[0:00] All
[0:01] [Music]
[0:13] right, we're going to go ahead and get
[0:14] started. Um, thank you everybody for
[0:16] coming. We obviously overprepared, but
[0:18] that was that's fine. I don't mind
[0:20] having extra copies for everybody. And
[0:21] then we will leave um the extras that
[0:23] are out there at uh town hall. Um, so
[0:25] you can let people know if they have
[0:27] questions or comments after the fact,
[0:28] they can just, um, stop by and leave
[0:30] them there. So, um, thank you all for
[0:32] coming tonight. My name is Mary Fitini
[0:33] and I am a member of the Rochester
[0:35] Planning and Zoning Board.
[0:37] I'm going to be starting with just a
[0:38] brief overview of sort of how tonight's
[0:40] going to run, what the point of tonight
[0:42] is as far as your planning board is
[0:43] concerned. I'm going to do a thousand
[0:46] foot view of the permitting process for
[0:48] cell phone towers in the state of
[0:50] Vermont. Um, then I'm going to turn it
[0:52] over to Francis Pissy who is here from
[0:54] Vert.ex X Towers who is going to give um
[0:56] a presentation on some of the facts
[0:59] about this possible project. And there's
[1:02] a reason I'm calling it a possible
[1:03] project which is to say the application
[1:04] has not yet been submitted to the uh
[1:07] public utilities commission. Um so
[1:09] that's the reason that that is the very
[1:11] specific language that I'll be using
[1:12] tonight. Uh when Francis is done, we're
[1:15] going to open it up the floor to
[1:16] questions. Dan McKinley, everybody's
[1:18] favorite moderator, is going to be
[1:19] running that. Um, and we planned about
[1:22] 40 minutes or more for that. And since
[1:24] we're a small group tonight, um, I'm
[1:26] hoping we can get through your questions
[1:28] and time permitting, you know, we'll
[1:29] open up the floor to comments as well.
[1:31] So, um, this is a public information I
[1:34] wrote meeting. Let me emphasize that
[1:36] this is not a formal meeting. This is a
[1:37] public information session, uh, about
[1:40] the 248 permitting process for cell
[1:42] phone towers and the possible cell tower
[1:45] project um, at 10:30 10:30 Route 100
[1:48] South in Rochester. There are no
[1:50] decisions being made here tonight. And
[1:52] this meeting is specifically designed to
[1:54] do three things, right? It's so that we,
[1:56] your planning board, can give you some
[1:57] basic information about how cell phone
[1:59] towers are permitted. It's so that we
[2:01] can get some basic information about the
[2:03] possible project um from Vert.ex towers
[2:06] and to give you a chance to ask those
[2:08] questions either about the information
[2:09] we're presenting here tonight,
[2:11] information that is not presented that
[2:13] you would like us to get for and to you
[2:16] um or anything else um after we've
[2:18] covered that that you think um would be
[2:20] relevant. So um this is not the only
[2:24] chance you will have to learn about or
[2:26] talk about cell phone tower permitting
[2:28] in the town of Rochester. This is not
[2:30] the only chance. There will be many. Um,
[2:32] we are very committed as your planning
[2:34] board to hearing from as many people as
[2:36] possible in as many forums as possible
[2:39] at the moments when your contributions
[2:41] are most useful and effective for you.
[2:44] So, I just want to keep emphasizing
[2:45] that. Um,
[2:48] we will have a couple of people
[2:49] available via Zoom for some technical
[2:51] questions if they come up. We have two
[2:52] people from Two Rivers Aquichi Regional
[2:54] Planning Commission. We also have an
[2:56] engineer from Vert.Ex if your questions
[2:58] end up being a little bit more
[2:59] technical. So
[3:02] some of my logistics since we are
[3:04] smaller I can go I can skip ahead to um
[3:08] I do want you to know that we are trying
[3:09] to centralize the information so that
[3:11] you can go to one point and all of the
[3:13] documents will be there. We haven't got
[3:15] that set up quite yet but we have set up
[3:17] a separate email account for questions
[3:19] and comments about it. That's what's on
[3:20] your postcard which is rochestervt
[3:23] planning commission@gmail.com.
[3:25] Um, and that again is so that nothing
[3:26] kind of slips through the cracks, right?
[3:28] If you email or contact one of the
[3:29] planning board members individually, um,
[3:32] we talk a lot, but this way we make sure
[3:35] that everybody's getting the same
[3:36] information. So, thousand foot view. Um,
[3:40] yep, this is what I said. Oops, my
[3:42] slideshow is not there. There we go.
[3:48] Oh, no.
[4:05] There we go. Okay. This is basically
[4:08] just what I said, equal parts. Um, the
[4:11] information I'm giving to you is coming
[4:12] from a public guide that was pres uh
[4:14] published by the Vermont Public Service
[4:15] Department. This will be available to
[4:17] you. I am not a lawyer. I am not a
[4:19] planner. I am a member of the board and
[4:20] I am summarizing this public information
[4:22] to you as best we can.
[4:25] Uh
[4:27] the town of Rochester does not permit,
[4:29] grant, deny cell phone towers. That is a
[4:32] power that is reserved to the state.
[4:34] Okay. The town of Rochester does not
[4:36] grant or deny them. There are specific
[4:38] ways and moments that we can participate
[4:40] in this process. But the decision for
[4:42] permitting uh towers is made by the
[4:44] public utilities commission. uh the PUC
[4:47] will grant or deny something called a
[4:49] certificate for public good. The
[4:50] department Vermont public service
[4:52] department will represent the public
[4:54] interest in such proceedings. Um and
[4:57] again I'm I'm going to come back to this
[4:59] because there is a role for the town but
[5:01] it can be most effective if we're clear
[5:03] about where we can speak, who we can
[5:05] speak to, and what it is that they wish
[5:07] to hear from us at any particular point
[5:08] in time.
[5:11] Um
[5:12] there's two phases to a permit. There's
[5:15] this the step one, right, which is
[5:16] submitting the application. Um, an
[5:18] applicant has to submit what's called a
[5:20] 45day notice of intent to apply. They
[5:22] have to submit that notice to the public
[5:24] utilities commission, the department of
[5:26] public service, the host town, and the
[5:28] adjoining land owners. After they 45
[5:31] days or more after that, they submit an
[5:33] application to the public utilities
[5:34] commission and the PUC has to declare
[5:37] the application complete. All right,
[5:38] this is the first step. So far, we have
[5:42] received a 45 45day notice of an intent
[5:44] to apply from Vertex Towers for a
[5:46] possible project at 10:30 Route 100
[5:48] South. We received it on June 12th. That
[5:52] is the only thing that has happened so
[5:53] far. Okay. The application has not been
[5:56] submitted and therefore the Public
[5:57] Utilities Commission, excuse me, hasn't
[6:00] declared it complete because it doesn't
[6:01] exist yet.
[6:04] After the Public Utilities Commission
[6:06] declares a an application is complete,
[6:08] we enter the 30-day comment period.
[6:10] There's 30 days for parties,
[6:12] interveners, and individuals to submit
[6:14] comments to the Public Utilities
[6:15] Commission. The host town is
[6:17] automatically granted the right to uh
[6:19] submit these comments. I'll talk about
[6:22] that a little bit more in a second. Um
[6:24] after the application has been declared
[6:26] complete, the Public Utilities
[6:28] Commission has 60 to 180 days to issue a
[6:31] ruling. The reason I say 60 to 180 days
[6:34] is because uh it depends on whether or
[6:36] not the public utilities commission sees
[6:38] any significant issues with specific
[6:40] criteria. If they do not, they have to
[6:42] issue a ruling within 60 days. If they
[6:44] do, they can take up to 180 days to
[6:47] issue a ruling. Okay.
[6:51] There are three ways for towns to
[6:53] participate in the 248A process. they
[6:56] can have a public meeting
[6:59] uh where we request we can request a
[7:01] public meeting with the applicant and
[7:02] the public service department. This is
[7:04] actually the second time that we've
[7:06] asked somebody from Vertex to come and
[7:07] present. Um
[7:10] we did invite somebody from the public
[7:11] utilities commission tonight and they
[7:13] said that they were not going to um
[7:16] comment until the application had been
[7:18] filed. So that could very well happen
[7:20] again. Uh submitting comments. This is
[7:22] what happens during the 30-day comment
[7:24] period after the application has been
[7:26] declared complete. Uh we file them in
[7:28] writing. The public utilities commission
[7:30] has to give a detailed response to every
[7:33] recommendation that we submit also in
[7:35] writing. And then we can also
[7:37] participate as a formal party if the
[7:38] public utilities commission ends up
[7:40] having evidentiary hearings and things
[7:42] like that. Um the host town is already
[7:45] given the right to intervene um as the
[7:48] host town. Okay. So again, public
[7:51] meeting is the only thing that happens
[7:52] after the 45day notice. The comments and
[7:54] the intervention require the application
[7:56] to have been declared complete.
[8:01] Some things that the public utilities
[8:02] commission considers, and this is not an
[8:04] exhaustive list, uh will the project
[8:07] have what's called undue adverse effects
[8:09] on specific criteria? And I'll list
[8:12] those criteria in a minute. How will the
[8:14] project affect the land conservation
[8:16] measures in the plans of the affected
[8:19] municipalities?
[8:21] What are the recommendations that the
[8:22] town legislative bodies or town or
[8:24] regional planning commission submits in
[8:26] writing to the planning uh to the PUC?
[8:29] How does the project um service the
[8:32] public good or the state's interest as
[8:35] it's specifically articulated in a
[8:37] specific statute? And I'm not going to
[8:39] go into the statute tonight, but number
[8:40] four becomes very important in terms of
[8:42] thinking about how the state does or
[8:45] does not defer to town plans. Right? Um
[8:49] this question of what is the public good
[8:51] and what is the state's interest is
[8:52] something that the public utilities
[8:53] commission has to consider.
[8:58] Uh undue adverse effects.
[9:00] I'm not going into this in great detail.
[9:02] These are the categories um that the
[9:04] public utilities commission is looking
[9:06] at. If a project causes undue adverse
[9:08] effects to one of these categories, they
[9:10] can deny the permit. Okay. Um, we have
[9:14] more information about this. I can give
[9:15] you more information about this, but in
[9:16] general, this is something that the PUC
[9:18] itself is looking at. Aesthetics,
[9:20] historical sites, air and water purity,
[9:23] the natural environment, public health
[9:25] and safety, and the public use and
[9:27] enjoyment of the 89 and 91 scenic
[9:30] corridors and other highways designated
[9:32] um as scenic roads.
[9:37] You're probably going to get sick of
[9:38] hearing me say these words substantial
[9:40] difference and good cause, but they're
[9:42] I'm going to say them over and over
[9:43] again. So, town plans and town planners
[9:46] fit into this process in a very specific
[9:48] way. The public utilities commission
[9:50] must give what they call substantial
[9:52] difference to the land conservation
[9:54] measures in the plans of the affected
[9:56] municipalities and the recommendations
[9:58] of the municipal and regional plans
[10:01] unless they find there is good cause to
[10:03] find otherwise. Okay. So substantial
[10:05] difference, land conservation plans,
[10:07] recommendations, good cause, these
[10:08] things all matter.
[10:12] So what does it mean? Substantial
[10:14] difference
[10:16] means they have to give significant and
[10:18] meaningful weight to the following
[10:20] things to the land conservation measures
[10:22] in the plans of affected municipalities.
[10:24] This is our town plan which I believe
[10:26] was most recently updated in 2020 and is
[10:29] available on the town website. They have
[10:32] to give substantial difference to the
[10:33] recommendations of municipal and
[10:35] regional planning commissions regarding
[10:38] the impact and the relationship between
[10:40] a possible project and our town plans.
[10:43] Okay. Um so they have to give
[10:46] significant and meaningful weight to
[10:48] town plans and what towns think the
[10:51] possible project how it fits into their
[10:54] town plans. But substantial difference
[10:56] is not it's a category, right? Unless
[10:59] there is good cause for them to find
[11:01] otherwise. And here's what it means to
[11:03] find otherwise. Right? If deferring to
[11:06] the land conservation measures in the
[11:08] plans of affected municipalities and the
[11:11] recommendations of the planning
[11:12] commissions would be detrimental to the
[11:15] public good or the state's interest as
[11:18] articulated in this specific statute.
[11:20] Okay. Um, so so they they have to
[11:24] substantially defer to town plans to
[11:28] recommendations by the town planning
[11:29] commissions, but they have to also weigh
[11:32] this question of the public good and the
[11:34] state's interest as it's defined in this
[11:36] statute.
[11:38] Um,
[11:42] there's a reason I call this the
[11:43] thousand foot view, right? Um,
[11:46] that is very much the thousand foot
[11:48] view. Um, but I think I find it
[11:51] important to understand how our process
[11:52] works in order to figure out where I fit
[11:55] into the process, how I can make my
[11:58] voice heard effectively. Um, and in so
[12:01] far as we are your planning board are
[12:03] doing that, we want to do that for you
[12:05] as well. So to sort of sum up my summary
[12:09] and this document will also be
[12:10] available. The state grants or denies
[12:13] permits to cell phone towers through the
[12:15] section 248A process. Rochester will not
[12:18] grant or deny the permit. There are
[12:20] specific steps in applying for a
[12:23] certificate of public good. The only
[12:25] step that has been taken so far was the
[12:27] 45day notice of the attempt to apply.
[12:30] The application itself has not been
[12:32] filed um or declared complete. So the
[12:35] rest of that process, which can take up
[12:37] to 180 days, hasn't started yet.
[12:41] There are specific ways for the town to
[12:43] participate. They happen at specific
[12:46] points in the process and they cover
[12:47] specific information from the town to
[12:50] the state regarding our town and
[12:52] regional plans. And the public utilities
[12:55] commission considers many elements, but
[12:58] they are specific criteria,
[13:01] land conservation measures and town
[13:03] plans,
[13:05] recommendations by town and and regional
[13:07] planners, and this question about the
[13:09] public good and the state's interest.
[13:11] Okay. Um that's my thousand foot view.
[13:14] We do have somebody from um Two Rivers
[13:16] who will be here to answer questions if
[13:18] you have more specific things um when we
[13:20] at the end of the meeting. So thanks
[13:22] very much for your time and patience
[13:23] with my little PowerPoint and I'm going
[13:25] to hand it over to Francis who is going
[13:28] to present some um basically sub
[13:31] substantial information about uh the
[13:33] possible project.
[13:38] Provided I can get this to work the way
[13:40] I want.
[13:42] >> Give you this.
[13:54] » Are we gonna hold questions until
[13:56] >> I had Yes. And well, let me rephrase.
[13:59] Yes, that was my plan.
[14:03] >> But I
[14:08] to watch your feet.
[14:21] » Thanks.
[14:24] >> Uh, good evening. My name is Francis
[14:25] Paresi. I'm a representative of Vertex
[14:28] Towers. Um
[14:30] I was actually here in front of the
[14:32] planning commission back in early
[14:34] September and gave a similar
[14:36] presentation. So that for those of you
[14:37] that were here, a lot of this is
[14:39] duplicative, but I think there's some
[14:40] new people in the audience and um
[14:42] definitely some um questions with
[14:45] respect to the the type of facility that
[14:47] we're proposing. Uh, I actually thought
[14:49] Mary did a great job of defining kind of
[14:51] the overview of the the permitting
[14:53] process and I'll kind of uh defer to
[14:56] Mary on that, but uh um but I thought
[14:58] she did a very good job of explaining
[14:59] it. Um, by way of introduction, Vertex
[15:02] Towers is what we call a wireless
[15:04] infrastructure developer. Um, the names
[15:06] that you've heard of in the cell phone
[15:07] arena, Verizon and AT&T and T-Mobile
[15:11] have pretty much gotten out of the real
[15:12] estate business. They're focused on
[15:14] developing their telecommunications
[15:16] networks and they partner up with folks
[15:17] like Vert.Ex to build wireless
[15:19] infrastructure. We're actually based in
[15:21] Massachusetts. We've done uh probably 30
[15:25] towers throughout Massachusetts and New
[15:27] Hampshire and Vermont. Um in areas as
[15:31] equally scenic and rural as as um
[15:34] Rochester. Um, and what we found is that
[15:37] if we can be more thoughtful about where
[15:39] we place these type of facilities, where
[15:42] because we're not Verizon or not um,
[15:44] AT&T, we can look more closely at your
[15:47] land use, your um, zoning regulations,
[15:50] the PUC process, and come up with very
[15:52] thoughtful solutions. It's been very
[15:54] well received. In addition, it's a way
[15:56] of bringing telecommunications to rural
[15:59] areas like Rochester because, as you can
[16:02] imagine, somebody like Verizon is trying
[16:04] to f provide coverage to the entire
[16:06] United States, including Rochester,
[16:08] Vermont, and Montpelia, Vermont, and
[16:11] Boston, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma, and
[16:13] California. And it's just a real
[16:15] challenge for them to get everywhere all
[16:17] at once and satisfy everyone's
[16:18] individual concerns. So, they partner
[16:20] with folks like Vert.Ex s to do like the
[16:23] infrastructure and the the the due
[16:24] diligence. Um in this particular case,
[16:27] we've already got a commitment from
[16:29] Verizon Wireless. They um they are very
[16:31] actively uh building out their network
[16:33] in Vermont. They have pretty good
[16:36] coverage along the I9089 corridor. Um
[16:39] but now they're focused on the uh Route
[16:41] 100 corridor. Um there was recently a
[16:44] tower built in Stockbridge which Verizon
[16:47] has just installed their antennas but
[16:48] haven't turned them on yet. There's a
[16:50] tower in Granville that was built a
[16:52] couple years ago that uh uh was uh
[16:56] Verizon is on that as well. There's
[16:58] towers along the Bethl and the Randolph
[17:00] and the 89 corridor on the other side of
[17:03] the hill between here and and 89, but uh
[17:06] um they're very actively trying to build
[17:07] out their network along the Route 100
[17:09] corridor and and have partnered up with
[17:11] Vert.Ex to find a solution in Rochester.
[17:14] Um I hope I don't need to sell cell
[17:17] phone coverage in general. The need is
[17:19] there. You know, the statistics are
[17:21] staggering. Over 50% of America has cut
[17:24] the cord is only using wireless phones
[17:26] as their only source of communications.
[17:28] 80% of 911 calls are made by cell
[17:31] phones. And uh you know, there's clearly
[17:33] if if anyone's a Verizon customer, you
[17:35] can certainly attest to the fact that
[17:36] there's a gap in coverage here um with
[17:39] uh with telecommunications. We do a lot
[17:41] of work with regional planning
[17:43] commissions throughout all of New
[17:44] England including um um New Hampshire
[17:48] and New Hampshire has deemed the lack of
[17:50] cell phone coverage a public safety
[17:52] hazard. So when respect to the
[17:54] certificate of public good um you know
[17:57] it's actually really for easy for us to
[17:59] show that there is a public good because
[18:00] we're bringing better
[18:02] telecommunications, a better u um public
[18:05] safety network, a better um
[18:08] telecommunications. What's happened too
[18:10] is that um we actually thought that this
[18:12] was going to be when I've been doing
[18:14] this for about 20 or 25 years when I
[18:16] first started I thought it was a mobile
[18:17] technology where we're going to provide
[18:18] coverage up Route 89 and um you know
[18:21] maybe some of the tertiary roads but
[18:23] what's happening is it's evolving into a
[18:25] residential technology and people are
[18:27] using it in their homes as their primary
[18:28] source of telecommunications and over
[18:30] the last several years with the pandemic
[18:32] people are trying to work from home and
[18:34] educate from home and so better
[18:35] telecommunications networks are um are
[18:38] just a necessity at this point. Um um
[18:42] Verizon has spent an immense amount of
[18:44] time exploring different options,
[18:46] looking at um um um um different
[18:50] solutions to this. And as you can
[18:52] imagine, the Route 100 corridor is an
[18:54] incredibly challenging area given the
[18:56] topography. You know, Route 100 and the
[18:58] town of Rochester is in a valley
[19:00] surrounded by very tall peaks and those
[19:03] peaks become structural impediments to
[19:04] telecommunication signal. So even though
[19:06] there's very good coverage on the other
[19:08] side in the Bethl and the Route 89
[19:11] corridor, there's uh a significant gap
[19:14] in coverage along the route 100
[19:15] corridor. Uh and we uh um we will
[19:19] provide all of this to the town as part
[19:21] of the PUC application process. But this
[19:24] basically shows all the different sites
[19:26] that Verizon already enjoys. you know,
[19:28] along Royaltton, there's a tower in
[19:30] Bethl, right as you get off the highway,
[19:32] just pretty close to downtown that uh um
[19:35] and then um several other sites going up
[19:37] into along the 89 corridor. But they
[19:41] actually have no sightes on the air um
[19:43] south of what I would call north
[19:45] Granville and um up towards the um um
[19:48] the the Sugar Ski area. So, there's
[19:51] really no coverage along now. They've
[19:52] gotten one tower that they just uh put
[19:55] the antennas on but haven't turned them
[19:56] on yet down um at the Stockfield
[19:59] Stockbridge Pittsfield line that'll
[20:02] provide some coverage coming up Route
[20:03] 100 from Stockbridge into Rester.
[20:07] But we're trying to find a solution for
[20:10] that, you know, very long stretch of
[20:11] Rochester from the Stockbridge line all
[20:14] the way going up into Hancock. Um um and we can look at this at at a
[20:20] unfortunately it gets very technical.
[20:22] Verizon broadcasts at multiple different
[20:24] frequency bands. Um, as we get more and
[20:27] more users of cell phone technology,
[20:29] they deploy multiple frequencies. Uh,
[20:32] you know, this was shown at the lower
[20:33] frequency bands. are some of the
[20:35] historic um low band frequencies. And as
[20:37] you go up into the higher bands, 850
[20:39] meghertz, the the 1900 meghertz of what
[20:42] they call PCS, the the um the what
[20:47] happens is that you use higher
[20:49] frequencies, the coverage gets less and
[20:52] less. So you want to try to get it as
[20:54] close to the residential and commercial
[20:56] and industrial users as possible without
[20:59] um getting too impactful for them to
[21:02] take advantage of the higher frequency
[21:04] bands and the uh um higher data speeds
[21:07] that come with that. Um and uh um so um
[21:11] on behalf of Vertex and in partnership
[21:13] with Verizon, we've been looking for
[21:15] solutions here and in more urban areas,
[21:18] you have tall structures, water tanks,
[21:20] church depotles. I know there's a church
[21:22] steeple in town that AT&T has antennas
[21:24] in, but as you can imagine, that's a I
[21:27] just looked at it. It's about a 30- foot
[21:28] tall church steeple. It wasn't designed
[21:30] for telecommunications. It wasn't
[21:31] designed to get over the hills going
[21:33] just uh a quarter mile south, just past
[21:35] where we are right now. Um or even a
[21:38] quarter mile north. So, it it you know,
[21:40] AT&T enjoys a little bit of coverage
[21:43] along the um the what I would call the
[21:45] downtown Rochester area, but church
[21:47] steeples weren't designed with
[21:48] telecommunications in mind. they um they
[21:51] weren't designed for the type of
[21:52] antennas that multiple telecommunication
[21:54] companies enjoy or deploy for their u um
[21:58] their network. So um although AT&T has a
[22:01] little bit of coverage downtown, Verizon
[22:03] has no coverage, T-Mobile has no
[22:04] coverage, and that's what we're trying
[22:06] to find a solution to to resolve. Um the zoning map here actually allows
[22:12] us to go anywhere in town. you know,
[22:14] there's some restrictions with respect
[22:16] to uh going too close to the river and
[22:18] the uh the the resource areas down close
[22:21] to the river, but for the most part,
[22:23] we're in a a residential agricultural
[22:25] zone um which is a permitted zone under
[22:28] the zoning bylaw. the zoning bylaw even
[22:31] though it's not applicable here because
[22:33] as Mary explained uh we are we follow
[22:36] the state PUC guidelines with respect to
[22:38] these things but the state actually
[22:40] looks to the town to say what does your
[22:42] zoning allow or not allow and this type
[22:45] of facility is allowed in all um
[22:49] districts other than the flood overlay
[22:50] district and the echo for recharge
[22:52] district which are down closer to the
[22:53] river um and the only requirement is
[22:56] that we meet what they call um 150% % of
[22:59] tower height setback from all abuing
[23:02] property lines. So from so we look at it
[23:06] it's compliant in all respects with your
[23:08] zoning bylaw even though and the PUC
[23:10] will look at that as part of the the
[23:12] application process. Um the proposed
[23:15] facility is 1030 Route 10. It's a very
[23:18] large I think it's 244 acres um with a
[23:21] little bit of frontage on Route 100, but
[23:24] a substantial back lot um going way back
[23:27] um up uh u for those of you that don't
[23:31] know it's on the as you're heading north
[23:34] on Route 100, it's on your right. Um uh
[23:37] it's kind of um if you look for a
[23:39] landmark, this I believe this is called
[23:40] the um the garage road. Um, and so it's
[23:44] kind of uh straight opposite there,
[23:46] right down where uh uh I there's a a
[23:50] little store right here. I forget the
[23:51] name of it, but uh you can see it's kind
[23:54] of straight on there from the garage
[23:55] road looking up the hill. U so and it's
[23:58] um amply set back from all abuing
[24:01] properties. We have to be 150% um and
[24:05] we're uh substantially more than that
[24:08] from all abudding properties uh and and
[24:11] public rights away. We're about 2,000 ft
[24:13] off of Route 100. Um and and I think the
[24:17] closest property line is um over 300
[24:20] feet away. So substantially more than
[24:22] the setback required by the zoning
[24:24] bylaw. Um one one of the things we were
[24:27] here back in uh September and a lot of
[24:30] people expressed questions and concerns
[24:33] and in anticipation of that I uh I went
[24:36] back to the engineers and uh asked them
[24:38] you know can we tweak this at all? Can
[24:40] we be more thoughtful? Can we be more
[24:42] responsible to some of the town folks
[24:45] concerns? And two of the things that we
[24:47] came up with um to reduce to that we had
[24:50] originally proposed and the notice that
[24:52] we provided the town said that we were
[24:53] going to build a tower that was 170 ft
[24:56] tall and um given some concerns by the
[25:00] uh people given the fact that AT&T
[25:03] already has a little bit of coverage in
[25:04] town. Um and even though we're trying to
[25:06] build a a telecommunications facility
[25:08] that accommodates multiple
[25:09] telecommunications providers including
[25:12] Verizon, we've reduced the tower height
[25:14] to 140 ft. And so I think that's
[25:16] relevant because when we start looking
[25:18] at um some of the photos and the
[25:20] visibility, you'll see that that is a
[25:22] substantial concession from a visibility
[25:24] perspective to diminish the visibility
[25:27] from um the Route 100 corridor and from
[25:30] like where we are right now and closer
[25:31] to downtown Rochester where the the the
[25:34] common is in the library, but also uh um um reducing the impact on on um
[25:43] nearby residences. Um in addition um we
[25:47] did a standalone um this this type of
[25:49] facility will utilize an a very long
[25:53] existing
[25:54] uh logging road that's already there. I
[25:56] have pictures if you want to see it.
[25:58] We're doing a very short extension uh in
[26:00] our mind short about 500 ft from the end
[26:02] of the existing logging road. And we
[26:05] were able to design that extension and
[26:07] the compound in such a way so that it
[26:10] reduces the amount of permanent
[26:11] disturbance um which is a a technical
[26:14] term that uh the PUC uses to define the
[26:18] applicability and the scope of this
[26:19] project and also um uh uh eliminate the
[26:24] amount of imperous surface. Um we we
[26:27] don't uh these facilities once built are
[26:29] very um dimminimous in nature. Even
[26:32] though it's a 244 acre parcel, we're
[26:34] only using about 3,000 square ft of that
[26:37] for the compound. A 50 by 50, a little
[26:40] bit of construction and some runoff
[26:42] prevention, but uh from a a site
[26:45] disturbance perspective, it's quite
[26:47] dimminimous. And uh and one of the
[26:49] require one of the reason why we did
[26:50] that is because Mary didn't her in her
[26:54] uh 10,00t overview, there's really two
[26:56] processes that the PUC looks at. If you
[26:59] have a taller tower and a more
[27:02] substantial development, they give a
[27:04] full review, but uh they give a more
[27:07] limited review to sites that are what
[27:08] they call limited size and scope. And by
[27:11] redefining the height of the tower and
[27:13] by redefining the the the access and the
[27:16] uh amount of temporary disturbance that
[27:18] we're doing, um we we will we will meet
[27:20] the li the uh limitations of that
[27:23] limited size and scope under the PUC
[27:25] regulations. But I think it's relevant
[27:26] to the town because I just want to show
[27:29] uh um we're trying very hard to
[27:31] accommodate the town, accommodate area
[27:32] residents, but also accommodate the
[27:34] telecommunications signal because if we
[27:36] make it too short, then it doesn't get
[27:38] over the topography and the terrain to
[27:40] uh um satisfy the coverage objectives.
[27:42] So um and this was an issue for u that
[27:45] came up at the last um thing um the last
[27:48] public hearing that we had at the given
[27:50] that um because we were using an
[27:53] existing access road uh we had actually
[27:56] considered that permanent disturbance
[27:57] but when we look more into the
[27:59] regulations and using some construction
[28:02] techniques um we're we're really just
[28:05] utilizing an existing road and so that's
[28:07] a great advantage of town we're not
[28:08] doing a lot of permanent disturbance to
[28:10] build an access driveway and If you can
[28:13] imagine, your zoning by requires us to
[28:15] be 150% tower height setback. Um um um I
[28:19] don't and you guys don't want us to be
[28:21] down in the Route 100 corridor because
[28:24] that would be way too visible from the
[28:26] 100 corridor. So we got to be up away
[28:28] from the road and that requires us to go
[28:30] up substantially up slopes and things,
[28:32] but we're able to find a a lot that has
[28:36] an existing logging road. So it it it
[28:38] minimized the amount of permanent
[28:39] disturbance that we do. it uh um we were
[28:43] able to um redesign the compound to make
[28:45] them more pvious so that really the
[28:48] total amount of um new impervious
[28:52] surface is only about a 1500 square ft.
[28:55] It's just a small equipment compound. Um
[28:57] and the uh total perimeter earth
[28:59] disturbance is under 10,000 square ft.
[29:02] Um um once we um and as Mary showed,
[29:06] there's a lot of criteria that we need
[29:07] to satisfy to um to get the certificate
[29:10] of public good from the uh public
[29:12] utilities commission. But and once you
[29:14] reduce the scope of it to its limited
[29:17] scale and scope really what you just
[29:19] have to make sure that you're not in a
[29:20] flood hazard area which we're nowhere
[29:22] near as you can imagine being up on that
[29:23] high on the hill and that we don't have
[29:25] what Mary highlighted was the undue
[29:28] adverse impact on the scenic or natural
[29:30] resources um uh and natural areas and we're very conscious of that. We
[29:35] understand that Route 100 is a scenic
[29:37] corridor. We also understand that
[29:38] there's other cell towers already built
[29:40] along the Route 100 corridor, but um
[29:42] being respectful of that and being
[29:44] conscious of that um we believe we've
[29:47] designed a facility that will not have
[29:49] an undue adverse impact on the on the
[29:52] scenic beauty of the Route 100 corridor.
[29:54] Um like I said, the compound itself is
[29:56] really dimminimous. It's a three a 60x
[29:58] 60 bench in compound which will have a
[30:01] small foundation for the tower itself
[30:03] and small equipment pads for initially
[30:06] Verizon and then other
[30:07] telecommunications companies that'll uh
[30:10] collocate on the future um you know so
[30:12] from and given that the you know it's
[30:14] 350 ft from the nearest uh property line
[30:19] and thousands of feet from the nearest
[30:21] public rightway no one's going to see
[30:23] the compound itself or the electronic
[30:25] equipment um once It's constructed. It's
[30:28] completely unmanned. There's no noise,
[30:30] smoke, odors. Um there will be a small
[30:32] generator up there that is a third
[30:35] source of power. We'll bring primary
[30:37] power up there. We will bring um backup
[30:40] batteries in case of a short-term power
[30:41] failure. And if there a long-term power
[30:43] failure, there'll be a generator, but
[30:45] it's not something that's powered
[30:46] primarily by generator. So, the
[30:47] generator runs only in the um uh event
[30:51] of a very long-term power failure. Um
[30:53] the tower itself is what we call a
[30:55] lattice tower. It's basically a giant
[30:57] erector set on which um um Verizon will
[31:01] attach antennas and then over time
[31:02] multiple other telecommunications
[31:04] companies will attach antennas. It's
[31:05] similar to other towers in the area. Um
[31:08] we find that this um um erector set, you
[31:12] know, it's um when you look at it from a
[31:15] distance, you actually can see through
[31:17] it. So it actually provides a more um
[31:21] unobtrusive um visibility from various
[31:24] vantage points. And this picture is
[31:26] significant because the picture that I
[31:27] showed at the last meeting showed 170
[31:29] foot tower, but again due to um attempts
[31:33] to address towns folks concerns um we've
[31:36] reduced the height to 140 ft. U and
[31:39] everyone thinks that 140 ft you're going
[31:41] to see that all over town because that's
[31:43] the tallest thing in town. But as you
[31:45] can imagine, when you're set back from
[31:48] abuing property lines by hundreds and
[31:50] from the from route uh 100 by thousands
[31:52] of feet and when you have a tree in your
[31:55] foreground, you know, you don't see 100.
[31:58] No one's going to see 140 ft of tower.
[32:00] Um, I I can't make it invisible, but I
[32:03] think it's you're going to uh find that
[32:05] it's going to be of minimal visibility,
[32:07] distant visibility, and and very short
[32:11] amounts of the tower and not the full
[32:13] 140 ft. Um um with respect to public
[32:18] safety, these are very lowowered
[32:20] transmissions. These are um um it's not
[32:23] designed to cover all of Vermont or even
[32:25] all the 100 corridor from Killington to Sugar Bush. It's really designed to
[32:29] cover a couple square miles. And don't
[32:31] quote me on that because it's a very
[32:33] amorphous coverage objective, but uh and
[32:36] as you can imagine, given the Route 100
[32:38] corridor, it's really a linear coverage
[32:40] objective as opposed to a a 360 degree
[32:43] coverage objective. But uh um these are
[32:46] designed to be well below Apple FCC
[32:49] limits. And the reason is it's a two-way
[32:51] communication. Everyone has a cell
[32:52] phone. This is a low powered
[32:54] communication to the nearest cell phone
[32:56] tower which the nearest cell phone tower
[32:58] is on the other side of the hill in
[32:59] Bethl doesn't work but uh um but uh and so for that cell phone antenna to
[33:05] reach this it's an equally low powered
[33:07] and they broadcast out at about 100
[33:09] watts which is dimminimous as compared
[33:12] to other forms of radio communications
[33:14] that we already enjoy. There are uh FM
[33:17] stations and AM stations in Burlington
[33:19] that broadcast out at 50,000 watts
[33:22] because they're trying to cover as large
[33:24] a an area as possible. Whereas this type
[33:27] of technology is only designed to cover
[33:30] a stretch of Rochester going south
[33:32] towards Stockbridge and north towards
[33:33] Hancock. U and I'll also point out that
[33:36] from a radio frequency perspective, the
[33:39] town already has AT&T antennas on a
[33:42] 30-foot church depot about three blocks
[33:44] from here. So, the downtown area gets
[33:46] some coverage, but it's also, you know,
[33:48] people have been living with that RF
[33:50] exposure harmlessly. Um, and you know,
[33:54] your zoning bylaw, Vermont law, state
[33:56] law says if there was any um tall
[33:59] structures that we could utilize, we
[34:01] would. And those tall structures tend to
[34:03] be in more habited areas. I I I actually
[34:06] go to a church that has a 150 church,
[34:09] 150 foot steeple, and there's two it's
[34:11] the tallest thing in the area by far.
[34:14] and there are two sets of antennas in it
[34:16] and I live in a much more dense village
[34:17] area similar to Rochester and we enjoy
[34:20] good coverage because of that church
[34:22] steeple but because there's not a lot of
[34:24] um other tall structures uh in um
[34:28] Rochester we're forced to look at a new
[34:30] tower but we've set it back so
[34:32] substantially that it's going to be
[34:34] significantly below all applicable FCC
[34:36] limits with respect to radio frequency
[34:38] exposure and what we're anticipating is
[34:41] that we're going to get pretty decent
[34:43] coverage along the 100 corridor from the
[34:46] uh um um Stockbridgeidge line going up
[34:49] all the way to the Hancock line. It's
[34:50] going to provide uh much um and and what
[34:53] these different colors represent is the
[34:56] different levels of coverage. As you can
[34:58] imagine, when you stand outdoors and use
[35:00] your cell phone, there's no structural
[35:02] impediment as compared to in your car or
[35:05] in your residence or in a building like
[35:07] this where there's a a lot of structural
[35:09] impediment to the signal. And what this
[35:11] tells me is that in the downtown
[35:14] Rochester area, we'll get very good
[35:16] inbuilding coverage um you know
[35:18] throughout the entire what I would call
[35:21] populated area of Rochester from here um
[35:24] north going past the bike shop and um um
[35:28] and the village of Rochester. And then,
[35:30] you know, you're going to get um decent
[35:32] coverage along the uh um the Route 100
[35:35] corridor, all going up into Hancock,
[35:37] connecting up with sites that are being
[35:39] proposed in in Granville. And again,
[35:42] this is all the different frequency
[35:43] bands that we um talked about easier. Um
[35:47] but everyone wants to know what's it
[35:48] going to look like. A year ago, we
[35:50] actually put a balloon up in the air as
[35:51] required by the public utilities
[35:54] commission application process to uh um
[35:58] to put a balloon up in the air to 176 ft
[36:00] was which was the height of the old the
[36:02] formerly proposed tower and we took
[36:04] pictures and I can show them to you
[36:06] tonight. I showed them at the last
[36:08] meeting, but I'm going to tell you as
[36:10] was requested by the the planning
[36:12] commission at the last meeting. Um,
[36:14] we've agreed to put up another balloon.
[36:16] And this balloon will be up at 140 ft.
[36:19] And uh um and I'll I'll I'll let
[36:22] everybody know as best I can when it's
[36:24] going to be. We'll talk about it
[36:26] tonight. Uh and I think that's going to
[36:28] be very telling because people are going
[36:30] to be able to stand in their own
[36:32] residences or on their own properties
[36:33] and everyone think, "Oh my god, I'm
[36:35] going to see 140 foot thing from all
[36:37] over Rochester." But I think you're
[36:38] going to find that you're not going to
[36:39] see it because of the way the topography
[36:41] is, by the way canopy is. Um I um
[36:45] unfortunately I'm I'm struggling with
[36:47] dates. So that's what we'll talk about
[36:48] as part of this process. And the reason
[36:50] I was struggling with dates is because
[36:51] we have an election in two weeks uh and
[36:53] then Veterans Day. And uh so I I don't
[36:56] want to um um talk about a date yet, but
[36:59] uh we'll talk about it before that the
[37:01] night is out. But the one thing I want
[37:02] to jump to is u um the photos that we
[37:05] took of the 176T balloon.
[37:29] We engage engineers to um uh take these
[37:33] photos and they do very accurate um
[37:35] depictions. Um and what this represents
[37:38] is a map of the town of Rochester, the
[37:40] star being where the proposed facility
[37:42] will be. And the red are photo places
[37:45] where they took photographs from,
[37:46] including the the closest places, you
[37:49] know, along Route 100 at the base of the
[37:51] subject property. Um um and then um up
[37:55] here in the village and then farther
[37:57] south along Route 100 looking towards
[37:59] the facility. And the red spots means
[38:02] places where they took photographs. So
[38:04] we can scroll through that. Um there was
[38:06] no visibility. And as you can imagine,
[38:09] going west towards um Pittsfield,
[38:11] there's really um you know, given the way the roads flow, given the uh
[38:16] topography, you're not going to see it
[38:17] from the western um looking east. Um but
[38:22] there was some spots, pockets of
[38:24] visibility from the village photos 8, 9,
[38:26] and 10. And then farther south looking
[38:29] north uh on Route 100 where that the big
[38:32] farm is along the 100 corridor where
[38:35] there's no uh trees to to to mitigate
[38:37] the view. And so I'm just going to jump
[38:39] to those photos because what those what
[38:41] I actually have are simulations as to
[38:43] what it's going to look like. Um so we
[38:45] took all these photographs here. U but
[38:48] I'm just going to jump to 8 n and 10
[38:50] which were the three photos from
[38:51] Rochester Village.
[38:56] Um,
[38:58] and this is a picture shown from, I
[39:02] guess, the library parking lot or across
[39:04] the street from the library by the uh um
[39:07] the residential building across the
[39:08] street. And uh um you could just see the
[39:10] balloon over the trees, over the
[39:12] buildings there. And what this
[39:13] represents is a photo simulation of what
[39:16] the tower is going to look like from um
[39:19] I'm thinking that's either the library
[39:21] parking lot or the library driveway
[39:23] right next to it. And uh uh and as you
[39:25] can see, it's just above the trees, just
[39:27] above the tree canopy. What this photo
[39:29] goes actually tells me too is that by
[39:31] reducing it down by to the uh 140 ft
[39:34] height, you're not going to see it at
[39:36] all. And we will have um for the PUC and
[39:39] for the town's view as well, um uh a
[39:42] photo after the 140 foot balloon float
[39:45] to to substantiate that. Um from um
[39:50] where are we at here? Riverbrook Road.
[39:52] Uh again, farther south looking farther
[39:56] north looking south. Um you know, again,
[39:58] you could see the the the balloon over
[40:00] the the tree canopy. And then um um
[40:04] oops. Um and then uh where's this? Um
[40:11] uh here.
[40:12] >> What's that?
[40:13] >> It's here.
[40:14] >> Oh, right here. Yeah, exactly. Right
[40:15] here. That's And then you know, you can
[40:17] just see the balloon over the thing. And what this tells me, like like I
[40:21] said, I don't want to rely on these
[40:22] photos because when we submit new photos
[40:24] for the 140 foot balloon, you'll see
[40:27] that you're not going to see it from
[40:28] here as well. Um and then the other
[40:31] places u just jump to my map there where
[40:33] there was some visibility u you know
[40:36] about what what looks like to be about a
[40:38] mile south looking north. Um so photos
[40:42] 12 and 13. So I'm just going to jump to
[40:44] those.
[40:45] Um
[40:48] uh and and and you know um at this point
[40:51] you're about I think you're about a mile
[40:54] um south of the property looking north
[40:56] and you can you could just see the
[40:57] balloon over the uh the tops of the
[40:59] trees and that's what it looks like um
[41:03] when we add when we built the tower and
[41:05] add the antennas to it. And again, this
[41:06] is another vantage point that I believe
[41:08] that it will be much less visible with
[41:12] the 140 foot tower because what I'm what
[41:14] I can see there is about 20 to 30 ft of
[41:17] tower. So, if we eliminate 20 ft of
[41:20] tower height, it's going to be virtually
[41:21] invisible on the horizon. And then u a
[41:24] little bit uh farther back um you know,
[41:27] it's uh um it's there. And they actually
[41:29] enlarge it, which no one ever sees. But
[41:32] uh um
[41:34] uh that tells me that you're seeing
[41:36] about 30 ft of tower. So uh again at
[41:39] this vantage point, if we lower it down
[41:41] from 175 to 140, it's going to be
[41:45] virtually invisible. So I think we've
[41:46] done um um a pretty good job of
[41:49] addressing the town's concerns with
[41:51] respect to visibility along the 100
[41:53] corridor. Um
[41:56] I just want to jump back to my other
[41:58] presentation.
[42:12] Um the one thing that Mary didn't talk
[42:15] about as part of her um um presentation,
[42:20] she and she talked very um articulately
[42:22] about the state law PU process. The
[42:26] federal government is also very much
[42:28] involved in wireless infrastructure
[42:29] sighting. About 25 years ago at this
[42:32] actually almost uh 30 years ago the the
[42:35] federal government adopted very
[42:36] comprehensive um guidelines and and
[42:41] laws. And it really stem from the fact
[42:43] that uh you know we had one telephone
[42:45] company back I don't want to sound like
[42:47] my dad but back when I was a kid we only
[42:48] had one telephone company AT&T. and they
[42:50] broke up AT&T into multiple um
[42:54] components and they um they gave out
[42:57] multiple wireless licenses for the
[43:00] purpose of promoting competition within
[43:02] the telecommunications industry. Um and
[43:05] at the same time the the federal
[43:07] government adopted laws to encourage the
[43:09] development of infrastructure. They
[43:11] recognized the great public benefit.
[43:12] They recognized um the the safety
[43:15] inherent in all of this and the and and
[43:18] the uh the benefit to all of America,
[43:20] but certainly Rochester and the rest of
[43:22] Vermont. Um and it just basically says
[43:25] um uh two things that towns can't have
[43:29] the effect of prohibiting
[43:31] telecommunications. You can't say no, we
[43:33] don't want it anywhere in Rochester. We
[43:35] don't want this technology. Uh you know,
[43:37] you can be very thoughtful as Mary
[43:39] explained. You know, you can make sure
[43:40] it's consistent with your plan. you can
[43:42] make sure it's consistent with your land
[43:44] use regulations. Um, and and again, the
[43:47] town doesn't actually issue the permit.
[43:50] It just makes recommendations to the
[43:53] public utilities commission who has
[43:55] overriding authority to determine
[43:56] whether or not it's in the public good.
[43:59] And you also can't say you can't uh
[44:01] discriminate a bunch providers. And
[44:03] that's actually relevant here. It's
[44:05] never relevant in my world, but it's
[44:06] actually relevant here in Rochester
[44:08] because at the last meeting, everyone
[44:10] said, "My AT&T phone works fine. I don't
[44:13] need Verizon." But that's not what the
[44:14] government's trying to do. The
[44:15] government's trying to say, "We want
[44:17] competition." Um um we also are work
[44:20] with T-Mobile, another carrier that's uh
[44:23] probably not that popular in Rochester,
[44:25] Vermont, but they just put antennas on
[44:27] the Stockbridge tower. They're coming on
[44:29] our tower as well, and they'll put
[44:31] they'll go they're building out the 100
[44:33] corridor as well. And that provides
[44:35] another outlet for um consumers, you
[44:38] know, uh uh uh um you know, so that you
[44:41] have competition within the uh um the uh the telecommunications market. Um
[44:47] and there's been an immense amount of um
[44:51] discussion among courts and everything.
[44:54] you know um you know you um you can't
[44:57] say we don't understand the health
[44:59] effects of these type of facilities
[45:01] therefore we don't want it because the
[45:03] government has deemed this technology
[45:04] safe um you uh you can't just you just
[45:08] can't say no um you can say uh I'm sorry
[45:12] you you you don't have to say yes you
[45:15] but you can't say no without sufficient
[45:18] reason like for example um I'll tell you
[45:21] the best place to to to put a tower
[45:23] would probably be right around here,
[45:27] right where all the users are. You know,
[45:29] uh, all you know, I bet half the kids in
[45:31] the elementary school have cell phones,
[45:33] let alone the people that used to come
[45:34] to the high school. All of you, the
[45:36] population of Rochester is pretty, um,
[45:39] uh, not compact, but there's a a density
[45:42] here in the village. Uh, and um, but
[45:45] that wouldn't be the most appropriate
[45:46] place to put a tower from a land use or
[45:48] a visibility perspective. So, um um you
[45:51] know, they they they don't say you have
[45:52] to say yes, but they they say you can't
[45:54] say no without sufficient reason. Um so,
[45:58] as Mary explained, we um this process is
[46:01] we file a notice with the town. The town
[46:04] asked me to come. I spoke in September.
[46:06] I'm here again. Happy to come further if
[46:08] there more questions, but ultimately
[46:11] we'll be filing an application with the
[46:13] public utilities commission. And then
[46:14] that starts a clock with respect to the
[46:16] town. The town will have an opportunity
[46:19] to comment. The town will have an
[46:21] opportunity to express its opinions to
[46:22] the public utilities commission. Uh the
[46:24] public as well will be able to express
[46:27] their public opinion to public utilities
[46:29] commission. Um we've gotten through the
[46:31] process very successfully in other um um
[46:35] other jurisdictions. I think the public
[46:38] utilities commission and the state of
[46:39] Vermont recognize the need for the
[46:42] technology. They just want to make sure
[46:44] we've done our homework to make sure we
[46:46] found an appropriate location and uh you
[46:49] know something that does not have an
[46:51] undue adverse impact with the scenic
[46:53] resources and other um environmental
[46:56] concerns. So with that, I'd be happy to
[46:58] answer questions. I think Mary wants me
[46:59] to sit down uh or or the planning
[47:02] commission has any questions.
[47:03] >> Uh Dan's going to moderate a Q&A. So
[47:05] >> Okay, perfect. You
[47:06] >> chill out here and then if there's a
[47:08] question, we'll hand you a mic.
[47:09] >> I don't know. You might have to go back through your
[47:13] slides at some point if folks have
[47:15] specific questions. So, I'm just gonna
[47:17] sit here and call people or can folks
[47:21] hear me? Okay.
[47:22] >> Um,
[47:23] actually, Dan, can you use a mic just
[47:25] because it's running through Orca, so
[47:27] have one share a mic? Yep.
[47:29] >> All right.
[47:31] >> Okay. Can you hear me right now?
[47:33] >> All right. Great. Um, this is great.
[47:35] turnout. We're going to have a lot
[47:37] of questions, I'm sure. So, the way
[47:38] we're going to work this is going to ask
[47:40] you to just do one of your questions at
[47:42] a time and we'll keep going around the
[47:44] room till everyone has exhausted their
[47:46] questions if if we have enough time to
[47:48] do that. And if we've exhausted the
[47:50] questions, then we'll get into hearing
[47:52] about your thoughts on the project. Um,
[47:55] >> a lot of people on Zoom.
[47:56] >> Yes. Great. So maybe what we'll do is um
[48:00] >> we'll do a we'll take a question from
[48:03] the room and then we'll check and see if
[48:04] there's a hand up in Zoom and then we'll
[48:07] call on them. Um and we'll just uh give
[48:11] hopefully everyone an opportunity to ask
[48:13] their questions. Sound all right.
[48:17] We'll start right here.
[48:25] » Uh hello everyone. Excuse me. Uh Justin
[48:27] Stober living out uh West Rochester and
[48:30] uh thank you very much sir for coming
[48:31] and we appreciate your presentation. Is
[48:33] it possible that you could go through
[48:34] your slide deck to show the coverage
[48:36] area of the reduced height 140 foot
[48:38] tower?
[48:39] >> I don't have that yet but um
[48:41] >> so there was one though that depicted
[48:43] >> Yeah. Um I'm going to tell you what we
[48:45] had what we had presented at the last
[48:46] meeting was at the height of the taller
[48:49] tower.
[48:50] >> So this this is the 178 whatever point.
[48:52] >> Yes. Uh, and I got to tell you, we will
[48:55] produce that for the benefit of the town
[48:56] of the PUC. I don't think it's going to
[48:58] change that dramatically. By reducing
[49:01] the height, what you're actually doing
[49:04] um um one of the things you got to look
[49:07] at this is um um we call them vertical
[49:11] totem poles. Verizon will put its
[49:13] antennas at the top of the tower and
[49:15] then we'll have space and structural
[49:17] integrity for other telecommunications
[49:19] companies, T-Mobile, AT&T, and there's
[49:23] always talk about others coming in the
[49:24] market. So, we don't want to be
[49:25] shortsighted and design towers that are
[49:27] too short. By reducing the height of the
[49:30] tower, you're um um reducing the height
[49:34] of the bottom antennas as well as the
[49:36] top antennas. So, we don't anticipate
[49:39] that there's going to be much change
[49:40] with Verizon, but I I can certainly
[49:42] provide that to you, but uh
[49:44] >> well, and and the just the concern is
[49:46] related, and I don't mean to have
[49:47] repetitive questions, but the concerns
[49:49] would be for the residents of West
[49:50] Rochester. Uh which if we can get any
[49:53] map, would be on the the very left edge
[49:56] of this photograph. Uh, so any reduction
[49:59] in height would potentially eliminate
[50:01] coverage for several hundred town
[50:02] residents that live west of town, which
[50:05] I realize is probably not the Verizon or
[50:08] any other telecommunications provider's
[50:10] main focus is obviously the Ruben
[50:12] corridor, but there's tremendous
[50:13] potential to provide uh communication to
[50:16] several hundred town residents that live
[50:18] out the 73 corridor. Thank you.
[50:19] >> Where where were you last month?
[50:22] >> I'm I'm being facitious. Uh um
[50:26] >> is this you'll have updated coverage
[50:28] maps?
[50:28] >> Oh, absolutely. Yes.
[50:29] >> And when when you submit your
[50:30] application.
[50:31] >> Absolutely. Yes.
[50:34] >> Ask the question.
[50:37] >> Thank you.
[50:38] >> Lori, did you
[50:41] >> raise my hand?
[50:41] >> Oh, I thought you had it up the first
[50:43] time.
[50:44] >> Oh, Jerry, I'm sorry.
[50:55] testing
[50:57] >> Jon Rochester. Uh how wide will the uh
[51:01] construction road be? And uh second
[51:04] question is uh uh has your company ever
[51:07] used helicopters to drop uh towers in to
[51:12] reduce the impact on the landscape.
[51:14] [Music]
[51:16] >> Uh the first question, how road wide is
[51:18] the access driveway? The existing
[51:20] logging road is about 10 feet wide and
[51:22] um I'm going to stop and I on the line
[51:25] with us is Scott Adams who's a civil
[51:26] engineer. If I say anything out of line
[51:28] u make sure he can interrupt me. Um and
[51:31] we might have to uh expand it a little
[51:33] bit in places to uh facilitate bring up
[51:36] utility access. But one of the reasons
[51:39] why this particular site is immensely
[51:41] attractive to us and the town of
[51:43] Rochester is there's, you know, we're
[51:45] about 2,2500
[51:47] ft u meandering off of Route 100.
[51:52] The vast majority of that already has an
[51:54] existing logging road. So we don't need
[51:57] to utilize helicopters because really
[52:00] all we're doing is taking the existing
[52:02] logging road and extending it about 500
[52:04] ft to kind of the top of the hill to get
[52:06] to a plateau where we can construct. So
[52:09] from a um a disturbance perspective it's
[52:12] dimminous. We have utilized helicopters,
[52:14] but those tend to be on sites at the
[52:17] very top of mountains which are far more
[52:21] visible from a uh you know I think
[52:23] there's one as you come up um 91 um just
[52:27] past the uh Chester exit uh and uh um
[52:31] there there's one that you see quite
[52:32] prominently on the 91 corridor and
[52:34] that's clear at the top of a mountain uh
[52:37] and it far more visible but it was
[52:39] designed for a different perspective to cover more along Route 100. I mean,
[52:44] Route 91. Um, so we're trying to avoid
[52:47] going on the tops of peaks to mitigate
[52:51] the visual impact.
[52:52] >> Scott Adams does want to add something.
[52:54] >> Go ahead.
[52:56] >> Oh, actually, no. I just wanted to make
[52:57] sure I I was unmuted so I could answer
[52:59] any questions should someone ask me one.
[53:00] Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[53:01] >> Thanks. Thank you, Scott.
[53:02] >> So, the road won't be widened.
[53:04] >> Yeah. No, it it in in at in a couple
[53:06] spots it might be on a temporary basis
[53:08] to facilitate um the construction of the
[53:10] utility run, but we're also going to
[53:12] deploy um originally we had talked about
[53:15] putting um more permanent disturbance
[53:18] down, meaning gravel and crushed stone.
[53:20] Um but now we can utilize they're called
[53:23] construction mats. Um really the access
[53:26] driveway is only for construction. We
[53:29] have to bring a tower up there. We have
[53:30] to bring a crane up there. We have to
[53:32] bring some concrete up there. Uh it's a
[53:34] construction road after this. It's
[53:36] unmanned. We don't plow it in the
[53:38] winter. If someone needs to get up there
[53:40] um um they can uh in the winter time
[53:44] they bring a snowmo vehicle. Uh in the
[53:46] summertime they if after we eliminate
[53:49] the construction match if they they can
[53:51] bring all-terrain vehicles. So it it's
[53:53] designed to be not passable and and it
[53:57] will um
[53:59] you know but like I said the majority of
[54:01] it is an existing logging drive. So
[54:03] without with u dimminimous amounts of
[54:06] improvement to just facilitate
[54:07] construction.
[54:10] >> Any hands in the Zoom thoughts?
[54:16] » Something went wrong. Please try again.
[54:21] » Thanks Francis. So you said in this uh
[54:24] in this meeting which is different than
[54:26] the last meeting that um you're just
[54:28] extending the logging road but there are
[54:31] concrete trucks crane the crane heavy
[54:33] equipment has to get up there. So
[54:36] wouldn't a logging road have to be quite
[54:38] a bit changed to get the that equipment
[54:43] uh thousand vertical feet up the
[54:44] mountain?
[54:45] >> Uh I'm going to do two things. I'm going
[54:48] to jump to the plans that show kind of
[54:50] an overview of the road and I'm going to
[54:52] ask Scott to answer that question. Um,
[55:05] let me know when you're ready, friend.
[55:10] » Scott, I have C1 shown on the screen.
[55:16] » Okay. Yep. that. So that shows pretty
[55:18] much the extent of the existing uh on
[55:20] top of an auto photo. C2 may be a little
[55:22] more valuable. May show more detail. The photo is with the photo in the
[55:26] background. It's kind of hard for the
[55:27] public to probably see it,
[55:29] >> but that shows the the ex Yep. C2. So
[55:32] that shows the extent of the existing uh
[55:34] topography and the existing logging
[55:36] trails. There's a pretty substantial
[55:37] logging trail that extends to
[55:40] approximately within about 400 ft of the
[55:42] proposed compound. So that last 400 ft
[55:45] would require a little bit more
[55:46] improvement and that's what the plans
[55:47] indicate that that that section of it
[55:49] will receive um 6 to 8 in of crushed
[55:52] stone, not gravel. So it's going to
[55:54] remain a permeable surface and
[55:56] infiltrate um as well as the compound
[55:58] will be a crushed stone surface as well,
[56:00] which will allow for infiltration
[56:02] through the voids of the stone and into
[56:04] the ground where it's intercepted. But
[56:06] the vast majority of of the the trail is
[56:08] existing. Um I believe it's over 75% is
[56:12] existing. Um, so there will be a lot of
[56:14] limming and things like that that will
[56:15] occur. The extent of tree removal is
[56:18] primarily to get the overhead utilities
[56:20] up to the site. It's really just
[56:22] clearing the tree, not trying to not,
[56:24] and there are notes on the plans to say
[56:25] this, to not clear the stumpings. You
[56:28] know, that's not our intention is to
[56:29] clear the stumps for the for the
[56:30] overhead operations. It's just to clear
[56:32] the trees out of the way so that the
[56:34] overhead wires can be installed uh to
[56:36] service the site. The the path is quite
[56:40] substantial. I know I sent photos to the
[56:42] team. I don't believe I can share my
[56:43] screen here now, but it's it's a pretty
[56:45] substantial path majority of the way up
[56:47] until the last, you know, few hundred
[56:49] feet. Um, part of it is timing, right?
[56:52] And that's why the, you know, timing of
[56:54] the year when the work takes place. Um,
[56:56] the extent of the amount of mats that'll
[56:57] be required will vastly dispend depend
[57:00] upon the amount of precipitation that
[57:01] has been received in the months prior to
[57:03] the to it getting constructed. So,
[57:04] that's a little bit of a gray area that
[57:06] the contractor is going to have to work
[57:07] with. But um for instance, going through
[57:09] the farmer's field, we really didn't
[57:11] want to disturb his field and then have
[57:13] to put it back and then once you try to
[57:15] drive on it, the loom for the next year
[57:17] is going to be soft and punky and you're
[57:18] going to you you'll potentially make a
[57:20] mess of his grass. So with the extent
[57:22] there going through the field, we're
[57:23] going to put down the mats. The
[57:24] vehicular the construction vehicles will
[57:26] drive over those mats to service the
[57:28] site. And then once the site is built
[57:30] and the site is we're going to kind of
[57:31] think ahead and we're going to install
[57:34] um more of the carrier equipment that
[57:36] normally they would install up front on
[57:38] the tower so that they don't need
[57:39] cranes. Um self-support towers are
[57:42] readily climbable and they'll be able to
[57:44] use rigging and ropes to be able to
[57:46] install their um remote radio heads and
[57:49] their antennas. As part of the initial
[57:51] tower installation, we're going to
[57:52] propose to install their frames for
[57:54] them. Um, so they'll already be
[57:56] installed on the tower themselves and
[57:58] make it easier for them and less con
[58:00] less disruptive during construction of
[58:02] their operations. That may could come a
[58:03] year or two years later. Um,
[58:06] so like I said, there'll be a lot of
[58:08] limming and things like that to get it
[58:10] through, but the path is quite
[58:11] substantial now. It's 10 feet in some
[58:13] areas it's 15t wide as it extends there
[58:15] now. And and as the plans indicate, you
[58:18] know, they it's basically an exempt
[58:20] agricultural logging roads, you know,
[58:22] that they could make minor improvements
[58:24] to. It's going it's an existing logging
[58:26] road now and agriculture road and it's
[58:28] going to be that in the future. So those
[58:30] uses are allowed um and it's going to be
[58:33] continued to use for that purpose.
[58:39] » Yeah, I have a question here. Question
[58:41] on
[58:44] » Regina Kil has a question.
[58:47] >> Yes. Um hi, I own a house on Route 100.
[58:53] I've owned it for the past 16 years.
[58:55] It's at 791
[58:58] Route 100 South. So, it's in in the
[59:01] vicinity of this um project. And I'm I'm
[59:06] obviously in Connecticut um where I
[59:09] live. It's just a vacation house there.
[59:11] So, I'm not able to attend in person and
[59:14] I'm on Zoom. I have been unable to see
[59:18] the screen as
[59:20] uh the gentleman has been talking. the camera has been on his face and not
[59:26] on the screen. So I have missed being
[59:28] able to see anything um that he has
[59:31] shown which I really would have liked to
[59:33] have seen the screen and even now the
[59:36] camera is a little further back but the
[59:38] screen is so bright white that I as a
[59:42] viewer we can't see what's on the
[59:44] screen. So I that's just a comment and I
[59:47] don't know if I could see the
[59:49] presentation since you're recording it
[59:51] if you'd be able to provide me with like
[59:54] a way to see the recording. That's at a
[59:56] later date.
[59:59] >> Regina, I can actually I can actually
[1:00:02] answer that. There we go. Um yes, we
[1:00:06] will be a we will be able to provide you
[1:00:09] with copies.
[1:00:13] Hold it away. I did so much better with
[1:00:15] that one. Okay. Um, yes, we are not able
[1:00:19] to show you the
[1:00:23] screen. Ah, we are not able to show you
[1:00:25] the screen on Zoom. Um, we were not able
[1:00:27] to get that set up for tonight. There is
[1:00:29] a recording and we will be able to make
[1:00:31] that available to you through Orca and
[1:00:34] the documents that are presented tonight
[1:00:35] will be available once uh, Vert.Ex makes
[1:00:39] their submits their application to the
[1:00:40] public utilities commission. All the
[1:00:42] documents will be public. Um, so I will
[1:00:44] um encourage you to um drop an email to
[1:00:47] us at rochester planning
[1:00:49] commissiongmail.com
[1:00:51] and I can add you and anybody else to
[1:00:53] the email list um to make sure you get
[1:00:55] all the information.
[1:00:57] >> Okay. I didn't get that email address.
[1:00:59] I'd like to write that down. that how
[1:01:03] what did and it you're
[1:01:05] >> it's Rochester
[1:01:09] v
[1:01:11] planning commissiongmail.com.
[1:01:19] » Okay. I would be very interested in
[1:01:22] seeing it sounded like he was showing
[1:01:24] photographs because I'm just from what
[1:01:28] I've seen tonight I still don't know
[1:01:30] exactly where this is planned for
[1:01:33] because I've been unable to see any of
[1:01:35] the photos as well.
[1:01:39] >> Mary, if I could jump in.
[1:01:40] >> You may.
[1:01:40] >> I can email this presentation and the
[1:01:44] photos and the plans. Um, recognizing
[1:01:47] that it's all preliminary based on what
[1:01:49] we've talked about tonight, but I can
[1:01:50] email them to you tomorrow and then you
[1:01:52] can put them on the website. I recognize
[1:01:55] limitations, but I think she's asking
[1:01:57] very legitimate questions.
[1:01:58] >> Great.
[1:02:02] » Thanks, Regina.
[1:02:03] >> Thank you.
[1:02:05] >> Alina, Harvey, Rochester.
[1:02:14] Uh just couple questions. Uh in the
[1:02:17] original plan submitted here, it shows
[1:02:20] that the pad area, the enclosed area is
[1:02:24] 50 by 50, yet tonight in the
[1:02:27] presentation it was 60 by 60. I'm
[1:02:30] wondering why the change when the tower
[1:02:33] is smaller. And I'm also wondering how
[1:02:38] the construction
[1:02:41] plans on dealing with the ledge in the
[1:02:44] lock log road
[1:02:57] » I think.
[1:02:58] >> No. Um I um I believe that and Scott
[1:03:02] interrupt me if I'm wrong. The compound
[1:03:04] itself is 50 by 50. We fence in 50 by
[1:03:08] 50, but we sign a lease with the
[1:03:10] landlord for 60 by 60 in order to have
[1:03:14] areas outside the compound for utility
[1:03:17] infrastructure or parking space and
[1:03:19] things like that. So, the total limit of
[1:03:22] clearing um was on that other sheet, but
[1:03:25] it's a u it's about 3,000 square feet.
[1:03:31] on a 244 acre parcel.
[1:03:35] >> I understand. I'm intimately familiar
[1:03:38] with
[1:03:40] >> uh the question regards the
[1:03:44] uh ledge on the access road.
[1:03:48] >> How's that going to be dealt with?
[1:03:52] >> We're not aware of any ledge now, but we
[1:03:54] haven't done any geotechnical analysis.
[1:03:58] What happens is after the PUC approves a
[1:04:02] process, we do some preliminary
[1:04:04] clearing, we um bring a geo tech rig up
[1:04:08] to the top to determine what's exactly
[1:04:11] at the base where the tower will be and
[1:04:13] along the access road and uh um and
[1:04:17] design a foundation very specific for
[1:04:19] that. Um we're not anticipating ledge,
[1:04:22] but
[1:04:24] we're in Rochester, Vermont, so we have
[1:04:26] no idea. and uh uh but um um you know
[1:04:29] we've dealt with ledge previously in
[1:04:32] many uh similar situations and they can
[1:04:35] design a foundation very appropriate for
[1:04:37] the ledge.
[1:04:38] >> Okay. I'm not worried about the
[1:04:39] foundation for the tower. I'm my concern
[1:04:42] is on the log road. Uh how do you
[1:04:46] normally deal with ledge in the roads?
[1:04:52] » Scott, you want to try to answer that?
[1:04:53] How do you deal with ledge on the
[1:04:54] logging trail? So, as the way the trail
[1:04:58] is now, we've literally driven up there
[1:04:59] with our ATVs in our company survey
[1:05:02] vehicle. So, we can drive up the trail
[1:05:04] in its current state with with a
[1:05:06] four-wheel drive vehicle as it stands.
[1:05:08] It's not suitable for a passenger
[1:05:09] vehicle, but it's suitable for
[1:05:11] construction vehicles that would be
[1:05:13] necessary for construction of the site.
[1:05:15] They can access it the way it is right
[1:05:16] now. There's no large outcrops of ledge
[1:05:19] within
[1:05:21] the logging road that would be an
[1:05:23] impediment for the construction of this
[1:05:24] site.
[1:05:26] and you plan on taking concrete trucks
[1:05:29] up this logging trail.
[1:05:31] >> There's there's a lot of unique things.
[1:05:32] I mean, sometimes they do small batches,
[1:05:34] meaning they won't fill the the concrete
[1:05:36] truck full. They'll do you they'll do it
[1:05:38] in five yards. Um they've they've had
[1:05:41] them in the past where they would
[1:05:42] literally give it a tug with a
[1:05:43] bulldozer. Like they the contractors are
[1:05:46] very familiar with construction of rural
[1:05:47] sites such as this. Um, I've been
[1:05:50] involved with sites in the top of Mount
[1:05:51] Washington, Sunday River, u, Bolton
[1:05:54] Valley, Ski Resort. Um, we've done some
[1:05:57] very difficult construction sites. It
[1:05:59] gets done in a matter of a couple of
[1:06:01] months and then it's built and the the natural topography will reveate
[1:06:07] and go back to the way mother nature
[1:06:10] intended, you know, once it's
[1:06:11] constructed.
[1:06:14] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:06:15] >> Yeah, these sites are unmanned. There's
[1:06:17] no water sewer. There's no man
[1:06:19] facilities. Um um they're all remotely
[1:06:22] monitored um for security and and
[1:06:25] electronic purposes. The the antennas
[1:06:28] are actually getting smarter so that if
[1:06:30] they ever had to tweak them, they have the ability to tweak them
[1:06:34] remotely so that because of situations
[1:06:37] like this uh u you know we've as Scott
[1:06:40] mentioned built many equally if not way
[1:06:43] more challenging terrain type
[1:06:45] situations. The gentleman mentioned
[1:06:47] helicopters. We've deployed them before.
[1:06:49] We don't need to here, but we've
[1:06:51] utilized that. And there are a lot of
[1:06:52] sites built in in Vermont and New
[1:06:54] Hampshire that are only helicopter
[1:06:57] accessible. Uh and and no one goes there
[1:07:00] because they work and they uh and if
[1:07:02] they have to, they bring uh all train
[1:07:05] type vehicles to get there.
[1:07:08] >> Anybody on Zoom?
[1:07:10] >> Not at the moment. Oh, what? Yes. Uh
[1:07:12] yes, I do. Well, um Evelyn
[1:07:16] You have to Evelyn, you need to unmute.
[1:07:22] Evelyn, you're muted.
[1:07:36] » We're still You're still muted.
[1:07:43] for me. The system wasn't allowing me to
[1:07:45] unmute. It had to be come from the host.
[1:07:48] >> Yeah. Well, I'm ask Okay. Ask to unmute.
[1:07:51] All right. I did. I asked to unmute. Uh
[1:07:54] huh. Whoa.
[1:07:58] » Okay. Is that right?
[1:08:00] >> Yes.
[1:08:01] >> Okay. Great. So, obviously the logging
[1:08:03] roll that we're talking about is our
[1:08:05] snowmobile trail
[1:08:07] >> for a portion of it. For a portion of
[1:08:09] it.
[1:08:09] >> Yeah. Um, and so f how far away is the
[1:08:13] site from the snowmobile trail?
[1:08:15] >> It's quite far. It's from the from the
[1:08:17] vast snowmobile trail that's on the vast
[1:08:19] maps,
[1:08:20] >> right?
[1:08:21] >> Yes. It's it's probably 3,000
[1:08:24] additional feet away from there.
[1:08:26] >> Really?
[1:08:27] >> Yeah. It's quite far.
[1:08:29] >> What is the altitude of the site that
[1:08:31] you've chosen?
[1:08:32] >> The site is uh the altitude is 1,585T.
[1:08:37] 1,585.
[1:08:41] Okay. All right.
[1:08:45] Okay. I see it. Okay. I was just
[1:08:47] wondering where it was on the map.
[1:08:50] >> Absolutely.
[1:08:50] >> All right. Thank you very much.
[1:08:55] » Question back there.
[1:08:59] >> Bruce Danick, North Holler Road. Um I'm
[1:09:03] I apologize if this was answered
[1:09:05] previously. Why is it that these uh
[1:09:09] antennas are not going on one of the two
[1:09:12] existing towers just south or north of
[1:09:14] Rochester? And also there's antennas in
[1:09:17] the church steeple here. Those all seem
[1:09:20] like great existing infrastructure to
[1:09:22] put more antennas on.
[1:09:25] Thank you.
[1:09:28] Uh the first question, um Verizon will
[1:09:31] be putting Verizon has just recently put
[1:09:33] antennas on the new tower in Stockbridge
[1:09:35] and that's really designed to cover um
[1:09:39] the the area from the Pittsfield
[1:09:41] Stockbridge line to the Stockbridge uh
[1:09:44] Rochester line. Uh and as you can
[1:09:46] imagine, the the terrain here is so
[1:09:49] dramatic that if you go a quarter mile
[1:09:52] up the road, you're curving around a
[1:09:54] bend. Uh and uh that tower in the in
[1:09:58] Stockbridge is um there's something like
[1:10:00] the Wild Fern Cafe or something like
[1:10:02] that. It's behind there closer to
[1:10:04] Pittsfield into Rochester, but Verizon's
[1:10:07] going on that. Uh in addition, there's a
[1:10:10] tower that was just built um Buts Hill
[1:10:14] Road in Granville that Verizon is also
[1:10:18] on. And there's another tower being
[1:10:21] proposed on North Hollow Road in the
[1:10:23] north end of Granville going up towards
[1:10:25] Warren U that Verizon will be going on
[1:10:27] as well. These aren't designed to cover
[1:10:30] huge swats of area and in addition the
[1:10:33] topography limits the the the ability as
[1:10:36] well as uh regul FCC regulations with
[1:10:40] respect to the power output. So you
[1:10:43] can't just turn up the antennas at one
[1:10:45] space to get more coverage. You're
[1:10:47] limited by the power output. With
[1:10:49] respect to the church steeple, AT&T
[1:10:51] already has antennas in there. Verizon
[1:10:54] looked at it too, but as you can
[1:10:55] imagine, church steeples a 100 years ago
[1:10:57] weren't designed with telecommunications
[1:11:00] antennas in mind. Um, they uh they
[1:11:04] generate a little bit of heat as all
[1:11:05] electrical uh apparatus do. Um, where
[1:11:09] the church steeple, it's unventilated
[1:11:12] area where you put it on an antenna, a
[1:11:14] tower 140 feet in the air, you don't
[1:11:16] require ventilation because there's
[1:11:17] plenty of natural ventilation. So,
[1:11:19] there's just no room in the um um the
[1:11:24] church people for more antennas. In
[1:11:27] addition, there's not even enough room
[1:11:28] for AT&T because what's happened over
[1:11:32] time is uh we call them the antennas
[1:11:35] have gotten smarter. there's more
[1:11:37] electronics
[1:11:38] um baked into the antennas and less
[1:11:41] electronics at the base of the tower or
[1:11:44] I'm not sure where they are at the
[1:11:45] church table, maybe the basement of the
[1:11:47] church. Uh and so th those antennas just
[1:11:51] require more space and a confined area
[1:11:54] like a churchle wasn't designed 100
[1:11:57] years ago and it's not getting better
[1:11:58] because of this the antennas. So, and so
[1:12:01] that's why um we need a tower to and and
[1:12:05] one of the benefits of a tower is that
[1:12:07] it's uh um it's adaptable. Um you know,
[1:12:11] you hear about 3G, 4G, 5G, 6G, all the
[1:12:14] different generations of technologies
[1:12:17] that the type of tower and the structure
[1:12:20] is adaptable to future technologies. Uh
[1:12:22] so that in the event something happens
[1:12:25] in the future, it's a lot easier
[1:12:26] retrofitted. a ch a church people didn't
[1:12:29] have room the first time no longer has
[1:12:31] room now. So
[1:12:34] >> anybody on
[1:12:41] » uh one of the questions I have more for
[1:12:42] the community is thinking about is this
[1:12:46] technology actually outdated now? Should
[1:12:50] we be holding off? We do have plenty of
[1:12:51] cell service around because of Starlink,
[1:12:55] other technologies,
[1:12:57] uh, and before we'll create another
[1:13:00] piece of equipment that may be outdated
[1:13:03] before you even know it. So, it's
[1:13:05] something that we should be looking at.
[1:13:08] Uh, maybe this is uh, too quick to move
[1:13:11] on this.
[1:13:18] Uh, Kevin Guyger has something to say
[1:13:20] about that. Hannah,
[1:13:28] » hi Sandy, can you hear me?
[1:13:31] >> We can.
[1:13:32] >> Yeah. My my comment wasn't regarding
[1:13:34] whether this technology is outdated or
[1:13:36] not. I had other other comments.
[1:13:39] So, I don't know if now's the time you
[1:13:41] want any of that, but
[1:13:44] >> we'll go. You have the floor.
[1:13:46] >> Okay. Um and my understanding was this meeting wasn't to talk about merits
[1:13:51] of the projects or demerits of the
[1:13:53] projects. So I I won't get into that. I will just say issues that I have heard
[1:13:58] and that we will raise in the future. Um
[1:14:01] which is this this project will involve
[1:14:03] significant tree cutting in our in our
[1:14:06] opinion to put up poles and lines. Um
[1:14:08] and that's going to be an issue. Uh
[1:14:10] gravel roads are impervious surfaces for
[1:14:13] Vermont storm water purposes. So despite
[1:14:15] the gravel, they they don't really
[1:14:17] behave that differently. Um and and we
[1:14:20] will have some other concerns as well
[1:14:22] about getting equipment up there, but I wanted to raise those.
[1:14:28] So my understanding from speaking with
[1:14:29] the the owner that's going to be
[1:14:31] building the site is that uh the poles
[1:14:33] will be private. Um he's intending for
[1:14:36] the private poles. Yes, they'll need
[1:14:37] electric service on it, but they're
[1:14:38] intended to be privately maintained
[1:14:39] poles. There will be no gravel used on
[1:14:42] this site to be clear. um any access
[1:14:44] road or or the compound itself is going
[1:14:46] to be pvious crushed stone. It's kind of
[1:14:49] a more innovative low impact uh proposal
[1:14:53] that will allow infiltration and it
[1:14:55] allow storage of any runoff from the
[1:14:57] cabinets within the crush stone, the
[1:14:58] voids of the crush stone to allow it to
[1:15:01] uh basically it's about a 40% void ratio
[1:15:03] and that water will be able to
[1:15:05] infiltrate into the soil as it as it did
[1:15:07] prior. There should actually be less
[1:15:09] runoff from from this system than
[1:15:11] pre-existing conditions. So there will
[1:15:13] not be any gravel utilized even on the
[1:15:15] access road. It'll be physically crushed
[1:15:17] stone.
[1:15:22] Um, I want to remind folks, uh, if you
[1:15:25] please, uh, let us know your name when
[1:15:27] you when you have a a question. And that
[1:15:30] was, um, Kevin Guyer, you heard from the
[1:15:32] regional planning commission just prior
[1:15:36] talking about those those issues.
[1:15:44] » Go ahead, Ben.
[1:15:46] >> Thanks. Yeah, my question is actually
[1:15:48] related to that the because the regional
[1:15:51] plan um designates this as a highest
[1:15:55] priority forest connectivity block this
[1:15:57] area. It's also a deer wintering yard.
[1:16:00] Um
[1:16:02] my first question is what what have you
[1:16:05] uh researched on that front and why is
[1:16:08] this um acceptable in in those two
[1:16:12] specifically called out designations?
[1:16:16] Um,
[1:16:17] two things. One, in addition to local
[1:16:21] and state regulations, these facilities
[1:16:24] are also heavily federally regulated as
[1:16:27] well. The federal government um um
[1:16:31] requires us to go through a very
[1:16:32] extensive environmental analysis. It's
[1:16:35] under the National Environmental Policy
[1:16:37] Act, NEPA we call it, in our our world.
[1:16:39] and it requires us to make sure that we
[1:16:41] have no impact on um plant and wildlife
[1:16:45] species. So, as part of this process, we do that. We contact the state and um
[1:16:51] state databases and things like that. Um
[1:16:55] we
[1:16:57] don't have any
[1:16:58] >> the mapping already shows these are
[1:17:00] these have special resources on that
[1:17:02] front. I understand that, but we're just required to make sure we
[1:17:06] don't have an ad an undue adverse
[1:17:08] impact. We're building a 60 by60
[1:17:12] clearing, 3,000 ft clearing in the
[1:17:15] middle of a 244 acre parcel. So, I
[1:17:19] suspect that habitat is a vast majority.
[1:17:23] So, we don't have a significant or an
[1:17:25] undue adverse impact on that. um they're
[1:17:28] really quite dimminimous when you look
[1:17:30] at the volume of activity in the the
[1:17:33] entire area. So, uh, but again, we need
[1:17:36] to satisfy.
[1:17:36] >> You're saying you don't have an adverse
[1:17:38] impact. That study's been done. You How
[1:17:41] do you How do you know that? I guess
[1:17:42] you're saying you're you're saying
[1:17:43] that's already a conclusion.
[1:17:45] >> We just need to make sure that um we
[1:17:49] satis what we look for is endangered
[1:17:52] species and endangered plant species and
[1:17:54] wildlife species and we need to make
[1:17:56] sure we don't have an an an adverse
[1:17:58] impact on that and we don't. So the fact
[1:18:01] that there's deer in the area, there's
[1:18:03] deer all over Rochester. So uh and we're
[1:18:06] not completely
[1:18:07] >> So on the on the endangered species
[1:18:09] piece, which is one piece, what studies
[1:18:11] have have been done to to allow you to
[1:18:13] say that that you know you don't have an
[1:18:15] adverse impact on endangered species
[1:18:18] since you brought them up.
[1:18:21] We don't have to do specific studies
[1:18:23] because we look at it and the volume of
[1:18:27] land that we're disturbing
[1:18:29] to the size of the parcel to the area
[1:18:31] within the habitat. Uh and again all
[1:18:34] we're required to look at is whether or
[1:18:37] not there's any endangered species and
[1:18:39] endangered plant and wildlife species.
[1:18:47] Anyone
[1:18:50] on Zoom
[1:18:51] >> on that front? I have another question,
[1:18:53] but you said you said the best place to
[1:18:54] put a tower would be close to where the
[1:18:56] users are. I totally agree with you
[1:18:58] rather than up on a mountain surrounded
[1:19:00] by deer and bear and other animals that
[1:19:03] aren't checking Facebook. Uh surrounded
[1:19:05] by wilderness basically. What other
[1:19:08] areas did you guys look carefully at at
[1:19:11] putting a transmitter? What other sites?
[1:19:14] Um,
[1:19:15] I don't have specific locations, but
[1:19:18] what we look at is topography and
[1:19:20] terrain. Um, um, you know, uh, we we
[1:19:24] look at a whole host of things. Uh,
[1:19:27] somebody commented that we're taking
[1:19:29] down trees. Well, I could put it in the
[1:19:31] ball field behind the elementary school,
[1:19:33] but I don't think that would be popular.
[1:19:35] And I'm being facitious because we've
[1:19:36] been doing this for a long time. Uh we look at things very um globally in
[1:19:42] the sense that um we want to be close to
[1:19:45] downtown Rochester, but my suspicion is that if we put it any closer to
[1:19:49] downtown Rochester, we'd have more
[1:19:51] public opposition. We want to be close
[1:19:52] to the users, but at the same time not
[1:19:55] have an undue adverse impact on the
[1:19:57] residential uses in the area, on the
[1:19:59] scenic highway. Uh and so we we looked
[1:20:02] at a lot of different areas and I will
[1:20:04] provide that information to the the
[1:20:07] commission but uh at the same time uh
[1:20:10] you know I think we found a site that
[1:20:12] satisfies the PUC's requirement
[1:20:14] satisfies the town zoning requirements
[1:20:17] um and no one said during this process
[1:20:21] and you're welcome to why don't you go
[1:20:23] here because we'll look at that but uh
[1:20:25] um we I think we have found a site that
[1:20:28] complies with your zoning bylaw. for uh
[1:20:32] for good effect and complies with PUC
[1:20:35] regulations and satisfies the
[1:20:37] telecommunications and coverage
[1:20:38] objectives which is really
[1:20:40] >> but it conflicts with the town plan in
[1:20:42] like 20 different bullet points and the
[1:20:43] town plan calls out the north hollow the
[1:20:46] scenic route 100 corridor Bethl Mountain
[1:20:49] the village and other view sheds which
[1:20:52] this will be highly visible from like
[1:20:54] your the balloon test was all from the
[1:20:56] valley floor none of it was from the
[1:20:58] north hollow the north hollow In most of
[1:21:00] the North Hollow, you'll see at a level
[1:21:02] at a similar level, like you made that
[1:21:04] good point, when you're looking up, you
[1:21:06] won't see the whole tower um above the
[1:21:08] canopy, but in the North Hollow, you you
[1:21:10] will see most of the tower that's above
[1:21:11] the canopy. Um but none of your none of
[1:21:14] your visual simulations that you call
[1:21:16] them were from anywhere else but the
[1:21:18] valley floor.
[1:21:19] >> And and I'm going to agree with you on
[1:21:21] that. We didn't consider that, which is
[1:21:23] why when the planning commission asked
[1:21:25] us to do another visibility
[1:21:26] demonstration, we agreed to do that. So,
[1:21:29] we'll advertise it. I'm sure before the
[1:21:31] night's out, we'll agree on a date and
[1:21:33] uh um u the planning commission will get
[1:21:35] the word out and uh we'll put an
[1:21:37] advertisement in the newspaper if
[1:21:38] necessary and uh um and people will be
[1:21:41] able to assess it from their own
[1:21:43] particular vantage points.
[1:21:45] >> Mhm. That'll be a balloon test.
[1:21:47] >> Yes.
[1:21:47] >> And what's the balloon? 4 foot balloon.
[1:21:50] Is that right? How big?
[1:21:51] >> Yeah, exactly.
[1:21:52] >> Yeah. You were saying the the balloon is
[1:21:54] representative um of the tower, but the
[1:21:58] tower is about 800 square f feet and the
[1:22:00] balloon a 4ft circle is about 12 1/2 ft.
[1:22:03] So you would need like 66 balloons to be
[1:22:07] the same size as a tower.
[1:22:08] >> No, what we can do what the balloon
[1:22:10] indicates is whether or not you can see
[1:22:12] it from a particular location. And then
[1:22:14] if there's visibility like we showed at
[1:22:16] the the previous visibility
[1:22:18] demonstration, we can engage engineers
[1:22:20] to scale it off and do a photo
[1:22:23] simulation of what it will look like
[1:22:25] from that vantage point.
[1:22:26] >> Okay. You just you had said this is what
[1:22:28] the tower is going to look like the
[1:22:30] balloon.
[1:22:30] >> No, no, no.
[1:22:32] >> So the balloon is
[1:22:34] >> Sorry. So yeah, just to reiterate on the
[1:22:35] balloon test. So the balloon Yes, it
[1:22:37] absolutely is 4 ft in diameter. the
[1:22:39] standard uh sector frame that that the
[1:22:41] carriers mount their equipment on is
[1:22:42] about um 12 feet in width. So basically
[1:22:45] the balloon is about a third the width
[1:22:47] of the tower. So between that and then
[1:22:49] we also use markers on the the string or
[1:22:52] the cable at 10 foot in increments so we
[1:22:54] can actually see the direction confirm
[1:22:56] the direction. We usually have two
[1:22:57] people on site, one person at the
[1:22:58] balloon at all times, one person driving
[1:23:00] around taking photos to try to make sure
[1:23:02] that the balloon is as straight as
[1:23:03] possible, as accurate as possible when
[1:23:05] we take those photos. And then we
[1:23:06] utilize 3D
[1:23:09] drafting software um as long as as well
[1:23:12] as Photoshop to basically superimpose in
[1:23:14] a realistic view of the tower. And when
[1:23:16] you compare the size of the balloon with
[1:23:18] the safe face of the tower, I'm
[1:23:19] confident you'll see that the scale is
[1:23:22] representational of of what you would
[1:23:24] expect it to be.
[1:23:28] » I'm gonna get let someone else have a
[1:23:29] opportunity.
[1:23:30] >> Dan, um Kevin has had Kevin Guyger has
[1:23:33] his hand up again. All right, go to
[1:23:35] Kevin and then Alvina and then back
[1:23:38] there.
[1:23:44] » Sorry, I think that just has stayed up
[1:23:46] somehow.
[1:23:48] >> Okay. Okay.
[1:23:49] >> Oh, okay.
[1:23:56] » Rochester.
[1:23:58] All right.
[1:23:59] I understand
[1:24:01] the logic and lowering the counter is
[1:24:06] also
[1:24:08] a little disturbing that you're going to
[1:24:11] lower and thereby restrict
[1:24:15] the signal
[1:24:17] that is going to be available to West
[1:24:19] Rochester and north and south
[1:24:23] of town.
[1:24:25] And in this day and age, it was seeing
[1:24:28] that
[1:24:29] tower should be back at its original
[1:24:32] height. So that the areas west of town
[1:24:38] 73 will also be able to serve it as well
[1:24:43] as a greater areas north and south 100.
[1:24:47] I understand everyone's concern about
[1:24:50] the tower being visible, but uh I think
[1:25:06] Um, let's remember to keep this to our
[1:25:08] questions and we'll come back around to
[1:25:10] your your comments about what you think
[1:25:12] about the project.
[1:25:16] » Go ahead and zoom land.
[1:25:18] >> Uh, yes. I had a question for you and
[1:25:21] that is who is incentivizing you and
[1:25:24] your company to build the tower? Um, is
[1:25:28] it the state of Vermont? Is it the
[1:25:30] federal government? like where's the pot
[1:25:32] of money coming from for your company to
[1:25:36] come in and build the tower? And also uh
[1:25:38] the second question is you mentioned
[1:25:40] that you colllocate if you could and
[1:25:43] somehow I'm guessing that that's not
[1:25:45] exactly the case because then you would
[1:25:47] not be building a tower, you would not
[1:25:48] be having a job from this project. So I
[1:25:52] think Verizon should actually speak to
[1:25:54] that, not you specifically.
[1:26:01] Um I I explained in the beginning Vertex
[1:26:04] is a wireless infrastructure developer.
[1:26:07] We are essentially real estate
[1:26:08] developers. We partner up with
[1:26:11] telecommunications companies. We use our
[1:26:13] own capital. Um uh we bring
[1:26:17] telecommunications to rural areas
[1:26:20] because getting Verizon or anyone else
[1:26:23] to build their own tower and and what
[1:26:26] happened in the old days is that Verizon
[1:26:28] would build its towers and then when
[1:26:30] people wanted to share like Verizon or
[1:26:32] AT&T or T-Mobile, they wouldn't play
[1:26:34] well together because they were
[1:26:36] competing in a telecommunications arena.
[1:26:38] So wireless infrastructure developers
[1:26:40] like Vertex came out to um you know do
[1:26:45] all the due diligence. We've done an
[1:26:47] immense amount of work just to be
[1:26:48] standing here tonight. We still have a
[1:26:50] lot of work to do to get through the PUC
[1:26:52] process and then we have to do the
[1:26:54] construction work. All of which costs
[1:26:56] money, but it uh enables companies like
[1:26:59] Verizon to focus on Rochester and
[1:27:02] Stockbridge and Granville and the rest
[1:27:05] of Vermont. It's a it's a we utilize our
[1:27:08] capital. The the state also by um using
[1:27:12] the PUC process as opposed to local
[1:27:16] zoning um is encouraging the development
[1:27:19] of this to have a uniform process as uh
[1:27:22] which is uh Connecticut does the same
[1:27:24] thing but Massachusetts and Vermont and
[1:27:27] Maine we have to comply with 300
[1:27:29] different zoning bylaws all of which are disperate. So the state of Vermont
[1:27:34] is actually encouraging this because
[1:27:36] they recognize the public good in better
[1:27:38] telecommunications.
[1:27:40] So uh but the the the you know this is
[1:27:43] not government subsidized. This is uh
[1:27:46] privately subsidized by uh Vert.Ex and
[1:27:49] Verizon.
[1:27:59] Hi, Janna Marie here and I just
[1:28:01] wanted to ask you sir to go on record
[1:28:04] because some people are concerned about
[1:28:05] visibility that could you tell everybody
[1:28:08] here would you agree that it's not going
[1:28:10] to be an accurate representation the
[1:28:12] balloon test will not be accurate
[1:28:14] because it's much smaller than the
[1:28:16] actual tower would be. So the visibility
[1:28:18] I understand you're doing a test so that
[1:28:20] people can look but it's not really
[1:28:21] going to accurately represent what it
[1:28:23] would look like. Is that correct?
[1:28:26] No, but what I can then do if there's a
[1:28:29] place that you can see the balloon, I
[1:28:31] can then take a um we do a photo
[1:28:34] simulation with engineers to scale it
[1:28:37] out. And that's what we had done
[1:28:38] previously. And uh and the engineers
[1:28:40] have done it many many times and uh
[1:28:43] certify us to the accuracy of it. So um
[1:28:46] you know I if you'd rather I'll build a
[1:28:47] tower and then that'll show what it'll
[1:28:49] look like. But I can't do I can't. Yeah,
[1:28:51] I agree. I again I'm sorry for being
[1:28:53] facicious but uh uh but you know that
[1:28:57] you know we this is the best that we can
[1:28:58] do and it's worked very successfully in
[1:29:01] many many other cities and towns
[1:29:02] throughout uh New England.
[1:29:04] >> I understand but you were just showing
[1:29:05] us a lot of photos of a balloon and it's
[1:29:07] not an accurate representation. Correct.
[1:29:09] >> No, the photo simulation is an accurate
[1:29:12] representation. I uh many times we go
[1:29:15] back and take photos of the actual tower
[1:29:18] after we build it to show that the
[1:29:21] simulation that we produced a year
[1:29:23] before is accurate.
[1:29:25] >> No, but we're here now and we're asking
[1:29:28] questions and one of the concerns has to
[1:29:30] do with visibility and what it would
[1:29:33] look like and a balloon test is not
[1:29:35] accurate to what it would look like as a
[1:29:37] fully built tower. Correct. I
[1:29:39] >> I respectfully disagree with you, ma'am.
[1:29:43] So Francis, can I ask you a question
[1:29:45] just so that I'm understanding?
[1:29:47] >> You are going to do another balloon test
[1:29:49] at a date to be determined, preferably
[1:29:51] tonight.
[1:29:52] >> If uh the balloon is visible from a
[1:29:54] specific location, your engineers will
[1:29:57] take that location and turn it into
[1:30:01] a 2D representation of what a tower
[1:30:04] would look like there using modeling
[1:30:06] software.
[1:30:07] >> That's correct.
[1:30:07] >> And then you would provide us with those
[1:30:09] images.
[1:30:10] >> That's correct. Okay.
[1:30:14] » Thanks for that clarification.
[1:30:18] » Scott has something to add here.
[1:30:21] >> Just just for kind of a point of
[1:30:23] clarification. So once we set the date,
[1:30:25] myself and one of my staff will visit
[1:30:26] the site. We will drive up to the top of
[1:30:29] the site where where we have staked out
[1:30:30] the proposed tower location. We
[1:30:32] pre-measure in the in the field ahead of
[1:30:34] time the length of u it's basically kite
[1:30:37] flying string that's capable of holding
[1:30:39] 250 pounds. We blow up via a helium
[1:30:43] balloon over 4t in diameter. Usually
[1:30:45] four feet is the minimum. It's usually
[1:30:46] even larger than that. And we we measure
[1:30:48] the circumference, you know, when we're
[1:30:50] on site. And then we raise that balloon
[1:30:52] so that the bottom of the balloon is
[1:30:54] equal to the height of the tower. And
[1:30:56] the reason we do that is so that I can
[1:30:58] attest that if I if I can
[1:31:01] cannot see the balloon, that means the
[1:31:03] top of the balloon is four to five feet
[1:31:05] higher than the tower. So if I can't see
[1:31:07] the balloon, then you will not be able
[1:31:08] to see the tower. And if I can only see
[1:31:10] a sliver of the balloon, you still will
[1:31:12] not be able to see the tower. So the the
[1:31:15] tower, the top of the tower was equal to
[1:31:17] the bottom of the balloon. And that is
[1:31:19] absolutely accurate. And we field
[1:31:21] measure it with electronic distance
[1:31:22] measuring devices while on site standing
[1:31:25] below the tower in addition to literally
[1:31:27] using a tape measure at the at the site
[1:31:29] prior to driving up to the top.
[1:31:35] » Thanks Jake.
[1:31:37] >> Hey Jake Wildwood from Rochester, your
[1:31:39] 2,000 ft neighbor to the tower. Uh how
[1:31:43] long is the lease
[1:31:45] um on the property and what happens at
[1:31:49] the end of the lease? Do you take it
[1:31:51] down, do you leave it up, etc.?
[1:31:55] >> Um, I don't usually get involved in
[1:31:57] that, so I can only speak generically,
[1:31:58] but generally they're about 50-year
[1:32:00] leases. And uh um we've never had to
[1:32:03] take one down yet, but um if uh as part
[1:32:08] of the PUC process, if the town asks, we
[1:32:12] will agree to post a bond so that uh and
[1:32:15] then I can get Scott to estimate the
[1:32:17] cost of removing it and bring it down
[1:32:20] and we can post a bond for that amount.
[1:32:22] And it's a common ask and uh I'm not
[1:32:24] supposed to offer it, but my suspicion
[1:32:26] is someone in the process will. and uh
[1:32:29] um and and so it's we're not
[1:32:31] anticipating that this is going to
[1:32:33] become obsolete. However, it's a
[1:32:36] legitimate concern and uh I'm not going
[1:32:38] to be here at the end of that 50 years,
[1:32:39] but uh there's a mechanism that we've
[1:32:42] used previously to make sure that if I
[1:32:44] disappear and Vertex disappears and
[1:32:46] Verizon disappears that there's a
[1:32:48] mechanism to take it down.
[1:32:56] I have a couple of questions if you
[1:32:58] don't mind.
[1:32:59] >> Identify yourself.
[1:33:00] >> Oh, sorry. Lori Church.
[1:33:02] Uh,
[1:33:04] one question on back to the balloon
[1:33:06] test. If you said I mean I'm I'm little
[1:33:09] girl. I'm math. So, if you say that the
[1:33:11] balloon is four feet in diameter and the
[1:33:14] top of the tower is 12 feet, why would
[1:33:16] you not put up three balloons so that we
[1:33:18] can know that we could see it? Because
[1:33:20] to several neighbors points, we're
[1:33:22] concerned about the visibility of it.
[1:33:24] >> Uh um yeah, well, let me explain that.
[1:33:28] Um the balloon is just a visual
[1:33:30] representation and we have limits. If I
[1:33:33] put a 12-oot balloon, then it there's
[1:33:35] more surface area for the wind. One of
[1:33:38] the things that's going to happen is
[1:33:39] we're going to agree on a date and I'm
[1:33:40] going to throw out November
[1:33:43] 12th and but if you can tell me that
[1:33:47] it's going to be calm on November 12th,
[1:33:49] thank you. But I can't predict that. So
[1:33:51] what I'm going to do is advertise it and
[1:33:53] say we're going to put up on November
[1:33:54] 12th, but check a website the day before
[1:33:57] and we'll make the determined for that
[1:33:59] the winds are cooperative or not
[1:34:00] cooperative. And we've done this so many
[1:34:03] times that um you know and we've tried
[1:34:06] bigger balloons and we've tried um other
[1:34:09] technologies and the more surface area
[1:34:13] the less accurate it will be because
[1:34:15] then that the balloon will blow over. So
[1:34:17] this is but like I said what Scott can
[1:34:20] do is if he sees the balloon he can then
[1:34:24] do a scaled model to show what it will
[1:34:27] look like. So I don't think it's not
[1:34:29] representative because I can produce a
[1:34:32] model u um that that shows you're not if
[1:34:36] you can't see it seven miles away
[1:34:37] whether it's this big you're not going
[1:34:38] to see it whether it's this big it
[1:34:40] doesn't change that
[1:34:41] >> that logic doesn't work
[1:34:43] >> um well I I'm telling you we've done
[1:34:45] this many many times successfully u so
[1:34:48] uh and uh and the issue that we have is
[1:34:51] predicting the weather um in advance but
[1:34:54] we've come up with a mechanism to
[1:34:56] advertise that um once we get the
[1:34:58] balloon up and and you know we have to
[1:35:00] pick a day where the wind speeds are 5
[1:35:04] to 10 miles an hour and not more because
[1:35:07] if they're more than 10 then the balloon
[1:35:08] blows around and then folks complain
[1:35:11] that it's not accurate because the
[1:35:13] string is like this as opposed to like
[1:35:14] this. So um we've uh we try very hard to
[1:35:18] make it as representative as possible.
[1:35:20] Uh and our our choice is to build the
[1:35:23] tower and take pictures of it but I
[1:35:25] don't think the town wants us to do
[1:35:26] that. So this is the limitation that we
[1:35:28] have with the technology that we have.
[1:35:31] >> Okay. Second question, just a simple yes
[1:35:32] or no. Would you say that your plan
[1:35:36] conforms to the town plan and regional
[1:35:38] plan?
[1:35:39] >> Yes.
[1:35:40] >> Do you want to rethink that one?
[1:35:43] >> That's not a question.
[1:35:45] >> That actually was a question.
[1:35:46] >> No, no, that was a great question. I
[1:35:47] actually thought your yes or no was a
[1:35:49] great question, but you want to rethink
[1:35:51] that is not a question. I was allowing
[1:35:54] him a second chance to answer.
[1:35:57] >> The answer is yes. Again,
[1:35:58] >> literally not phrased as a question. So,
[1:36:00] part of the reason, and I'll say this
[1:36:02] because I'm a process here, right? We
[1:36:05] want to be able to provide you with
[1:36:07] information and we want to know what
[1:36:10] information we need to provide to you.
[1:36:13] And then we want to provide you with
[1:36:16] multiple opportunities to make comments
[1:36:18] to say them in good faith and receive
[1:36:20] them in good faith. And so, as My
[1:36:23] request would be for you to think about
[1:36:25] the form of your question and whether or
[1:36:28] not it is inviting somebody to actually
[1:36:31] answer it or setting them up
[1:36:35] in a way that is just guaranteed to
[1:36:37] fail. And I my my request goes in both
[1:36:41] directions to both people who are
[1:36:42] presenting to us and presented to. So
[1:36:47] that's
[1:36:48] >> okay.
[1:36:49] >> My not me breaking my own rules and
[1:36:51] making
[1:36:53] Start that way.
[1:36:54] >> I understand, however, that good faith
[1:36:57] does go both ways because I lost count
[1:36:59] on the number of times I was writing
[1:37:00] down
[1:37:02] minimal visibility, virtually invisible,
[1:37:06] no one overseas,
[1:37:08] not going to see it at all. You won't
[1:37:10] see it.
[1:37:13] Is that real?
[1:37:15] >> That's why we do a visibility
[1:37:16] determination so that you can make your
[1:37:18] own assessment of that, ma'am.
[1:37:19] >> Okay. My final question is
[1:37:23] the standard is the certificate of
[1:37:25] public good. That's what you're seeking.
[1:37:29] Whose public good is this? Or is this
[1:37:31] corporate good? Because if the town of
[1:37:33] Rochester has multiple landline
[1:37:36] providers, EC Fiber, AT&T, I live very
[1:37:42] of town. Also, I have great coverage
[1:37:44] with AT&T.
[1:37:46] >> That may be that could very well be. I'm
[1:37:48] saying I have it.
[1:37:50] But even the attorney said that it's
[1:37:54] mostly for visitors. So is this a
[1:37:56] certificate of public good or is there a
[1:37:59] certificate of for Verizon and T-Mobile
[1:38:02] to come in?
[1:38:05] >> There are an immense amount of Verizon
[1:38:06] and T-Mobile customers who hopefully
[1:38:09] live in Rochester, who live throughout
[1:38:11] the state of Vermont, who come to
[1:38:12] Vermont to enjoy uh the scenic
[1:38:15] resources. Uh there's an immense amount
[1:38:17] of public good. There's an immense
[1:38:18] amount of public safety benefit that
[1:38:21] comes from a tower like this. Uh uh I I go to a lot of public hearings like
[1:38:26] this and I hear so many stories about
[1:38:28] people who had a house fire and couldn't
[1:38:31] get a telecommunications signal, so the
[1:38:33] house burned to the ground as opposed to
[1:38:35] fire engines uh coming on a timely
[1:38:38] manner. I was at a hearing a couple
[1:38:40] months ago where a woman said, um, just
[1:38:43] so you know, I'm going to look at this
[1:38:45] tower every day. This is in my line of
[1:38:48] sight from my picture window. But the
[1:38:50] benefit is is that I'm going to be able
[1:38:52] to live in my house because my husband
[1:38:54] died 10 years ago. And uh I can't live
[1:38:57] alone without my call button. My help,
[1:39:00] I'm fallen. I can't get up button. And I
[1:39:03] can't walk to my mailbox and get a Wi-Fi
[1:39:06] signal. So if I fall on my way to my
[1:39:08] mailbox, I'm lying there. But this
[1:39:10] telecommunications tower is going to
[1:39:12] allow me to stay in my home. And I could
[1:39:14] tell you a thousand stories like that.
[1:39:16] Um and so there's an immense public
[1:39:19] good. And uh um and and again the fact
[1:39:23] that we're bringing a structure that
[1:39:25] allows competition that's certainly in
[1:39:28] the public good. It's certainly in
[1:39:30] Verizon's but Verizon's not doing this
[1:39:32] altruistically. They're doing it to um
[1:39:35] to bring telecommunications to places
[1:39:38] like Rochester, Vermont, which as you
[1:39:40] can imagine isn't as populated as Boston
[1:39:43] or Montpielar or Burlington, where you
[1:39:46] know you get more return on your
[1:39:48] investment, but they also have
[1:39:50] requirements from the federal government
[1:39:52] to uh develop better telecommunications
[1:39:56] networks to bring better
[1:39:58] telecommunications to Rochester and
[1:40:00] Stockbridge and everywhere up and down
[1:40:02] the Route under corridor. So, we're all
[1:40:04] working together for the public good.
[1:40:06] And uh you know, I've I've had several
[1:40:09] people here tonight say, "How come
[1:40:11] you're not building a tower taller to
[1:40:14] cover my house as opposed to your
[1:40:17] house?" So, and we try the best we can
[1:40:19] to address everybody's concerns, but I
[1:40:22] can assure you not everybody in town is
[1:40:24] going to be happy. And um uh I I never
[1:40:27] once said it was going to be invisible.
[1:40:29] I never once. And I I um I I and I can't
[1:40:33] say that. Uh the last time I went to
[1:40:36] England, I went to Diagon Alley and I
[1:40:37] tried to buy an invisibility cloak and
[1:40:39] they just don't sell them. Harry Potter
[1:40:42] joke. Uh Harry Potter joke.
[1:40:44] >> I do.
[1:40:48] » Sharon has a something.
[1:40:50] >> Hi. Uh this is Sharon again. I do have a
[1:40:53] question. Um and it's actually for the
[1:40:55] Vertex gentleman. I've actually been
[1:40:58] injured by this technology.
[1:41:00] And I know other people that have been
[1:41:02] too. And so I'd like to know how this is
[1:41:04] in my public good. When I moved up to
[1:41:06] Rochester to get away from this type of
[1:41:08] stuff and pe people in Pittsfield,
[1:41:11] Massachusetts are suffering from this
[1:41:13] stuff for Verizon not taking the towers
[1:41:16] down after they've caused them health
[1:41:18] issues for the last three to four years.
[1:41:20] I really don't want to have to leave my
[1:41:22] home again. And where you're talking
[1:41:24] about putting this P tower might make
[1:41:26] that have to happen. So, how is this in
[1:41:29] my public good as a person that has been
[1:41:31] injured by this technology?
[1:41:37] » Rochester already has telecommunications
[1:41:40] companies operating right in the
[1:41:43] downtown area and is the most densely
[1:41:46] populated of Rochester. The same
[1:41:48] technology has been deployed thousands
[1:41:51] of times throughout
[1:41:53] uh I mean several hundred times
[1:41:54] throughout New Hampshire, I mean
[1:41:56] Vermont, tens of thousands of places
[1:41:58] nationally. Uh in more densely populated
[1:42:03] areas uh uh sometimes the residential
[1:42:06] buildings are the tallest buildings in
[1:42:08] town. I I I did a project in Worcester,
[1:42:11] Massachusetts where the tallest
[1:42:13] buildings in Worcester were all the
[1:42:14] public housing authority buildings and
[1:42:16] we put antennas on all of those. We've
[1:42:18] lived with this technology for a hundred
[1:42:21] years because it's the same as radio and
[1:42:24] you know the um the fire and police
[1:42:27] chief use a form of radio
[1:42:29] telecommunication that's the same
[1:42:30] technology just a different frequency
[1:42:32] band than what we deploy. So, uh, and
[1:42:35] the bottom line is, um, the federal
[1:42:37] government has deemed it safe. They've
[1:42:39] done a lot of testing. They've, they've,
[1:42:41] in in order to get the public good to
[1:42:44] better deploy, we um, we need more
[1:42:48] telecommunication sites. And the last
[1:42:50] thing I'll point out is I'm not
[1:42:52] proposing something in downtown
[1:42:54] Rochester. I'm proposing something 2,000
[1:42:56] ft off of Route 100 about uh 3/4 of or
[1:43:01] to a mile south of downtown as far away
[1:43:04] as you can get from the population and
[1:43:06] from residential users.
[1:43:08] Still providing great benefit and a
[1:43:10] significant public good without any
[1:43:12] having any effect on any neighboring
[1:43:15] properties.
[1:43:26] I I guess this is a question for Mary
[1:43:29] maybe.
[1:43:30] >> Hi.
[1:43:30] Um so uh you said there will be many
[1:43:35] opportunities to ask uh or to for public
[1:43:39] comments and so
[1:43:42] when would that start? I mean when when
[1:43:45] would that happen?
[1:43:48] >> So okay this is working. I believe and
[1:43:50] I'll go back and check my notes that
[1:43:52] this would be the third opportunity and
[1:43:55] I'm going to be cautious here with my
[1:43:56] public meeting because a meeting versus
[1:43:58] a session versus a hearing are very
[1:44:00] different things but this has been on
[1:44:02] the agenda at the planning commission
[1:44:04] twice
[1:44:05] and uh both of those are public
[1:44:07] documents publicly circulated and the
[1:44:10] minutes are there. This will be the
[1:44:11] third time that we have the planning
[1:44:13] commission or the planning and zoning
[1:44:15] board has created a public space for it.
[1:44:18] And I would like to reiterate that the
[1:44:20] application has not yet been submitted.
[1:44:23] Okay? And so until the application is
[1:44:25] submitted, all of the formal processes
[1:44:28] don't kick in. And so once the
[1:44:31] application is submitted, we will
[1:44:33] continue. And please planning board
[1:44:35] people like I'm speaking for the process
[1:44:37] tonight because that was something that
[1:44:39] I took on to organize. I am not speaking
[1:44:41] for the planning board in total. But so
[1:44:44] what I would say is I believe this is
[1:44:46] the third public opportunity that the
[1:44:49] planning board has created for people to
[1:44:52] learn about ask questions about
[1:44:55] telecommunications permitting. And I
[1:44:57] believe we will continue to offer more
[1:44:59] as we go through this 60 to 180day
[1:45:02] process. And I would like to try and
[1:45:06] continue to bend over backwards to make
[1:45:08] them as accessible as possible, learn
[1:45:10] from what people have said and um
[1:45:13] make there be a single point you can go
[1:45:15] for the documents. Um so that's where
[1:45:18] I'm going. Well, well, I have a I mean
[1:45:21] more question about this because there
[1:45:23] there's like this in this particular um
[1:45:27] opportunity that we had. It was about it
[1:45:30] was about asking questions. Maybe some
[1:45:32] of some of us have information that we
[1:45:35] want to give in anformational
[1:45:38] venue.
[1:45:39] >> Yep. And I and I believe that that is
[1:45:42] the a next step for us is to is is for
[1:45:46] something like that. Right. Part of what
[1:45:48] we want to do is to be very targeted
[1:45:50] with what our goals and purposes are for
[1:45:53] each meeting so that people can best
[1:45:55] decide how to deal with the information.
[1:45:58] So I agree with you and I think that's
[1:45:59] something that we're looking forward to
[1:46:01] with future opportunities is to think
[1:46:04] about what other information people from
[1:46:07] the town want us to help them access. So
[1:46:11] I would I does that answer your
[1:46:13] question?
[1:46:14] >> I think so. I hope so. except for um if we would if some of us would like to
[1:46:22] propose other kinds of experts
[1:46:26] perhaps. Is that a possibility?
[1:46:28] >> Uh yes.
[1:46:30] >> And how would we go about doing that?
[1:46:31] >> Um so I would contact a we can talk
[1:46:34] about it after the meeting tonight. Um,
[1:46:36] but B, I would send an email, and I did
[1:46:38] get your email, but I would send an
[1:46:39] email to the Rochester VT planning
[1:46:41] commission@gmail.com,
[1:46:43] and I would say um
[1:46:46] that you would like I I'll think about
[1:46:48] how to word this, but who who you think
[1:46:51] we should listen to, why you think we
[1:46:54] should listen to them, suggestions you
[1:46:56] might have for for how we could um
[1:46:59] connect people with that person, and and
[1:47:01] we'll talk about it a little more
[1:47:03] because I I will emphasize, right, we
[1:47:05] are making this process up as we go
[1:47:08] along and so I do take your suggestions
[1:47:11] very seriously for how to change the
[1:47:14] formats going forward.
[1:47:15] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:47:16] >> Scott has a comment on this.
[1:47:19] >> Um just speaking of the balloon test
[1:47:22] that we're going to schedule that, you
[1:47:23] know, I will be on site for with my
[1:47:25] staff. Two other things came to mind.
[1:47:26] Uh, number one, with respect to the
[1:47:29] tower itself, the physical tower, not
[1:47:32] the attachment mounts that are roughly
[1:47:33] 12 feet wide, but the tower is typically
[1:47:36] 5 feet in width. So again, that's very
[1:47:40] close to the di the typical diameter of
[1:47:42] the balloon in question. So the the
[1:47:44] balloon is very representational of the
[1:47:47] tower face and all of this stuff is to
[1:47:49] scale. We have detailed engineering
[1:47:50] drawings for these towers. So, you know,
[1:47:53] we can quickly make sure that this is a
[1:47:55] very accurate representation as close as
[1:47:57] humanly possible given what we have um
[1:48:01] and the again the face width of 12 ft.
[1:48:03] But if there's key locations that people
[1:48:05] want us to consider, it's helpful for me
[1:48:07] to know ahead of time what the you know
[1:48:09] for the planning commission there or the
[1:48:11] town there to provide Fran and myself a
[1:48:13] list of in of other locations that we
[1:48:16] haven't taken photos from. And believe
[1:48:18] it or not, we actually took more
[1:48:19] locations than than is shown on that
[1:48:21] map. We while the balloon was up for
[1:48:23] hours, I literally did it myself. I
[1:48:26] drove the town trying to find it and I
[1:48:28] went basically a mile in all directions
[1:48:30] because once you get behind a mile, if
[1:48:33] you can see it from another mountaintop,
[1:48:34] it's like looking at at the tower on top
[1:48:36] of Mount Washington. It's a dot. It's
[1:48:38] like a speck. It's it's it's almost
[1:48:40] impossible to really simulate because
[1:48:42] it's a speck. Um, so usually I I stick
[1:48:45] to within a mile radius when I'm when
[1:48:47] I'm driving trying to drive around the
[1:48:49] block. here the block is quite large. So
[1:48:52] the eastern side of the site, you know,
[1:48:54] it's probably three miles away, you
[1:48:56] know, to get to the next closest road
[1:48:57] that that direction. And the closest
[1:49:00] residential house, just because it came
[1:49:01] up, is it in the area of about 1,800 ft
[1:49:04] away from this tower. Um, and that
[1:49:06] that's unusual. That's that's actually a
[1:49:08] pretty big distance, you know, um, from
[1:49:11] typical standards.
[1:49:26] This is just a dumb question, but is
[1:49:28] this going to have a flashing light on
[1:49:30] top of the tower?
[1:49:32] >> Not a dumb question. And the answer is
[1:49:35] no. Um, I know the short answer is no. I
[1:49:39] think I gave way too many long answers.
[1:49:41] So,
[1:49:43] >> you have another question.
[1:49:44] >> Yeah. on um regarding the the public
[1:49:48] good because I I have the the regional
[1:49:50] plan the Two Rivers Adquichi regional
[1:49:52] plan in front of me and it it's pretty
[1:49:54] clear. It says the use of the region's
[1:49:56] ridges for telecommunication towers and
[1:49:58] related facilities needs to be
[1:50:00] undertaken in a manner that will not
[1:50:02] unduly detract from nor adversely affect
[1:50:04] these scenic values. Protections
[1:50:07] protection of these areas from
[1:50:09] developments is a matter of public good.
[1:50:12] Did Vertex refer to the regional plan
[1:50:15] for this area?
[1:50:17] >> We're not on the top of a ridge and
[1:50:20] we're very conscious of that. If you
[1:50:21] look past it, goes thousands of feet
[1:50:24] higher and
[1:50:26] >> Oh, no. You're definitely on a ridgetop
[1:50:28] at that site. That's totally incorrect
[1:50:30] to say. I I read maps for a living and
[1:50:33] >> you're you're at a high point or you
[1:50:34] wouldn't put it there. It's line of
[1:50:36] sight technology, so you have to put it
[1:50:37] on high points. I I understand that, but
[1:50:39] it it's but when we look at it from the
[1:50:41] route 100, it's it's not in a position
[1:50:46] where it it projects significantly
[1:50:49] farther above the ridge and by reducing
[1:50:51] it down, we don't think you're going to
[1:50:53] see it above the tree line.
[1:50:55] >> I understand that, but this talks about
[1:50:56] ridgetop development and you're on a
[1:50:58] ridge. Did you refer Did Vertex refer to
[1:51:00] the regional plan? That that was my
[1:51:02] question. Yes, we look at the regional
[1:51:04] plan. We look at the town's plan. We
[1:51:05] look at the town zoning bylaw. We look
[1:51:08] at the PUC regulations. Uh the um the
[1:51:11] problem is is that I can't appease
[1:51:14] everybody. And I've got multiple people
[1:51:17] here saying I should have built it
[1:51:19] taller. I've got people at the last time
[1:51:22] said I should have built it um so that
[1:51:24] you can't make it visible. I I have the
[1:51:26] RF engineers at home saying it's got to
[1:51:29] be a requisite height to provide the
[1:51:30] signal or it has no benefit to the town.
[1:51:33] So we try very hard and we've looked at
[1:51:36] all these things and uh um and and I
[1:51:39] believe that u that we are compliant.
[1:51:42] You know you you said that that the
[1:51:45] standard is an undue adverse impact. It
[1:51:48] doesn't say invisible. And so we don't
[1:51:52] believe that we have an undue adverse
[1:51:54] impact in compliance with the regional
[1:51:56] policy plan with the town zoning bylaw
[1:51:59] and the town's plans and that the PUC
[1:52:02] regulations.
[1:52:02] >> Well, no, it actually says not detract
[1:52:05] from or adversely affect the scenic
[1:52:07] values. I
[1:52:09] >> is what the regional plans.
[1:52:10] >> We we are quite confident that we do not
[1:52:12] detract or undo.
[1:52:15] >> Okay, I understand. Thank you.
[1:52:23] Okay. Jake Wildwood again. Uh, Vert.Ex
[1:52:26] has a history of suing towns and public
[1:52:28] utility commissions when you don't get
[1:52:30] the answer you want. Is that sort of
[1:52:32] what we're expecting here?
[1:52:35] >> We expect the public utilities
[1:52:37] commission to issue a certificate of
[1:52:39] public good.
[1:52:40] >> And if not, will you just go away?
[1:52:45] » I'm not trying to be mean. I just want
[1:52:47] to know what's going to happen.
[1:52:48] >> I don't want to project that firehead.
[1:52:51] I'm like I said, we've designed a site
[1:52:53] compliant with all the regulations and
[1:52:55] we expect a certificate of public good.
[1:52:57] >> Thanks.
[1:53:02] » Before we hang up, I want to talk about
[1:53:04] the date of the balloon.
[1:53:07] >> I want to ask a question if I may. Can
[1:53:09] you hear me? Okay. Um
[1:53:12] uh so now under the um 248 it's a
[1:53:16] limited project where it was a full
[1:53:18] >> limit limited size and scale. Yes,
[1:53:20] >> limited size and scale. Um and I in
[1:53:23] reading the the the primer there. I
[1:53:25] couldn't quite tell if the analysis that
[1:53:28] PUC does is the same. Um the the limited
[1:53:31] size and scale didn't talk about the
[1:53:34] criteria, but it did say something about
[1:53:36] significant issues. Do you know if or
[1:53:40] regional planning folks know that the
[1:53:42] difference between those two processes?
[1:53:44] >> It it's the same criteria but there's
[1:53:48] different presumptions like there's
[1:53:50] certain criteria that don't apply to
[1:53:53] these type of like air quality for
[1:53:55] example there's no air issues. However,
[1:53:58] u before we had to put in affidavits to
[1:54:01] say there's no impact on air quality.
[1:54:03] Now because it's limited size and scale
[1:54:04] we don't. uh uh things like that uh
[1:54:08] things that don't there's no impact on
[1:54:10] traffic for example but before I used to
[1:54:12] have to get a traffic study now we don't
[1:54:15] because there's a presumption because
[1:54:16] it's limited that there's no uh impact
[1:54:18] on traffic things like that
[1:54:22] >> do you want to do
[1:54:25] >> I'll do a wrap
[1:54:28] >> uh okay so we're going to wrap it up for
[1:54:30] tonight um if you are physically here
[1:54:33] and I know many of you were on Zoom so
[1:54:35] this does not apply. But if you were
[1:54:36] physically here, um just drop and you
[1:54:39] picked up a comment form, a bulletin,
[1:54:41] not a bulletin board, a clipboard, a
[1:54:43] pen, just drop it on the table or on the
[1:54:45] empty boxes under the table on your way
[1:54:46] out and we will uh take those written
[1:54:48] comments and gather them all into a
[1:54:50] document to share amongst the planning
[1:54:52] commission and to turn into a fact sheet
[1:54:54] so that I can start coating the
[1:54:56] frequently asked questions, putting
[1:54:58] answers to them and putting them up as a
[1:55:00] publicly available document for people
[1:55:02] who are coming into this process as it
[1:55:04] goes forward.
[1:55:05] Um and um
[1:55:08] I suppose if you if anybody if any
[1:55:11] individual person has a question, a
[1:55:12] comment or a suggestion about the
[1:55:14] process that they'd like to uh make in
[1:55:16] person, I'll hang out for a few minutes
[1:55:18] tonight. But otherwise, thank you very
[1:55:20] much for coming. Thank you for my
[1:55:21] patience with my insistence on process
[1:55:23] and Christine's going to say something.
[1:55:26] >> So, thank you all for coming. I just
[1:55:28] want to point out how much time and
[1:55:31] effort Mary put into making this event
[1:55:34] happen for you. It was not it was
[1:55:38] voluntary, completely voluntary because
[1:55:40] we as a commission re really want to
[1:55:43] make sure you know the information and
[1:55:45] have an idea of what to do with it. So
[1:55:47] can we give Mary and Greg a round of
[1:55:49] applause for all that they
[1:55:53] all
[1:55:55] >> Mary who wanted to talk about the date
[1:55:58] and just um terms of the process uh at
[1:56:02] this point we'll be answering questions
[1:56:05] u from through email
[1:56:08] sharing information um if we get the
[1:56:10] website set up we'll put um Fran's
[1:56:14] presentation up there and all the other
[1:56:16] documents ments that they've provided
[1:56:18] with that you can also get from the PUC
[1:56:20] website and then once there is a U um
[1:56:26] application then we'll go through this
[1:56:28] again and then you'll have then you'll
[1:56:31] have real opportunities to stand up and
[1:56:32] speak your mind about what what this
[1:56:35] means to you.
[1:56:38] >> Thank you very much everybody. Can can I
[1:56:41] just I just want to talk about the
[1:56:42] balloon and the issue I I would have
[1:56:44] come in with a prepackaged date but the
[1:56:46] problem is is that we have an election
[1:56:47] in a couple
[1:56:48] >> Francis what I would say is let's figure
[1:56:50] out the date and then we can tell
[1:56:51] everybody but rather than keeping
[1:56:53] everybody here past 8.
[1:56:54] >> That's fine.
[1:56:54] >> Okay. Thanks very much everybody.
[1:56:57] close.
[1:57:05] [Music]