This government meeting is brought to you by Eastworks and our local cable subscribers. Good evening. At this time, I'm going to open up the Southampton Planning Board meeting for June 3rd, 2026. We are televised on channel 191 on uh charter
or I should say spectrum. Uh we have a quorum this evening Jim Lee to my right Mark Darnold and our newly elected member Robert Riggs. Want to welcome Robert who was elected last uh month and was sworn in and this is his first
meeting. So, we will continue to uh proceed with the uh agenda and I'm going to take out of order because uh we're waiting to get some technical issu uh issues uh rectified from the first um
applicant. Uh we're going to uh I have to schedule a public hearing for a residential storm water permit for 64 Cold Spring Road. There's no plans in front of you at all yet. Uh it was going to be advertised in the next two weeks.
Um the hearing will be held here and will be held on June 24th. I have cancelled the June 17th meeting and moved it back a week um to make provision for that storm water permit, but also um because
this meeting more than likely will be continued and we probably will have some other business as well. So I'm pushing it back to June 24th. Uh this was a situation where I mentioned at the last meeting um a
developer construction company started to um had excavated a site um and did not check the u total area square footage for a storm water um permit and it exceeded an acre. So, um, we had to
stop his operation until, um, he comes before this board with, uh, and gets his storm water permit. So, he's, his construction is being delayed. We have another similar case that's happening over on Crooked Ledge. Um, and
that one is still, uh, I haven't got any uh, plans on that, but that was another project that was stopped because the applicant exceeded the 40,000 square foot limit. Um, I approved since our last meeting a
building permit and for for Bob Riggs's information because he's new. Any building permit that comes before us or I get uh everything's online now and the building permit um the disturbance of
the area for the house being built is under 40,000 square ft which would trigger the storm water. the board several years ago instead of coming before the board and running the application process because we're only twice a week or twice a month which
would be a couple of weeks and delay construction. The board voted to have uh the chairman sign the ANR after um with the board's approval if it was under 40,000 square ft. So, I'm coming before
you tonight to say that I had it verified. It's at 116 East Street here in Southampton and uh I approved that on endorsed that uh building permit on May 31st. So all I'm looking for is uh an approval from
the board just confirming that I had initiated that. >> I motion that we approve your approved >> permit. Yeah. >> Yeah. 116th Street.
>> I'll second. >> Motion's made in the second. And all in favor? I >> I have a warrant from Richard Harris, our board consultant. And this is for the entire fiscal year of 2526.
Um, we hadn't had a lot of business in the last year. Um, and most of his consulting was maybe a couple meetings, some Zoom meetings, uh, mostly emails, phone uh, phone conversations. We have a
contract with him, Robert, every year that we sign. And uh this year I believe we uh approved it for this fiscal year to be under um I think it was $3,000. It wasn't $5,000. I think it was like
$3,000 to improve his services. So his entire um his entire uh work uh invoice totals $2475 for 27 12 hours at $90 an hour plus
mileage when he had to come here to town hall. And um they were all again emails, phone calls, um drafting the battery energy storage um bylaw that we're working on. Um drafting an a revised fee
schedule, which we haven't approved yet, and review and work on updating the planning board policies and procedures. So, um his entire bill for the year was 2475. So, I'm looking for a motion to approve that.
>> I'll make a motion to approve the warrant for Richard Harris for 2475 for the uh that's the fiscal year >> 2526. >> 2526. >> I'll second that. >> Motion is made and second. Any other
further discussion? All in favor? I I Um before attorney Paresi is ready one second. >> Attorney Luri. Um, while I'm waiting for this, do you have something to say? Otherwise, it's going to be a long time
before you have to wait to be heard. >> I was here for the release of lots five and six. I know an issue came up as to the uh acceptance of the Gil Farm Road. Um, I I thought there was some minor issues.
Uh, and still the issue is whether or not the the there's grass or crab grass in the detention area. I you know the there was no requirement that we put in sprinklers or anything. We've these summers, you know, haven't been that uh
rainy more or less. And you know, it just came up. It's come up gra we tried to power seed it and we we'll try to hydro seed it again uh as much as we can, but you know, that's holding the soil in there. So whether it be grass or this is not a master's putting green or
something like that, but we'd like it to come better and everything. We'll work with you, but we'd like to get the lots five and six released. uh if you want us to put up some money or whatever, we're ready, willing, and able to do that. But we've got two lots sold. And uh you
know, I up until last week, Mr. Ferman, the the the engineer hired by the town didn't seem to didn't seem it like it was a problem. And now I now he's saying because of the crab grass is growing. >> All right. So, we have two different issues here. You've been through this
process and that's why I'm going to lean on you for this. Um he has been trying to get the road accepted but it's not acceptable to the town highway super or John Ferman the um
consultant engineer. He's also requesting two lots to be released. Can we outside of the the road acceptance issue? Can we release any more lots until the I mean the work is
completed in the subdivision to their satisfaction. Lots are released prior to that or are are they? >> I mean if it's a dollar figure come up with a I mean >> hold on a minute. >> Well what I'm looking for is first of all did Randall and John give us a list
to look at? They they had they had a list and they've copied him out now for this been going on for a couple of months back and forth. >> But that but that has all been relative to street acceptance. >> Do we need to have this this work
complete for lot release >> formity? Was it a form of we held two lots? >> Exactly. >> So transferring that over to a cash sert is what you're you're suching a cash sity. You want to put money up instead of the lots because you want to sell the lots. Is that correct?
>> Yeah, we we want to sell th those last two lots. We've got them under purchase and sale for conveyance by the 15th. >> I mean, if you're talking the dollar figure, we'll come up with a reasonable figure. >> That's why without seeing the list, I don't know what the list is. It's hard to value that. I couldn't at this point.
>> But I've got a contractor, Randy Wilson, who's put in subdivisions all over Western Mass for years. I've never had a problem with him. Every subdivision's been accepted. Uh I'm a little bit baffled that there's some problem with this to be honest with you. And the
problem seems to be bobbing and weaving at various times. >> Yeah. I think the first thing is for me I would like to see a list of what the deficiencies are. >> All right. Here's here's some this is from John Ferman the U
consultant. This is after Randall went out and made assessments of uh tree damage, dead trees on the on the lot, um some of the erosion control, um grass seeding in areas, etc. I agree with Ran's
assessment. I performed the initial reinspection on my own time as I drove past to work. I stopped in after Gary's email stating everything was done and easier easily noticed it had not been done. Some of these items are ready readily visible. So, a quick drive-thru
of the property shows that what is done and what is not. The developer was put on notice during the initial planning board meetings of two items of planning board experience on other projects. The first was damage to the burn. This was being done by the companies delivering building products to the houses and the
applicant was told any damage would be their responsibility. The second item was the erosion and sediment control from each lot. The builders seem to have caught on that if they stay under 40,000 square ft of disturbance, they don't need a storm water erosion permit and
also don't need erosion control. The developer is responsible for cleaning up until the town accepts the roadway. Given past performance on this site, I would not recommend the town accept the roadway until all is built as these issues will become um the town's problem.
So there's some some storm water issues, cleanouts. Evidently, the HOA is has not been taking care of the um the storm water uh system there. So there's there's items that these that highway super and the consultant have identified
and it is in direct opposite of what Mr. Luri here is trying to tell us. They don't see it that way. Well, we is in terms of the tree, the dead tree. We've ordered a new tree that
should be coming in. Uh, and in terms of the detention basin, I just got an email from Ferman again today saying, "Well, it's coming up to a crab grass." I I don't know how you grow grass in that detention area. They they talked about the basins themselves. The bas Mr.
Furman inspected them months ago. We're not going to belabor this because number one, it wasn't on the agenda. And number two, I'm trying to get to the bottom. This this street acceptance is going to be separate from what you're looking for tonight. We're looking tonight for lot release.
>> Lot lot release. That's what I was here for. But at the same time, if you want to come up with a figure, we're willing to do it. >> We're trying to figure out >> we're just trying to figure out what the what the issues are. So, in my mind, I'm I'll throw a number, but go ahead. I don't have a problem with releasing lots
and putting and having a aity of cash >> instead. I personally I'm only one of five members but um I would like to know so the I see that there's BMS you got the crab grass growing up >> and you have >> grass grass that hasn't been u grown
yet. It's probably seated but it hasn't been watered enough to take >> the b damage >> some some >> what's the uh >> cleanouts in the uh >> storm water. What's the storm water violation or the problem with storm water? >> Yeah. >> Is it just bas
>> barriers failing or is it erosion? I'm not sure. Just to back up and give you a little history, there was another subdivision in town that we ran into a lot of issues. A lot of small issues that ended up being the, you know, the big item and
we had to fight that and we had to go back and we actually had to take some other serity, I mean, fix it ourselves. We had to have it done. So, >> uh, Bob and Mark, come over here, please. I can't get this any bigger really on my phone. All right. >> You should be able to zoom in just Yeah.
>> So, this is the This is the seating area. >> Yeah. >> Something about silk fence that need to be removed. That's remnants of a silk fence. >> Oh, >> all right. There's some seating. >> Yeah.
I mean, there's different contractors that have worked in the subdivision. And >> here's here's the other cleanouts he's talking about. >> Cleared in. >> As noted, and his comment is, as noted in previous inspection, vegetation looks weedy,
poor, and does not look maintained by photo B. The rip wrap looks unchanged from the last time I was there. And if the sediment for bay is supposed to have been constructed according to approved plans, it appears that it would have
maintenance of the for bay difficult. Applicant states that tree replacement has not been completed yet. This is the one he just referred to that would be replaced. Pile pile of bag seems to have been cleaned up, but as I noted near the entrance,
there is a line of five to six foot conifers. One of them is dead and only the stump remains. Wind has blown leaves in full waterling bags surrounding this dead tree. Got some gravel >> that the Is that the burm they're talking about? I don't know. >> The BM damage is very minimal.
>> Yeah, that's what I thought they were showing in that picture. I think >> burm. This is the dead tree he's referring to. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> The BM damage. You look at the subdivision next door. It's it's there's some small marks. There's bigger marks
that were made on County Road or Peekquet Road um you know by the town vehicles, but um that the BM damage is they they said if we put up $3,500 or something like that, we'd it's really we could have it fixed cheaper than that. >> That seems a little low to me,
>> right? Okay. I just want to, you know, it's a sounds like it's a small thing to do, but um to hire someone that we have to go through the process of hiring someone, maybe $3,500 for a contractor that's under contract with a private citizen, but for the town to hire a
contractor, we have to go to the bidding process, etc., etc., Unless we have some kind of estimates prepared by John or someone to give us an idea and then realize that we have to also include the cost of the town going through the process of hiring someone
>> to $3,500 what it would probably cost your contractor to do it. But to have the town pick that up, >> the towns gave the figure. They gave us the figure, whatever, you know, but we'd like to do it ourselves to be honest with you. But there there's you look at that versus the subdivision next door.
>> We're not we're not going to be comparing here. We've got a another >> I I'd like to get the watch released. >> We've got to get something on the agenda here. So, let's let's see if we can decide this. What What shall we do? >> Well, first of all, are we allowed to make a decision tonight without it on the agenda? That's my first question.
>> Well, he has been asked to be on it before and have renegged on it, but he's got to close on the 15th on some of these lots >> this month. closing this month, >> June. Yeah, June 15th. And there sales to a contractor who's built two of the other houses on that street. The houses
are nice. The street is a nice street, >> right? >> Me, if I was I'll just throw this out there, uh, without having a formal estimate from somebody that really knows the I would throw a $40,000 figure on it, switching it from two lots to cash.
And we can alter that at the next meeting and go down more >> if >> the work is done. work is done or if we have an estimate that's less than that, I think 40 grand we far far cover that. But that will get you to your closing
and then if we put it on the agenda for um Juneth >> June 24th we can adjust it down if it's less than >> I mean you've asked for 35. Can we agree on 20,000? We'll put 20,000 up for the you know >> without the without the appraisal. I
just don't know. That's all. I was just shooting high just to be safe. >> I know Mr. Ferman came back at me today and talked about the fact that there there's crab grass over there and >> yeah, I just I'm looking at um crab grass, the tree, the burm and the and
the storm water and I just threw a number out there. I don't know. Um I'm open for just, you know, whatever you guys think. If we make a decision tonight, we have to be safe. >> What do you What do you think? you've been >> I think you know I think uh put in a significant figure and then uh if it's
>> you know totally fixed by the next time we have a marriage then uh we can you know give the money back. Um but I I don't have a problem getting a security but I think has to be something that's comfortable and would motivate the uh the owner contractor to complete the job.
>> What would you recommend? Would you recommend the 40 or compromise between 30? >> 30 would probably I think that's probably fair. I mean >> 30,000. >> Yeah. >> I my client will accept it. I I don't
want to do it. I feel but whatever. I want to move on with this. We want to correct it and we want to finish this up. >> Do we have a motion for cash shy? Okay. >> Release the two lots. You said five and six. Number five and six.
Yeah. And then go to a cash sity. Um once that's in place with the town clerk, >> tell me how you want it. You put a bank, whatever. And >> there's a processes process to go through. So um so once that's complete, then we can release those two lots and
um >> cash of 30,000. >> Yep. >> And then um put it on the agenda for the 24th if you'd like. And then we >> 24th the next meeting because it was supposed to be I think the seventh. >> It's not >> it's not going to be it's got pushed
out. >> 24th is fine. Yeah. >> Yeah. Then we can put you on the agenda for that and hopefully if we have more data then we can be in more more in line where it should be. I know it's it seems excessive but we're just trying to >> I you're doing your job. I I you know I understand I
>> All right. So the motion that's your that's your motion. Let me reread it. We're going to release lots five and six on Gil Farm uh way with cash sity of $30,000 which will be reduced if uh work is
completed to the board satisfaction and the highway superintendent. Um, and we we'll review this on June 24th meeting >> and and or if we if it's not completed, if we have an estimate from Randall or John with a number, we could actually
change the sity at that point or the cash, >> right? >> Okay. >> Does that make sense? >> Yes. But you say or estimated cost >> or an estimated cost from Randall or um >> Y. I will second that. So you made the
motion. >> Oh, okay. I know we were both talking. >> Motion by Jim. Second by Mark. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Bob, you can abstain if you want. >> All right.
When do you need the funds? >> We need that. Um, >> is it Lucy or the treasur? You're gonna go to the town clerk or >> town clerk. I think the town clerk is gonna go to the treasur. >> Yeah, but Lucy might have the form. I mean, there's I think there's a form for
shity you got to fill out. >> Um, I'll go talk to Lucy. >> I think there's a form in the subdivision regulations for shity, too. >> Yes, exactly. >> Are you got subdivision regulations at SH? >> I I sure I've got them online. >> There's a form in in there regarding that. >> Okay. It's old, but it's the only one
that that they might have. >> As long as it works, that's fine. >> All right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I got a headache in the and the main attraction hasn't even started yet. >> All right. You all set, Francis? >> I think so.
>> All right. Let me >> shut off the projector. Your projector. Oh yeah. You're not tall enough, Paul. Where's my remote at home? >> There you go. Good job. While you're setting that up, I'm going to read the application and the legal
notice. Have a zoning application for a cell uh cell tower at One Cook Road. The applicant is Atlantic Tower LLC. It's going to be represented tonight by Francis Paresi from Paresi Law Associates out of Providence, Rhode
Island. The property owner is Mark and Diane Mark Cook, Mark Gerard and Diane Godic One 18 Cook Road. The uh what I'll lead from you, Mr. Super easy. Did you bring me the uh
Butters um cards from the mailing? >> Well, I wasn't aware I needed to bring them. I do have them, but I'll I'll bring the next meeting, but I don't have them. >> All right. So, that was both for Southampton and East Hampton. Right. >> Correct. We did both. Right.
This is what the legal announcement uh was published and was also mailed to the Abutters. Now, this is hereby given accordance with provisions of Mass General Law Chapter 48 that the Southampton Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, June 3rd at 7 p.m. Town Hall,
College Highway. Board will consider an application from Atlantic Tower LLC to construct a wireless communications facility including a 165 ft tower one Cook Road, Southampton, map 30, parcel 11. This is subject to the provisions of
section 2757.2 2 and article 9 section 10.1 and 10.9 of the Southampton zoning bylaws. In addition, the applicant will conduct a visibility demonstration to a height of 160 ft to illustrate the location and height. Said demonstration will be held
Tuesday, May 26, 2026 from 9 to noon, weather permitting. In the event of the inclement weather, it will be rescheduled to the next weekday and each successive weekday until weather and wind conditions permit the successful demonstration. Copy of the application may be reviewed at town hall's clerk
Monday through Thursday 8 to 4 or by email planning board at town of southampton by.org. Paul demon planning board. It's published in the daily hampshire gazelle on May 18th and May 25th. The towns of East Hampton the city of East Hampton, the city of Holio, the
city of Westfield, city of West Hampton were all notified as well being a butters um of this um community. And for the record, oh, you have some money for me, too. Correct. Two checks, one for the
application fee and one for the legal announcement. Thank you. Um, I received several emails. I won't read them right now um or the names of the people right
now. I will wait until the public discussion for that. But at at this time um I would like to invite attorney Paresi to give his presentation on the application going forward.
>> Uh good evening. My name is Francis Paresi, an attorney representing the applicant um Atlantic Tower. We're here tonight seeking a special permit and some waiverss to construct what the bylaw calls a wireless communications facility, but I think the rest of the world calls it a cell tower at one Cook
Road in Southampton. As the board is aware, we had a pre-application conference back in March, I believe. We filed the application. We did a visibility demonstration um as required by your zoning bylaw, and uh we're here tonight at our first public hearing. Um
um your zoning bylaw permits these type of facilities in pretty much all of your zoning districts, including the zoning district that we in we're in, which is the rural residential zoning district, subject to a special permit from a uh from the um uh the planning board.
>> Excuse me just a minute. It's not allowed in um residential village, which we're in now, or commercial highway, >> right? But it is allowed in the resident. I I um there was but so we're in a permitted zone subject to a special permit from the planning board. In
addition um the zoning bylaw has several restrictions, one of which the primary one is is height. U and because of various technical issues that we'll go into in great detail throughout this process, uh we're asking the board to wave the process. It's not a uh akin to
a uh variance from the zoning board. zoning bylaw gives the planning board the authority to wave certain provisions. In addition, um um one of the requirements of the um zoning bylaw is that the applicant be a licensed telecommunications carrier and for a
variety of reasons which I'll go into in great detail. Um the applicant is a tower company, a wireless infrastructure developer. Um by way of introduction, Atlantic Tower is an affiliate of Vert.Ex X Towers, which is a um been very active in Massachusetts for the
last many years. Um what's happened in the telecommunications world is the names you've heard of before like Verizon and AT&T and T-Mobile and other companies like that have gotten out of the real estate business and they've partnered up with folks like Atlantic to develop wireless infrastructure. Given
the amount of time it takes, the amount of engineering that's required, the amount of due diligence that we have to do, it's a process that allows companies like Verizon to uh deploy their um antennas and improve their service more rapidly by using companies like Atlantic
to assist them. In that process, we've been very successful in what I would call rural Massachusetts. We've built many facilities in um areas equally rural to Southampton. We built uh let's see where I am. Uh Otis and Monterey, two just south of the uh uh we just
we've got approvals in Mson and just filed another tower application in Mson. Going north, we've got towers that we built in Ashefield. Um Cole Rain, Shootsbury. Um we've got approvals in Conway, um Buckland. Um we're going into
another project in Shootsbury. So uh we built towers in Hubardston. So, uh, for stuff west of Worcester and certainly what I would call equally rural Massachusetts, we've been very successful. We also do work in Maine and New Hampshire and Vermont and other places that are um, equally u
challenging with respect to the terrain, the topography, the uh, scenic vistas and things like that. Um, in this particular case, we've partnered up with Verizon. We've received what's in our world is called a collocation application. Verizon intends to go on this tower when and if it gets permitted
by the town and it's constructed. And I think you've all heard of Verizon. They're I think the third largest uh or second largest telecommunications company in the United States. Um we submitted a very extensive application package. I see you all have copies of it. Uh I did pay the piling fees back with the town clerk. I think they
misplaced a check, so I uh uh gave the board another one. Um we mailed out all the abutter notices. Uh we've uh um and uh you know I'll kind of gloss over a lot of these things tonight, but I think the the board recognizes that we've submitted a very extensive application
package. In addition, the um the um zoning bylaw requires us to do what we call a visibility demonstration. We put a balloon up in the air. We advertised it as best as possible. We put ads in the paper. We notified all the abutters. And uh I have photos and simulations that will show up on the screen tonight.
Um, and I'll also submit paper for the for the record. Um, why do we need another cell tower? The the statistics are staggering. Over 50% of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts only owns a cell phone as their primary source of communications or their only source of communications. Over 80% and
that number was 75% 5 years ago. It's now 80% of 911 calls are made by mobile phones. Uh, and you know, as we've seen since the pandemic, people are trying to work from home, educate from home. Uh, um, and what's happened when I first
started doing this, we thought um, cell phones were going to be a mobile technology and people going to use it as they drove up and down Route 90 and Route 10 and the major thorough affairs uh, around Southampton. But what we found over the last several years and certainly since the pandemic that it's becoming a residential technology and a
stationary technology. People are using their phones and our phones do more. No one uses their phone as a phone anymore. They use it as an internet access device and to get streaming video and to watch NBA finals and while we're sitting in planning board meetings. um and uh uh so
companies like Verizon and especially Verizon um require more and more um uh places to um provide ubiquitous coverage. The other thing that's happening is as the technology improves um the uh and as we use higher frequency
bands to deploy faster internet service, the coverage that we enjoyed five and seven years ago is diminishing. Uh I'm I'm sure everyone's going to tell you that uh from Cook Road you can actually see the next set of antennas up on a very large hill in Holio. But what's
happening is because of the capacity demands on the network and because of the increased technology and the increased bandwidth speed the coverage from those facilities are shrinking. So, and as we've morphed from analog to digital technology and then to higher
speed data um coverage that we had with analog uh phones are now um diminishing. So, as you know, we've submitted a lot of data to to substantiate that. Um the the facility um you know we we um there
are existing facilities in Hullbrook. There is actually an existing facility in Southampton, but it certainly doesn't u provide ubiquitous coverage in the area of Southampton and Eastampton that we're trying to cover here. Um, and like I said, it's a relatively dense residential area. We understand that
that demands better coverage and um and and also as we morph from a mobile technology to a to a a residential technology to a stationary technology um uh cell phone companies like Verizon require a better quality signal. We
thought we were building networks for people to use in their cars which is not a structural impediment to a cell phone signal. But as you move into a building, a building like this with the dense brick walls or in a home with a basement or anything like that, um um it requires
a better quality signal. And in addition, um what's happened over the last several years is um um public safety is required to be able to pinpoint where a phone call is coming from. Uh so when you dial 911 and you
can't communicate your location, public safety has to be able to say, "Well, you're on Cook Street." And uh so and that requires a better quality and a and a and a more substantial signal. Um um why are we here? Uh you know um we've done an immense amount of due diligence
to uh to look at um propension locations to look at alternative locations. You know this area of Southampton is challenging because a lot of the land is wet and owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and undevelopable because of conservation restrictions. um your
zoning bylaw has very extensive setback requirements. So we need lots of size in order to um satisfy that requirement. Um and you know we've been working on this for several years to get to this point to uh um find locations. Um, we looked at many different locations and this was
the map that was in the package. But if I zoom it out, we looked at many different locations in the area. And you can kind of see as you go north into East Hampton or south into Southampton, you get into more densely residential neighborhoods with with small house lots. So, there's really only a few lots
of size in the area. We also need to find a willing land owner, someone that's willing. The these aren't huge cash cows. We lease a literally a 50 by50 post stamp on an 18 acre parcel. And so, uh, finding land owners that are
willing to put a cell tower on their property is a challenge. In this particular case, we were able to find the lot at one Cook Road. It's an active horse farm. Uh, it's it has existing um access road driveways from uh uh Cook
Road. It's 18 acres. There's a substantial vegetative buffer on all sides, especially to the west, to the east and uh south going towards the Commonwealth of Massachusetts land. And because it's an active farm, we don't really have to clear any trees. I think there's one or two trees that we're
taking down, but for the most part, we have no impact on on the the existing vegetation. So, um, from our perspective, it complies with your zoning bylaw to minimize the amount of vegetation and also provides something that is, um, um, as visually unobtrusive
as possible. The, um, the lot, like I said, is 18 acres. The facility itself meets all required setbacks. Um, one of the requirements is that um, we call it tower height setback that the the tower itself will be 160 feet tall and the um,
the facility itself will be set back at least 160 ft from all abuing property lines and that amply meets that. The other um thing that makes this lot attractive is that there's an existing power line easement and a gas line easement that bifurcates the property.
So, it's already um, utility challenged. So let's say it uh it already has existing um uh utility infrastructure there. So this in in sense will dovetail that. Um like I said most if you look to the uh east and the south it's all undevelopable um land owned by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Um uh and and like I said there's a very substantial vegetative buffer and uh requires minimal tree clearing. The uh the compound itself is actually quite benign. We develop a 50 by 50 fenced in compound. In this case, we don't have to
take down any trees. Um given the the the necessity to be where we are, we actually have to relocate one of the land owners barns or horse shelters. But uh um other than that, it's a minimal disturbance. The u the compound itself is just a small foundation for the tower
to be designed because we haven't designed it yet. After we get approval from the planning board, we go back and do more extensive uh geotechnical analysis to design a foundation very specific to the soils in this area. Um there'll be some small concrete pads
surrounded by um asphalt, but it's a diminous dimminimous amount of new impervious surface. Um once it's constructed, there's about 6 weeks of construction activity. The facility is unmanned. There's no noise. There's no traffic. There's um we don't require uh
winter access. I'm not even sure if the landowner plows back there, but I know they have horses year round, but uh we don't require winter access. We don't Someone might come by maybe once a month to make sure the fence is intact, but uh all the equipment is remotely monitored,
so it uh it's really quite passive from a traffic and uh land use perspective. There's no um it's not manned, so we don't require water or sewer, any sanitary facilities. And like I said, it's a u um um you know, quite um
diminish dimminimous and and really u passive in nature. The tower itself was what we call a monopole facility. It's very similar to the existing facility already in um uh Southampton and there's ample examples throughout all the communities surrounding us. It's a
slender pole. Um and when I say slender, it's about 5t in diameter. uh where all the cabling goes up through the middle of it u to attach to antennas um um as required by your zoning bylaw which wants to minimize the number of these
towers. We design it for um the structural integrity and for the height to accommodate multiple telecommunications antennas. Um so in this particular case Verizon Wireless will be our anchor tenant but we truly anticipate um given um past experience
that other telecommunications companies T-Mobile, Verizon, I mean AT&T, Dish Networks will also colllocate. So in accordance with your zoning bylaw, it's been designed to um uh accommodate multiple telecommunications companies.
Um and I'll also tell you these are very lowowered facilities. Everyone wants to know what it's going to do to the environment. And uh um cellular communications is a very lowowered transmission. Um by way of comparison, I don't know if we get WBZ radio here uh
here in Southampton, but WBZ radio broadcasts out of u uh Boston, Mass. And it broadcasts out about 50,000 watts because AM radio is designed to cover as wide a geography as possible. uh uh
cellular broadcast out about a 100 watts because it's designed to cover a small area of East Hampton and Southampton, but certainly not all of Southampton and certainly not all of um uh the county or any of the area. Um it's really just designed to dovetail with the other
existing infrastructure and uh um connect up with your phone. And I realize it's a two-way communication. when you're talking on your phone, um this phone is communicating to the nearest cell tower and this the cell tower is communicating this and this is a very low powered transmission because
you're talking um using it uh close to your body. So the corresponding transmission back is equally lowowered and it's a um you know we've designed these facilities if there were existing infrastructure in the area tall church steeples or water tanks or tall
buildings. you know, as we get closer to urban areas, we've um utilized other tall structures uh as an industry. I believe in uh Holio, even East Hampton, there's a mill with Sam Antennas on a U smoke stack. Uh uh as we get closer to
Springfield or Worcester there where you get taller buildings, we've put these type of antennas on uh um residential buildings as well. And when you get into Boston or metro Boston where there's a lot of tall structures, they're unequal. Um, you know, I I did a project where we
put antennas on all of the VA hospitals throughout all of New England because u those were the tallest um buildings in in each of their respective areas. So, it's very low power transmission and uh um and I think um you know, we've got a lot of experience and um exposure to
show that. And and like I said, what this is designed to do is cover um a few square miles and it's very amorphous based on topography, but uh extends into the uh u the residential neighborhood going into East Hampton and then the surrounding Cook Road going down towards
Southampton and the surrounding area in around Southampton. Um the other thing we did to justify the height is we provided a very extensive height analysis and I know you guys have talked about getting a consultant to look at all this stuff and I encourage you and applaud you to because uh uh it's hard
to understand what these are. It's very technical, but uh um you know, we provided the data, and you can certainly have the uh a consultant look at this, but what this shows is the diminished coverage if we lower the height of the antennas. And because we're trying to accommodate multiple telecommunications
companies, um we need to make sure that the shortest one on the totem pole has equally good coverage as the one on the the highest one on the totem pole. We're very cognizant of the fact all our towers are different heights depending on the specific location, the
topography, the terrain, and the uh um um the existing infrastructure. Um but everyone wants to know what it's going to look like. U a couple weeks ago, we put a balloon up in the air. I tried to advertise as much as possible. It was in the legal notice. I don't know if you
know this, I put another ad in the uh I believe it's a daily gazette, the not local newspaper. We notified all the abutters. We made sure in the abutter notices they got ample notice and uh uh we and I we engage engineers to do this. They certify that the string was 160 ft
tall. So the balloon was actually a little bit taller than the height of the tower. But it gives us a good thing and then uh what we can do is uh um um prepare photo simulations and I I have paper for the board tonight. um submit
uh um well we have I have photographs that we'll show on the screen. >> Yeah, that was one thing that uh Richard Harris noticed that there wasn't any um of these available with the applications. >> Right. I understand before with the balloon up in here I can
advertise the balloon. I got to let people know. So that makes sense. But this is kind of a a timing issue. >> Yes. >> On the map there's a star. >> Uh the answer is yes. And I'll just
Yeah. Uh um >> Lori, we're going to wait for questions till the end. Okay. So, if you look at this map, this is the lot. Uh, and it's kind of hard to see, but there's a triangle right up in here. >> You've got you've got these pictures on your
>> Yeah, I'm going to show them right now. >> Um, like I said, we engage engineers to do this. They um >> they certify the height of the balloon. The uh the tower location is right here, and they drive around and take representative pictures up and down the area streets. And what the red signifies
is places where you couldn't see the balloon. What the yellow signifies is where there was what I would say muted view through trees and things like that. And then the green is where you have some visibility. Um um this was taken from um help me uh and
so let's see photo location one and they tend to go um not in a cons. I'm going to pass this around. >> Go ahead, Franc. Sorry. >> Photo location one is straight on from
Cook Road like uh where the access driveway is. Um so this is um uh straight on, but as you can see, there's pretty dense foliage there. Um uh and and uh the other thing I'll tell you that um uh having done this a long time
it doesn't matter whether we do these in the winter or the summer when you have dense foliage even the branches provide um a visual buffer. So uh even though you see a lot of leaves here you can tell just based on the distance and the the density of the trees that even with
the leaves off there's not going to be any visibility from this location. >> What was this address again? >> Um so it's straight on. So, I'm going to say like probably five Cook Road. >> So, it's across the street. >> So, this Yeah, this is uh directly This is like right here. >> Yeah. >> And then as we go farther down Cook Road
where the uh power line easement um you know, you could see the balloon because there's clearing for the trees. And then what we do is we do a simulation. So, um you even though this tower is substantially taller than the utility poles there, it looks shorter just based on distance and perspective.
Um, and I'm just going to keep jumping back to the map so I can see. Uh, photo three is farther down Cook Road where there's a big clearing. It looks like a a farm. And you know, you can, um, there was the balloon. And then as we zoom it
in, uh, you'll be able to see the tower. But what this tells me is even though the tower is 160 ft tall, you're seeing about the top 10 ft. That that platform that you see is about 10 feet. So, you're seeing about the top maybe 15 feet of the tower. You're not seeing 160
ft structure. Um U u and as I I'm just going to keep jumping back to the map because that actually helps. So, photo location 4 is farther down um where that uh farm area is. and uh
there was no visibility and as as you get you know Cook Road is really a very you know there's there's no vistas that I would say other than this one farm and the uh uh the power line easement you're in kind of a tunnel so there was really minimal visibility from Cook Road um
this was taken from county road and again no visibility Um uh and again you can just see the density of the trees and you know when you have a tree in your face even uh you know even the tower behind it you don't see that's why um you know even though people see uh an
advertisement for 160 ft it's really of less less diminished visibility. This was taken from um Pomemoroy Street and I would say towards the beginning of Pomeroy Street where there was um u
minimal visibility. Thank you. >> Um >> and then you know you're seeing it just above the trees there. That's that's showing me that you're seeing really um you know the top 5 ft of the tower. Um
uh as you go closer down Pomemoroy Street, there's some visibility. This is taken from the um the power line easement. And because the the power line easement is um I think 75 ft wide, 90 ft wide, there's no trees in that clearing. And uh um and that's where you have um
you know some visibility of the tower. But what this is showing me is that you're seeing the top maybe 60 ft of the tower, not 160 ft. Um as you go uh farther down Pomeroy Street kind of where those newer houses are and you're looking back and those uh
um you know there's no visibility from that area as well. Um and then this is taken from uh Campbell Street which is the parallel street to uh Pomeroy Street and uh as you get back and there's some perspective there's some visibility there and uh and that's what it looks
like. But like I said it's a it's a singular pole. It's a um you know all the cabling is inside. It's of um you know we try to make them as minimally intrusive as possible. Um and this was taken from uh County Road um farther down and looking
back towards u um uh Southampton and and you can just see the balloon there and then there's you know but that's what I would call a muted view in between the the trees and things like that.
Um, and then this was taken from uh, Eloquin Drive, which is looking straight on towards the tower, parallel to Campbell, I believe. What's that street there? Um, and there was no visibility. Oh, just above the trees. So, as you get
farther away, even though u you have some visibility, you're seeing that's telling me you're seeing the top five or 10 feet of the tower. Um so um you know we don't take pictures from everywhere and that's why we advertise it. People have an opportunity to to assess their own visibility. But
uh you I think um um you know the um the zoning bylaw doesn't say make them invisible and it's really hard to do but make them as least visually intrusive as possible. And I think we've done that to the best of the ability. >> Thank you. Um, I'm sure you all read it. I gave you a
30-page memorandum in the zoning p the zoning application package. How we meet all the sighting criteria for a wireless communications facility. Um, um, uh, with the exception of the height waiver and the application waiver, which I
would say is more procedural, um, uh, we meet all of the requirements. We're set back amply from the roads. who are set back amply from abuing properties. We uh we are constructing a tower that um facilitates collocation. We are uh we've
gone in area that requires a minimal amount of vegetative disturbance. So we I really have designed it in accordance with the town's bylaw as much as possible. Um the um we require a special permit. So, in addition to the specific
requirements for the um um the telecommunications bylaw, there's standard special permit requirements. You know, we need to make sure that it's in harmony with the bylaw, that it's not detrimental to the public convenience or welfare, that it doesn't create undue
traffic, which there's been no traffic uh um it would not overload public water, drainage, sewer system, or any other municipal system. This is completely unmanned. So it doesn't have any impact on municipal systems and uh um and that it um will not impair the
integrity or character of the district or adjacent zones or be detrimental to health, safety and welfare. Um these facilities are um heavily regulated by the Federal Communications Commission to be lowowered. They're uh they certainly provide a great public safety benefit by
improved telecommunications. So we believe that that we comply with that criteria as well. Um the uh um the waiver um requirement is not like I said uh uh to the standard of a variance. It's just that uh um the board
determines that the waiver is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning bylaw. And I think given the the need for the facility, given the um relatively minimal visual impact, given the uh um the other requirements of the zoning
bylaw to facilitate collocation, we believe that it is in the public interest and uh and um not inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the bylaw. And the last thing I'm going to say, the federal government um is very involved in wireless structure wireless
infrastructure sighting. About 30 years ago, the the federal government recognized the u the benefit of wireless telecommunications. They adopted a very extensive act and it's when they broke up AT&T, the big telecommunications conglomerate into multiple telephone
companies. They issued multiple wireless licenses, not just to AT&T. So, we fostered competition and now, you know, we have multiple multiple choices for telecommunications, both wired and wireless. Uh um and what the federal
government says is you don't have to say yes, but you just can't say no without sufficient reason. You've got to have substantial evidence to justify a denial. U and uh u and you can't say you can't have the effect of discriminating.
You can't say, "Well, my AT&T phone works, therefore we don't need Verizon." Um and I uh um you know we found actually that the you know the demand for this service um um you know in towns are encouraged to do it because of the great benefit and the great public
safety benefit and the great uh need for this type of facility. Uh and there's been an immense amount of cases throughout Massachusetts and the entire country interpreting these things. Uh um you know um you know you can't have the effect of prohibiting. You can't say no not in my town. Uh, and like I said, you
don't have to say yes, but you just can't say no without sufficient reason. And because this facility meets all the requirements of the bylaw with the exception of height, which is a technical limitation that we uh we we believe we've substantiated, it it's
very difficult for the town to say no. U so I'm going to take a very deep breath and say we would respect that the town grant the special permit. uh uh and for all the reasons that we provide. I understand that we're not going to get through this tonight. I the town told me
at the uh uh pre-application that they intend on engaging consultant. It's certainly you're right. I encourage you to do so. I suspect this board hasn't had a lot of experience with cell towers. The public hasn't had a lot of experience with cell towers. So, I encourage you to get independent and there's several people out there that
are qualified to do it. We run into the same people all the time. So, uh I would encourage you to do that. Uh but uh I'm here to answer questions. I'm here to uh u provide the board with whatever information I can to get through this process successfully. >> Okay. Thank you, Francis. Um questions
from the board first before we take questions from the public and feel free to comment questions. >> I have a few questions. >> So I just curious on your plowing statement that you don't need winter access. >> You don't need winter access. So, what
if there was a a problem? >> Um um our technicians are adept at access to them in the winter if necessary. They'll bring a snow vehicle in. In this particular case, cuz there's
an existing driveway and active business. My suspicion is is that the farm plows it, but most of the places that we build are just in the middle of the woods or in the middle of a large lot. And we don't plow. They don't, you know, if someone needed to get there,
um, they would, um, bring snow. >> Okay. And who, where's the oversight come from? >> The oversight >> oversight just in general on these locations, these site locations. >> Um, well, just because you give an example,
if the if the tower is becomes defunct at some point, there's a bond posted to cover whatever the expenses of taking it down, >> right? um your zoning bylaw requires that, right? >> So, uh and and we agree to that. We routinely postponds. Um we're
anticipating that this is going to be there for a very long time. This technology isn't going, >> right? No, no, but just bear with me. The whatifs. So, let's just say it becomes a defunct tower and someone had to take it down and there's not enough money and it seems in the bylaws that then there would be some type of a lean
posted to the land. So, um, somebody is going to own it in the future. Um, if it ever becomes abandoned, um, that that we're required to post a bond and those bonds get renewed every year. Uh, and, uh, um,
there's an inflation factor in it. So, okay. Uh, there there's mechanisms to ensure, which I'll tell you is different than any other >> structure in the town of Southampton or in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. There's millings that were built 100 years ago.
>> Yeah. >> Uh uh that weren't u you know bonded and they're abandoned buildings. Uh but so uh but given the um uh you know the fact that um it it it's a
technology. It may become obsolete someday. We're not banking on it but there's other technologies that have become obsolete. there's a mechanism in place to make sure that uh uh that it becomes dismantled. >> You're leasing the spot, correct? >> We uh we lease literally 50 by 50 or
some small postage stamp and a right of access. We don't have any effect on what the land owner does with the rest of the property. >> But the land owner would have the lean if the if that whole thing didn't work out. our requirement. We signed a very long-term lease, but our lease requires
us to remove it at the end of the term. So, uh, and, uh, but if we don't do it, if we disappear and, uh, the the the town is bonded for taking down. >> Okay. Um, My other question is on your plan, the
abuter's plan, you show a circle for a fall zone. >> Yeah. >> So, and I see you're lo relocating a horse shelter to get it out of the fall zone. >> Yeah. Uh that's just because where we wanted to put it, the shelter is there.
Um fall zone is a misnomer because these facilities don't fall. They're very highly engineered. Um there's been ample examples uh through natural disasters. Um you know, you can we during Hurricane Sandy, which was the closest that we've
had to a a natural disaster, no towers uh came down. Um um during Katrina, which was a higher um event, didn'tffect New England, but it affected the southeast. Um uh no towers came down. They're very engineered. They're
engineered very specific to the location we design a facility. However, um I think your zoning ber calls it a fall zone. In my world, we call it a tower height setback. We make sure that we are on landlord's property. The landlord
knows what they're getting. U but in this particular case, u there was this was a challenge because there's an existing power line easement and an existing gas line easement. So where we could go um there was a horse shelter. So the landlord asked us to relocate it.
It wasn't because uh she's concerned or they're concerned with the safety of the horses. It was just where we had to go. There was an existing structure. So we redo it. >> Right. But the basis of my question really is that the um high voltage lines are in the fall zone.
>> Correct. And uh um and we've done that many many times. Uh um we uh um we've actually um I have built towers for the company because they have their own radio communications, but they're
getting out of that business and coming out of towers like us. We've many times built them without any issue. But the power company knows that they're they've looked at it very extensively. >> Okay. Okay. But just you you're moving a
horse shelter, but we're not worried about the high voltage lines. >> Um, no. And the only reason is is because where we have to put the compound. We were kind of keyhold because of the we can't put it on the easement because >> No, that's not my point. >> But we're more worried about our horse
shelter than we are the the the power lines. >> We're not worried about the horse shelter at all. It's just the location that we had to go was the shelter. Right. >> So, there's other U barns um on the property that we're uh we're not touching that.
>> No, I know. But my point is you're moving it out of the fall zone, >> right? But it's not out of the fall zone. It's just away from the >> Okay. >> the location. >> That's just coincidence. >> That's just coincidence then? >> Yeah. Well, like I said, um um the um
land owner has horse paddics and things that they >> um the landowner has easements on the property for the power and the gas. So, we can't go on the easements. We can't go where they were using. So, this was a compromise with the landowner to uh uh
put it in that specific location, but to move their shelter. >> Okay. That's all I got. Mark, >> um I heard mentioned that there would be no noise, but I think somewhere in the application I read there would be a 50 decel noise at the perimeter fence.
>> No. Um we won't exceed that. >> Won't exceed that. >> Um there in all reasonable likelihood there will be a generator on site. Um the uh generator is what I would call the third source of power. There'll be primary power brought in from the
existing power there. Um there'll be backup batteries. Um and then there'll be a a generator on site in the event of a very long-term power failure. The generator doesn't run. It cycles on maybe 5 minutes once a week to make sure
that it's operating. Uh but it's only in the event of a long-term power failure. but it's a generator that's designed to um mitigate noise so that it doesn't have more than 50 dB at the property line in accordance with the zoning by
and my suspicion if there's a long-term power failure you'll be hearing lots of other generators >> that I probably don't have the specific on generators is it gas propane >> um they u deferred to propane but the um
you know it u uh we could agree to diesel could get the propane. It doesn't really matter. >> Jim. >> Yeah. Well, I apologize. I got this this afternoon and I had my eyes dilated. I couldn't read anything for most of
today. So, uh, I might asked questions that might be in there. But, number one, are there any lights on top? >> No. Oh, >> perfect. >> Short answer. >> Short answer. Yeah. The other thing you mentioned there's an older tower within sight distance.
that's got old equipment on it and it's not performing like the newer technical >> um it's it's part of there um when you drive down uh Pomeroy Street you see towers in Holio there's a big large hill and uh Verizon's already on that tower
um uh it's not that it's old it's just um um it with the newer technology and that tower is over two miles away but it doesn't reach reached the neighborhood in Southampton because of topography,
because of the distance and uh and like I said uh as we u morph into higher speed data that tower provided some coverage to the Southampton and East Hampton area but it's because of the
increase in technology uh the uh it it's still utilized it's just not covering as are >> and my question was going to be if that's the case is it possible they could put their newer technology on the older tower >> they already have
>> they already have so they have the newer >> and like I said and I made a big deal about this >> everyone says can't just turn up the power at the existing and avoid building a new and these facilities are very heavily regulated with both the frequency bands they utilize and the
power output to stay below Apple FCC limits so you just can't turn up the power at the adjacent site. U you build new sites. >> All right. And the last thing is is the road is existing already or are you going to have to create a road? >> No, the driveway is existing.
>> The driveway is existing. So there's no >> storm water. I was just going to there's no storm water issues. We're doing nothing to the existing driveway. I think we have to extend it across a little bit of the paddic, but uh with some gravel. It it's a um we really
don't I don't like to call it a road. It's a construction driveway. U it's to facilitate we got to bring a crane in there and a foundation. I mean I mean a concrete truck for the foundation. U they just don't want to get stuck in the mud. Uh once it's built it's unmanned.
So someone might come buy a pickup truck or all-terrain vehicle but uh u there's no permanent impervious service. >> That's pretty much all I have right now. >> Okay. Uh, can I ask one more question? Go >> ahead.
>> On speaking of the distance, there is a tower um just under 2 milesi in East Hampton away. And there's also a tower a mile a mile and a half away on an antenna website that I went on to today looking up towers which is right near 141.
>> I'll look at that. Um, we the ones that we found were over 2 miles away. So >> these are several and Verizon's on that tower um along with everybody else. That's a mile and a half away from this location. >> Is that the one on Brook Street? >> No, the one on Brook Street is 1.9 miles
away as the crow flies. But the other one is a mile and a half. >> You know the address of that? >> No. Was antenna some type of antenna? Um >> Oh, no. Where the tower is? I think it's in Holio. It's one and a half miles
away. It's right. It's on um I guess it's near 141. It's funny. You can see it from 91 north heading up this way, but when you get back into town and come down the other side of the hill, you can't see it anymore.
>> The one that you could see from Pomari Street is just over two miles. >> Okay. That's not this one. But >> so anyways, >> put that on your list to check out. Yep.
>> All right. So, similar to what Jim said. So, what you chose that area because number one, you had I'm assuming you had a willing a willing participant to lease the property. But, um, it's also because you
didn't have to clear any roads or it was pretty clearcut for for Verizon to have to go in a property like that because there was a lot less investment you'd have to make for clearing. Why did you choose that area and not further away from the Pomeroy Street uh Butters area
and go farther to the south of that Cook property? What was there a reason for that? >> Yeah, cuz the land owner utilizes that land for their horses. Um and there's um what aren't shown on the plans are other
paddics and uh u rings for the horses. So this was talked about with the land owner to um >> so it was convenient for him. >> Uh the location, right? >> Like I said, we we one of our biggest challenge is finding well lane land
owners. Uh and um that's one of several challenges. We need to be in a very specific area as you get more existing infrastructure and the existing sites in Holio and Eastampton and Southampton. uh where the latitude to move gets diminished.
>> Uh the so the elevations I'm I'm assuming the elevations if if that uh was was relocated farther south doesn't appear like the elevations would change much. I don't is it going uphill or downhill? Do you know that that property the topography of it?
>> Um like I said we spoke to the landlord about that. We can revisit it. >> Would he be amendable in moving it farther away? Um, we can certainly talk about that. Uh, um, >> the only reason I say that is because of the the amount of, uh, mail I received
regarding, you know, the the abuters from East Hampton sign, several, um, 250 ft was from some of their backyards and farther away it'd be less visible. I'm
I'm sure um some people someone had a picture they sent of the balloon test from where they lived. It was a pretty um open shop. But that was my main question. If if another area farther away would be um amendable to the
property owner. Another one >> I'm going to I'm going to tell you it really wouldn't change the radio frequency propagation. It's a very good question. No, and we'll have an answer to I really wasn't concerned about the frequency as as much as I was getting it farther away from from, you know,
residences. >> So, one of the issues is that as we go farther south, um, your zoning bylaw requires what I call tower height setback from a budding property. Mhm.
>> If I moved it that direction, it might encroach on that setback and then I'd require a waiver from the zoning board. Um I mean I'm sorry, the planning board. Um um and so um we'll
look into that, but I the Commonwealth isn't going to care. we've encroached on their um setbacks many times because like you said sometimes it's better to move it towards undevelopable land as opposed to developable.
>> No, I no I agree and and I know Mark and I know the you know what the what it looks like up there from the air and I'm saying sure it it would it's great because he said oh this would be great where I want it. Well, it's not probably where a lot of people would want it, but
that's why I asked the question to see if he had >> but but like I said, if if we explore that possibility, we may have to come back to the planning board and ask for an additional waiver, which would be a waiver from the tower height requirement. >> Okay. Which which I personally would one
these towers are designed to not fall down. They're very heavily um engineered. Um and the benefit of a monopole is it uh um all the cabling is inside which actually increases the structural integrity of it. And um you
know they've had some instances where extreme weather they bend but they don't break and they don't topple. So um and I can get an engineer to certify that. So, if the the town were willing to wave
that, I can get an engineer to say that it it's designed in such a way that it won't topple. Uh, and in many cases, we have to we have to because the the the the lot isn't big enough or uh the landowner wants it or the town wants it
uh in that area. So, um but we'll I think that's a very good question. I I um I and we'll certainly have an answer at the next year. >> I have a question. >> Just a minute, Lori. Um I guess uh and that's Cook Road is not a
scenic road, I don't think, in Southampton to my knowledge. >> Not that I know of. Not that I recall, but you should double check that. >> I tried to look for the list, but then I couldn't find it. >> The the clicker uh clerk's office I have it uh has it I believe. >> Oh, we're more than 500 ft off of
>> Right. I I would say so. Yeah. Um all right, that's it for me for now. Now, I'm going to ask the public for comments and if you would come to the podium and speak into the microphone and um just identify yourself, your name and address, and then you can ask questions
or make comments. I will tell you that I received several emails from your your neighbors. I I received um a lot And I also received letters from a
couple of your three city councilors as well. But I received u letter from Tamara Smith, Coney Denim, and Kim Jimrod McUade uh stating their
opposition to this Steven Coughlin from Pomroy Street and his wife Lisa. Britain Scott from Prime Pomroy Street. Oh, I'm sorry. Britain Scott from Line
Street. Zack Quirk, Amanda B. She's from Five Cook Road in Southampton. and I received a list of 57 signatures that one of the neighbors I can't
remember the name right now um went door to door obviously and asked for um pros and cons and they had 57 signatures here that are
in um opposition of this as late as uh 5:16 this afternoon. I had a email from a Maryland from um one u from East Hampton
and she was in opposition. So the theme of all of them had to do and I I forwarded a couple of these letters that were more important um stating zoning to attorney Paresi. The main theme was
health issues. um noise perhaps um visual visual pollution um real estate values that u their houses could be deemed less
attractive if there was a sour cell tower nearby. So that was the main thing and it was repeated in most of them. So, if you have um to come up to the microphone, please see if you can um
make a a point once and if not have it repeated because if it's the same theme over and over again, we'll be here all night, >> but just just come up with some new information or at least make a comment, but try not to rehash something that's already been been added about that
because it's been well noted. So, whoever wants to take the stage first, go ahead. I pretty much just discuss what you were talking about. >> Go ahead. Sure. >> And I don't know. >> You can you can come up, Lori. Just just state what you'd like to.
>> Okay. >> I'm Lori Blair, 13 Pomeroy Street is my address. And I my concern is also about the a 20% possible drop in my uh home's value because of this u kind of
industrial uh tower and um you know concern about the R radiation. I mean I'm not a doctor and I'm not an expert on this stuff but they do mention that it's been documented. So, those are my two real concerns. You
know, the property values and uh you know, the aesthetics and uh you know, any loss of value of my home. That's pretty much all I have to say. >> Thank you, Lori. >> Hello, I'm Anna Holly. I live at 27
Pomemoroy Street. Um, city councelor Tamara Smith, Connie Denim, and Kim Gemrog. Um, McUade asked me to read the letter. That's ex Okay. Um, all right. Dear members of the Southampton Planning
Board, we're writing in our capacities as East Hampton City Councilors to express our strong opposition to the proposed wireless telecommunications tower at 1 Cook Road in Southampton and to advocate on the behalf of many East Hampton residents who would be directly
affected by this project. While the proposed facility is located within Southampton, it impacts would not stop at the municipal boundary. Numerous East Hampton residents live in close proximity to the proposed site and would experience the visual, economic, and quality of life consequences associated
with the construction of the large telecommunications tower adjacent to established residential neighborhoods. These residents have invested significant financial resources, time, and effort into their homes and neighborhood with the expectation that the character of their community would
be preserved and protected. The proposed tower would introduce a highly visible industrial scale structure into a predominantly residential setting. It would permanently alter the surrounding landscape and become a dominant feature in the daily views of nearby homeowners,
affecting not only individual properties, but the overall character of the neighborhood. Residents have also raised concerns regarding potential impacts on property values, marketability of homes, and the dire desiraability of the area for current
and future homeowners. In addition, me many residents have expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the facility to family homes and children. Regardless of differing views on the scientific literature surrounding radio frequency emissions, these concerns are sincerely
held and deserve meaningful consideration as part of the public review process. Local government has an obligation to exercise caution when evaluating projects that may have long-term consequences for residential communities. We recognize and support the need for reliable cell cellular
service and modern telecommunications infrastructure. However, the question before the planning board is not whether improved service is desirable, but whether this particular location is appropriate. To date, many residents remain unconvinced that the applicant has demonstrated that one Cook Road is
the only feasible location capable of meeting service objectives. Before approving a project with such significant neighborhood impacts, the applicant should be required to provide a thorough and objective analysis of alternative sites, colllocation opportunities, and less intrusive
solutions. The burden of this proposal would fall disproportionately upon nearby residents, while the primary financial benefits would acrue to private corporate interests and participating property owners. For that reason, we respectfully urge the planning board to give substantial
weight to the testimony and concerns of the families whose homes, property values, daily views, and quality of life would be most directly affected. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Southampton Planning Board deny the application for the proposed tower
at one Cook Road unless and until a comprehensive review of alternative locations, collocation opportunities, visual impacts, neighborhood effects, and potential property value impacts has been completed and made available for public review. If less harmful alternatives exist, they should be
pursued before imposing a significant industrial structure upon an established residential area. The residents of East Hampton and Southampton deserve dependable cellular service. They also deserve solutions that respect our municipal relationship, preserve our East Hampton residential charm, and
fairly balance the interests of residents with the need of infrastructure development. We urge the planning board to protect the interests of affected families and reject the proposed tower at One Cook Road. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your service to the
public. Thanks. Thank you. >> I'll try to piggy back on that without uh overlapping too much. Um I'm Elizabeth Holly um also of 27 U Pomeroy Street in East Hampton and um a lot of the points I was going to bring up
aren't the same as what um you all both said. Um, but I want to take a little bit of issue with um statements about the um the location as it abuts to um
East Hampton um residences. Um I have just a little map here. This is 1500 ft radius of the cell tower proposed site. I don't know if it's exactly on this star dot on the property, but it's the propertyy's not that, you know, um and
1500 ft is um general guidance on how far away residences and schools should be away from cell towers in order to um uh minimize the health um risks of um various things which I have a list of so
I will read that too. Um and so this is um the 1500t radius. There are 15 Southampton homes within that radius. There are 111 East Hampton homes in that radius. So, it really is not just a Southampton um matter. Um it, you know,
it's affecting your East Hampton neighbors um as well. So, it's a very impactful decision you're making for two different um communities and um well, two in one, you know. Um and so, um I'm trying to skip over the stuff,
not repeat things. Um so some of the documented um health risks um there are skeptics but there are also many many peer-reviewed scientific studies showing a number of reported health issues including including neurological effects fertility
issues and cancer and the American Academy of Pediatrics warns especially of the danger to children with their developing um systems and um we've witnessed this close to home in Pittsfield Mass where um in 2020 the
cell tower was constructed near homes um causing radiation related health issues among residents including children. Residents reported sleep problems, skin rashes, ringing in ears, headaches, dizziness, nausea and cognitive issues. This led to extensive legal disputes and the involvement of the Massachusetts
Board of Health and that tower was shorter than this one. Um and I am not against cell towers. I am a software engineer. I work from home. I do that every day and my service is fine and um so I am in agreement with
the um Eastam counselors that have said yes it's important but what's another location that will be less risky to the um health property values wildlife in that particular area. Um the petition is
up to 58 submissions now and many of many of those people live within this 1500 foot radius. Um and some of them do include Southampton residents as well as uh East Hampton. Let me just look at my notes real quick. Make sure I didn't forget anything.
And um I do have another copy of that petition, but it seems like you've got it. So, oh, and I mean just to say that we just bought our home a year ago and if we when we were going around looking around for properties, we immediately ruled out anything with a cell tower because of
all these considerations. So, we see exactly how our property value would be decreased because we wouldn't have considered a property within this close range of a tower such as this. Um so it's one thing you know in these cities
and where that's expected but this is a quaint rural uh not rural but you know neighborhoods where um a lot of the people don't want to have this choice like thrust upon them. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> My name is Terry Stefen and I live at 10
Pomeroy Street. I've been there for 49 years and 1500 ft is too close to my home. That's all. Anyone else questions, comments? I will send you u
you can go back up a little bit. Come out. I I'll send you a copy of the counselor's letter. I don't I don't know if I did or not, but I I will send it to you. You sent a bunch of the earlier ones. I'm sure people came in for today. So that's fine. >> I'll always send the one especially from the city councilors. >> This is the vis visibility thing from
our house. >> Is that you posted that? >> Yeah, my partner did. >> Yeah, I think that's >> Yeah, we sent it. >> I think that's the one I saw. >> Can I see it? >> Y. >> And this is from what number? >> 27, >> which is across the street from the
abutters, right? >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> I got it. It was great. It's a red balloon. >> Did you Yeah. Did you guys see that? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I thought I thought I sent that along. >> Yeah, you sent it along. Yeah. >> Yeah. I just wanted to see it again. I
couldn't quite see it. No, >> I know. It's hard. I should >> Can't see it tonight. >> My phone. >> Okay. Any any other questions or comments? >> What's the definition of in a butter? Is it that 1500 radius or >> within 300 ft of the property of the
>> property line? >> From the property line of one Cook Road. I >> also want to quickly note the visibility test was between the hours of 9 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. when most of our neighbors were at work. Um, in fact, most of our neighbors didn't even know about the cell tower because it was mailed to us
via certified mail. So, people had to sign for it. So most people had to go to the post office to actually get the letter >> and most people didn't. As the post office person said to me, nobody hardly anyone picked it up. So that's just something to keep in mind.
>> Probably thought they were being sued. >> I certainly was like I don't >> it it that's what the regulations say and if people pick it up fine, but it was done and I think the test was done two weeks after you mailed that. Correct. And a legal notice was posted. the uh the test was at least a week
after >> you put an ad in the paper. I put an ad on the paper and the test notices. So >> yeah, and the test was what was it a week or two? >> There's no requirement that we notify a butters, but because the a butters get the notice of the public hearing. >> Yes. >> They're the ones that are most concerned
with the power. Um there's a couple things I just want to respond in. >> Please do. Yes. Um um we live with radio frequency emissions everywhere every day. I couldn't hook up to the Wi-Fi here, but we have Wi-Fi in
this room, which is just another form of radio frequency transmission. We all stare at computer monitors all day, and there's radio frequency emissions. I venture to say that everybody, I'm not going to say 100%, but everyone's got a cell phone in their pocket right now. Um
um uh your zoning bylaw encourages to go on existing structures, which there are nothing tall in Southampton, but if there was a tall residential building, we'd be encouraged to go on that. Uh I happen to go to a church that has a 150
um foot church steeple and in the steeple are two sets of radio antennas. Uh, I I put a tower in the uh high school parking lot of the the high school that my children go to or did go to. They've graduated, but uh and
because the parking lot shared a uh a parking lot with the fire station. So, my kids parked underneath the cell tower every day because it was a shortest walk to high school. um as we get closer to urban America, we've put them on in in
um in in places and and so there's ample examples throughout rural I mean um western Massachusetts, let alone Massachusetts. There's thousands of these facilities already existence in Massachusetts. Um, I haven't looked at
East Hampton, but I happened to uh drive in East Hampton to to get a cup of coffee during the visibility exam. And uh um I saw some antennas on a a steeple, not a steeple, a a smoke stack of a mill, which has, you know, an
immense amount of activity in there. I couldn't tell if it was residential, but it's certainly a lot of commercial activity and and commercial tenants. Uh u you know, this technology we've been living with for a very long time. It's the same technology that um that we've had with AM radio and FM radio and the
police and fire have their own telecommunications. Um so there's ample examples to show how safe it is. That's the um um the the concerned citizen. Um the lawyer in me says that the federal
government has in in their efforts to encourage this technology and encourage wireless telecommunications have said that zoning boards can't take that into planning boards and municipal authorities can't take that into consideration because they've deemed it safe. They regulate the u um the
frequencies that we can operate at. they regulate the power output and they've said in the telecommunications act that zoning boards can't take that into account because they don't want um I keep saying zoning boards but municipal boards um you know saying we want to
change the limit there's no anywhere 1500 foot restriction I'm not sure where that comes from >> Massachusetts I can list off the towns for >> uh uh but the town of Southampton nor the town of East Hampton
has a requirement like that. And if they did, I would just ask for a waiver from the board. Uh u uh because I don't think that there's a place in Southampton, I'm pretty sure there's no
place in East Hampton that would be 1500 foot from a residence. So to put an arbitrary restriction on that just requires us to ask for uh um I I haven't looked at the existing facility in Southampton, but I'm sure it's more than
1500 ft from existing residences. Uh and I and I know in in East Hampton just from my own visual. Um so it's it's you know this is a technology that we've been living with with lots of similar technologies for a very long time. So,
um um you know, so if we were to go away, people are still going to be living with the same radio frequency emissions that um um that are going to come off this tower. Um and and like I said, um everyone I do this for a
living. I'm out every night of life and everyone always says there's got to be somewhere else you can go. Go somewhere else. But um and we've done extensive due diligence. Um, I will tell you the board uh raised a very good question. Can you move it south on the lot? And
that's a legitimate question and we'll come back and answer that. And uh u but you can't say go somewhere else because there's nowhere else to go. There's not an industrial neighborhood anywhere near here. If I go north into East Hampton, I
go in a more densely residential neighborhood. If I go south into Southampton, I go into another densely residential neighborhood. If I go to the east, I go into conservation land. Uh, and we saw on the maps that there's really no lots of size to the west. So, everyone says there's got to be
somewhere else, but we've done an immense amount of due diligence, but uh, but I do believe that it's in this board's purview to say prove that you can't go farther south on the lot because I think that, um, addresses some of the concerns that we had with respect to some of the abutters on on Pomeroy
Street. So, we'll certainly look into that and uh um uh but uh uh u and and like I said, I know the board is going to retain a radio frequency consultant. Don't trust me. Uh get your own consultant because the data speaks for
itself. It's science and uh uh and many boards in your um capacity have done the same thing. So, uh >> there's one question I forgot to ask you about the height. Now, why wouldn't you go with a a lower height? Um because um
we designed this for Verizon. However, your zoning bylaw says that we have to design it to accommodate multiple carriers. So next year when AT&T shows up and we built too short a tower, they're just going to build another tower next door. Um which is not
permitted by your bylaw and given the challenge. So, your zoning bylaw requires us to build it to the minimum height necessary to accommodate multiple carriers. Um, it's um, you know, it's akin to a vertical strip mall. Uh, you don't build it for one, you build it for
three or four of which one's the anchor tenant. U, um, so we're we're conscious of that. And then we need to make sure that it's it's kind of like a vertical totem pole. there's different antennas at different heights and we need to make sure that the antennas at the lower
heights perform just as well as the antennas at the higher heights. So, um, one of the documents that we highlighted in your consultant review is a height analysis. Your zoning bylaw limits us to 100 ft and and just so you know, um, we
uh, there's a 5-ft differential. The tower is 160 ft, but the antennas are attached at 155 ft. So that's what all the um that's uh because that's where they're attached. Uh so they don't exceed the height of the tower. Um so
>> does that mean that our bylaw is outdated by stating 100 ft? >> No. Um because in some areas 100t long >> it it it's just an arbitrary number. Um um and and quite frankly um I listen to
the radio frequency engineers. They say, "Here, I need this height." And then I look at the zoning by and it says, "I'm limited to 100." Sometimes I get a waiver from the planning board. Sometimes I get a zoning a variance from the zoning board. But uh um um the the
height in your zoning bylaw is I don't want to say irrelevant to us, but it's um you know, we're beholden to the radio frequency engineers who say we need this height at this location. >> Yeah. But again, how in this day and age, how
how outdated is that 100 100 foot figure if it's arbitrary? I mean, it if nobody's going to go for 100 feet and you say you you need multiple carriers, then we should probably >> It depends on topography and terrain. Um the towers in Holio on the hill are
probably not that tall because they're on a massive hill >> on the mountain. >> Uh on the mountain. Exactly. Uh so they all they've got to do is get above the trees. They might be 60, 70, 80 feet tall. U but as you get into flat land, as you get down in like Southampton, for example, it's flat. So you got to get
above the trees and above the terrain. So uh it's very location specific. And uh um it also um is the the distance with the existing infrastructure. So uh it's all very uh scientifically calculated. But uh u and I don't want to
say your zoning bylaw is irrelevant. And I don't want to denigrate it, but uh um um it's location specific. U sometimes taller towers are less visible because of the location. Sometimes shorter towers are very visible because of
location. So it's a um it's all very location driven. >> Can you speak to decreased property values? >> Um I will tell you it's not a requirement of your zoning bylaw that we address property values. However, uh um
you know, we've done this many times and in s other states, the effect on property values is a um um a criteria that we have to establish and uh um we routinely engage appraisers to say that it doesn't have an effect on property
values. Um because they look at a much bigger picture. uh uh the and I can't get anyone to say this, but the lack of having good cellular coverage has an effect on property values. Uh uh because
people want good coverage. Uh the uh um um you know, it's all a function of a variety of factors. Uh there's already a high tension power line going through this neighborhood. So some people say, and I don't believe so, that that has an effect on property values. So there's no
data to support that. So uh um and we um in other jurisdictions I can get an appraiser to say there was a a a house with a view of a tower and there was no effect on property values based on a sales transaction or appraisal
transaction. So u you know there's ample data to show that it doesn't have an effect on property. >> Yeah. But you're correct. It's not in the bylaws. >> What's that? >> They said the criteria is not in the B. It's not it's not in your zone. So, I didn't produce any data to support that. I don't think we need to, but uh u but
uh um you know because um you know we we look at the zoning bylaw and say does it meet the requirements of zoning bylaw and uh with the exception of the height we believe that it does. >> Are there any other questions comments to make before we wrap this up? Because we it this will be this will be
continued because we are going to uh discuss after Mr. We uh adjourn you people Mr. Paresi that we are going to discuss um a um peer reviewer. We have two quotations from
people that um will critique their work in this application. So that means we're probably a minimum of uh two, three, maybe four weeks. Richard Harris, our board consultant, who couldn't be with us tonight, will be
back for the June 24th meeting, but I doubt seriously that that uh review would be back by then. So, I will defer to you to you think we should do this in July? Do you think that peer review would be due in July? >> Yeah, I I would say let's continue to
the July meeting. I agree with everything you said. Um I have um thought I had you on my calendar already. Um um I'm thinking of July 8th because the first a lot of people probably will be ready for the holiday. >> I already have you on my calendar for
July 8th. So yes. >> Yeah. Is what's the board is everybody around pretty much the majority July 8th? >> I think so. >> Yeah, >> it should be. >> Can you fly back? >> My eyes are cleared up by then.
>> Yeah. No, should be fine. So, um, given that, um, I will ask Okay, I'm sorry, Laura, you had your hand up again. >> I was just going to ask about how tall a tower has to be before it has to have special lights for airplanes, you know,
that kind of thing. >> Um, the rule the rule of thumb is it gets a more lookie after 200 feet. So, and we're very conscious um mainly because once it's lit, you got to maintain the lighting and changing the
light bulb is a a chore. Uh so, we consciously stay under that 200 foot threshold. And I submitted in a u in the package um a a database research from the FAA website to show that no lighting is
required at this specific location at the height we're proposing. Yeah, I I went drown. I drove down Lang Street County Road down to the 56 HYN towers. There's three of them in that field and those are 249 of the ground
and they're very close. They're mile and a half closer to the airport. So, >> I just have to drive by and check that out. We we um I sometimes I have towns ask me to put a light on because of um there's
an airport nearby without like a a municipal airport or you know non-instrumentational airport. So uh pilots like to have the light but uh we generally don't like them because then we got to change the light bulb and I'm not climbing a tower to change a light bulb.
I I do fly airplanes and there's a place in North Carolina has a 3,000 foot tall tower. >> I would hate to have to change the bold in that. >> Yeah. The there's towers in need mass like right around 128 that are 1500 ft tall. This is 160. This it's a whole
different technology. Like I said, we're not trying to broadcast throughout all of um you know the county. We're just trying to cover a few square miles in Southampton and East Hampton. Okay. So, uh, can I have a motion to continue this
hearing until July 8th? >> So, move. >> I'll second it. >> That's 7 p.m. right here in town hall. A motion was made by Jim and seconded by Bob. >> Yep.
>> All in favor? I >> I >> now for all you folks mark that in your calendar if you want to come back. Um I will say that you know legally we have to publish it in the paper. I know a lot
of people don't get the paper anymore. I don't know if they even get it online anymore and unless you're in a butter you know um you won't really know what's going on in town but that's the nature of the beast I'm afraid. But um if you can spread the word to some of these
other folks along your neighborhood who I know there was some wrote to me that said they couldn't be here tonight. But I did tell them that it would be continued. I didn't know the date at the time, but if you could spread the word in the neighborhood for those that may have wanted to be here and weren't tonight that um come back July 8th,
we'll have a peer review on his application to review what he submitted and we will go from there. >> So thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your patience tonight and your participation.
>> I know you want to get out of here. If you have a minute for a question. Uh this is pertaining to Monday's night. Monday night we had the conservation meeting >> and they went over the peer review for blue weight. Um the question I had for you is what they're saying is that uh
they it's not their responsibility for the aquifer that would >> conservation. Yeah. >> Yeah. So that they said that that would be the planning board would be able So is are they correct in that? So, okay. So, I just wanted to make sure if who
you're speaking about submits an application, they have to come here for that and that's that's us because conservation is just with wetlands and the river and stuff. >> Okay. >> That's it's out of their uh jurisdiction that comes to us. >> Okay. >> And again, it's all what's written in
the existing bylaw of Sony right I know we, you know, we looked at like on online it gives a description of what they they're uh what they're required to do and the first thing is the Mass General laws of drinking water and you
know reserving the the drinking water and stuff which I would think would be the aquifer but apparently I'm wrong. So >> Rick, there used to be a committee called the Barnac Barnes Aquifer Protection Agency. >> Yeah. >> That was a 20-year charter. that 20
years expired and the committee dissolved. They haven't I heard rumor they were going to start it back up but it never got re uh voted in. >> Y >> so we chase that. I mean >> talk to the other communities because it
was Westfield Holio Eastampton Southampton. >> I know I was on the committee representing this board had a seat on that committee >> but that dissolved then we all went away. So just letting you know. >> Yeah. So >> what was it called again? Bayac Barnes
Aquifer Protection >> Committee I don't know BayAC is what they call it BAC I'll >> look into that you know we'll see but >> yeah if they could reestablish that it was a great it was a great tool they kept an eye on a lot of things protecting our aquifer and I thought it was a very nice
>> it's a big in fact it's a lot of communities you know so >> yes >> and just wanted to make sure we weren't uh dropping the ball >> there you George was right. >> So, good to go. All right. Thanks, guys. >> We'll see you in
this. >> Is this typical of all these drop in people just all night long? >> All the dropins. >> Not usually. Um, this is not nothing we had to vote on. This is Rick just looking for some information. the one that we had tonight and that
typically should be a public speech at the beginning. >> It typically is a typical >> usually a half hour thing that they half hour people come and ask questions. >> Okay. I know presentation I was the
actual once a hearing starts and usually the hearing is confined to half an hour's generous >> yeah doesn't exist but now you know thank you So, we're going to uh Did anybody get a Now, I I
emailed so much stuff. You guys got the the peer review, >> the the contracts, right? >> You got to put both. >> Yes. >> What What did you What's your idea? >> Uh my first year, both of them, I mean, I'm a RF specialist, but they both seem
very qualified applicants. Um and I think the one was like, was it $5,000 and we'll charge you extra if we need to. >> Yeah. The other one was uh >> you know $6,500 and that would include a complete review and one
>> appearance. >> So it's a u it's almost more how the applicant wants to pay but I think you know we'll be in charge of it. So >> now number one let's answer this right now. Do you want an appearance from the peerreview person or you just want the
report? Paris. >> I think he's he the the the applicant should be here to address. I mean, it's going to cost $1,500 to have him him or her. That's if we go with the second consultant, but the first consultant. So, I I'll I'll do it for $500. And if I
reach that, I I will, you know, charge you what? $400 an hour for everything after that. Uh sort of an unknown on our part. And we have to approve everything up over $5,000 as it came along, right? Um
>> I don't think he's I don't think they're going to quibble with it because you know it's >> certain is really who do we want to do it. I mean the money part is their problem. >> Yeah. Right. >> Correct. I thought both of them were very similar. So >> yeah. Oh their go seem the same except
the billing process was different. >> I agree and I I'm not qualified to even comment because it's a lot of this is over my head. But the only thing that stood out to me was the guy from uh Mr. Lton has done a lot of work for Mr.
Paresi in the past, you know, doing peer review. So, I'm saying I don't know does that give him an edge because he he knows this guy and he's he's done >> for no conflicts. It's easier to go with
the other one. >> That's what I thought. >> Oh, yeah. And he states it in his letter, too. You know, there's no there's no conflict here or anything because but whatever. But he did say that he's done but he did >> the fact that you have to bring that up. >> But he did say he's done a lot of work for him. >> There's a there's a message there if you have to bring it up.
>> I I would rather go with the other firm. It just seems very straightforward. There's no conflict with anybody cuz they don't they don't do this. All they do is review them. That's all they do. >> So what do you think? we go with cityscape instead of u mark >> I think they're both very qualified and
with that possibility of a conflict I mean just I think playing it safe going >> Richard did say he's dealt with both companies but that one said he keep he worked with them more >> and I would put in there that we can we don't have to have them come up from Florida but that we can do a virtual
um that they could be here virtually if that meeting to address any issues I don't think you know live I mean I don't think they >> they might have they might have somebody in New England New England office. >> Okay. >> You know, >> if they're putting their name out there for peer reviews, they have to be able to come. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They offered both in that
proposal. >> All right. So, we will let me go again here. So, we'll get it within person, right? >> You can show up in person for an extra $1,600. >> And we think we need that. Right. >> Right.
>> I think it would be very nice, you know, fairness to the absor. Okay. >> My guess is there's going to be a lot more people in the next meeting. >> Review analysis to include attendance by cityscape representative at one related meeting either in person or by video conference public hearing blah blah
blah. $6,500 additional meetings if necessary $1,500 attendance for related planning board work sessions,000. So at at the very least it looks like it might top out at uh $8,000 for him. >> And the other one's an unknown. He said,
"I'm going to charge you $5,000." I think that's going to be enough. And >> no, I'll let you know as I can working through the process. I just >> I don't This is just I guess it's either here nor there cuz it's a real reality of how this is presented. But the tone
of the application is pretty much we're going to do this. How much work do you want to make us do? and and they pointed out continuously through the application how you have no choice in this matter because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and blah blah blah blah blah and
they just keep referring back and back and back to this like we're just here because we have to be and I don't I I don't know what you do with that. I guess nothing. But >> yeah, I don't hear that. I just >> Well, I know. I just But you read it and
it's kind of the thing is aware. Yes. >> Now, I'm confused about this. So, this says uh the town of Southampton as being the I've got to sign this agreement. So,
I I let Mr. Paresi know that we've engaged them, but >> he's going to hire them. >> He's he's got to hire him. Is that it? >> Oh, no. >> Consult the town can hire them and and they have to pay.
That's what they spell it out in their in their application. They >> I'll check with Richard by email on this, but the cont he's got his contract here for the town of Southampton to sign the contract, the planning board. >> Yeah, we have to be reimbursed from the
>> Okay. Right. >> So, I'll I'll write to him. I say we've selected Cityscape. I have to um submit the contract. It'll be a minimum of 6,500 and a maximum of 8,000. >> Yeah. >> Sound good? >> Yeah.
>> Well, >> or >> there are other fees in there. Other things come up which I have no idea what they are. I just say uh it starts at 6,500. Does he have a copy? Did you give him a copy of that contract? >> No. >> Uh you might as well.
>> Well, I'll email him a copy of it. >> Right. And I wouldn't sign it until I have a check because then we're on a hook. I wouldn't mail it in until we have a check. >> I agree. >> And we probably should make the payment because then >> if we make the controls, they're working for us. >> Okay.
>> Control. >> The only here's his additional fees here. Perd DM rate schedule. Additional services, regulatory review and ordinance recommendations, presentation workshops, meeting attendance, and expert testimony outside
of review fees shall be contracted at the following rates. So, if he if he does the review and shows up at one meeting, we're not going to meet him again, I don't think. >> No, we won't. But if for some reason something comes up, something some an issue comes up that we needed more.
>> I just didn't want to cap it at eight. I don't know. Um, >> will you want me to cap it? and 6,500 >> 655 6,500 to 10,000. >> No, what I would do is I think I would say $6,500 and then if it requires further action
from these people, we will then bring that price to you and you'll have to prove it. I that's the way I would. >> Yeah. And if he's got the proposal, he know he'll see it anyway. But I wouldn't cap it because we don't know. But 6,500 for starters >> and if anything arises out of that that
we have to go further then we'll have a discussion on. Right. >> Okay. A motion that we uh engage the services of uh citycape consultants. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion's made by Mark, seconded by Jim.
>> Copy that. >> All in favor? Right. >> Right. >> That was from the book. >> I never told you that. >> In case you hadn't noticed, I'm the notetaker, too. >> I saw that. We don't have a secretary.
>> All right. Are we done with >> we we might have when I >> t typically at this meeting when when you're sworn in in the first meeting we do elections of officers but in fairness to Paul Fergal who couldn't be here tonight I'm going to postpone the
elections until June 24th. So he's he's the current vice chair and we have um committee appointments that some of us sit on. So, we'll do uh election of offices June 24th. But now, I'll ask for an adjourn. You
think we should adjourn? >> The last question I want to ask, I just want to make sure. I don't know. How many days do we have to act on this? >> Yeah, that'll be going back and forth between Richard and the attorney. I >> think 65 days. 65 days, I think, to to
start the public hearing. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Just want to make sure we're coming. >> You've accomplished that. And Richard was suggesting that if the application wasn't totally complete that sort of start kickoff date, but the the attorney recountered that idea.
>> No, he didn't have he didn't indicate to me we that we were any um cuz he thought that it probably would come back in July after the period. >> Can I just ask one more question and just see if if anybody cares about this back to the cell tower. So our bylaw
states that it's got to be the carrier that's applying for this special permit. it's it's not the infrastructure person. And so he in the application stresses the fact that you know we have a feel that Verizon will do it if we complete
this but that's not in this package. We don't see anything that Verizon will do this. Do we want to see that? But we don't care. >> Yeah. If they have it he says they have it. >> He says they have I think it should be part of the application and it's not in there. >> I I didn't read through it all but you
couldn't find it. Oh, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see it. >> But make a note of that so when Richard Harris comes back, we can bring that to his attention and he can verify that and then we can go. >> And I had it I I had it written down tonight to ask him, but it just seemed
like it's it's just a technicality. But >> perfect. Well, we're going to copy that. >> Okay. I think we should because technically he doesn't have a right to even be in here asking for the special permit if there's nothing but we're still doing the waiver to allow Verizon to tag along on this.
>> Yeah. So >> it' be nice to have some documentation that they are interested. >> Right. Right. >> Any more business Paul? >> I hope not. >> I'll make a motion we have a second all in favor.
Sorry, Paul. I'll wait for you. >> JL and MD again. >> All in favor? I >> I thank you everyone. >> See you guys.