebody who lives in the neighborhood that wants why would you say neighborhood doesn't work either
I wouldn't say one I'd say need need Even better There's no desire Can I can I reverse that question though so you have how many how many people have signed this thing 22 22 So you have 22 people that are trying to block this from
happening And my guess is we have couple thousand few thousand within the vicinity Now you know they're the silent might they're the silent majority without question So they're not going to come to a hearing It's well you know they'll just take care of it We have 21
people all in a concentrated area and I think the balloon well I mean I think the balloon tests will be instructive I mean I think it'll be helpful for the board and maybe that is what drives the height issue a little bit But one of the standards is the character of the neighborhood It's not it's not my neighborhood then I'm not going to come and complain about the character of
somebody else's neighborhood If it's in my neighborhood I'm going to come and complain about the character of my neighborhood So that's why you but nobody on your street would have electricity if that were me All right Hang on That's I don't want that's not what I'm say Listen philosophically we could have a beer and talk about that stuff but I'm just saying in ter So
there are some people in this community that think that it might be okay to have 25 cell towers that are 100 feet tall that get hidden by the trees and that's how you provide service because then we're not looking at these ugly behemoths So you know that's not your economic model Well it's not your
bylaw It when when we start Yeah but that's a subjective standard like what you know we we my point is just that I've got to overcome the board has to overcome that reaction that everyone has that they don't want that to be in
their neighborhood I'm glad there are neighbors that appreciate it and think that they need it and they're not offended by this the height or the or the look of it and but I think it's our duty to really explore the whole thing and I'm letting you know
that that's how we're going to do it this isn't going to be like a five minute thing when we finally deliberate And um the more you can be sensitive in your advocacy the better it will be for both
of us in terms of getting to the finish line I do I do think again respectfully that when we go look at the balloon you will also have an opportunity to look at the neighborhood And I can't disagree with you when when you think about the characteristic with the the self-
storage and the tractor supply and some of the other the highway immediately there Again it is the delicate balance between subjective and objective Um but we're going to absorb the locals wants and needs and that I think that's what
Debbiey's saying We're going to absorb their wants and needs in how we deliberate and that's that's part of our job I know the law is important and we'll ultimately get to the law when we finally get to the end of of the day
but we we sit in this community paying strong attention to what the neighbors and the opponents think about stuff that comes from And if there's resistance then we listen to it We try to honor it We try to understand it doesn't mean we're
gonna we're gonna decide for or against anybody but so I'm hoping and and one of the reasons for the balloon test again I know you represented that you're kind of doing it like as a something that we ask for but I think in essence the balloon test is a really critical piece for you
as well because it's really seeing the sucker that makes it work Just like a judge going to a site visit you can explain the site a thousand times but the judge isn't going to annoy it Let's use the balloon test as a really good opportunity to have reality in
front of us and to see afterwards what people say and how we but I'm I'm I and I agree with you the balloon test needs to happen before their presentation because I would like it would make then it would put it in the best context for all of us to to
come right from there next well knock on wood maybe we'll get it done this weekend but if we don't well before next meeting is my came from there next Thursday and came right here I actually think it's fresh in everybody's mind Everyone's just walked off the site Hopefully it means
we had a nice sunny day and we got to spend a little bit of time outdoors and look at it And I do think again knock on wood Uh maybe we'll get it done this weekend but if not then okay next Thursday So unless there's any other one one one one final question just
procedurally we've we've talked a lot you I'm assuming you may we're going to make the decision on variance and the special permit Yes Have we covered we talked a lot about the variance but I heard some one of these public speak earlier about a bunch of things that
have to do with the special permit Have we in all these deliberations kind of gone through all the things that we would want to talk about for a special permit no That's next that's the next thing to to focus on I think my goal for all of us was to understand the federal
law because whatever we do here it all circles back to the federal law and if if whatever we're doing in our inner ignorance is prohibiting sell service then we're just running in place So I want to make sure we understand what what's behind us the monster that's
leaning over us telling us what we have to do in relation to our own ordinance and how we analyze it because that's what we're first going to do is this And we know how to do this because this is our ordinance But the federal law is something that's new to us We don't usually we're not usually integrated
with federal law nor are we used to the federal government We're used to state government trying to do it but not the federal government coming in and telling us that whether you like it or not there are things you have to do whether you like it or not So but I'm just talking
selfishly time wise for the meetings They want to be done in May We just we spent three hours today you know and we're going to have a presentation next week from the experts On the 9th we will be on the 9th we will begin to go over our stuff We'll begin to deliberate on
that Yeah And I think you need to do spend whatever time it takes to finish And I don't think that's going to be quick Okay All right So I just So you asking you saying that we should spend we should have a big meeting Well I I mean I I don't know about them but I think that you know we and and maybe I'm wrong but I mean I think your intention
would be done We have we have we by agreement we have to be done by May 30 Yeah Right Maybe we can have a third meeting in May if we feel we're we're we can't do two I think there's enough time I think I think I've been asked repeatedly for the concerned citizens to
have their opportunity by the end of April That'll be the case We'll have a good two weeks for us to digest start looking at our own ordinances on the 9th We're going to want to make a rebuttal We're going to hear from Martin Then we're going to start to talk about all the different things because we'll have
all the facts hopefully in front of us I I I agree with you I think that having the opportunity to do the balloon test next week to hear their presentation and then not having a meeting again for almost three weeks I I've been taking
obviously copious notes I it will be our goal to cover everything that has been raised including what gets raised next week on the 9th If there's so much raised on the 9th that I don't think that we're going to be capable I'm sorry If there's so much raised on the 17th
that I don't think we're going to be capable of getting it done on the 9th um I will be letting Mr Singer Mr Tuara know that we think we might need more time and that would be up to you to decide But my goal is finish it on the
9th and then that gives you also an entire session to deliberate and if I get it done even sooner than that on the 9th you could start your deliberations on the night There was there was one one public person comment I don't really wasn't listening to it carefully but she
had a whole litany of things in New York So if you could just 26F sections eight and nine she read the section she gave the list of things and I already in the special permit section I already wrote down my responses Yep Yep Okay We I think we know how to do
special Yeah Hands up John John are you is your hand up by accident or you want to speak john he's probably having dinner All right Um I'm here I apologize I'm here I apologize I just had to find the window
again Um no I I just you know obviously the I don't know if the the applicant is up to five hours now but I just I just wanted to I know we're wrapping up the meeting but just for something the the Go ahead Go ahead I'm just going to say
something after this Go ahead Yeah thanks Ed um if that was it So just something to think about you know between now and Thursday would be um uh Ed's you know description of the drop call data as a trade secret in terms of Verizon or whatever But I would also
characterize it as a trade secret you know to planning boards around the country because essentially the main reason I would assert that they can't share drop call data or won't share it even though they are required to share it with the FCC who doesn't accept propagation maps as proof Um and I can
send you a link about that But um the main reason is if Ed shared drop call data with you every you know of the he's you know on his way the next day to another town and there'd be no justification for saying
you know I can't share the drop call data with you and essentially that would cut into AT&T's business significantly significantly significantly So that's what I would just something to think about uh in terms of not being willing to share the drop call data and I would definitely encourage you know I given
that no one is going to share the drop call data everyone you know obviously can do their own test and just drive around with their cell phone and see if the call drops and our experience is that it doesn't Thanks What I was going to say John and I hope everybody I don't think there's many
people listening but we can give the applicant four years to make their presentation And it doesn't mean that the concerned citizens get four years of time and rebuttal It's their application I will it's it's that
they're they've agreed to go this long They've agreed to talk this long I'm going to give them another three hours on the night I'm going to give them as much time as they need to answer our questions and to have us be satisfied that their application has been
completed The concerned citizens are being given an opportunity to speak If there's something relevant that needs to be spoken about I'm happy to listen to it but the idea that you get five hours of time because they've gotten five
hours of time I'm tired of hearing it so I don't want to hear it again Please Yeah I was definitely wasn't suggesting that Uh and I thought it seemed like No you were And I've heard it over and over again from the concerned citizens and I'm tired of hearing it If you have something to say I'll give you a hundred
years to say it but it's not a tit for tat They are the applicant They're the ones who are coming before us They're the ones who are spending the money They're the ones who are presenting and asking us to say yes or no And the citizens have a right to speak to it but
it's not a tit for tat So please stop with that Thank you Dave it's been a long night shall we yes All right So uh can we make a motion to close the hearing at this point you don't want to close it You want to make a motion to continue to April 17th
Yes Okay I'll read make the motion we continue to April 17th Second Okay Any discussion for both for both the varian Yes Any discussion okay All in favor say I I Any opposed let the record show that list Thank you
I'll make a motion to meet you No no no We have minutes So just real briefly So we will either see you at 10:00 on Saturday morning or 10:00 on Sunday morning or the balloon will be going up at 2:00 on Thursday and we'll see you at
the site at 5:30 communicate whenever you're ready to make a decision Let Eric and David know and then we'll go out to everybody to let them know it's okay What would what time would the balloon on if we did it on Thursday we would put it up at two and we would keep it up
until we finish and go to the meeting after the meeting Would that be 6 o' uh it might be 6:30 or 6:45 because So we're gonna we're going to be there at 5:30 so we can
hours Again I we want to be respectful of anybody that's warping and might need it's going to work out Believe me everybody you know we we've done enough being we've done enough There was we gave we gave everybody time tonight
and we ended up where we were back to speaking with you because that's how many people showed up to do it So it's I'm tired of that whole piece of understood Um but we Yeah but I will have to arrange my time off of work to be there So even at 5:30 well 5:30 I
thought we were talking about meeting earlier No 5:30 Not meeting at 5:30 5:30 You come at 5:30 5:30 No problem 5:30 at the site and then if we have to go to a land the neighbors can sit from 2 to 5:30 and do their own assessing or board members who can drive around I thought
we're meeting at George So again bring me a black coffee We're going to meet at 5:30 as a board They're going to look at the site and then to the extent they want to drive to Elena's front yard or somebody else's front yard or backyard and take a look and then we're going to
tell um David he can take it down if if somebody is delayed at work and we need to make sure that they have enough time So I honestly I think you'd tell David estimated 6:30 we're wrapping but I I want to make sure that each of the board members has a chance to go to any other
house and look and see Okay working What we got So is Saturday off then no it's it's not it's not it's going to rain So we have we want to now while we're all together pick the alternative rather than he and I using up a lot of his
valuable time Yeah And then having to track everybody else down agreed on next Thursday if that that's our that's our next that's our plan B Plan A is Saturday That's our plan C Plan A is Saturday Plan B is Sunday then see is Thursday and we feel confident that
Thursday will be weatherproof So we're going to get it done and our our main objective is to get it done before the meeting next Thursday so we can all be in the same place when we hear from the heavy hitters for the concerned citizens and Martin can listen to everything So we're on track and time on Saturday
would be 10 10 on Saturday or 10 on Sunday Same as last week Okay Thank you You're doing math We're doing that Doing minutes We're good Thank you All right Thank you guys George thank you Thank you Um okay I may hear a motion to approve
minutes of the March 20th Is it March 20 i think February 21st Oh March 20th Motion to approve the minutes of the March 20th I second Any discussion all in favor say I Any opposed record show unanimous I
hear a motion to adjurnn Make multi Second All any discussion all in favor say I I Any opposed the director shows now meeting [Music]