[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]

Rochester Planning and Zoning - Special Meeting October 24, 2024 [RPZ]

Transcript