Good evening everybody. This meeting is being televised by area 58. Present tonight David Fry, Gerald Joy, and Tina Kenyon and myself, Kazaya Nezella. And our first order of business tonight is
ZBA2-14 uh zero C the lane. Anybody here to talk to it? >> I hear about getting zoning for building a house on the was supposed to be a nonbuildable lot. I guess the town
lawyer had looked it over. >> I'm going to read it. I'm gonna >> Oh, okay. >> You want to read it into 10 minutes? >> I can read it into minutes because I have some more to add after that. >> Huh? >> I have lots more to add. >> The assessor's office cannot make a determination that the lot is not
buildable and there thereby prevent a lot from being built upon when it meets zoning and other requirements. The assessors cannot make a determination that a lot is not buildable and thereby prevent a lot from being built upon where it meets zoning
and other requirements. The assessor's office may have determined at one time that the lot located at zero Cedar Lane was not build buildable for purposes of determining the value of the property. That determination does not change the
condition of the property or render the lot not buildable. Particularly where the reason for the assessor's determination that the lot was not buildable wet soil at the time no longer appears to exist. And this is from town council to the board.
>> And the the uh the lot went into uh they they had a perk test on it and it passed. And the gentleman that's in front of us, he wants to build a house in the center of the property. So
septic system is going to be on one side and the house is going to be on the other. So you cannot put another house next to it unless the laws change later on 20 years. gave a letter stating that we wouldn't >> and uh this is what we have in front of
us right now and we can't determine this lot unbuildable. Uh we have to you know go through the motions and and do what we have to do to get this going.
>> So if I may I did research on my own. >> What's that? >> I've done some research on my own >> because I wanted to see why this lot was unbuildable. Um, I spoke with the assessor's office. >> Could you speak to the microphone, please, please? >> Would that be more helpful?
>> Whatever you want to do. >> So, I spoke with the assessor's office to figure out when this lot became unbuildable. And this lot became unbuildable in 2010 when requested by the owners of the property to get an abatement because
they felt it was too wet. >> This land was never considered conservation. Has never I've gone back to 2005 was never considered conservation. For some reason, our town decided to give them the abatement for wetlands.
So they haven't been paying for that for 25 years. Um, this land was subdivided and used to be part of 122 Home Street, which I believe is his daughter's land. So, they've created their own hardship
by making this an unbuildable lot because they subdivided and left this leftovers. This is from the state. It's public record of the subdivision showing how it's been subdivided and
leaving this lot unbuildable. So that's why it's unbuildable. So I don't understand how you can get the abatement for 25 years and then say, "Oh, by the way, we want to build on it now." I know the soil changes, but you've subdivided it and you left that.
So when you've created your own hardship >> and these are all the assessors. >> So if the state deemed it buildable, >> it's not buildable by way of the the setbacks. And there's also court cases that prove
that that can't be the the case. You've made it unbuildable. You've subdivided it into being unbuildable. The previous owner made it unbelievable. >> He is the previous owner. It's just changed trust names. >> What do you guys think?
>> So, are you the owner of the land? >> Yeah. Well, me and my kids. >> Did you do the subdivision? >> No, >> I had it. I had it survey. Huh. >> It has the same trust name on on the state's records. It has the
same trust name for the subdivision as it is now. >> It's not in it in the uh in the new names, the four four kids names, three kids names, >> Ralph Morris and Tracy Hammering, trustees of MAM Reality Trust in
February 2nd, 1995 >> and it's never been changed. Is it I thought I gave you the copy of the deed. >> Custom Brandy and Abrams. It's the same. It's the same people.
Like you can change the name, but it's still the same people. >> But it did it did get a a protest. It's >> fine. You can do what you want to do. I know my answer. >> What's that? >> I You guys can vote however you like. I
know my answer. I mean, if the land perks and the and you get the it doesn't matter. >> Excuse me for a m second. Go ahead, Mike. >> So, Tina has a point which I was unaware of. Can you introduce yourself, please?
>> Building official for the town of Halifax, Mike. If the individual created the hardship on his own, he is not to build on that. If he owned that whole parcel at one point and he
cut off a 2acre chunk on the end of that and made that piece unbuildable, he created the hardship. He would have had to have owned the whole thing as one. And I don't know that. You will have to answer that
question. But that That's where I believe Tina's going, right? >> You can't create a hardship and then come ask the board for forgiveness. >> So, he'll have to answer the question if it was one possible at one time.
>> So, it was one possible at one time. >> Uh the what I got is two. >> And who who asked for the abatement? You right. >> Yeah. And now you >> the abatement. Do you mean the the thing to make it uh nonbuildable? >> Correct. >> No.
>> No. It was Morris. He did it for what I understand is for tax purposes for >> So you never own the other parcel. >> No. >> It was never combined. >> No.
>> So you have a record of subdivision of one parcel to make two parcels. >> Three. >> Three parcels. >> Yep. >> And that was not done by you or anyone in your family. >> He didn't create the heart. >> He did not create the heart.
>> Did he? He didn't subdivide. >> Well, he didn't subdivide. Somebody else did. So therefore, >> what do you got there? >> I just think the names of the trusts keep changing. I don't think it's changing because the addresses are the
same, the mailing addresses and so forth. So from what we read from the from the lawyers that we can't render it useless, right? >> I guess not. I don't know. >> What do you think, Jerry?
>> I just want to make sure you you have you're not related to anyone in this group. >> What? >> You mean Ashley Dew Wild, Brandy Kleman, and Mark Abraham? Yeah. I'm I'm your father. But
>> so this land otherly in your name Morris. No, I'm not really attorney. >> So this par land is strictly in your name. >> It's in my three kids' names. >> It's in a trust. >> Yeah. >> And you represent the trust? >> Yeah.
>> And you're going to build that house on it for yourself? >> For me and the wife? Yes. In case the wife has hard time walking, >> what do you think, David? >> I have no clue at this point. >> I have no clue at this point.
It's going back and forth every >> How long have you owned this piece of property? >> About a year. So, >> it just changed hands a year ago. Yeah. So this individual has never received anything as far as the tax.
>> Yeah. >> 25 years worth. >> He has not received previously. >> So the the abatements was never given to him. It was given to some the other party. The other party. Well,
I'd like to look into this further more until next month if anybody and you guys would agree to just to check it out, make sure we have when we vote on this, we want to vote on this so it won't come back and uh get us You know,
>> I agree. We have to make sure. >> But didn't the lawyers deem it What's that? >> Didn't the lawyers state that it was built? >> Yes, the lawyer said that. But >> this this is not about the buildable uh the lot itself. It's about the the ownership
>> the ownership of the property. >> Will you allow for neighbors to speak on this? >> Pardon me. >> Will you allow for neighbors to speak on this? Because I think we have a situation where every month getting pushed down.
>> We can't make a decision on something that >> we need to be 100% sure that we can give this gentleman the the the right to right to build on it without no interruptions from anybody else. You know, somebody comes back and said,
"Well, you made the wrong decision." We want to we want to be accurate that this decision that we make as a board. >> However, you have neighbors here that want to speak on behalf of their own impact that this has to the neighborhood
and it's not everyone from the neighborhood can be represented if we just keep doing this each month. So, can we see where this house is being proposed now? Originally, it was supposed to be up the street and that was a fine location. Now, we're hearing
it's moving. I believe that this house is actually going to be built directly across from my own house. There's less than 100 ft from the road to the property behind it on Anon Drive fence line. >> He's proposing the house to be in the
center of the property, >> right? Which is directly across from my home and I understand that it hurt and that is great. However, we're in a drought and >> I know that the way in >> not to interrupt you, the way they said
it that we can't render this piece of property useless. So, and he he had a perk test and he passed the perk test. >> Okay. So, >> and now a couple things came up. We want to make sure that we give him the right decision.
>> Right. But doesn't he need a variance because he doesn't have >> Yes, he Yes, he does. Yes, he does. We haven't We haven't reached that point yet. >> Okay. >> We haven't reached that point yet. >> From the neighborhood's feelings on this. I know personally, I probably won't be able to make it. >> When we when we get to that point, we'll
>> So, but that's next meeting. Yeah. Next month. >> I just want to Is this open to Stephan? Is everybody supposed to >> Yes. What's your name? >> Yep. Go ahead. >> Jacob 3013. I just had a question. Are we supposed to be called upon to be >> Yes.
>> Yeah. Go ahead. >> I just wanted to just >> Well, it's the pleasure of the board. You want to wait until next one. >> Go ahead. >> Question. State your name, please. >> Have you gone out and actually looked at
the piece of property and where the house is being proposed? >> Yes, we know where the property is. We've been there. >> I know you know that, but have you looked looked at the neighborhood? I mean, if you look, I've lived on that street for 46 years,
>> and every time we get heavy rains between our neighbor's house and Alicia's who just left, there's anywhere from 10 to 12 in of water that floats that settles right in that little valley right there.
You take out all those trees to put that house in and the fire department's going to be down there every time it rains heavy in the spring. >> All right, we'll get there. Go ahead. >> Again, just like at Jacquel 301 Home Street, are we waiting for the chair to
call us upon? Yes. >> And introduce ourselves with our name and address before we speak. Okay, thank you. Anybody else wants to speak to this? >> State your name. >> Go ahead. >> Uh Van Donley, 2011 Cranberry Drive.
Just got a couple of questions. Uh on this property that had an abatement before, I'm assuming this is one parcel at the time of this abatement. Is that correct? No, it had already been it had already been divided into three parcels at this point. >> Okay. So, there's abatement on the property to save on the taxes, right?
Okay. Then that property was uh broken up or transferred into parcels. Is that right? >> No, the other way around. >> Okay. >> It was broken up into parcels and then they received an abatement. >> Okay. >> Tax assessor calls this property worth $8,900.
>> It was purchased last year for $75,000. >> Yeah. So the question is it was uh technically an unbuildable lot. So he got a tax abatement to do that. Now they're going to make it a buildable lot. Correct. Okay. So the back taxes on all of that is still out there because
if you're going to pull it out and say that, right? Then you have to look at that. You have to look at the taxes that were saved that. Now I know if somebody else has the property now, okay? But if that's a family transfer or something like that, then you need to look at that from my perspective here before you do
that because that's just getting around the tax policy of the town and affects everyone who lives here. So, just throwing that out. Thanks. >> What's the positive one? What should we do? I uh I think we should table this for
about 30 days and uh check the uh information completely to make sure that we're not uh giving you something that you've owned or were involved in previously. I mean it's been brought up so we have
to we have to investigate it. So >> anybody want to make a motion to u >> I'll second it. >> You made a motion. I'll make a motion to ex u extend this uh uh what's the >> zero c the lane
>> zero c the lane for 30 days >> you guys are going to investigate all this >> is that what you're going to do >> and I get the answer by next month >> yes >> I hope so >> myself yes >> we would have to come back and visit it next month we got to find
the whole thing about this piece of land before we make a decision on it. >> Okay. >> Next month will be the 17th because they're moving that meeting. What does this
over here? This is >> That's it. on the computer somewhere and I don't have a clicker. So >> it is garage. >> This is last month.
So somebody else every month. >> It's not even good. Yeah. >> You want to >> Yeah. >> Is that it? What is getting pretty tired of this
is going give us some some information on that website. So we have more something. >> Yeah, it's it's really not the application but we'll >> number 265.
You can read it. All right. ZBA number 26-5, 285 Home Street, uh, construct 150 ft monopole style wireless telecommunications tower and related uh,
buttons, equipment in industrial zoning district, wireless communications service district a overlay. property owning information correct. Yes. >> Good evening. >> Can you introduce yourself, please?
>> Sure. Yes. Uh, good evening, chair and members of the board. My name is Alexandria Casaldo. Uh I am the attorney for Industrial Communic uh Industrial Tower and Wireless LLC, one of the co-licants here. Uh and with me today are Kevin Delaney, the vice president of
site acquisition and development of Industrial Tower and Wireless. Um Rich Vochi who is the surveyor and project manager at Industrial Tower and Wireless. Uh the CO COO Robin Weber is here as well also from Industrial. and
then Keith Volante who is the radio frequency engineer um for CS Square Systems LLC uh who submitted the RF report that's in the materials. Uh I'm going to just briefly discuss the zoning relief requested by the co-licants um
and then I'm going to hand things over to Mr. Kevin Delaney who has prepared a PowerPoint presentation that he is going to go through. Um so just as to the zoning relief being requested here today um as the chair indicated the project is
for a proposed monipole tower that's 150 ft uh at the project at the property at 285 285 Home Street. Um and as part of this project, the co-licants are requesting uh threedimensional variances
from section 1674G 4H uh of the zoning bylaw regarding the setback requirement from the property lines. Um as to the northern property line, um it's a side lot line. The tower
is proposed uh as indicated in PA on page 12 of the zoning memo. Um it is proposed to be located at 65 um excuse me, yes 65.8 ft from the side lot line. And so we
would be requesting a variance of 84.2 feet uh as the side setback um uh pursuant to the bylaw would have to be 150 ft uh equivalent of the height of the tower. and that is the side of the property uh that shares a lot line with
the MBTA um active commuter rail. Uh secondly, there would be uh we're seeking a dimensional variance for the side um the other side setback. Uh the tower is proposed to be 65.9 ft from the property line. Um and there would be
request for a relief of 84.1 ft. Uh and lastly, the rear lot line. Um the tower is proposed 40 feet from the rear lot line. Um and so there would be a request of 110 feet. Um and then secondly as to
um the second subset of uh variance requests that we' be receiving regarding dimension uh would be from section uh 1674 G4I which are also it's a dimensional
regulation um stating that uh commercial uh existing buildings need to be 500 ft from uh the proposed tower. Uh and so here there's up to nine structures, buildings um that would be within 500 feet of the tower. And so we would be
seeking dimensional variances um for those buildings. Uh so now I'm going to hand things over to uh Mr. Kevin Delaney who will go through the PowerPoint presentation. Thank you. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Uh my name is Kevin
Delaney and I'm the vice president of um site acquisition and development for industrial tower and wireless and want to thank you for the opportunity to be able to present before you this evening. Uh we're going to have a brief uh discussion with regard to the proposed facility. Um it's going to be via
PowerPoint. Uh why the facility was located where it is and how it will improve wireless coverage in the town of Halifax. Um, as was mentioned, we're seeking a special permit. Um, and the necessary variance is to construct a 150 foot monopol style telecommunications
facility. And it's again, it will provide much neededed wireless coverage along Route 36 and the surrounding areas. Now, as shown on this uh map here, our proposed location is on the east side of Route 36, which is also known as 285
Home Street. The property is identified on the town assessor's map as map 22, lot 7 and it's a 2.52 acre lot and it's within the industrial district. This next picture is a picture of the uh
lot itself. Um we are proposing to see if I looks like the the red uh there it goes. The um driveway for the facility is going to be using the existing entrance to the the the lot and then we will go
to the north side of the existing building or as you're looking at this picture, the left side of the building is where we'll enter the uh property. We'll be utilizing the existing gate that is on the property currently. And this is just an overview of the lot
itself. Again, the the lot is the um cleared lot that you see in the center of the um site plan. It's a 2.52 acre lot. Our proposed driveway is 480 ft in length and 12 ft in width and that's all
within a 25 foot wide access and utility easement. So that's what you you see uh along here. But this is the access and utility here 25 wide access utility in our proposed driveway will be in the center of that
ement. There'll be one utility pole that will need to be installed about 170 ft from the existing utility pole and then from that point all the utilities will be uh completely underground. That includes uh util the electric uh the fiber and
telephone. Uh there will be no changes to the grade of the property as you access it. The driveway to the actual site itself. We'll be utilizing exactly the gravel that is there today. Uh as far as traffic flow when it comes to the
facility, um there'll be very minimal impact when it comes to traffic. Once the site is constructed and built, it could potentially have about two or three visitors a month. Mostly technicians checking on the equipment or uh perhaps a landscape crew just making sure that everything looks uh presentable.
We are proposing uh four six-foot eastern white pines at the front of the compound. Um right around right right at the turnaround right here's where the white will be planted or
proposed to be planted. The um compound itself is a 100 it's about 100 by 100 ft or 10 a little over 10,000 square ft. um is I should say is the lease area and then the compound within that lease area is an 80 foot by 80 foot fenced in compound with a chain
link fence and the fence is 8 ft in height and there will be a 14 ft gate at the entrance to that compound. Uh there's also a hammerhead turnaround as you approach the compound. So vehicles will be able to turn around uh once they they get in. Now within the compound
itself it's 6 in of 3/4 inch crushed stone. Uh the tower will be in the center of the compound and then the communications equipment will be at the bottom of the tower surrounding it. Um as you can see in this this image here the tower is in the center and then the
telecommunications equipment will be mounted to the side to the south of the tower. And just to give you an idea what they look like in in in the real world, this is an example of it. This is one of our our sites. This is a monopole tower with
an 80 foot by 80 foot fencing compound around it. As I described the crush stone, the tower is in the center and then the communications equipment is uh to the side of it. And that'll give you an idea of what it looks like actually on the ground of the
facility. Um again with the fenced surrounding, it's it's not it's not very complicated. It's um quite straightforward, but I just want to make sure you have a good understanding of what it will look like. The next slide is a vertical profile example of what the tower will look
like. So, this particular tower is designed to um colllocate three wireless carriers. So, Verizon is a colllocator and they're looking to go on it right away. And then there's space for AT&T and T-Mobile as well in the future. Um,
as you know, this area is limited in coverage. It's it's a dead zone. It's a gap. So, we um we feel that the other two carriers will come along uh very soon um after this tower is is approved if you choose to approve it. Um within
the application package was an FAA determination of no hazard. And what that means is the FAA reviewed this uh structure, this proposed structure, and they determined that it's not a hazard to air navigation, and it doesn't require a light or a beacon on top of
it. So, there'll be no lights or beacons on the top of the tower, and it doesn't need to be painted orange or white or any of those colors. So, it'll be strictly uh silver and gray. And again, these are examples of other monopolles, towers that we own
throughout New England. Now, one of the the main important aspects of this whole proposal is that this area of Halifax, uh, Route 36, the MBTA station, uh, the surrounding neighborhoods will finally have some reliable service. Uh, it's important to
note that towers are not selected at random when it comes to location. It's based on identifying a coverage need and then finding a location that's suitable and that will uh work for wellestablished telecommunication sighting criteria. So wireless carriers,
they don't just pick the most convenient places to go. Rather, they begin identifying where customers are are losing service, where they're dropping calls, and then they use sophisticated propagation software like you see on the screen, the results of it that show exactly where the coverage gap is and
where the need for the proposed facility and location is. So, after the gap is identified, a search takes place and um a search in the area, they'll look for a suitable place to locate the tower. Um so it they look for things like the RF
characteristics of the area, constructability, um is it available, um are there wetlands involved in the area that would prevent it from being constructed there and is it collocation uh capable? So this facility will
eliminate an approximate 2.7 mile gap of deficient coverage for wireless services along Route 36. Now, the amount of cars that travel on Route 36 each day, according to the state of Massachusetts is over 5,200. So, um it's a known area
with a very large gap in service. I've been working for this company for 33 years, and we've been looking for a site in this general area here to fill this gap for at least 10 years now. So, in addition to Route 36, as I mentioned, it'll cover the MBTA commuter rail
station, uh the Twin Lakes condominiums, uh nearby businesses, surrounding neighborhoods, and first responders who are operating uh throughout the area. And reliable service now, it's more than just, it needs to be more than just a convenience. It's not just a luxury anymore. Um it allows residents to call
911. It supports police, fire, and EMS. It improves emergency notification capabilities and it provides redundancy for people who have landlines when those lines go down. So, it's something that's essential for infrastructure just like we need
utilities at a house, just like we need fiber optics, just like we need water. Um, it's a necessity that people rely on today. Um we have a representative here from Verizon who can speak to more detail on these studies but um this map here shows basically what the existing
coverage is today for Verizon Wireless and our proposal is the blue antenna here. So the white and the gray areas that you see on the map is either unreliable or no service at all. And
when you look at the next slide, you can see what our proposed facility will provide for coverage in the area. It will fill that that that coverage coverage need uh very well. I just wanted to briefly talk about Industrial Tower and Wireless um so you
know who we are. Um we've been in the business for 50 years now. Our company is located in Marshfield, Massachusetts. And we're different than a lot of other wireless telecommunication companies out there when it comes to constructing towers because we do it all ourselves. A lot of companies will hire
subcontractors to do the work, but we have our own in-house people who do things like electrical work. We have electricians and master electricians who will wire the facility. We have our own foundation crews who will actually pour the foundation for the tower and um to
erect it. One of our um foremen for that crew has been with the company for 30 years. We have our own tower erectors who actually build the towers and our technicians who climb the towers to put the equipment on it. No one climbs our towers except for employees from
industrial tower and wireless. We also do special projects. This is not something that we're proposing here obviously, but this is an example in West Bridgewater. We have a 460 foot tower and we had to put a broadcast antenna on the top. So we had to use a helicopter to do that. So it's just an
example of of what we do and how long we've been around. Uh we also have landscaping and maintenance crews who go to each one of these sites and make sure that they're in good shape and that everything's um well taken care of. This is an example of one of our sites in Ducks. So the reason why I'm telling you
all this is just to let you know that we're a wellestablished business and u we want to be a good neighbor and we want to bring wireless service to to town. And um I hope you appreciate the time that's invested in this project and I appreciate the time that this board
has taken to listen to this proposal and I'd be happy to answer any questions either myself or um anybody that's with me. So thank you. >> Now the the tower it's going to sit on the property that is owned by you people
or is it owned by somebody else? >> So it's owned by somebody else. So, we have a long-term lease on the property. >> And what's happened with the building that's there? >> Um, we don't I don't have anything to do with the building that's there. >> So, we're just leasing our space on the property. Um, we don't have anything to
do >> only doing an 80 by 80 section of it. >> Yeah. So, we're leasing the back side of the the the property and then access to it, but everything else is the owner's property and we don't have anything to do with that. the owner here tonight.
>> What's that? >> Is the owner here today? >> I don't believe so. No. >> So on that property, we're going to have a dual use. One for the cell tower, one for the building.
Yes. Two uses. Yeah. >> And You're the applicant, right? >> Yeah. >> And I think the town considers it an accessory use. >> It's a narrow piece of land. I mean,
with a building that's on there right now, what is that building used for? >> I have no idea. Yeah, it doesn't really have anything to do with us. So, are you asking for the variance or is the owner of the land asking for the variance? >> We're asking. >> Doesn't the owner of the land?
>> I think the owner of the land should be here to uh >> Who is that? >> Ask for the variance. You're you're only leasing it. You're not the owner. So, you're you're leasing it. >> They they signed a statement that said that we can represent the property and what we need to do to get the >> Yeah, but you don't have the answers for
the questions we're just asking. Well, it has nothing to do with our project proposal. >> It does because it's we're this is one piece of property that we're deciding on. And if you don't own the property, you can't answer the questions. >> If you give you a permit, then
the guy that owns the property wants to do something else on that property with the building, then we're we're caught in between a rock and a half place. So, how do we determine what who's doing this and who's doing that? We need to know all that stuff, Julian. So,
>> and if the owner is going to come back and decide he needs a variance for something else, this is not uh this is not good procedure. >> Sure. I mean, the the applicant here is it's a totally different project than anything that the the proposed owner would I mean, I don't even know if the
proposed owner is coming back for any sort of relief, but the tower itself has nothing to do with >> building or the property. Even if it was just here, we'd have to get a statement that misrepresenting the trust because it was in the trust and had to be there for the owner of the property needs to
be involved in this. >> Well, the owner of the property is involved because there's a 99-year lease. So, I mean, we have authorization from the property owner to be doing this proposed use at least on his property. >> He needs to be here. >> No, he still has to be here. He's the
one that owns the property. So he's the one that has to ask for the variance. Y'all lease if for whatever reason uh is dissolved at some point. >> Yeah. But I've been doing this for 30 years. The owner never has to be there for a proposal that we're
>> Well, we have an authorization from the owner to do what we're requesting. It's got the project has nothing to do with the owner. >> Hold on a second. Yes, sir. Can you state your name?
Jake Oreal 301 Home Street. So if you have an authorization, can you produce it right now so we can see? >> Directed to the to the board. >> So can they produce it right now showing that they authorized them to be speaking on behalf of the property owner? >> Do you guys do you have the
authorization to be on that property? Did they to go for the permit? >> Do we have an application? >> Can they produce it right now? >> Application. >> Did you guys fill out an application too and all that? >> Excuse me. Do you have an application in hand?
>> I think it was submitted in your electronic portal. So it was submitted with the application otherwise it wouldn't be able to be in front of authoriz. >> Do we have the we don't have we don't have any. >> So just for the record with chapter 167.
So if you had had the time to review the actual site plan, what they produced and stuff like that. Um so they're not only asking for the variances as far, you know, setbacks and the fall zones, they're actually asking for variances in chap chapter 167 section N where no
signs shall be affixed. That doesn't say more than no trespassing where actually in the application it shows that there's IR frequencies. It says that you know there, you know, beyond this limit, you know, bad exposure, stuff like that. So, I mean, what are we doing here?
>> We're this propertyy's >> I mean, we haven't got to that yet. We need to go through one step at a time before we get to all the steps that we we're we're looking for. We need to know if this guy has an application >> or we need the uh the owner to be
present and we need to know what's going to happen with that land. I mean, they're going to put a a monopole right smack in the middle of that piece of property. Yeah. >> And later on down the line, somebody else would do something with that property.
Then we said, "Well, you gave them an access to go in there and put a monopole and now we're in we're in trouble because we got to go through all the motions before we even make a decision on this thing." >> Correct. And just like the abatas that
abut the property itself, if they're going to look for variances later on the, you know, down the line in this property, >> we're not even we're not even there. All right. >> Halifax. I believe the question being asked is what is the primary use of the
site? We cannot have a secondary use without a primary use of the original road. The applicant or the owner of the site has not applied for a use for the building. He is in front of the planning
board. Okay. No active use. >> Jake 301 home street. Can we identify the owner of this property for the record, please? >> It's Lidell Industries. >> Lidell Development. So, it's >> Lindell Development.
>> Liddell Lindell. Same thing. >> Question. So does everybody get the idea of there has to be a primary use before we get out of secondary because there's an existing goal in there. It's an industrial use and he hasn't identified
the use for it. and believe he's going to go forward with that and the next plan but right now you don't have a I just want to tell you without a primary I mean my opinion my opinion the
board can grant a special permit relative that the primary use is determined for the building >> that's why we asked what's going to happen if somebody comes in for the for the building we can't you need a primary
for use before we give you a second. >> Okay. >> So, I would just say I mean, right, there is a lease area here. So, there is nothing good that is going to be done outside that lease area. So, right, the applicant has nothing to do with whatever use or not Mr. Lidell is is
making use of that property. >> He owns it. >> He has nothing to do with it. >> So, he has everything to do with it, >> right? But he doesn't have anything to do with the lease area, >> but he's getting rent from that, right? >> Sorry. Can you say that one? >> He's getting rent from that property. Yes. >> Then he has something to do with it.
>> He has something to do with it. We need the primary use. Like the building inspector said, we need to know what is the primary use of that property. Then the secondary use will be will be the tower. Other than that, we can't we can't go any further than this. We'll
have to get information. Then we'll have to table it till next month. >> I mean, I I understand what you're saying about respectfully. I mean the under the law I can't go to your house the application in front of you medical tell you want to put a cell tower on
your building on your house >> can't do that they you got to agree we need we need a written permit for a written request from him that he wants he's pulling the permit for we want to know what is that primary use of that property. >> Well it doesn't necessarily have to be
the the property owner that pulls the permit. That's why we have authorization. he has to come in and apply for, you know, what he's doing for with that building. Then the second will be the the sell out. >> Hi, Van Donley, 2011 Cranberry Drive. My
question is more on a couple of technical pieces of this is what uh what is the gigahertz this thing is going to operate at number one and on the electromagnetic u you know spectrum where are we going to operate because there's also issues with you know you look at the horizon versus the ground
planes on these things so the question I have is you know what's the scatter rate for this tower at the lower level and what's in that scatter rate that needs to be considered don't have the answer just that uh I didn't hear that addressed to uh and also we're going to
be very close to the train switching station right there. And my question is, have we cleared this with the MBTA that the RF frequency or the scatter isn't going to affect the train itself switching? All right. Or are they going to need shielded cable or something in
there to provide for this? So, this is just questions that I have. Thanks. >> Three questions. Thank you. >> Hi, Sher 44 down the road. actually the property that's kind of on the side and behind it. Um I know we're not really addressing this at the point, but it would actually buy some time for us to
just come forth and be like, "Hey guys, yeah, none of us want it built in the area." Um all the neighbors be pretty much it's it's a disaster. Our backyard is pretty much their construction materials. Um now it's going to be 150
foot possible tower. Um it's it's just kind of been a it's unfortunate because not only did we not get known that the trees were going to be taken down because you guys apparently didn't either. Um but yeah uh our pools pretty much destroyed. A lot of our property has lost a lot of trees because of all
the trees they had already taken down. And like I mentioned, I know I just wanted this on the record. Um but yeah, there's there's a lot of us who are pretty upset about the tower possibly being built. And I know it's um it's an ongoing thing. So, I just wanted to kind of put my word out there.
>> How does any construction happen without a permit? >> They just did it at night. >> They did. Yeah, they did. I mean, >> that's really on the up and up, huh? >> Yeah. And we weren't we weren't aware. Actually, this was the first notification that we had ever gotten from from Califax and we've lived there
for seven years. So, I mean, our pool's destroyed. We can't prove it. So, we actually have >> We're not at that stage yet. So, >> what is it? >> I said we're not at that stage yet to approve anything. No, I just wanted my voice to be heard because I might not make it next time. Um, I have health issues, but I digress. Um, but yeah, I
just wanted to kind of make it known that just in case. Sherry Lynn Lincoln, 40 for Alana. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Hello board. My name is Damen Facio. I represent the interest of Cranland
Airport. Uh, I heard uh the applicants uh talk about clearing this with the FAA and the Mass Aeronautics Commission, but I was a little unclear. Um, I just want to make sure that everybody understands that these things have to be uh reviewed by the FAA and
Mass Aeronautics since it is about 1,800 yards from the an active runway. I heard it. Did you say that the communications part was cleared by the FAA or the actual location? Because >> the location >> the location. So the location doesn't
require a light. It's already been cleared. And the only reason why I'm reiterating is because we checked into it and they didn't uh the folks from Mass uh Aeronautics and FAA didn't have
the information on file. they didn't they didn't have the report or the uh request and >> it may be just u we we didn't talk to the right guy or he didn't understand or no >> miss sir we we're going to we're not
going to sit here all night long talking about this we're just >> we're going to get the preliminaries first then we'll go on >> okay as long as everybody understands that these things have to be u cleared with the FA and mass aeronautics >> anybody else from the audience wants to Members of the board,
>> what do you think? >> I would also like to know the frequencies that this is sending out and the health ramifications to have a tower next to all these residential people. >> We'd be happy to have Keith Valente, who represents Verizon, address those
questions. Hi, good evening. Uh Keith Valente with CC Squared Systems Business Address of 65 Darwin Drive in Auburn, New Hampshire. Um as part of the application, we prepared the RF report with the coverage maps that were shown um up on the on the map there. In that
report, um we list out uh the frequency bands that Verizon has an FCC license to operate at. So it's it's really the 700 MHz is the lowest that provides their LT service. They're also licensed at the cellular 850 MHz frequencies. They have
license holdings in PCS and AWS uh as well as Cband frequencies. So the low end of all those are 700 MHz up to 3.7 GHz. And those are all FCC licenses. Verizon has exclusive rights to use those
licenses in this area. One more guy. Go ahead. >> Jake Oakville 301 Home Street. So from what I'm hearing is there is going to be change in RF frequencies to the direct debuts. Is that accurate? I don't know if you >> That's what it seems like. >> Okay.
>> That's what it sounds like. >> So from what I have at my house right now compared to when the tower goes in, there will be a change, right? So that's a change of living conditions for myself on the property. >> Can we just get that for the record an
answer for that? So if there's I don't know how it works but if there's 0% now there won't be any change or there will be change on my direct property. >> I couldn't tell you. I have to ask him. Uh can you ask answer that question?
>> Will there be a change in the living conditions of >> um there will be a change in the RF um power in the area. So Verizon as part as all FCC licences must affect the people around it? >> I'm sorry. >> Will it affect the people around it?
>> No, the the the the emissions from the proposed facility will be well within the FCC uh limits for exposure. >> Is there I mean there I know there is no guarantee, but what's the guarantee that they nothing will happen to the people
around the site? >> Guarantee in what sense? I'm not sure I understand the question. They're concerned about radiation and >> no understood. And and again, Verizon operates these facilities all over the the country. As part of their license,
they're required to comply with the FCC limits that govern uh the exposure. Um so this is facility is similar uh to many other sites in the area across the nation. Uh we've performed numerous um studies around uh towers and rooftops
and so forth taking measurements and doing modeling of the sites. >> Will you be able to supply those studies to us? >> Um if >> Yes. Yes. >> I mean so we know what >> we can provide the the calculated exposure from the facility
>> Jake 301 home street. So as far as that I'm not concerned so much about the health side of it. I mean FCC regulates the Federal Communication Act in 1996 regulates all that stuff. But why would what would be the point of installing two signs on the property itself that
says beyond this point radio frequency fields at this site may exceed FCC rules and regulations? What dictates that site that size? You know, I've seen sites that are 20 by 20, 30 by 30, 40 by 40, 50 by 50, and the signs are on the exterior of that. So what dictates where
that RF frequency is? And again, this is going to be a nuisance, which is a violation of our town's bylaws for the change of living conditions for having these RF frequencies change at my property. >> We actually have location.
>> Can you answer that, folks? >> Yeah, I'd like to answer his question because it's a good question and he deserves the answer. So, those signs there that are those are for the workers who are working on the site. So that's when you cross into the compound and you climb the tower. That's where the potential issue is that the the workers
need to be warned. It's not for the general public. It's not for anything outside the compound. >> So the site is protected from somebody going in there and all. >> Correct. Yes. And I would just like to add that under the Telecommunications Act of 1966
chapter and verse it's 47 USC section 332 C7V4. Um I would just like to state this for the record. Um it is federal preeemption which means that no state or local government or instrumentality thereof
may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless services facilities such as the tower here on the basis of environmental impacts which includes radio frequency admissions to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regs which as
we've we've stated for the record um tower will comply with FCC regs. So, it's just a federal preeemption issue um that cannot the board cannot deny just based on concerns over um ours. >> What is within the uh fall zone the
tower? >> So, the fall zone um there's a letter in the materials but the fall zone is 75 ft. The tower is constructed essentially to fall in on itself. So, it' be half of the tower height, >> but the site the requirement is about 150 ft from the pole itself. Correct.
>> Sorry. The what? >> 150 ft from the pole itself. Correct. From the base of the pole, it should be 150 foot radius. >> Sure. So that that is the fall zone, right? That it's going to fall within 75 ft. >> Um which I said if you're leaving it so
it's um it's not 150 ft from the sidewalk line. Is that what you're you're asking? >> So if the tower should fall, >> Sure. >> you get 150 ft for a fall zone. Correct. If I'm understanding this correctly. Yes, it is 150 ft. >> It is it's it's constructed to have a 75
ft fall zone. Um, and there's never been a catastrophic, >> but hypothetically if it that's what the bylaws are there for. Correct. The fall zone's got to be the 150 ft the height of the tower, >> right? But that's part of the dimensional and then it would be it would fall,
>> right? But what is within that 150 ft fall zone? >> Oh, on the ground. Yes. >> Oh, it's just it's gravel. Um, there's gravel sand >> buildings the train tracks right >> there's no buildings within 150 ft I believe that's accurate
>> right the building on the site I believe was more than 150 ft >> and there's no houses >> not within 150 ft that I'm aware of um part of the application materials we have um it's it's exhibit one to the zoning
memorandum there is a 500 foot radius aial Um, in all of these homes, the closest is 231 ft. >> How close are the train tracks? >> Um, I believe the train tracks have checks
that looks like are over at least over 65.8 ft away. >> That's the closest Sure, but I mean train tracks fall within the jurisdiction of the MBTA. >> Wait a second.
>> Thank you. My name is Brett Mickelson. I represent Skydive South Boston operating at Grandland Airport. Um, one thing that I just want to mention for the record is our flight path for our skydiving aircraft is deliberately over the
railroad tracks for noise abatement purposes so we can consolidate noise from the trains and the planes kind of in the same place. If this tower were to go up, even if it has been approved by the FAA, we would have to alter our flight paths and we would be flying over
homes and neighborhoods and properties that we deliberately try to avoid right now. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I would like to address that. If a plane was flying at 150 ft or even 200 feet in this area, that would be a major problem. That is way too low. So, he can
fly still above where our proposed site does not affect his flight path at all. >> Just to clarify, as I mentioned, our pilot today measured his vertical distance over that exact site just to confirm exactly how high he would be and
he was at 600 ft. I'm well aware that we would not be conflicting with that tower in terms of our airspace. I'm speaking about noise abatement and making sure that we are good citizens in the community. Thank you. >> So as far as the set Jake Okaval 301
home street. So as far as the setbacks, have they considered the zone of influence from the MBTA? They have the rightway and then they have 30 ft past that for the zone of influence. I don't see that on any of their plans that they submitted. Um, they just asked for a 63 or 65 ft variance, but is that going off
of the 30 foot zone of influence from the MBTA? >> Um, again, the zone of influence from the MBTA, that is an MBTA issue. It is not a local zoning issue. And so if we were to get the permits, then of course we would be speaking with the MBTA if
necessary to discuss any sort of zone of influence. >> Yes, sir. >> Hi, Van Donley, 2011 Cranberry Drive. Uh just a question I have and they probably got this built into their electric design, but uh cell towers are frequent
targets of lightning. So the question is is do we have a lightning system and making sure that gets approved by the uh town electrical inspectors that it can handle what uh you know what it's due to get stroke strike at uh could be multiple or whatever. So just want to
make sure that that's uh that's in the plans for the lightning. >> Thank you. I think we've uh we've had enough for tonight and we would like to the board was
what would you like to see happen? So the next step for the people to come back in you need a permit need the owner to be here. We need to know the the primary use of that piece of land and
the secondary use of it. Right. I mean, I I think the the owner's got to ask for the varian, not not the not the tenant. >> We need to know what the owner's intent is to use for the for the property, for the building that it's on there right
now and for him to uh come in in front of the board and show us what he wants to do with the property. Then, is he going to lease it to you? Is he going to rent lease? Whatever the options are that that you're going to make with him, we
need to know all that before we go forward. >> So, we'll provide a supplemental filing that explains what we're doing and what we have permission to do. We believe that it's in your application process in your computer system already
that shows that he had signed off as authorizing us to do what we're doing. >> And for your other questions, we'll supplement that with answers, legal answers. >> Yeah, he has to give us the >> what he's doing. >> I don't think that's correct. >> Right. But if we don't know what the
right the first, >> right? So, sorry. I just want to make sure that we have all the questions that you'd like us to answer because I know there's you want uh an answer about primary and secondary use. >> The primary use for the land. >> Sure. I mean, is there anything else you
would like us to supplement? >> Yes. >> I'll I'll get some answers. What would the What would the board want want to see happen before we go any further? >> I I don't think we can give you the variance as a tenant. We have to give it to the owner. So the owner has to come
in and and ask for the variance. >> I I think the variance >> Yeah, I was we can supplement and provide a legal memorandum of why the ten the applicant would be entitled to a variance by applying for one. It doesn't have to be the land owner under the law.
So we can provide a legal provide that because I'm not I'm not 100% correct. That's true. >> Yes. Quick Barry, 301 Home Street. I just had I just curious. I had a cell company approached me at one time to put a cell tower on my property. I'm right pretty
much directly across when they're proposing this one. And you know, I had the same idea. Let's stick it on the back corner of the property away from everything. But when they came and laid it out, they had it all printed out on a on my plot plan. And it had to be 150 ft from the lot lines no matter what. They
said there was no no way around that. So I can't understand how this one can be closer than the 150 ft. >> Well, they're asking for a variance. >> Yeah, I know that. I just I just trying to put it out there. >> They're asking for an 80 foot variance. That's >> Yeah.
>> Or 84 foot variance. That's >> But you know, when they came to me, it's just like you said, it can't be done. So there is no hard tip, you know. Uh we can also provide a memorandum um regarding the variances. Um it is part
of the application materials. But um the reason that the applicants are requesting these dimensional variances are because it is impossible to comply um with the setback regulation, the setback requirements in the bylaw. But under the TCA, that's um the what we
discussed earlier of 1996. Uh this is the only for this tower to go to actually fill the gap in coverage uh in this area. >> Jake Goldfeld again. So, uh Mr. Mary had just indicated that they approached him. So, this isn't the only property that
this is going to go to. So, uh, I'd like to ask the board to ask for a complete list of every property they've approached around that area, showing that they've tried to do everything, um, you know, with alternative properties
before selecting 285 Home Street. >> I'd be happy to address that. Um, we did do that and we submitted that in our application. Um, I met with Richard Murray and his property does comply with the 150t radius. So if the property complies, we have to find a location on
his property to make sure that we can make that 150 foot fall zone. The property that we're on now, it doesn't comply. So that's why we're here for a variance. There's no property within the gap area that will meet the fall zone radius. There just one that doesn't exist. That's why we we're here.
>> How does how does this property that you want to put the thing uh within the fault zone where you're asking for an 84 foot uh variance? Yep. >> And that does not comply with the fault zone. >> Exactly. That's why we're requesting a variance.
>> And we we submitted an alternative site analysis with our application. >> Creating your own hardship to get >> That's not how it works. >> It seems like we might need to have legal counsel here, town counsel or somebody who understands the law because it just doesn't feel like >> we'll get all the information that we
need. Good evening. Uh, Bill Colchusk here. I live at 50 L Dana Road. My property abuts the eastern pro sight line there. And by this paper here, they're looking for 110 ft because it's going to be 40 ft from my property
line. So, they're uh what do you call it? They're the relief. They're looking for 110 ft from my property. So, you know, >> we're we're going to get all >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. You know, he's talking 7580. You know, it is what my property
is 100. If that fell, it'd be 110 ft into my land. >> Mhm. >> Thank you. >> Make a motion to carry this to next month when we have some more information >> as requested. Second. >> What's that? >> Second.
>> Continue it to next. >> Continue it to next. >> Yes. >> We're going to continue this meeting till next month. And if you can provide us with the information that the board requested and u we go from there.
>> Thank you. Do we have anything else? >> What do >> we have anything else? Bills. >> Uh, let me see. >> Like the one one thing I prevent. >> What is that? Is it the 10? >> No, I think it's the 18.
>> Okay. It still shows attempt uh online hopefully they >> they've changed it but it's still showing attempt. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Sorry. you know, we're just trying to understand this.
>> We're not going to do it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> No, >> cuz we're in this room. It's not set up. We have the computer in the other room because they had so many people in here. >> We got bills to pay. I I don't see
anything. >> You shouldn't have to >> You shouldn't have. >> No, we are at a disadvantage. Um but they switched rooms last minute because of the expectation. Usually we have a computer and I can just go on. I can see
I can see what was submitted. I can see all your paperwork. But with us, she was out today and they moved us to this room. >> So we're like, >> okay. >> So generally have it. Um hopefully calling me in here again next month with another
>> I just got one quick question on the Bible she gives us all the information. >> No I haven't been doing this. Well, listen. This is our, you know, our my first time going
for it. So, >> No, no. We We're just trying to understand it to make it. >> It just It stinks, too, that he doesn't have a primary use. >> I'm sure most of the places you go have a primary use where that's kind of just
been sitting there. So, we're we're at a disadvantage. >> Thank you. >> All right. One quick question. >> Sure thing. >> By review. Yes, sir. >> This goes back ways. >> It does, sir.
>> I've got to 24 they were going to recommend. >> Yeah, we never got they were going to recommend. We're going to bring it to and they never said why. So my question to him was you give me in writing so we
can hear them. So I put them two meetings of >> any secretary at those meetings. >> Any secretary at those meetings? >> Yeah. Was there a secretary at those meetings?
>> Really? on the on the anything under standing. So anyhow I the first 20 pages I read because they were I don't think anyone really gave everybody >> and they read it and they you know
change. >> Yeah. You're just making it every >> building. There's a building in the car. >> Some people don't like something you see.
I mean, I know the signs. Hey, look at the signs change. you guys cleaning things up. That's all everything like housing
>> I put all in under one night. >> Are we supposed to sign to what the recall to be honest? Anybody want to make a motion to adjourn? >> Make a motion to adjourn this meeting. >> Second. >> Yes. All in favor?
>> I >> I That's what's going on. >> Cuz I I'm going to look at who owns the trust because it is he just is changing the names of the trust cuz he did you see how >> Thank you for doing the homework.
>> Oh yeah. >> But did you see how he was like >> Yeah. >> Yeah. He created his own hardship. >> Yeah. Well, that's that's awesome.