[0:02] Can I make a motion that we leave
executive session formally?
[0:05] » I second
favor.
[0:09] » I
Okay. So, uh we left off on uh the
[0:16] recusal request
uh for me and I am going to voluntarily
[0:22] uh recuse myself from the rest of this
application
[0:27] uh right now.
You all enjoy. I would take the last
[0:32] cookie. [laughter]
[0:41] » So lake is the first alternate.
[0:46] » Excuse me
somewhere.
[0:51] Kate, I think uh procedurally the next
step the board should take is to um vote
[0:57] on an acting chair for this matter for
this agenda item.
[1:01] » Yep.
>> So, the board needs to
[1:06] vote on an acting chair.
[1:13] Volunteers
[1:17] want to do it.
Nobody wants to. I will. Or if you want
[1:23] to.
>> No, [laughter]
[1:25] I I will not sherk it, but I I
I'm not going to volunteer for it
[1:31] either, but if that's what the board
wants, I'll do it.
[1:35] » I would suggest someone um nominate
someone and then discussion and then
[1:40] vote.
[1:46] » Someone someone nominate someone at the
table. So someone's nominate either
[1:50] Daniel or Margot and then have
discussion on it. Send them both.
[1:54] » Do it. I nominate Marggo.
>> I second.
[2:01] » All those in favor?
[laughter]
[2:07] » Any opposed?
[2:11] » The rains go to you, Margo.
>> The rains go to me. Okay. So, I think
[2:16] we're on
uh gone through everything on
[2:22] the first item. So the second item is
citizen comments unrelated to the public
[2:28] hearing and correct me if I'm wrong, but
that anything to do with the blue sky
[2:33] application. There's another opportunity
for public comment when we get down to
[2:37] that item. So if there's anything else
um that anybody would like to comment
[2:42] on,
this is your opportunity. just come to
[2:46] the podium.
[2:51] Guaranteed
last chance.
[2:56] Okay, seeing seeing no interest then I
think we can move on to the next item.
[3:03] And so this is the hearing um the
[clears throat] continued hearing on the
[3:09] uh uh Friendship Road Blue Sky Tower
application.
[3:13] And the first item here is to determine
the land use ordinance
[3:19] um that we're going to use whether it be
the older one or the new one that was
[3:23] voted in by the town. And I think Amy
has am I correct Amy that you are going
[3:29] to give us some clarifying information
on this?
[3:34] Sorry, I was on mute. Um, you have you
all received the supplemental
[3:38] application submitted by Blue Sky on
this issue?
[3:45] » Can pass these out.
>> Okay. Yes. All right. So, uh, remember
[3:49] last time we met on July 9th, there was
a discussion and and because I, uh,
[3:54] didn't have the procedural history, I
wasn't sure exactly where the planning
[3:57] board was in its review of the
application.
[4:01] And, uh, Mr. Dval did take you through a
procedural history then and there was a
[4:06] discussion um as you know at that
meeting based on um you know no no
[4:12] particular research but my understanding
of how main law operates um regarding
[4:17] applications that come before the board
when there is an ordinance change that
[4:21] happens midstream.
Um I believed then and I told you that I
[4:27] believed that the new ordinance
amendments to the extent that they
[4:30] impact uh this application would apply.
My understanding is that they were voted
[4:36] on on June 9th and the law in Maine. um
there is a statute um 1 MRS section 302
[4:45] that operates as a kind of rule of
construction that would operate to say
[4:51] that the board um the version of the
ordinance that would apply to an
[4:56] application would be the version that is
in effect um when uh the application has
[5:03] received its first substantive review.
and the first substantive review would
[5:09] not happen until after a completeness
determination has been made on the
[5:13] application. It's my understanding um
your ordinance does actually give that
[5:19] duty to the planner to actually deem an
application complete and it was my
[5:24] understanding based on the discussion on
July 9th that the first substantive
[5:28] discussion at the earliest did not take
by the planning board for site plan
[5:34] approval.
um the earliest date would have been
[5:38] that July 9th meeting which is after the
June 9th adoption of the amendments.
[5:44] So, it is my belief and my opinion that
I think the new the the new amendments
[5:52] to the town ordinance do apply to this
application
[5:57] um the new version of the ordinance and
as you know at the last meeting I
[6:03] suggested that the planning board table
in part because of course um the
[6:07] applicant didn't wasn't aware of all the
ways in which the new ordinance might
[6:12] change what would need to be submitted
to meet the new um the new provisions of
[6:18] the ordinance that would apply to this
application. So my understanding was
[6:23] that um Blue Sky has now supplemented
its materials. For example, it's
[6:28] provided a landscape plan and some other
things as well as making an argument
[6:33] that the old ordinance should apply. I
want to just address that briefly first.
[6:38] From my opinion, you will certainly
should, Marggo, I recommend you invite
[6:43] the applicant um to make a statement
that they want about this issue as well.
[6:48] So, you hear from both sides. Um but the
applicant based on my reading of the
[6:54] application suggests that it was the
board of appeals meeting that happened
[7:00] on May 21st. As you know, there was a
there was a meeting before the board of
[7:04] appeals. was the first variance
um meeting or or first meeting to
[7:10] discuss the uh a variance. Um the board
of appeals is is not um a
[7:16] decision-making body on site plan review
or site plan approval. And the board of
[7:21] appeals is not looking specifically at
the performance standards that the
[7:26] planning board is. And the board of
appeals also doesn't have to make a
[7:30] completeness determination before they
look at a variance. um and decide
[7:35] whether to grant one or not. Um on top
of that, I believe that um the
[7:40] discussion was very preliminary and in
fact there was some confusion as to what
[7:45] version of which application they were
even considering and ultimately the
[7:49] board of appeals on May 21st decided to
table so they could allow the planning
[7:54] board to conduct um its review
um and that's where that stands. So, I
[8:00] do not believe that the May 21st meeting
of a ve a different board than the
[8:05] planning board. Um, and whatever
happened at that proceeding is what can
[8:11] trigger or vest um the version of the
ordinance that applies to an application
[8:16] that comes before the planning board.
So, I don't believe that the old
[8:20] ordinance applies to this application. I
believe the new ordinance does.
[8:27] Would uh blue sky like to comment?
[8:35] » Madame acting acting chair, good
evening. Uh members of the board, uh
[8:39] staff, uh Earl Deval, uh here on behalf
of Blue Sky Towers. Uh also with me this
[8:45] evening, uh Jesse Marino, project
engineer from Proter Design Group. Uh
[8:52] and where did he go? Ailio.
Ailio Santanago uh with CQ Squared
[8:59] Systems um RF engineer.
So
[9:06] this issue did
um come to my attention
[9:12] just at the last meeting whether or not
we would be subjected to
[9:18] um the new ordinance or if we would uh
continue under the old ordinance.
[9:26] Now, as you know, I was here for a
preliminary meeting back in October
[9:33] uh of last year. It's been a very long
process uh to where we are now.
[9:40] I'm absolutely believe that our rights
vested under the old ordinance
[9:48] and they vested under the old ordinance
for two reasons. Number one, there was a
[9:54] substantive review at the May uh 21st
hearing.
[9:59] And secondly,
uh, even if you determined that there
[10:06] wasn't or argued that there wasn't a
substantive review on the May 21st
[10:12] hearing,
uh, Equity
[10:16] independently finds that Blue Sky rights
under the old ordinance at vested.
[10:23] So, I'm not going to walk us through the
timeline in the detail that I did at the
[10:29] last hearing, but I am going to
reference back to this.
[10:35] So,
our application was deemed complete and
[10:40] I've submitted the the
um procedural history into the record on
[10:46] March 25th
and we received that substantive review
[10:53] on May 21st before the enactment of the
new ordinance on the 9th.
[10:59] The board of appeals opened a noticed
public hearing and had a quorum.
[11:06] The board of appeals accepted extensive
opposition testimony from a direct
[11:13] butter for over 20 minutes.
The board of appeals accepted a 30-page
[11:19] memorandum
and opposition from the same butter.
[11:24] Now, although I'm going to get to this
when we talk about equity, but although
[11:29] that the the board intentionally tried
to prohibit me from addressing Blue
[11:35] Skye's uh application,
I had experts uh with us with me. Um, I
[11:43] addressed the very issues central to the
relief, the 300 yard restriction, the
[11:51] coverage gap, the lack of feasible
alternatives, effective prohibition.
[11:57] It even addressed a couple of the
ridiculous comments that were made by
[12:02] the abutter.
Now, a proceeding that includes merits
[12:08] testimony, written opposition,
an applicant response
[12:14] is substantive
in every practical sense.
[12:21] Now, like I said, even if you want to
argue that that wasn't substantive or
[12:27] wasn't substant enough, equity would
independently find that our rights, blue
[12:33] sky rights, vested under the old
ordinance.
[12:39] I can clearly demonstrate
[12:44] that the town engaged in a pattern of
wrongful and deliberate delay
[12:51] designed to postpone action on our
application until after the effective
[12:58] date of the new ordinance.
[13:03] I think it's important enough that I
should say that again because I'm going
[13:05] to read you an email in a minute and
then I'm going to give you some
[13:08] procedural history that
seals it.
[13:14] I will demonstrate without a doubt that
the town engaged in a pattern of
[13:19] wrongful and deliberate delay
designed to postpone action on our
[13:25] application until after the effective
date of the new ordinance.
[13:31] I appreciate the fact that uh the
chairman recused himself because I need
[13:36] not look any further than an email
between
[13:41] your then chairman
and resident Wayne.
[13:57] Thank you.
So, this this email between Wayne Meyers
[14:03] and your former chair,
it says, "You did an outstanding job on
[14:10] managing the ordinance work session
today.
[14:14] You knew the issue thoroughly,
summarized without monopolizing,
[14:18] moved the meeting along without shutting
one shutting anyone out. Good job,
[14:25] Wayne."
[14:28] former chairman.
Thanks, Wayne. I'm hoping we can make
[14:32] positive changes that affect this
project.
[14:38] Let me say that again. We can make
positive changes that affect this
[14:42] project and all future projects while
also making it just ownorous enough
[14:50] that we can get the towers that we can
only get the towers that we truly need.
[14:56] Also,
I'm planning to move to table the
[15:01] application to use all of our 150 days
so that these new rule changes affect
[15:11] the current application.
[15:15] Thanks for your contributions
to the meeting.
[15:21] Now, if we look back to my procedural
history,
[15:24] it was and and I can go back and look at
the exact dates, but it was in April
[15:30] in which
we had a planning board hearing
[15:36] scheduled. And maybe I'll show that
here.
[15:49] Let's see.
We had a planning board hearing
[15:53] scheduled
for April 9th.
[16:00] There was still an issue then as to
whether or not the planning board could
[16:06] issue a waiver for the 300 yard
restriction or if we needed a variance.
[16:14] I was told and had multiple
conversations with the planner and the
[16:18] town manager that the planning board
could issue a waiver.
[16:24] I don't have the emails with me, but I
did a lot of research and sent emails
[16:28] over to the planner saying I don't think
so. I don't think although it would have
[16:34] felt like it might have been easier like
I don't think so. I don't think the
[16:38] planning board has the authority to do
that. I think we need a variance of
[16:43] sorts. And remember last time I talked
about how I had enough discussions with
[16:49] Kate to say, is it a dimensional
variance? Is it a use variance? The it
[16:54] it's almost like that 300 yard
restriction is like an overlay district.
[17:01] I said, we need to figure this out.
What's the best approach here? It was
[17:06] even talked about that that restriction
or I kept saying in emails and in
[17:11] conversation that that is an effective
prohibition.
[17:17] If you looked at the materials I
submitted, I think that was agreed to in
[17:20] the Noble Burough uh decision. Same
ordinance agreement that effective
[17:25] prohibition.
So,
[17:30] we didn't have
a determination from
[17:35] town council as to what she thought
it was.
[17:43] Uh, looks like a I can do math here. 9
days later on the 17th, I got a call
[17:51] from the planner confirming that what we
needed was a dimensional variance.
[17:57] And that the discussion was that's the
probably the best
[18:05] uh mechanism for us to move forward
under that 300 yard restriction for
[18:12] relief.
Well, my client Blue Sky is starting to
[18:18] get a little impatient because we
started a long time ago and now we're
[18:23] we're still trying to figure out what
the relief is. And this isn't supposed
[18:27] to be adversarial. I'm supposed to
figure out what your ordinance says and
[18:32] then do my best to comply with it.
[18:40] So because time had gone on, I had said,
"How about
[18:46] because it really comes down to uh the
gap in coverage and the testimony from
[18:53] the RF uh engineer
and all the research that we do with
[18:58] regards to alternative sites and what
works and what doesn't work and what's
[19:03] feasible and what's not feasible.
So I asked for a joint meeting.
[19:12] I thought that was going to be so
efficient and I've done joint meetings
[19:17] for 30 years.
It's efficient for the boards. It's
[19:22] efficient for the residents. It's
efficient for the experts.
[19:27] It's good for all of us.
It was denied.
[19:33] Now I know why it was denied
or delay.
[19:41] I was told, well,
the boards are kind of wrestling back
[19:45] and forth who's going to go first
and
[19:51] the zoning board should go first.
[19:57] It was determined that we would go to
the board of appeals on the 21st and
[20:06] we'd go to the planning board on June
11th.
[20:11] June 11th. H
2 days after town vote.
[20:20] I had discussions with Kate early on
that we are proceeding under the old
[20:28] ordinance. In fact, remember I offered
assistance. I said, "You want some RF
[20:32] engineers? I can make recommendations to
you folks so you can they can look
[20:37] around the entire town to see where uh
the gaps in coverage are and you could
[20:43] create overlay districts."
I was actually offering to help
[20:48] on the ordinance sections.
[20:54] So I show up on May 21st thinking that
town council had shared with Kate who
[21:02] shared with me that the relief that we
needed was a dimensional variance.
[21:08] I went in thinking that everyone was on
board that provision
[21:14] illegal effective prohibition.
I knew I knew what it is I needed to
[21:19] say. Short, tight, clear, and concise.
and that I was even told the town
[21:24] council was going to be at that meeting
to help explain to the board
[21:33] what needed to be done, educate on the
law.
[21:41] I knew something was wrong
and I so wanted to jump up and down and
[21:47] object but my gut said no because they
opened the meeting on the 21st.
[21:56] the
the agenda, it talks about the the same
[22:01] now the agenda has been clarified where
it talks about public comment other than
[22:06] the application that's um before you.
Well, guess what? It didn't say that.
[22:12] and the chairman of the board of appeals
had stepped down and the uh there was a
[22:19] a new chair acting chair and allowed
testimony from one of the abutters went
[22:26] on for more than 20 minutes
saying never in my life have I ever seen
[22:32] this happen someone's testifying in
opposition to my project and I haven't
[22:38] even presented it.
[22:43] It there was an executive session
and it was so obvious and I didn't know
[22:50] why, but it was so obvious that the
board of appeals
[22:56] wanted to just continue or table
whatever they wanted to do to get out of
[23:03] there and put the application
to the planning board.
[23:11] which was again on June 11th, two days
after the town vote.
[23:17] Now, shame on me.
Based upon conversations with Kate,
[23:23] based upon transparency,
based upon all the efforts that I had
[23:27] made to make sure that we are applying
for the correct relief.
[23:34] I didn't know what was happening.
I sat there saying,
[23:39] What do you mean? You Someone was on the
television like we need more
[23:43] information. We don't have enough
information. We need to get information
[23:46] from the planning board.
What do you mean you need information
[23:50] from the planning board? You have an
application there and and I don't know
[23:54] about this whole confusion with with
applications. I think we cleared all
[23:58] that um up because there was just the
site plan with the waiver and then we
[24:04] updated the application to include the
dimensional variance based upon council
[24:08] uh opinion.
Everything was submitted. There was no
[24:12] issues with anything. Picked that
application 13 exhibits which I
[24:17] painfully walked you folks through last
time with additional exhibits.
[24:24] I had experts here. We had all the
information that the board of appeals
[24:29] would have ever needed right here
sitting there and all they wanted to do
[24:35] was run.
Be done. Continue it.
[24:40] Well, now the the then chairman was
sitting right in the front
[24:46] based upon that email and we did a foyer
request. I've got some other exhibits
[24:52] about all these meetings between the
then chairman of the planning board and
[24:58] a butters and neighbors Facebook posts.
[snorts] It's a treasure trove of
[25:04] materials.
[25:08] It's crystal clear that there was a lot
going on to make sure that Duval and
[25:17] Blue Sky
[25:21] ended up presenting after June 9th.
[25:28] That's bad faith. It's deliberate. It's
intentional.
[25:34] There isn't any way that any court
is going to subject me to the new
[25:41] ordinance with this procedural history
and with this emails and information
[25:47] that I have.
It's not going to happen. Our rights are
[25:52] vested
under that original ordinance.
[26:00] And again, shame on me.
[26:06] So,
I come here tonight with direction from
[26:12] Blue Sky saying
if the board thinks and council thinks
[26:19] they're going to subject you,
subject us to the new ordinance, which
[26:28] by the way, 800 ft from Wetlands, 200%
uh tower fall zone.
[26:36] It's in your materials. I put we put
together a really nice report in there.
[26:40] It's further prohibition of um service.
Not going to work anywhere.
[26:49] It's unreasonable.
[26:52] It's intentional.
[26:57] So, if I can't convince you folks that
we need to be under the old ordinance,
[27:05] then
I'm respectfully asking to continue this
[27:10] hearing
next week.
[27:15] I'm scheduled to go before the board of
appeals. I'll go to the board of
[27:18] appeals.
I don't know what they're going to do.
[27:24] » Can I ask you a clarifying question?
Yes, please.
[27:27] » You cited I don't have the old one and
the new one memorized. So,
[27:32] » me either.
>> So, so you just need to help me a little
[27:36] bit here. You mentioned two things. The
wetlands thing is pretty
[27:42] self-explanatory.
The the there was no specific language
[27:47] in the old one. Was that true or
>> That is true. There was no specific
[27:50] setback language.
>> And and then what what was the other one
[27:52] you were talking about? Can you explain?
There's a there's a fall zone and Jesse
[27:57] please help me. Um there was a fall zone
requirement in the
[28:02] I'll say old ordinance that was 105%.
We met that fall zone requirement.
[28:09] » So if a tower is 100t tall it's5t
set back
[28:14] » but we changed it to 200. So now they'd
have to be road
[28:18] property line.
>> Now it' have to be 400 ft. Okay.
[28:25] » I only bring that up just as as
reference. I mean, we we looked at it.
[28:30] Um, again, I think there was a
substantive hearing. I think the delay I
[28:37] think
and I I'm not sure if you folks have
[28:41] have all the
Who do you want me to hand this to? I We
[28:45] just got these and thank you to the town
and the
[28:48] » hand it to the chair.
Um, we just got these materials on
[28:54] Tuesday night and I've not had a chance
to look through them, but um, the town
[28:58] did a very nice job with the foyer
requests and all the information. This
[29:02] is just stuff that I thought would be
helpful
[29:05] um,
>> this evening.
[29:07] » So,
I just I just want to understand
[29:12] this a little bit better. I'm sorry.
[29:17] If if we were to go with the new
ordinance, how far
[29:23] would you be out of compliance with the
as things as the application stands with
[29:30] in in that area?
>> 95%.
[29:34] » Okay.
>> Yeah. We met 105 and if you're going to
[29:37] 200, you would be basically almost
double the distance away.
[29:41] » And and the
>> what are we now from the property line?
[29:44] 238 ft
>> and they would require a 390 foot
[29:49] setback which would
>> um
[29:53] what is the setback?
>> Um the the available space to them is
[29:57] 258 ft.
>> Okay.
[30:02] » At the last meeting and I I'm having
trouble finding it. you had mentioned
[30:06] that you and Kate had reached an
agreement on a date to set for the start
[30:11] of the stop clock for the application.
Um, what day is that?
[30:18] So Kate, you can help me out here, but
we decided that confirmed that April
[30:25] 27th, the date that we had find, we had
received confirmation from town council
[30:31] that we needed a dimensional variance,
we updated the application and filed it.
[30:36] So we said April 27th was the start. So
September something, right?
[30:43] » Yes.
>> September 12th.
[30:46] » Okay. I want to read for the board just
out of the the land use ordinance. Um
[30:53] section 3.3.2
says that the substant the submitt of an
[30:58] application for review shall not
constitute the start of the review
[31:02] process for the purpose of bringing an
application under the provisions of MRSA
[31:08] section 302. The formal review process
shall commence upon notification to the
[31:14] applicant that a complete application
has been submitted. Kate, was that done?
[31:21] You did in March, right?
>> But we're moving that to April.
[31:26] » That's the But still before
>> we didn't change that date. We didn't
[31:32] change the completeness date. We
[31:38] » we we were we were being reasonable with
regards to the shot clock and with
[31:44] approval from uh Blue Sky at all because
we were what I thought working
[31:54] cooperatively
and collaboratively to understand
[31:59] what it was that you folks wanted us to
do for the process.
[32:07] I mean, we we were ready way back when
to come in with an application for um
[32:14] site plan requesting two waivers, the
landscape waiver, which we removed and
[32:19] we have even an updated landscape plan
for you this evening, um and the 300
[32:26] yard. But I was uncomfortable with
seeking a waiver. I didn't think that
[32:30] was legally permissible.
That's why we went that's why we got
[32:35] clarification and went to the board of
appeals
[32:40] which we were stopped in our tracks
from presenting.
[32:49] I I let me say something. I think all of
this we're discussing right now is sort
[32:54] of a sideeshow. I mean I think we should
get back to the applications. I tend to
[32:58] agree that this that we should let it go
under the prior ordinance. I think it I
[33:04] think you could argue it probably both
directions I suppose but the reality is
[33:08] that you know they have been here for
almost a year pushing this thing
[33:12] forward. So and and I think have shown
good faith. I think they've shown good
[33:17] faith. No, we we just let's just get to
the I mean, forget about the prior new
[33:23] just accept the brier, accept that and
just let them run the application
[33:28] through us.
>> So So can can I just ask two more
[33:32] clarifi quick clarifying questions, but
then may I'm going to ask you to present
[33:36] that again.
>> I I will.
[33:38] » But my my quick clarifying questions are
the the fall zone of the tower. Isn't
[33:46] the tower designed in a perfect world
anyway to collapse down on itself and
[33:52] not tip over?
>> That that is correct. uh one of the
[33:56] exhibits to the application
um states just that the tower is
[34:01] engineered to do just that, collapse on
itself. So it doesn't
[34:04] » so so the so this this extra distance is
kind of an abundance of caution if you
[34:10] will because it it probably wouldn't
>> circumstance just fall straight over.
[34:16] » Correct. And then and then can somebody
remind me what the difference in the
[34:23] wetland setback is on the application
compared to the new is it isn't it less
[34:30] than 100 ft?
>> It's about 80 feet about 80 feet. So
[34:35] » it's it's not exactly there but it's not
you know it's not
[34:41] » I think the new requirement is 800.
>> Well that's what I'm saying. It's all
[34:45] It's What What is it now, Jesse?
>> I'm just looking. I think it's Yeah. So,
[34:49] from the front pond, there's a front
like farm pond there that is a wetland.
[34:53] It's I think it's about 720 ft from
that,
[34:56] » but there's also some wetlands in the
back. So, you're probably um I'd say
[35:03] probably 120 feet from those
>> because what happens the further you go
[35:09] back, they kind of converge together
till you get to the direction back. And
[35:13] what's the what does the old ordinance
say? The old didn't have any
[35:20] » excuse me,
>> can I get that distance again in the
[35:22] back?
>> Sorry if I made a comment for you, Mr.
[35:27] Motion. Um
just um I would just like to mention
[35:32] that to me it sounds like the problem
with the new your problem with the new
[35:36] ordinance is that you have to ask for
you would have to ask for a variance for
[35:40] this project whereas with the old
ordinance you have to ask for a variance
[35:43] for the project. Either way you are
going to have to ask for a variance from
[35:48] the appeal board. So to me that's not a
compelling reason to choose the old
[35:52] ordinance over the new ordinance.
>> It's my understanding is it's more
[35:55] variance. Yeah, they have to ask for
two, two, even three variances as
[35:59] opposed to the one.
>> No matter what was said when
[36:05] » Yeah, no matter what, you're going to
have to go before the appeals board. I
[36:09] would also like to say that there were a
lot of comments made about a board
[36:14] person who is no longer here. And so, in
my opinion, those comments are no longer
[36:18] particularly relevant as they were all
pertaining to him. If you're alleging
[36:22] that there's a townwide conspiracy
because the town's moving slow and
[36:25] inefficient, I have some terrible news
about rural municipalities for you. That
[36:31] is sort of the reality of our situation.
We are more often on the receiving end
[36:35] of it. I assure you. Um, so I would I
would recommend that we go with the new
[36:40] ordinance that we put a lot of time and
energy and got a lot of people's input
[36:44] on.
So I I as a chair I'm willing to accept
[36:51] any any one of the five of you making
that you or four of you I guess
[36:55] including myself makes five a motion.
>> I move that we review this under the old
[37:02] ordinance.
>> I second that.
[37:05] » Any further discussion about that?
>> I
[37:11] with the new ordinance.
That's just my personal agreement. Laws
[37:16] are laws that there for a reason. Can't
just pick and choose when you want to
[37:21] apply something to something that gives
you a benefit.
[37:25] I'd agree except that the ordinance says
that their rights vest once the
[37:30] application is deemed upon notification
to the applicant that the application
[37:40] that a complete application has been
submitted which happens
[37:44] » that that's no that's not disputed
that's undisputed
[37:47] » that's undisputed and this says that
their rights vest they do not vest until
[37:52] that happens so that's a negative
meaning that if they don't vest until
[37:56] that happens when that happens their
rights vest that's my interpretation I
[38:01] know other people have presented other
things
[38:03] » well and I would say the lawyer uh did
say that we have every right to examine
[38:10] this under the new ordinance in in their
legal opinions
[38:13] » well
can Amy you're still there
[38:18] » I am here you are about to lose me but
uh
[38:21] » um so Daniel Daniel is reading
Um, did you did you hear what you read?
[38:27] » I did and and I I'll just weigh in
briefly and I think this is the board's
[38:32] decision and you can weigh a number of
things. I do not read 3.3.2 as saying
[38:38] that the rights affirmatively vest upon
um a determination of completeness. What
[38:45] it says is
uh rights do not vest upon submittal
[38:50] and it says that the formal review
process shall commence upon notification
[38:56] that a complete application has been
submitted.
[39:00] The law further says under 1302 that the
vesting doesn't occur until the first
[39:09] substantive review. So I have seen some
planning boards who do a completeness
[39:14] determination at one meeting then they
stop and they say come back next meeting
[39:18] next month and we'll begin our first
substantive review and that's when
[39:25] um things vest.
Um, and so I don't see the second
[39:30] sentence as saying affirmatively that
the vesting occurs upon the
[39:36] determination of completeness. And that
would actually run contrary to
[39:41] um the court decisions that have have um
interpreted 1 MRS 302 which say unless
[39:50] unless the ordinance expressly says
otherwise
[39:54] the vesting occurs upon the first
substantive review by the planning board
[39:58] not upon completeness determination. And
I don't see this sentence as
[40:02] affirmatively saying that it vests upon
completion.
[40:11] I do also want to just make one one very
small point because I think you're
[40:14] probably going to lose me and you'll
make whatever decision you'll want to
[40:18] make in [snorts] terms of um discussions
that go along with when an applicant
[40:24] meets [snorts] and tries to get
assistance from planning staff. That's
[40:28] very typical.
um planning planning staff interprets
[40:32] the ordinance, but ultimately it's the
applicant's burden to interpret the
[40:37] ordinance and if a helpful um staff
member says, "Well, maybe you should try
[40:42] this, maybe you should try that,"
ultimately it's up to the planning board
[40:46] to make the decision.
Um and and so you know the allegations
[40:52] that the town told me to do one thing
and then that didn't turn out is not in
[40:58] my opinion um uh evidence of any kind of
bad faith or deliberate attempts to
[41:03] delay. This is a process that has taken
some time. I acknowledge I think
[41:09] everyone is at least from my observation
everyone has been here in good faith. Um
[41:15] and um it's there are a lot of complex
balls up in the air, but that's up to
[41:20] the planning board to decide as to which
version of the ordinance you want to
[41:24] apply to have apply to this application.
[41:31] » Well, why don't we finish voting voting
on the motion?
[41:36] » Well, yeah. Is there any further
discussion before we vote on the the
[41:42] proposal?
Well, if if it's open it's open to
[41:46] further discussion. You have a lawyer
out there who's telling you legally. I
[41:51] would think the latter is true. But why
would you go against a legal
[41:56] » No, she's saying you can vote either
way. But she's saying that it's up to us
[42:00] how we vote.
>> Right. But I'm saying her legal advice
[42:03] » interpret Well, I mean her
interpretation is her interpretation.
[42:07] That's a distinction. Right.
>> Right. Yeah. I'm I'm I'm just struggling
[42:14] with calling the vote because I have a
feeling I more people have been saying
[42:20] [laughter]
I'm gonna end up being the deciding vote
[42:23] and I'm
>> Well, so be it.
[42:24] » And no, I'm I'm I just need to process
this a little bit. It's a big decision.
[42:31] » Am I uh Madam Chair, am I allowed to
comment any further?
[42:36] » Um
>> I think it's decision. It's it's
[42:39] discussion amongst the board
>> right now. Yeah,
[42:42] » that's why I asked.
>> Yeah, thank you.
[42:44] » No, I appreciate that. Um
[42:49] I guess well I I'm allowed to discuss
too. So I I guess the help me the place
[42:54] I'm a little hung up on is I I
you know I I do want to act in good
[43:01] faith. I'm hearing both sides of this. I
I I get that. I I totally get the
[43:08] argument that this has been going on for
a long time. I also get the argument
[43:12] that this is, you know, this is perhaps
asking for three variances instead of
[43:18] one variance with a distinctive process.
It's not a, you know, u final nail in
[43:24] the coffin in any way to vote in that
direction.
[43:27] And um but I I guess the thing that's in
the back of my mind is I want whatever
[43:34] comes out of this to to
be as clean as it can be. So So we're
[43:42] not setting ourselves up for um just a
lot of future potential litigation.
[43:49] Um
and
[43:53] you know, so that's where that's where
I'm struggling. And I don't know if any
[43:56] of you can help me because I
>> well the two is I think the two issue
[44:00] issues at hand the wetlands issue and
other issue are sort of like not really
[44:04] important here. So really it comes down
to I think whether we're acting in good
[44:08] faith and I tend to disagree with with
the lawyer but with other people on the
[44:13] board that we're not acting in good
faith here. I I think really think that
[44:17] these these applicants have done
what they've been asked to do and I and
[44:22] I think the town planner has actually
helped them along with that process
[44:25] though I don't think we're acting in
good faith here by continually throwing
[44:28] roadblocks in front of them trying to
you know it does seem like a lot of
[44:31] delay and roadblock and just neg
negativity I mean but whether you like
[44:37] the idea of a cell tower being there
it's a whole another issue here I mean
[44:41] let's let's get down to that and talk
about whether that's really uh something
[44:46] that we really need and want in this
town but not this continual sort of you
[44:51] know backdoor kind of maneuvering
>> you can look I mean you can say it's
[44:56] roadblocks but also I feel like it's
>> Amy can the other alternate who is not
[45:03] technically
>> sorry
[45:06] » I thought I can't vote
>> I can't participate the other alternate
[45:09] the second alternate
>> he can speak can't he
[45:12] » yes yes the second alternate can speak
the Second alternate if I'm
[45:16] understanding cannot vote but can
participate in the discussion.
[45:20] » I just wanted to make sure.
>> Thank you. U
[45:24] you know one hand you can say it's
roadblocks but on the other hand it to
[45:28] me it feels like we're doing our due dil
diligence in in you know in figuring out
[45:35] all of this stuff. If there's something
in the code that says, you know, hey,
[45:39] there is no setback, well then
>> we should put in a setback from the
[45:44] lance, like that was that that's on us.
>> If we were doing our due diligence, this
[45:48] this application would have been would
have been taken care of months ago.
[45:52] » I mean, why?
>> Because it's it just been delayed.
[45:56] » We're our job isn't just to just stamp
anything.
[45:59] » No, believe me. No, no, no. Our job is
to deliberate, but this you can't
[46:02] deliberate for, you know, on and on and
on. I mean, come on. I mean, if if we're
[46:07] constantly finding new things and
working out things, that's absolutely
[46:11] what we're here to do.
>> Yeah.
[46:14] » Yeah. I guess I I hear what you're
saying. I struggle a little bit with I
[46:19] » I mean, there is an argument potentially
to be made for changing rules in the
[46:24] middle of the game. Um,
>> but [clears throat] there wasn't a rule
[46:27] there. Well,
>> I mean, [laughter] there was there was
[46:30] no answer,
>> but but still, I mean,
[46:32] » I would like to add that I don't view
the new ordinance as a roadblock. I view
[46:36] it, we've talked about how a lot of it
is just clarifying certain language that
[46:40] was vague or poorly worded. A lot of it
was actually to make the process easier
[46:45] and more streamlined and and better for
everyone involved.
[46:49] » No, the roadblock is in in in not not
the ordinance itself. the roadblock is
[46:54] in, you know, trying to kind of keep
making the leap a higher hurdle, you
[46:59] know, I mean, and when when they're
acting in good faith and they've come
[47:04] before us and they've been here for a
year and now we're still saying, "Okay,
[47:07] well, now you got to do this, now you
got to do that, now you got to do this,
[47:10] right?" I mean, why can't we just move
forward with the actual I mean, what's
[47:15] really important here? We want to sell
tower there for you. We
[47:18] » like
on and it's hard for somebody to make a
[47:24] a decision that affects so many people
and the town.
[47:29] » Well, let's make that decision, right?
But let's make that decision.
[47:33] » Expedient, but not at the cost of not
doing your due diligence to your
[47:38] » right. Let's do I said let's do our due
diligence here and get get on with the
[47:42] application
>> just to weigh in again my perspective
[47:48] they submitted an application.
It says in article three that the
[47:54] planner and the code officer review it.
They tell them what else they need to
[47:58] submit. I feel like retroactively saying
we need to have you submit all this
[48:03] other stuff. It just it is changing the
game Midame and it I don't want to say
[48:09] it's unfair, but I mean if a new
application came, we're not going to say
[48:14] they need they can go under the old one.
They're going to have to go under the
[48:17] new one. But it's we've gone over and it
all through here it says the planner
[48:24] determines when an application is
complete what they need to submit.
[48:31] I think that they have a submitted
application that should have come before
[48:35] us. There's been these delays, but when
they submitted their application, the
[48:41] old ordinance was in effect. I think
it's I think we should use the old one,
[48:46] but
>> I'll go with what everybody wants.
[48:49] » Yeah. Any further discussion? We're
ready to
[48:55] I appreciate the conversation. It's
helped me. Uh I don't like what's about
[49:01] to happen, but here we go. Um all I got
to remember how it was stated. The um
[49:07] the motion was to um to use the old the
old um or the old whatever it's called.
[49:16] The old ordinance is
um all in favor
[49:23] opposed.
Okay. So it's a 3 to two. We're under
[49:28] the old ordinances.
[49:33] » Okay. So that moves us to
the next item which is the application
[49:40] review.
[49:44] » Madame chair, I apologize. Um but I am
gonna have to log off tonight.
[49:50] Um and and uh I wish you good luck in
your the review for the rest of this
[49:57] evening.
>> Thank you, Amy. Appreciate your help.
[50:02] » Okay. U K just a before we begin this.
I'm I just need a little clarification.
[50:09] I've got these two things that look a
lot the same.
[50:14] » They do. I apologize. I didn't put 2025
2026. The 2026 one is the small one. It
[50:20] has um that that's the one you should
not be using
[50:25] » the one that's page.
>> Okay.
[50:28] » Um that that is the checklist based on
the 2025 ordinance.
[50:33] » And because I'm new at chairing just a
procedural in the presentation. Is it
[50:39] more efficient to just start at the
beginning and go through in order or
[50:44] when we say that that u the applicant is
doing a presentation do we let them
[50:50] speak for a bit and then we go through
this recommend
[50:54] » if you wanted the applicant to speak um
usually what we have done in the past is
[50:58] this references the ordinance so it just
helps you walk through all the different
[51:02] pieces of the ordinance um so it's for I
have gone through that but it's for the
[51:07] planning board to go through and just
look at the application, look at the
[51:11] ordinance and say, "Do you have
questions? Are there things you still
[51:14] need to know?" And that's when an
applicant gets a chance to, you know,
[51:19] » so we just
>> answer any questions that come up as you
[51:22] review.
>> We don't need the applicant to make a
[51:24] preamble. You can just jump in.
>> Not unless you wanted to. That would be
[51:28] at the discretion of the board. I I just
unless unless I'm hearing any big
[51:34] objections, I just assume we dive in.
And it would be helpful to me um if
[51:41] Jessica
>> if Hey, tell me that if this is wrong to
[51:45] do if we just take a a quick on each one
of these a quick statement from you
[51:51] since since you were the planner and
review this that you know just a like
[51:58] statement of the facts like this this
one is open this one case this is
[52:02] whatever it just help us walk through
this.
[52:04] » Sure. There's also on the side.
>> I I see that, but I'm not bringing in.
[52:10] » Yeah.
>> Um, so we need to start with the
[52:14] procedural items at the at the top.
>> Um, I think we've been through it's
[52:19] submitted on town office forms. Um,
>> so we get right down into the
[52:24] » fees have been paid. I think you can you
can probably um
[52:28] » So you you'll stipulate that the first
four things are all all done.
[52:32] » Yes. So, we're we're beginning with
accepted by the town office and and this
[52:38] says it was sent on March 6 that was
reviewed on March 12th. Um, so that's
[52:45] that's affirmative.
>> Yes.
[52:47] » Okay. And submitted on town office forms
which was confirmed. So, some of these
[52:52] are pedestrian. Applicant information
was provided, property location and
[52:57] details. So, so up through those we I
mean those are just kind of preunctery
[53:04] and those can we can just check those
off. So, um verification of ownership we
[53:09] have a
>> the applicant submitted a lease that he
[53:12] has with the actual land owner.
>> Okay.
[53:15] » Um verifying that they have land
>> I'm I'm assuming that continues over to
[53:22] Melvin's widow passing. Okay.
>> Okay.
[53:27] And the fees are paid and it says $500
32 $30 do at site review. So what status
[53:35] » they they are fully paid up.
>> Okay.
[53:38] » Um estimated cost and construction
[53:43] » that wasn't
>> pardon.
[53:46] » Uh the estimated cost of construction
was not listed.
[53:48] » Is that important or is that why is it
not listed? There is reason behind that.
[53:53] » I think it depends. It v I mean we it
varies um so
[53:59] » and so we have the the engineering
details they did not provide us with
[54:03] » um this is from chapter 3 so this
provide this is applicable to anything
[54:09] » um and so
it is of the planning board could ask
[54:13] for a a cost um you know an of the cost
is usually asked for um if you're doing
[54:23] a big development and you're unsure of
make sure that the project can be
[54:28] carried forward if it's approved
>> like they have the financial ability
[54:31] » then they have the financial ability
>> um and does anybody have concern about
[54:36] that in this case
>> I mean I would like to hear it I don't
[54:39] we don't need to deny the application
based on that but I would like to add
[54:42] that that be provided at some point
>> could could you guys do you guys have a
[54:47] quick summary of that item or
>> I can get um
[54:53] » information regarding I think there was
an exhibit submitted with the
[54:57] application that talks about
uh blue skies funding and capacity to to
[55:04] do the site um
>> which is quite significant too
[55:10] » and um so but you'll provide a quick
just a
[55:15] » yes
>> executive level
[55:17] » is there anything that you can uh share
with that um this point Jesse
[55:22] » maybe a little bit on the site But I
think there's depends what you want to
[55:26] include in the total estimated cost. So
it's probably best to blue sky or we can
[55:32] put that together.
>> Um
[55:35] and again to Blake's point, I don't
think that's anything to fill everything
[55:38] up to have. Um the description of the
project is covered in the narrative on
[55:44] page two. Are there any questions about
that from anybody?
[55:48] » I think that's [clears throat] we talked
about that a lot.
[55:53] um anticipated start and completion
dates were provided. Could you remind us
[55:58] uh what those are?
[56:02] » If if you were to get approved,
when do you anticipate?
[56:06] » Well, yeah, this may be hard to answer
because you is sort of
[56:11] [laughter]
>> Can you give us a sense of
[56:13] » based upon the um uh interest they've
shown me in this site to get this
[56:20] moving? I think very quickly.
>> And what's the duration generally for a
[56:26] project like this?
>> Uh
[56:30] 16 weeks maybe something like that.
>> Yeah, roughly.
[56:33] » Yeah, it a lot of it can determine
getting power. Sometimes there's delays
[56:37] in that,
>> right?
[56:40] » Yeah. All
>> weather, right? If you try to start, you
[56:44] know, and again bad weather, it might go
into this area depending.
[56:50] » Um,
all local, state, and federal permits
[56:55] are required.
And
[56:58] is that
is everything
[57:02] done except this is hung up by this
process and the variance from the um
[57:08] from the appeals board. Is that correct?
>> Yeah. And the the variance is um you
[57:13] know not a a I mean that's that's the
local it's not really
[57:19] » right
>> per se but I I just noticed there
[57:22] » um and they have the
um
[57:28] the review um
in the packet that they submitted
[57:34] the social
um they updated need to review only have
[57:40] the highway permits from the department
and it is at the applicant's discretion
[57:44] what other permits they need. We don't
tell them what other
[57:47] » is there a DOT concern with the access
from the road or not?
[57:52] » Um because they would be coming off of
the Williams driveway. I don't believe
[57:56] they need to get a DOT access permit
because the
[58:00] » access is already provided. They might
need to double check if there is a high
[58:04] volume of traffic anticipated other than
what a normal driveway would be
[58:09] purchased. Okay. I don't believe that
was
[58:15] » um site maps are provided.
>> If I could I just like to add there is
[58:20] there we talked about at the last
hearing. There is a state permit that
[58:23] you need for um
um prior to construction that happens if
[58:29] you're uh disturbing more than an acre
of land and that occurs generally you
[58:34] get that permit after approval. You
wouldn't you wouldn't get it until
[58:39] you were you were approved. So you'd
have to do that but then before you
[58:43] stuck a shovel in the ground. So that
would need to be done, but um
[58:50] that would be additional permit.
>> Okay. But it's just for land
[58:54] disturbance, you wouldn't get that until
you knew what the land disturbance was
[58:58] approved.
[59:01] » Um site maps are all provided. Anybody
have any questions or
[59:10] I know I've seen pictures of this
project myself. Anybody had any
[59:14] questions or feeling missing anything?
[59:21] » Madam Chair,
>> we we had a couple of additions that
[59:24] were a correction on um
on a butter property that came up last
[59:30] time which we can submit now. And um
there was a
[59:37] question last time or or a request on um
the landscape plan to provide
[59:43] landscaping all the way around. So I
would submit both those here.
[59:48] » That would be great.
[59:54] » That's filling um
>> all all the way around. And then there
[59:58] was a question here. Um
was shown all
[1:00:10] pass
[1:00:16] as just in the spirit of efficiency. Um
passing these Oh, we each got a copy. So
[1:00:24] really [laughter]
um if any questions come up, please
[1:00:29] raise them as you get them. But I'm
gonna I'm going to proceed in the
[1:00:33] interest of efficiency.
Um okay.
[1:00:39] So the next thing is water and sewage
>> all be together. Are they all the same?
[1:00:46] » Water and water and sewage doesn't apply
for there'll be no usage.
[1:00:49] » That that's what I was uh just saying.
myself.
[1:00:52] » I have another one.
>> Yeah. No need a newness to this
[1:00:58] um facility basically not a burning.
Okay.
[1:01:05] So
um and so the septic piece is not not
[1:01:11] relevant.
um vehicular and pedestrian traffic
[1:01:17] in the valley of the Delta. It's an odd
sentence, but there's a narrative about
[1:01:21] that
summary.
[1:01:24] This is not a hightra area, correct?
>> Yep. Uh that is correct. And that's on
[1:01:30] the bottom of page 14, I think, um of
the application. And the facility is
[1:01:34] unmanned uh once it's operational and
does not generate any daily traffic, you
[1:01:41] know, at all. um be a standard, you
know, maybe SUV type uh vehicle uh that
[1:01:48] would visit the site approximately, you
know, one time per month uh for
[1:01:53] potential routine maintenance. So, I do
I do have a question that came up in the
[1:01:58] last time we were all together uh about
this
[1:02:03] and tell me if I'm remembering this
incorrectly, but my recollection was
[1:02:07] that somebody had made a statement that
you had not planned to keep this roadway
[1:02:13] funded during the winter time. And I
guess I guess I have some concern about
[1:02:20] that. just if an emergency vehicle ever
needs to get down there um that you know
[1:02:29] you know what winter's like.
>> Yeah. So uh so yes so generally
[1:02:35] um you know sites uh access you know
such as this is not um plowed
[1:02:42] um unless one of the cell techs or
carriers you know needs to get in there
[1:02:46] for some sort of maintenance and a lot
of times they'll use a tracked vehicle
[1:02:50] or whatnot to get in. But if the board
wants to make that as a you know as a
[1:02:54] condition that you know if uh a snow
snow amount over a certain amount um
[1:03:02] then the applicant needs to you know
have that open for emergency you know
[1:03:06] vehicle purposes then you know I think
we could do that.
[1:03:11] » Um so
>> any comment on that? I mean, I I guess I
[1:03:14] guess I'll just say I'm I'm kind of
inclined to ask for that, but I mean,
[1:03:18] not at a ridiculous level, but you know,
I would
[1:03:21] » Do you have anything to add to that,
Jesse?
[1:03:24] » Um, it's not very common to to ask for
that. Um, but
[1:03:28] » guy doesn't
>> I I just I guess I'm thinking of the and
[1:03:32] tell me you guys tell me if I'm all wet
about this, but I'm just thinking of a
[1:03:36] conversation we had with the the prior
code officer about just the concern and
[1:03:42] the challenges of getting emergency
vehicles down on the untained roads. And
[1:03:47] it's hard to know what
I mean. You can't see into the future.
[1:03:51] But of course, if you if you plow it,
nothing will ever happen. And if you
[1:03:55] don't plow it, then you're going to need
to get in there. And if there's a foot
[1:04:00] of snow and ice, that's not that's not
an easy thing to
[1:04:05] » I'd rather driveway.
>> Okay.
[1:04:10] » Yeah. I would just say that's that's a
good point. It's it is a driveway. I
[1:04:14] mean, um, it is it's it's unmanned from
the standpoint. It's there's no one.
[1:04:20] It's not occupied.
If you would, you know, think about
[1:04:24] other
type uses like for example like uh say
[1:04:29] power lines or power poles, you know,
they have so access driveways too, but
[1:04:34] that wouldn't be ever plowed. But just
some things to
[1:04:39] » if something malfunctions then then do
you get a front end loader and get
[1:04:44] yourself in there? Is that basically
>> that's usually what happens. I mean, a
[1:04:47] lot of times when we do stuff in the
winter, you know, you might get a
[1:04:50] four-wheeler, a snowmobile, that kind of
thing. Um, sometimes we hike in,
[1:04:55] you know, I I I see what you're trying
to balance, but it's it's not typical, I
[1:05:00] would say.
>> Any other comments on that? You do. Does
[1:05:04] the rest of the board feel comfortable
with not asking it to be filed?
[1:05:08] » Okay. it if the if the on one hand
they're saying that you know the we need
[1:05:17] to do this because there's coverage and
that you know it's it's providing a
[1:05:20] service to the community but then on the
other hand if there's emergency there
[1:05:25] then there is no access to it in the
winter uh you know for emergency
[1:05:30] vehicles that
that does seem like a little
[1:05:36] » you never know when you're going to get
an emergency See, so it's better to be a
[1:05:40] little bit proactive.
>> Well, I kind of feel that way, too. But
[1:05:46] » I don't want to be unreasonable about
it, but I guess
[1:05:49] » I mean, it's it's not it's certainly not
the applicant trying to be unreasonable.
[1:05:53] I think history tells us. We've got
mountaintop sites all over the place
[1:05:57] that we don't have access to. I mean, I
ride up there on snowmobiles, on tracked
[1:06:02] four-wheelers, you know, side by sides,
um,
[1:06:06] » top of mountains, right?
Canon Mountain, there's one. So, this
[1:06:10] » it's
>> they're not always drivable. Some of
[1:06:13] them are helicopter sites, but
>> right it's and as Jesse said, I mean, it
[1:06:17] is unmanned. They're they're only there
if they're swapping out some equipment
[1:06:21] or something goes wrong and there's so
much of that equipment they even can
[1:06:25] look and diagnose, you know, remotely.
It goes without saying that if you need
[1:06:28] to get in there, it's on you to
>> right
[1:06:31] » make it.
[1:06:36] » I think that if we added something like
that, even if we did, it's uninforcable,
[1:06:42] » right?
>> Nobody's going out and saying, "Oh, we
[1:06:44] have
>> one extra inch of snow." Exactly.
[1:06:47] » Where's their plow?
>> Yeah.
[1:06:50] » Okay, I I'll move on. um because it it's
just seemed like a time to raise it. Um
[1:07:00] other information provided section 352.
What is that since you're um 16?
[1:07:10] » 3.5 is um if they need any other if we
if the planning board has asked for any
[1:07:16] other information necessary to show
compliance with the review criteria or
[1:07:19] the requirements next. So we have um
they all the other things they have to
[1:07:26] do to comply with the ordinance are
shown in the other articles.
[1:07:29] » Okay. So this fall under um the
[clears throat] I know there's I have
[1:07:34] health concerns for people who got it
but I remember there was a question of
[1:07:40] you did a study on on how much
I don't know bad stuff were being
[1:07:47] emitted by that tower. uh radio
frequency missions.
[1:07:50] » Yes. And I see that's the next question
in box two. Who who did that study? Who
[1:07:57] who did it? And when was it done? And is
it possible to get a an impartial third
[1:08:03] party to go over the data?
So who again who did it and who paid for
[1:08:10] it?
>> Yeah. And what was um you know
[1:08:19] Blue Sky
did they contract the study out or was
[1:08:23] the study just done done?
>> Yeah.
[1:08:26] » How long ago was it done?
>> Yeah, the study is done on behalf of
[1:08:29] Verizon Wireless and you should have you
should have I'm sorry.
[1:08:34] » Oh, I'm Yeah, I thought you did that.
>> I did.
[1:08:37] » Did I say that last night? My name is
Cilio Stoango. I'm here on behalf of
[1:08:42] Verizon Wireless with Cisco Systems.
You should have a copy of this which is
[1:08:48] uh the MPE report available to you
and the MPE report
[1:08:57] was done on February 26, 2026.
>> Yeah. And the results of the MPE report
[1:09:06] are such that the level the level of RF
radiation
[1:09:12] uh emitted by any given sector of the
site is 3.16%.
[1:09:19] That means that is roughly 97%
below
[1:09:26] what the FCC deems safe.
beyond 100%
[1:09:32] is not safe. We had the discussion and I
remember there was a a person from the
[1:09:39] from one of the boards, I think it was
the appeals board that asked some
[1:09:43] detailed questions and we went over the
the data and the numbers as well, but
[1:09:48] it's extremely safe
and we we did this on behalf of Verizon
[1:09:53] because it's information that must be
submitted with the application. When you
[1:09:58] say you did this on behalf of Verizon,
did Verizon
[1:10:02] were they the people who wanted to study
them? They did they requested they pay
[1:10:06] for it?
>> Is required.
[1:10:07] » It's required by who?
>> By the FCC.
[1:10:10] » And we required in our application too.
>> Okay. And there's been no anecdotal
[1:10:14] reports anywhere that there's been any
type of health issue?
[1:10:18] » No sir. Uh so this is this RF is
relatively safe. If you recall last time
[1:10:26] that I was here, um, we talked about RF,
we talked about light, we talked about
[1:10:32] X-rays and gamma rays. X-rays and gamma
rays are extremely penetrating,
[1:10:37] energetic, and they can they can uh move
electrons in your genetic makeup and
[1:10:43] cause mutations. Radio waves are not
the you know I was at a hearing two
[1:10:50] weeks ago and somebody asked in some one
of the residents asked could you give us
[1:10:57] the burrito explanation a burrito like
the stuff you eat
[1:11:03] and u I did
uh a microwave in your house when you
[1:11:09] stick a burrito and I I told him well do
you want a frozen burrito explanation or
[1:11:13] a room temperature burrito explanation
and he said either way. So a microwave
[1:11:20] in your house in that compartment
has a wattage
[1:11:26] power-wise of microwaves of 1500 watts
and it takes about two and a half
[1:11:34] minutes or so to warm up a room
temperature burrito or maybe less. As a
[1:11:40] microwave has a wattage of 1500 watts.
If you were to put a site out here by
[1:11:47] the street and bring that same burrito
and put it here, you wouldn't be able to
[1:11:53] warm it up. There's not enough energy.
The amount of wattage
[1:12:01] being received by that burrito from the
new site nearby,
[1:12:06] uh, make believe site for this example
is 0.0000. 0 0 0 0
[1:12:15] and then a number non-zero number watts.
That's the amount of energy emanating RF
[1:12:21] energy emanating from one of those uh
sectors as compared to the energy in a
[1:12:28] microwave of 1500 watts. Are you guys
with me?
[1:12:32] » The microwave door is closed
>> and the microwave door is closed. So,
[1:12:35] you're safe. But the energy here is a
period followed by nine zeros and then a
[1:12:42] nonzero number watts. Extremely low
energy. That was the point
[1:12:47] » and I accept that but I just don't I
mean these people are going to live
[1:12:51] there constantly
microwave
[1:12:56] constant. That was my concern.
>> I see. So again this uh this uh
[1:13:01] thresholds are based on ILE E uh studies
that have been conducted on biological
[1:13:09] specimens to determine what is safe and
what is not safe and therefore that
[1:13:15] threshold of 100% exists and that's why
we calculate to what percentage is the
[1:13:22] radiation effectively at at any distance
away from that site And that's in the
[1:13:29] MPE report that you guys have access to.
[1:13:41] Um I'm just sort of looking down this
next set. I'll just read them quickly.
[1:13:48] of engineers and other professionals
providing planning award approval
[1:13:52] blocking block
conditions of approval block the
[1:13:56] building structure drawings.
I I think those are all there. The
[1:14:03] estimated peak traffic average daily
traffic the site map. I think that the
[1:14:08] next one we really should talk about is
the storm water and erosion plans. Are
[1:14:13] there any concerns with 238 that I read
really quickly? I mean, I think
[1:14:20] that
>> so storm water and erosion plans. I I
[1:14:25] I guess I had a question
about somebody brought this up the last
[1:14:31] meeting about the the driveway
and
[1:14:37] and storm water that will be shed by the
driveway. and I
[1:14:43] um you know have physical difficulty to
personally get out to the site. So I I
[1:14:48] haven't seen it in person and I I don't
have an understanding of distances or
[1:14:53] what those what those concerns are. But
I um I I guess that's one of the reasons
[1:15:00] I just feel like you want to bring up
groundwater and erosion just
[1:15:05] specifically
facility. I think the the plans are
[1:15:09] there. Is that correct Kate? Yes, you
have in the packet there are um there is
[1:15:14] a storm water and control plan
>> which which I remember seeing but did
[1:15:20] did that include the driveway that leads
in there or are there any concerns? Has
[1:15:24] anybody done any any analysis about
I mean cover
[1:15:31] was for the entire um lot.
>> Okay. But it includes the driveway. We
[1:15:36] have the number off of the map. Which
map it is
[1:15:42] Jesse's going to go through that?
>> We got a maple.
[1:15:45] » Okay.
So, we remember last time we did talk
[1:15:49] about it, but we're going to talk about
it again.
[1:15:53] So in this case they're most so the
driveway is approximately 1,400 ft and I
[1:16:00] would say
don't quote me but about 60 to 70% of it
[1:16:05] follows an existing sort of uh path that
leads from the pastures out. There's a
[1:16:14] small section in the beginning uh from
the street um into approximately where
[1:16:20] the cemetery is where you'd come
straight off.
[1:16:25] So that there's a good one.
[1:16:41] and the the part that's existing.
>> So the part that so yeah,
[1:16:46] » you can take a look here. So um here's
friendship road um back in this area
[1:16:53] here is the cemetery,
>> right?
[1:16:55] » Um the home here and and all the the uh
barn and what have you is here. Um, and
[1:17:04] there's a driveway that kind of comes
around and heads out. And from about
[1:17:10] this portion on,
um, the driveway is certainly improved,
[1:17:15] but it's following roughly sort of a a
farm path that's there. The part in the
[1:17:21] beginning here is is newer. Um, and
that's to get access right out to the
[1:17:27] street here such that you can get back
there without having to go through, you
[1:17:32] know, around the farm can be where they
had the pathway and what have you.
[1:17:36] There's actually a plenty of instead.
>> So, that's the part that's not
[1:17:40] previously existed.
>> Yes.
[1:17:43] » Um, there are also are a lot of um, you
mentioned coverts. There's several
[1:17:48] coverts that are that are in here. Um
there are several swailes particularly
[1:17:54] on the downhill side there. Although we
are on the sort of the ridge line there
[1:18:00] » and and we we definitely storm. You can
see these arrows here. These arrows are
[1:18:05] pointing in the direction that the storm
water would go and yes you have a
[1:18:10] butters here and you can see that it
heads that way. However,
[1:18:14] um as part of the drainage, we have
added swailes in here to capture any of
[1:18:19] the water from the driveway and carry a
swale down until we get to a portion
[1:18:26] where it can be well spread far below
um where the homes are um back towards
[1:18:33] the wetland toward the the end of the
end of the property. So there are
[1:18:37] several storm water features that are
incorporated to do that.
[1:18:42] » And the the newer part that's that's up
on this first house that's close to this
[1:18:48] first house.
>> How's the water channel?
[1:18:51] » Okay. So there's actually um across the
street here there's a covert that comes
[1:18:55] across and there's actually a wetland
right here.
[1:18:57] » Okay.
>> Um there's also a small wetland on this
[1:19:00] side. We're kind of going in between
those and we have a cover here. You can
[1:19:03] see we're s taking that existing water.
We're going to put it through the cover
[1:19:07] and we also have a swale along this edge
too even though we're below this home.
[1:19:12] Um the most part there's another Yeah,
exactly. Up front here. Um, we do have
[1:19:19] uh storm water features there as well
with a series of coverts to take the
[1:19:24] water from this side and bring it back
where the existing pond is and follow
[1:19:32] the arrows of the existing storm water
where it head is now. So we have those
[1:19:37] features on there. In addition to that
um one of those things on there is
[1:19:42] erosion control plan. You can see there
we have an erodic control plan that at
[1:19:45] the limits of work we show uh silk fence
and limits of disturbance. Um there as
[1:19:53] well it was talked about last time about
um and it was a former chair up who was
[1:20:00] had uh my recollection there had a lot
of experience with instruction and what
[1:20:05] have you and he was more um asking about
a written plan. So we did put a written
[1:20:11] plan together on that. So it's a
operation and maintenance plan um on&m
[1:20:18] plan and uh a storm water pollution
prevention plan. So I'd like to submit
[1:20:22] that to the board and it just goes
through um basically
[1:20:26] the process for how we chose and in
putting these erosion control barriers
[1:20:31] and then the various devices that we
have in here, coverts, swailes, things
[1:20:36] like that, how they would be maintained.
are effective. So, we talked about that
[1:20:41] last time. It didn't really say in the
bylaw that we needed to, but we brought
[1:20:46] up. So, we we did that. they can
certainly
[1:20:50] » um and yeah that was part of the
question on the tip of my tongue if just
[1:20:56] my own experience doing project
management and construction
[1:21:01] » best laid plans all the engineers you go
through your first winter and spring and
[1:21:06] sometimes some of these things don't
work the very clever
[1:21:09] » and and it is on really large trust
written here that modifications need to
[1:21:17] be I mean um
>> yeah absolutely that the whole idea
[1:21:21] that's a living document if you read in
there
[1:21:23] » yeah things need to be to maintain
so we're not really changing the
[1:21:29] direction of where it's flowing but we
are providing these what's called best
[1:21:35] management practices to help um separate
and and um convey any additional runoffs
[1:21:44] that may be created um safely and
safely.
[1:21:49] » And without making me look look it up,
how let's say in a typical nonspe
[1:21:58] um how often do you anticipate vehicles
will be driving down that category?
[1:22:04] » So, um
[1:22:08] usually
there's so after it's built, usually the
[1:22:13] most activity is when it's built, right?
closed. Exactly. After um each carrier
[1:22:19] that may be on it, they may be going out
there approximately once a month uh to
[1:22:24] check on things. Um
>> additionally, the Blue Sky might go out
[1:22:28] there once a month um or every couple
months. So, you're talking about
[1:22:33] » not even trips per day, right?
>> So, so
[1:22:36] » half a dozen trips a month,
>> something like that. So, to put that
[1:22:40] into context,
>> um a single family home
[1:22:44] off top of my head may have seven to 10
trips a day and trips are like an end
[1:22:49] trip like if you go to work and come
back that's two trips right
[1:22:54] » so you know each of us has different
schedules but just globally overall 7 to
[1:23:01] 10 something like that you know if you
go to work come back you go to the store
[1:23:05] so those are trips that would be 7 to 10
per home per day so we're talking
[1:23:11] » seven to 10 per month
>> you know maybe over a course of a couple
[1:23:15] of weeks or a month, right?
>> Once it's once it's established low
[1:23:18] level. And why why would you say that?
Because
[1:23:21] » no one works here per se, it's it's
unmanned, right? The only time you go
[1:23:24] here is upgrade. If there was something
that they couldn't remotely fix,
[1:23:30] » um you know, if you have to provide fuel
or something or uh
[1:23:34] » adding equipment.
>> Adding equipment. Exactly. So that's one
[1:23:38] chart. Are there any questions of on
this topic from anybody else? Ready to
[1:23:44] move on to the next. Um,
okay. The, uh, technical financial
[1:23:51] capacity. I think we kind of discussed
that already on headlines. I see an all
[1:23:56] over the map. I think we've got that.
Um, fire protection provisions.
[1:24:02] Um, there's a
Could you just review that real fast?
[1:24:09] Um, so let's see. Yep. Uh, page 15 on
the application.
[1:24:16] Um, and maybe Jesse can speak to this,
but we're constructing uh, and you can
[1:24:20] show that on the plan there. Access
drive that's sufficient for, you know,
[1:24:24] emergency service vehicles with parking
and turnaround. Um, you know, adjacent
[1:24:30] to that fence compound. Could you show
that on there? Are there
[1:24:34] » and if there's any concerns I'm not sure
Kate if the fire department has seen
[1:24:39] these plans but if there's anything that
the fire department
[1:24:43] » is there any alarm like if something
caught on fire
[1:24:49] » the equipment has alarms and they're
they're monitored okay by them yeah
[1:24:53] there's uh they have basically just like
a similar to like a smoke detector a
[1:24:57] heat detector in those they do have them
one of the other things is the compound
[1:25:01] is you know in this case it's uh get the
exact size 50 by 72 and you'll notice
[1:25:08] inside that um
right now there's only one carrier on
[1:25:12] this on this pad but they're separated
apart and in between them is stone like
[1:25:18] stone mulch. So the idea is that it's
not vegetation. It's not something that
[1:25:22] can start on fire. If a fire were to
occur, is somebody going to have to see
[1:25:27] it or is somebody is there an alarm that
>> there's the cabinets have the cabinets,
[1:25:32] » right? So So somebody will be notified
off site that that's
[1:25:35] » similar to a home like if you're on the
smoke detector will go off or something
[1:25:38] like that. Yeah. Very similar to that,
>> right? But
[1:25:41] » they're UL rated cabinets,
>> but the fire department isn't going to
[1:25:44] know about the smoke detector
necessarily.
[1:25:47] » No, no, not generally. No. A lot of
times they'll get a um they'll either
[1:25:51] have a code to the gate or a lock or
there could be a um
[1:25:55] » like a box.
>> A knock box.
[1:25:57] » Right. Now I get I get that part. Like
if the fire starts, do we have to wait
[1:26:02] for somebody to observe it or is is
there like like in a security system for
[1:26:07] » very similar to that. So there's
something called a knock. Each carrier
[1:26:11] Yeah. as a network operation center and
inside they monitor you know whether the
[1:26:17] site's up or down. whether there's
power. Um, some of them are pretty
[1:26:22] sophisticated can monitor like much fuel
left in the generator. Um, you know,
[1:26:27] whether they're uh, yeah, there's over
temperature, things like that. So, that
[1:26:32] network operation center does monitor
that.
[1:26:35] » Okay.
>> But it does not automatically go to the
[1:26:37] fire department. There would have to be
>> Well, they may do the in between call,
[1:26:41] but some somebody remakeware
something a miss is happening. Correct.
[1:26:47] Yep.
Um any any other questions on that
[1:26:51] article from anybody?
So let's move to the um article 7
[1:26:56] general performance standards
um buffer areas. Uh we got this is the
[1:27:03] landscaping
easier. We have the landscaping plan.
[1:27:07] Are there any questions on that? I think
it looks my quick first glance. if they
[1:27:12] complied with what they requested to
kind of 360 surround.
[1:27:17] » Daniel know you had a question there
about uh something about um making sure
[1:27:21] that they were plants that were on a
particular list. Both of those are on
[1:27:26] there. Um the uh the cedar which is a
type of arbor the arborite which is a
[1:27:33] type of cedar and the white spruce are
both on that main list. If there is a
[1:27:38] concern about
so um
[1:27:43] deer don't like white spruce they do
like arborite so if they if there's a
[1:27:48] concern about that there's an
alternative or we could use a viburnum
[1:27:51] or something like that if that's a
concern really realistically though I
[1:27:56] think we're
my recollection is we're about I would
[1:28:01] say about 25 ft lower than the street
and we're about uh at least 900 ft or so
[1:28:10] back. Um so it's more for sort of long
views or the closest of butter when
[1:28:16] there might be winter conditions. And
that was the whole idea of going all the
[1:28:20] way around with them. But um
we we'd be open to that if you do like
[1:28:26] an alternative there. But that's what
we'd uh that was what was discussed last
[1:28:30] time. We tried to be tentive to to uh
that request.
[1:28:36] So, I am looking through
article 7, buffer, construction
[1:28:43] standards, electrical. We're not in the
historical village district.
[1:28:49] Um
the the lighting and noise both meet the
[1:28:54] standards. Is this is this the place
where we talk about the generator
[1:28:59] decibels or um
>> you have a place in article 10 that
[1:29:03] » Okay. So, I'll wait for that.
Um, and on 7.13,
[1:29:09] is this the place where we ask if
they've gotten the the little letter
[1:29:13] from the from the state about there's no
[1:29:29] » Okay, perfect.
>> Um, anybody have any questions? So, go
[1:29:34] ahead.
>> I do. Um, I don't know if this applies,
[1:29:36] but I'll just bring it up because I see
it. That emergency services when you
[1:29:41] gave the initial presentation, you said
EMS, you would have a a separate box or
[1:29:48] something for them so they could get
notified quicker.
[1:29:53] » I think what we were talking about was
the gate, the Knox box for the for the
[1:29:57] gate. Can you just talk about that
though while that got your attention
[1:30:01] about the emergency services because the
EMS um having been in the medical
[1:30:07] service for 40 years I know the value of
being in a couple of minutes quicker. So
[1:30:12] Julie did you have
have there been complaints that EMS
[1:30:18] hasn't gone down quick enough or is that
an issue? So,
[1:30:24] » because the ambulances by they have to
have a chart and they they log in, log
[1:30:29] out, what time they got there, what time
they dropped the patient off. Have have
[1:30:33] you seen anything to indicate that
there's been a problem
[1:30:38] » with cell coverage and people getting
there and
[1:30:40] » exactly with the timing?
>> I would have to ask specifics on that.
[1:30:46] I'm sure they can give you some.
Anecdotally,
[1:30:50] there is an issue
with that in several sections of town,
[1:30:57] right?
>> Where if the radio is not working,
[1:30:59] sometimes cell service does not work.
I've heard of that. But if you would
[1:31:03] like that data, I can get that from
emergency services.
[1:31:07] » I think that would be good because
that's come up and that's one of the the
[1:31:10] positive points that this
>> could bring to because the ambulances
[1:31:15] they they have a lock. They know when
they get the call. They know when they
[1:31:20] get the
>> EMS, fire, and police.
[1:31:23] » Yeah, that would be interesting to get
back.
[1:31:25] » Just to weigh in on this specific
standard, in the ordinance, it says that
[1:31:30] they need to have the application
reviewed by the three departments and
[1:31:34] have them weigh in.
>> I haven't seen that.
[1:31:37] » I
>> has that been submitted?
[1:31:40] » Um,
I don't believe I have submitted it to
[1:31:43] the three chiefs yet.
>> Okay.
[1:31:45] » Okay. So, so
>> that is something I usually do.
[1:31:48] » So, you'll take care of them. But,
aren't we talking about two They're both
[1:31:51] important, but two different things.
>> You're you're talking about emergency
[1:31:55] services to the site,
>> but you're talking about the fact that
[1:32:00] this tower
>> would would give more service that would
[1:32:05] benefit like there was something that
these guys talked about
[1:32:10] about letting local emergency utilize
that.
[1:32:14] » Yeah. So I think there's two things.
There's one item is the access to
[1:32:22] E911
by a resident using their cell phone.
[1:32:26] Obviously that act is going to be
enhanced by the proposed site. You can
[1:32:32] go to Walmart,
buy a phone, don't not having a
[1:32:38] subscription to a carrier, turn the
phone on and be able to use that phone
[1:32:43] to connect with emergency services
at any sales site, including the
[1:32:48] proposed site. So, that's one aspect of
it, the E911.
[1:32:53] But I think you guys are also discussing
the fire department
[1:32:58] emergency in general having an antenna
at the proposed site to extend the
[1:33:07] reliability of the service that they
have to communicate amongst themselves
[1:33:12] » and and that's what you're going to get
some data on. So I know that
[1:33:20] our so
for E911 and communications that's those
[1:33:25] would be county tower that would be a
county technically a county tower. I
[1:33:29] know they always have interest in being
colllocated on any tower in the area
[1:33:34] because it does provide better coverage
especially
[1:33:39] with the digital
>> um system but also having coverage
[1:33:46] um so I yes it's twofold I can get I can
get information if you would like I can
[1:33:52] ask for information from the county on
that and I can ask for information from
[1:33:56] emergency services to cover both those
questions.
[1:33:59] I also um regarding 7.12 emergency
services, all applications shall be
[1:34:04] reviewed by Walterboro fire chief,
police chief, EMS chief. I did send them
[1:34:08] the pre-application back in November um
before we had the final application. I
[1:34:13] have not sent them the final
application, but regarding the the
[1:34:16] pre-application,
um
[1:34:19] all three of the chiefs had no um no
further questions or concerns. They did
[1:34:25] say um that area has been difficult at
times. It would be a missed opportunity
[1:34:30] if we did not consider some space on the
tower going in for public safety
[1:34:34] communications.
I believe Chief Speltzer feels the same
[1:34:37] way. So I'm in support of um the tower
in that regard. Otherwise, I do not have
[1:34:41] further questions or concerns.
>> So you'll get all that stuff on a lot.
[1:34:46] » So I will I will send them the updated
tower location and make sure they don't
[1:34:49] have but regarding the transition.
Does that answer questions and
[1:34:55] » and to further answer the question um
exhibit 8 to the application there's a
[1:35:01] statement from the applicant and under
section 10.28.3.9.4
[1:35:07] Four, uh, there's a statement by Blue
Sky to allow, and I think this is what
[1:35:12] was being discussed, allow local and
county emergency operation communication
[1:35:17] devices to be installed and maintained
uh, free of charge uh, at the site.
[1:35:26] » Thank you.
>> Okay, moving on to article eight. Not
[1:35:29] hearing any objections. Oh, yeah. So,
storm water management and erosion
[1:35:33] control is here, but we just finished
talking about that. Um, how do
[1:35:37] geological cells scale of groundwater
not?
[1:35:44] Um,
so standards met
[1:35:50] any any issues on on 8K that that are
open items, blood zone not applicable
[1:36:00] standards met.
Um, no, they're within um they are not
[1:36:07] within a flood zone. Um, they are
um within the setbacks of um river
[1:36:14] stream broken wetlands.
Um, they are not close enough to require
[1:36:20] buffers.
Um, just reminding myself what 8.6 says.
[1:36:26] Uh, no activity shall be permitted in
any area where the soil is rated severe,
[1:36:30] very severe for proposed activity.
According to the county soil survey, the
[1:36:34] soils in that are fine. Um, the county
soil map didn't didn't have anything on
[1:36:41] there. um
they're not integrate from watershed and
[1:36:48] we think for
uh proposal will not a lone earth
[1:36:52] convention with existing activities
adversely affect water the quality or
[1:36:57] quantity of groundwater both on and off
site as they're doing limited earth work
[1:37:03] um they're not doing any sort of um
blasting or anything like that u and
[1:37:08] they're not doing a lot of soil
disturbance less than soil disturbance
[1:37:11] » so So, do we know for a fact that um
there's no ledge interfering with the
[1:37:17] below ground?
>> We don't believe there is before
[1:37:22] construction. Um if this could go
forward, there is a a sight specific uh
[1:37:27] boring that takes place.
>> Okay.
[1:37:29] » Um but um there are some you go out
there, there are some existing
[1:37:34] excavations around just from the farm
and based on our review of that there
[1:37:39] wasn't anything obvious there.
unlikely. But but in that in the event
[1:37:43] that
>> you know you say its name there's
[1:37:47] budgets everywhere.
>> Um then then
[1:37:51] » this what you were just talking about
could become relevant or
[1:37:56] » well um 8.4 generally talks about um
things being stored underground.
[1:38:03] » Okay. So um
>> so not not
[1:38:05] » no activity shall locate, storage,
discharge or per permit discharge of any
[1:38:09] treated, untreated or inadequately
treated liquid, gaseous or solid
[1:38:13] materials of such nature, quantity,
obnoxiousness, toxicity or temperature
[1:38:17] that it has the potential to run out,
percolate or wash into the surface
[1:38:21] ground waters so as to contaminate,
pollute or harm such waters or cause
[1:38:25] nuisances such as objectionable shore
deposits, floating or submerged debris,
[1:38:29] oil, scum, color, odor, taste,
unsightliness, or be harmful to human
[1:38:33] animal platform or frankly
>> well read [laughter]
[1:38:38] so that's that's even even if they
discover a little ledge that that
[1:38:42] shouldn't
>> I mean up to discussion of the board but
[1:38:46] » okay
>> yeah but anybody have any comment or all
[1:38:51] right I'm going to move on to article
nine um the so explain to me it says
[1:38:58] waiver requests are not applicable at
the beginning of article Could you
[1:39:03] explain what that means?
>> Yeah. Um, so the traffic impact analysis
[1:39:10] um is required for um demonstrating the
impact of the proposed project on the
[1:39:16] capacity level of service safety of
adjacent streets. shall be required if
[1:39:20] the project or expansion will provide
parking for 50 or more vehicles. Okay.
[1:39:24] Or generate more than 100 trips um
during the AM or PM peak hour based on
[1:39:30] chip generation service addition.
>> So so that's it's really not
[1:39:33] » so they're they're below the standards
that we would apply for a traffic impact
[1:39:37] analysis.
For example, the you know the um new um
[1:39:43] main health was required to do a traffic
impact analysis
[1:39:47] high volume of traffic in and out. This
is not that. So they don't correct.
[1:39:50] Okay.
>> They don't meet the standard
[1:39:53] » and you skip over um 8.8.
>> I kind of I kind of whipped through 8.8.
[1:40:01] Yeah.
>> I have I have a flex of I just
[1:40:06] » No, no worries. Um,
as far as the aesthetics, which I know
[1:40:11] they're picked around by a lot of
people, myself included, but the
[1:40:16] aesthetics I think go and I remember,
you know, first practice gave some type
[1:40:22] of character,
[1:40:25] you know, values and how much they would
or would be. Now, so the part I think
[1:40:30] it's fair to say a house is going to be
probably your biggest expense in
[1:40:36] if people
see that power there. How did you come
[1:40:43] with those? What were the matrix of
getting those numbers? Because you had a
[1:40:46] a nice whale, but I didn't understand
how you got the matrix of how your house
[1:40:51] was or how much it would stay or how
much it would go down. Wouldn't you have
[1:40:55] to learn to sell that? you know because
you say you lose 10% money because
[1:41:00] people don't want to be around a 90
that's a lot of money for people that's
[1:41:05] their life so I just want to know what
the matrix was on that presentation that
[1:41:11] presentation that you that you did
>> yeah so this is a study um provided by
[1:41:20] Vern Gardner Uh,
[1:41:28] let me see if I can
[1:41:58] So,
uh, the study uh was an impact study to
[1:42:04] determine whether or not proximity to
and view of a proposed cellular
[1:42:11] communications tower adversely affects
the potential selling price of any
[1:42:17] single family dwelling. And what he did
here is he has several different uh
[1:42:26] examples
um
[1:42:32] and I can I can go through you know
through each of these but just more of
[1:42:37] the process that he used. Did he go to
various sites around similar? Well, I
[1:42:43] think
>> so. Let's see. We can go through.
[1:42:55] Um there are six uh the following six
examples are drawn from an impact study
[1:43:01] uh for Rocklin. Once again, the dates
here are relevant. He looked at the
[1:43:06] prior sale.
Um,
[1:43:15] so the first one is in Rockland, Maine.
The second one is in Wisconsin.
[1:43:20] Um, the third one is in Wisconsin.
[1:43:27] And what he did was
uh have you seen the you have this
[1:43:35] I don't have
>> Yeah.
[1:43:38] » So
let's see.
[1:43:43] It says the scope of my research
includes the discovery of single family
[1:43:47] dwellings that have sold that are
approximate to and have a view of a
[1:43:51] tower. Each example was verified with
the real estate agent who sold that
[1:43:57] property and other calculations were
performed to determine whether or not
[1:44:02] there is any impact on the selling price
of single family dwellings due to its
[1:44:07] approximate to and view of a cell tower.
Um, let's see.
[1:44:17] Says, uh, Waldboroough is situated.
None of that there.
[1:44:44] think that he provided a a summary in
here.
[1:45:01] So on on each of the of these examples,
for example, if we look at the one for
[1:45:08] uh Cumberland, Maine,
um we said the property previously
[1:45:13] transferred on June 9th, 2013
um for 444 440,000.
[1:45:22] That represents an increase of 30% when
the median selling price increased by
[1:45:28] 24% same period. Uh it's located with an
upscale single family subdivision. The
[1:45:34] particular dwelling is a custom quality
colonial
[1:45:38] uh set among the trees. Uh the
communication tower is visible from the
[1:45:43] driveway and within 500 ft. According to
the real estate agent, the presence of
[1:45:48] the cell tower did not influence uh the
selling price. And I think that you know
[1:45:53] that's the results that you know he he
has in in each of these. Um, in fact, I
[1:45:59] think what, you know, we see more often
than not when someone is buying a house,
[1:46:04] they're looking at their phone to see if
there's any coverage, um, and that that
[1:46:09] adds, you know, value to, um, you know,
a location to be able to have, uh,
[1:46:15] communication, you know, services. So,
you know, he looked at, you know, the
[1:46:20] sales price
in proximity to, you know, a
[1:46:24] communications tower um and found that
there was no, you know, looking at data
[1:46:30] that there was no
>> I'd like to know his methodology because
[1:46:34] I lived in Portland. Those houses go up
by the week. It's a beautiful slide. So
[1:46:40] I again question how he did how his
house in evaluating which house.
[1:46:49] » Yeah, I I I mean there's there's you
know not a lot of um you know there
[1:46:56] isn't any data in in Walder. Um so this
is you know data that he was able to you
[1:47:03] know obtain you know here in u Maine uh
with you know with um you know
[1:47:10] residences that were
[1:47:15] let's see
um you know much much uh closer you know
[1:47:23] 400 ft
um
[1:47:28] so I I can get more information on this
on this report, but
[1:47:40] » questions or comments about
[1:47:51] » Okay, I'm gonna proceed. Oh, go ahead.
>> I have a question.
[1:47:57] Okay, sounds good.
[1:48:00] These seem to be all
I mean there's summaries of properties
[1:48:06] and opinions, but it doesn't seem like
there's any actual before and after
[1:48:11] appraised value. Like they didn't have a
property that sold before a tower went
[1:48:16] off. This was the appraised value and
then there was one after. It's super
[1:48:20] hard. There's so many factors on market
value that I don't know if it's
[1:48:25] something you could actually come up
with um
[1:48:31] to prove one way or the other. Well, I
think the analysis that is done here is
[1:48:36] looking at the sale of properties that
are in close proximity to a
[1:48:44] communications
tower and asking the question as to
[1:48:50] whether or not that proximity to the
tower had any impact on the sales price.
[1:48:57] But to Daniel's point, I mean that it
doesn't I'm about saying that it's
[1:49:03] good or bad or or otherwise, but there's
so many other variables that I mean just
[1:49:08] watching the way the housing markets
behave since the pandemic. There's so
[1:49:13] many other, you know, variables that
could have happened over the course of
[1:49:16] the study that would have affected
value. So it's hard to to attribute it
[1:49:22] to that one thing, you know,
>> right? So the I mean I think it was a
[1:49:26] very specific question that um Vern was
asking was whether or not the presence
[1:49:33] of the tower not as and I agree with you
not any of those other circumstances but
[1:49:39] whether or not the presence of the tower
had an impact uh on the price.
[1:49:46] » Again
you know
[1:49:49] the values have been just ridiculously
in the last number of years. So, one
[1:49:55] could have washed or the other. It's I I
would I guess it sounds to me like, and
[1:50:01] this is a I'm not sure how you would do
this any better, but
[1:50:05] » I agree.
>> It's inconclusive
[1:50:08] » and I think there's a lot of
there's a lot of spelling errors and I
[1:50:13] think some of the commentary is
mismatched with the properties. Um, I
[1:50:18] don't want to be hyperritical. I don't
think that this type of analysis works
[1:50:23] in this area because the houses aren't
cookie cutter. Like one might be I mean
[1:50:27] one of these right here went up 30% when
other properties went up 24% but there
[1:50:33] might have been another factor. I'm not
saying that I just don't think that this
[1:50:37] is
[1:50:40] in my opinion conclusive but I don't
think that there's anything you could
[1:50:44] provide otherwise that would be more
convincing. I think it's just a lot of
[1:50:48] us opinions and
it's all it is is opinion just like my
[1:50:55] opinion now is that contradicts some of
these other people but it's still just
[1:51:00] an opinion. I don't know if I
necessarily think that this is a
[1:51:04] qualitative report but there's no it's
looking at properties but it's not
[1:51:09] looking at appraised value before and
appraised value after.
[1:51:16] like I don't think the appraiser has
been in these properties. They've gone
[1:51:19] to photos, but they haven't there's not
a full appraisal here. So,
[1:51:24] » and and I would add that this does not
appear to be held to any sort of
[1:51:28] specific standard. So, we don't know if
the person who put this to report
[1:51:32] together did have a buy a house of a
negative impact and chose not to include
[1:51:36] it for X, Y, or Z reason. So that was
the reason you may have found nothing.
[1:51:42] » They just the document is not
particularly compelling.
[1:51:46] » I Yeah, there was and this is in
response to another letter submitted by
[1:51:50] an abuter which I have the same issues
with. I think that it's he said she said
[1:51:56] sort to speak. I don't think it's
qualitative or not to face sort of
[1:52:02] » in my opinion. So, I I don't necessarily
disagree, but what I was looking for
[1:52:07] here is um and it was I had it out of
order. Um but on page 27, the
[1:52:15] reconciliation and conclusion, which
just might put some context to this. The
[1:52:21] point of this exercise is to analyze an
element of value. The element of value
[1:52:27] is whether or not a communications tower
has any effect on the selling price of
[1:52:32] single family dwellings. To determine
that to to determine this, the appraiser
[1:52:39] consultant located towers and various
communities both local and distant. With
[1:52:45] that information, the appraiser
consultant first spoke with the real
[1:52:48] estate agents to inquire as to whether
any prospective buyer had voiced an
[1:52:54] objection to purchasing in the vicinity
of a tower. The answer from all the
[1:52:59] sources was no. Then the appraiser
consultant spoke with the assessing
[1:53:05] spoke with assessing by inquiring as to
whether property owners had applied for
[1:53:11] or been granted a lower assessment for
their proximity to a tower. Once again,
[1:53:17] the answer was no. And finally, the
appraiser consultant had the opportunity
[1:53:22] to speak with two property owners who
stated that they were oblivious to or
[1:53:27] welcomed the cell tower.
uh these
[1:53:31] » so I think the the sample size is so low
in that that I mean because I'm looking
[1:53:36] at another one where they they're
sampling 2300 22,000
[1:53:42] » and the relationship to the cell towers
shows that there there is definitely you
[1:53:48] know it if you're within a th00and ft it
looks like it's closer to a 10% drop
[1:53:54] » and and yeah you know that that makes
more sense
[1:53:57] » and I don't know just from my background
if it's possible to do that kind of
[1:54:02] large study in this area. I mean, in
other states, houses can be so cookie
[1:54:07] cutter that it really is an a perfect
>> apple to apple
[1:54:11] » apple comparison. I think it's
>> there's a lot of anecdotal stuff. I
[1:54:16] mean, it it
but I mean, yeah, I don't think I'll
[1:54:23] speak for myself. Not trying to be
critical of the effort. It's it's just
[1:54:28] it's just inconclusive. There are just
it's just inconclusive. There's a lot of
[1:54:33] anecdotal
stuff. I I don't know, you know, to is
[1:54:38] the person tasked with keeping us on
track here. I I'm not sure how much more
[1:54:43] we can solve or not in the discussion. I
appreciate the point, but um
[1:54:48] you brought you brought this up. Are
there any other things besides the study
[1:54:52] you want to ask about this or I don't
know the question.
[1:54:57] » Again, just common sense. I just can't
get my hands around having a 94
[1:55:04] foot tower right out.
How much?
[1:55:08] » 200
right next to 194.
[1:55:13] » And not thinking that's going to affect
the price negatively of your house. And
[1:55:19] your house is, as we all know, the
biggest investment you're going to
[1:55:23] probably make in your life. Let's just
use the 10%. Well, if you have a house
[1:55:28] that's worth 500,000 bucks, you just
lost 50 grand.
[1:55:33] » Yeah.
>> So, again, I I'm no sear. I'm no real.
[1:55:36] I'm nothing.
>> It's I'm just just sensibly I'm just
[1:55:41] that came
>> Well, I think I think it's a fair point.
[1:55:44] » I beyond that I I'm glad you raised it.
>> But does does the or town ordinance have
[1:55:51] any?
>> Right. It's
[1:55:53] » no the the aesthetic, cultural and
natural values are we will not have an
[1:55:58] undue adverse effect on scenic natural
beauty of the area aesthetics historic
[1:56:03] sites significant wildlife habitats as
identified by the department of
[1:56:08] fisheries and wildlife for the
municipality
[1:56:13] habitat maps there
right access to the shore
[1:56:22] of standard in place and so so it's it's
I I think his concern is legitimate in
[1:56:29] this conversation
and and so noted um I guess when we get
[1:56:37] to the point where somebody actually
renders a decision about it application
[1:56:44] then then that's certainly relevant to
be part of the consideration. Um, but
[1:56:52] I I'm not sure if you saw anything else
specifically in this context. So, I'm
[1:56:59] going to move on. But, but
>> there is a there is a question of public
[1:57:02] good. I mean, they get away one thing
when they when they have group one north
[1:57:09] expanded it considerably. The people who
are on objective,
[1:57:15] they don't want that at all. And it was
it was it was a big deal,
[1:57:20] » right?
>> But
[1:57:23] the reality was Rub needed to be
improved.
[1:57:25] » But but you also I mean don't don't
confuse
[1:57:28] » public things with private.
>> No saying we're putting in a new septic
[1:57:32] I mean a new sewer treatment plant.
Nobody wants to live near it.
[1:57:36] » But that's for the greater good. Right.
This is a private enterprise.
[1:57:39] » But is it really notep the public uses
it though?
[1:57:43] » Absolutely. For money.
>> We all pay to use it. Yes. Like this
[1:57:48] isn't we don't get it for free.
>> Our tax dollars don't pay for it.
[1:57:53] » Like we pay,
>> right? But but there's a service that
[1:57:57] rendered here that we need and people
want it and and and you can be you can
[1:58:02] be sure this town of Rock
because they got more more people
[1:58:08] driving through, you know, Rockland to
come to their restaurants, their stores.
[1:58:11] So
>> people don't pay to use Route One.
[1:58:14] » So I Well, they do do their job. This
will keep going. This we're we're
[1:58:18] working extra hard on all this because
>> this is not the only dead zone in the
[1:58:24] town of Walber.
>> You drive around, there's lots of other
[1:58:27] places where your cell phone is going to
drop out. So, we're going to keep seeing
[1:58:30] this come up because there'll be other
companies just like Blue Sky that sees a
[1:58:35] little money and finds a piece of land
that meets all this criteria and we'll
[1:58:40] be right back at it. So we have to, you
know, it's our obligation to make sure
[1:58:44] that we do this right because we're
going to keep this going to keep coming.
[1:58:48] understand that there is there is a
question of greater good here and it
[1:58:52] isn't just there are some people who
rely on cell phone
[1:58:57] and I was going to bring up this point
later on but I'll bring it up now is
[1:59:00] that
water
[1:59:05] they rely on their cell I can give you
an instance where
[1:59:10] I heard about someone died and they were
saved because they had their cell phone
[1:59:16] and they had reception more important
and they were put on a ledge boat got
[1:59:21] away
coming up getting dark and they were
[1:59:25] able to contact someone who could come
save them. There have been deaths on the
[1:59:30] river for the last few years of of
people lost their boats boats and turned
[1:59:34] over that they might have been saved if
they had cell service. So you know I
[1:59:41] think there are lives at stake here when
you have you know they have to be taken
[1:59:46] it has to be taken into consideration.
>> So so I I guess
[1:59:52] I I think I think this is extremely
relevant and extremely relevant
[1:59:57] conversation to department decision
hearing and conversation on both sides.
[2:00:02] I I guess in the short term I'd ask is
there any other information
[2:00:09] that can be provided
on this subject that would be helpful to
[2:00:14] anybody when we get finally to the point
where we're going to make a decision
[2:00:18] about this application but or not madam
chair if I may with with the other
[2:00:23] exhibits that we had uh handed out as a
result of conversation from last time
[2:00:28] this has been discussed uh as well I did
put together a a document that um starts
[2:00:36] off with while recognizing the concerns
raised by neighboring property owners
[2:00:40] regarding visual impact and rural
character, the applicant submits the
[2:00:44] following. And I had put together a
number of you know uh public interest um
[2:00:51] you know reasons that if I could submit
>> Yeah, I'm happy to have you distribute
[2:00:55] that.
>> Um
[2:00:59] and again
>> just
[2:01:02] Thank you.
>> I don't want to I'm not trying to
[2:01:06] minimize the importance of this
conversation.
[2:01:08] » We don't need to go,
>> but I just feel like we can we could to
[2:01:12] I mean this this is definitely a key
point in the whole decision, but we're
[2:01:16] we still have some of the checklist to
So, so we will be coming back to points
[2:01:24] of concern, I think, when we get to the
the place to that place.
[2:01:29] being you got to proceed with a
checklist.
[2:01:31] » Can I add something just quick?
>> Absolutely.
[2:01:34] » Um,
viewing this as if it was within 300
[2:01:38] yards of group one, we would view it
differently. I feel like this is an
[2:01:43] issue for the appeals boards when they
decide whether or not
[2:01:47] » that's a great
>> um they can allow it in that zone. I
[2:01:50] don't think it's something that we
do
[2:01:55] in my opinion. Well, I think I think it
might get deliberated on on both places,
[2:02:00] but but I agree that that
I would assume that that would be part
[2:02:05] of the the conversation. I think they
have communication with them. So,
[2:02:10] » I believe that is specifically one of
their more things they look at.
[2:02:19] But if we we will have access to their
whatever the limits are on their
[2:02:24] deliberations and
>> it's happening. Um I mean you're welcome
[2:02:29] to come and sit in the meeting and when
the public
[2:02:32] » you are it's avail it's going to be live
streamed on online.
[2:02:35] » What time is that meeting? Is it 6:30?
>> Okay.
[2:02:39] » Um and it will have minutes every
meeting and those are available for you
[2:02:42] as well.
>> Okay. So I I am going to move on. Um
[2:02:48] we have we have the this is the roads
parkway
[2:02:54] street and we've done all we we just we
went backwards. I think we covered nine.
[2:02:59] » There are some overlaps in in the
different standards.
[2:03:03] » Y so so 10 is the one that's
specifically about wireless
[2:03:07] telecommunication facilities.
And this project, it says, is not exempt
[2:03:12] from amateur ham radio stations uh
antennas as accessory uses less than 7
[2:03:19] ft in diameter maintenance or repair
provided
[2:03:24] temporary broadband infrastructure.
Um and that's confirmed by you. So, and
[2:03:31] and just because the wording there is a
little bit confusing, but yes, it is
[2:03:35] » in in the ordinance um ham radio and
tenants of accessory uses if you're
[2:03:41] doing maintenance or repair a temporary
communications utility or broadband
[2:03:45] infrastructure, broadband internet
infrastructure
[2:03:48] does not have to meet these standards.
Anything else has to meet these
[2:03:55] standards. So if you're doing a ham
radio needle for example, you don't have
[2:03:58] to meet the wireless standards in
>> so so those are the exemptions.
[2:04:03] » So those are the exemptions.
>> This tower is not one of those
[2:04:06] exemptions.
>> Okay.
[2:04:08] » Um
>> so has to meet the standard. So the
[2:04:12] first item here is the topographical map
showing all locations
[2:04:17] and
uh for facilities more than 150 ft high
[2:04:22] which this is within a five mile radius
[2:04:29] of the proposed facility and that's an
easy too.
[2:04:34] The site plan elevation draws
landscaping which we have an updated run
[2:04:39] of. We've seen photo simulations
description. We we saw a lot of this in
[2:04:47] the last meeting. Description of the
network.
[2:04:50] Um
let me just pause at the 3.7.
[2:04:55] Are there any questions anybody or
comments or things people want to talk
[2:05:00] about that 3.2 to 3.7
part of this checklist?
[2:05:08] I think I think all this material has
been provided. It's my my opinion
[2:05:14] anyway. Um no existing site this is 3.8.
No existing site evidence demonstrated
[2:05:21] that no existing building site or
structure can accommodate the proposed
[2:05:25] facility. So this is this is saying that
um well that there is no other way to
[2:05:34] achieve the same purpose without
building the tower. Is that am I
[2:05:38] interpreting that correctly?
>> Yes. Um,
[2:05:43] evidence demonstrating that no existing
building, site or structure can
[2:05:46] accommodate the applicant's proposed
facility which may consist of any one or
[2:05:49] more of the following. Um, evidence that
no existing facilities are located
[2:05:53] within the target market coverage area
as required to meet the applicant's
[2:05:57] engineering requirements. that um
evidence that existing facilities do not
[2:06:03] have sufficient height or cannot be
increased in height at a reasonable
[2:06:07] cost.
>> Um existing facilities insufficient
[2:06:11] strength evidence that existing
facilities do not have sufficient
[2:06:14] strength to support the applicant's
proposed antenna and radio equipment. Um
[2:06:20] and that has some standards insufficient
space. So the existing proof facilities
[2:06:25] do not have space on them
and that's it. Um so they have shown
[2:06:30] with their maps and with um the list of
other proposed sites that there are no
[2:06:37] existing facilities within the space
that they can either increase the height
[2:06:42] on or increase the capacity of there are
no
[2:06:48] » um
question. I mean, I I I brought up the
[2:06:53] the question before about using the
existing utility poles for for micro
[2:06:59] tower things, and they said it was just
too expensive.
[2:07:02] » Uh,
so
[2:07:06] didn't you say that?
>> Uh, that may have been that that was
[2:07:11] probably part of what I said, but that's
not the proper context.
[2:07:15] » Or that that blue sky doesn't do that.
>> No. Um
[2:07:20] the radius of a macro cell that we're
discussing
[2:07:24] » right
>> is anywhere from from two to three
[2:07:27] miles.
>> Okay. So four five six miles diameter
[2:07:32] more or less
>> right
[2:07:34] » the that's a footprint. The footprint of
a small cell is measured in hundreds of
[2:07:41] feet.
>> Right. But there's
[2:07:42] » very small
>> telephone poles all
[2:07:44] » telephone poles everywhere. Right. the
amount of structures or hardware that
[2:07:50] you can put on that is limited. So what
you put on a small cell because of the
[2:07:54] height is something like 1900 or 2100
which doesn't propagate too far.
[2:08:00] Therefore the the small footprint that
is correlated to the height of the
[2:08:05] radio. Um so there are engineering
issues with that because you do not
[2:08:10] achieve the coverage objective that you
want to achieve. uh you do have a lack
[2:08:16] of coverage and you have a uh a
performance gap because you have no
[2:08:22] coverage and uh the small cells don't
reach into a home for example the the
[2:08:28] the the um coverage maps that I showed
you last time you saw the green and the
[2:08:34] yellow within the green footprint you
have inbuilding coverage that is
[2:08:40] something that the small cell on a
street pole wouldn't it be able to give
[2:08:45] you besides the fact that you have a
footprint that is miles in diameter as
[2:08:52] compared to a footprint that is hundreds
of feet in diameter.
[2:08:57] » Understood.
>> Yeah.
[2:08:59] » But the the question was if this is this
the only way to to achieve the the goal?
[2:09:05] Yes, you have a significant gap in
coverage and the only way to achieve
[2:09:11] this objective is with a macro cell
because it allows you to put the low
[2:09:17] bands 700 800 as well as the midbands
1900 and 2100.
[2:09:24] The midbands give you a smaller
footprint but they help you with
[2:09:27] capacity. the small cells can long can
only afford to have the midbands 1900
[2:09:35] and 2100 megahertz.
>> I I do think it's worth pointing out
[2:09:39] that with the small cells versus the
large radio towers, not the radio tower,
[2:09:43] the large cell towers,
>> yeah,
[2:09:45] » the large cell tower does have that
broader footprint.
[2:09:48] » Yeah.
>> But the majority of that footprint, as
[2:09:50] we've seen on the map, is empty woods.
uh and as Morgan pointed out in the
[2:09:53] previous meeting, one of the largest
swaths of empty woods that we have in in
[2:09:57] this area. Whereas the smaller uh units,
they do provide a smaller footprint, but
[2:10:03] that footprint is centralized on
roadways, which is where the majority of
[2:10:07] development and human activity is
located.
[2:10:10] » So, I'd like to again stress the fact
that the uh the macro cell is going to
[2:10:15] give you inbuilding coverage in your
house. Um but to your point um about
[2:10:22] covering the woods where there's nobody
there, well there's something to be said
[2:10:27] for having the the accessibility to
service in case somebody is there. But
[2:10:34] let me also say that um there is a radio
kite that's being installed with this
[2:10:42] particular tower and Barason is doing
this in every tower and this is a C-band
[2:10:47] radio which operates at the 3700
megahertz uh band or uh frequency.
[2:10:56] Uh this particular radio has a phase
array antenna and what the phase array
[2:11:03] antenna does is it aims the traffic beam
to the customer in particular. So there
[2:11:10] is an envelope or of RF to determine
where the customer is located. When the
[2:11:16] customer then attempts to make a phone
call or connect to the internet, there's
[2:11:21] the beam is steered to that one
customer.
[2:11:25] Okay. So that technology is will be in
place with this site.
[2:11:36] I mean the question was whether coverage
could be done
[2:11:41] » into different
>> but I think we answered that question
[2:11:47] » and
>> I think somebody who installs
[2:11:50] uh small towers on utility poles would
have a different answer.
[2:11:55] » Uh I don't think so sir. No, I just told
you that the footprint is much smaller
[2:12:01] » that the type of radios that you could
>> I'm sorry.
[2:12:04] » Small cells.
>> I I just I don't I don't know.
[2:12:08] » Well, I'm telling you,
>> but you don't install it.
[2:12:11] » No. And and and to be honest, if I may
if I may interject, uh the people that
[2:12:16] do the installation don't have the
engineering background. So, if you're
[2:12:19] listening to somebody that's doing that
and telling you that, they don't really
[2:12:23] have the engineering background to to
tell you that.
[2:12:25] » Sure. Well, that
>> I don't know enough to disagree.
[2:12:28] » Just logically the the example that was
raised about somebody else out fiction
[2:12:34] must find this bag.
>> Yeah.
[2:12:35] » Um I
>> if you need help.
[2:12:38] » Yeah. Not I mean I I guess I just can't
visualize how if it's if something is on
[2:12:44] on um you know the telephone calls that
would
[2:12:48] » totally and now and now the next wave is
satellites you know I mean
[2:12:53] » okay let's go there
>> if I may. I mean,
[2:12:56] » let's go there if I may.
>> Yeah.
[2:12:57] » To answer your question as well. So, um
Star um SpaceX
[2:13:04] purchased um 65 megahertz of spectrum.
>> Yeah.
[2:13:10] » Okay. You probably heard this.
>> Yeah.
[2:13:12] » All right. So, what is the frequency of
this spectrum is in the 1900 megahertz
[2:13:19] range. Um, so there the the cellular
space in the United States is worth $600
[2:13:27] billion.
So obviously,
[2:13:30] uh, SpaceX wants a wants a piece of that
and they're going to get it. So, what
[2:13:35] they're going to do is they're going to
use small uh low earth orbit satellites,
[2:13:39] LEO satellites, and they're going to
beam
[2:13:43] uh radio waves similar to those that are
on the towers
[2:13:49] to customers cell phones. That is called
direct to cell service from space to the
[2:13:56] customer. See, again, the frequency is
1900 megahertz. So it has limited reach
[2:14:04] but they will be able to serve some
customers particularly in rural in uh
[2:14:08] rural areas.
For example, we I think we I heard you
[2:14:14] say that there are multiple gaps in in
um uh Woro. Some of those gaps may work
[2:14:23] well in providing if they're small in
providing coverage from a satellite and
[2:14:29] that's what he's aiming at. Oh, no. I
was talking more about the emergency
[2:14:33] situ.
>> Oh, okay. No, but but that's where he's
[2:14:34] aiming at. So, the fact of the matter is
that that um uh the 65 megahertz that he
[2:14:41] bought or he bought that's a SpaceX
bought uh he he SpaceX and Starlink is
[2:14:50] deploying this nationwide. Okay. I
mentioned the C-band radio that Verizon
[2:14:55] is going to deploy on each sector of
this proposed site. This C-band radio
[2:15:02] has a bandwidth of about 140 megahertz.
Compare that to the 65 megahertz that
[2:15:12] Space Xbox uh bought. Much much
different. Much less capacity Starlink
[2:15:18] will have to start with. They're going
to have to get creative and I'm sure
[2:15:22] they will as time goes by. But starting
from now, their coverage is going to be
[2:15:29] limited because of capacity. There's
very little capacity. Yes, sir.
[2:15:34] » I brought this up last meeting. You
know, you're familiar with Mo's law.
[2:15:38] Every trans
>> I think the technology I think it's
[2:15:43] going so fast, so quickly with AI that
that tower will be outmoded within a
[2:15:49] year.
uh you know
[2:15:51] » technology something else will come in
as you alluded to.
[2:15:55] » Yeah. So um I think you you need to
realize that the technology will help
[2:16:00] with rural areas in in cities is uh is a
lot more troublesome because you have
[2:16:06] more obstacles and clutter on the
ground.
[2:16:09] um you still need the ground stations
and wouldn't surprise me if is if is
[2:16:13] SpaceX 101 15 years from now buys AT&T
or T-Mobile or Verizon for that matter
[2:16:19] because they will have to rely at one
point on ground stations to provide more
[2:16:26] uh coverage that can penetrate into
structures. The 1900 is not good at
[2:16:31] penetrating into structures.
Okay,
[2:16:39] » Daniel's gonna I'm gonna take a brief
break. Daniel's gonna
[2:16:45] » take over for me for a minute.
>> Exactly. [laughter]
[2:16:50] » Are we all set with 102838?
[2:16:55] » The no existing site.
>> I don't think we're going to get more
[2:16:59] resolution out and more conversation at
this page. So, yeah,
[2:17:03] » call it Okay, moving on to 102839
agreements.
[2:17:11] Let me just make sure
[2:17:17] » um that's reasonable charge require no
more than a reasonable charge for shared
[2:17:20] use baselines community rates generally
accepted accounting principles charge
[2:17:24] may include but is not limited to pro
shar cost of site selection planning
[2:17:28] project administration land site design
construction
[2:17:32] um the order and more
>> camulations
[2:17:36] » thank you of the above cost by the
facility owner shall be accomplished at
[2:17:40] a reasonable rate over the youth
[2:17:44] So is that just in regards to their
lease uh of the site?
[2:17:50] » Um it's um the lease of the actual
tower.
[2:17:54] » Yes.
>> Are we happy with that?
[2:17:59] » Okay. Moving on. This is mislabeled for
the shy. It should be 1028310
[2:18:06] is the section that covers it. Um and in
the ordinance it says a form of shy
[2:18:10] approved by the planning board to pay
for the cost of removing the facility if
[2:18:15] it is abandoned. They have submitted
that. At our last meeting, we had asked
[2:18:20] for clarifications on what form that
will take and also to have that updated
[2:18:26] to include
I remember right, it only goes so many
[2:18:30] feet down,
[2:18:37] not the whole.
[2:18:43] Yeah.
[2:18:50] So, we talked a little bit about that
last time and our recollection was that
[2:18:56] um you were looking for
um
[2:19:00] additional
um
[2:19:05] opinion of cost for removal of um
utility poles and and power systems. So,
[2:19:13] we um
We updated the
[2:19:20] um removal for that um which is here
>> and um we discussed that there are
[2:19:28] several forms that the
that the that can take and I believe um
[2:19:37] this guy was prepared to
if if that if you're in agreement with
[2:19:42] the amount and the scope that you would
be looking to do a bond
[2:19:47] » removal bond. Um there's other forms of
shity but they were looking for a bond
[2:19:55] » to provide that.
>> This is their updated
[2:19:59] » SH and they've offered to get a bond.
>> Yeah, I think I think that's that's what
[2:20:07] we'll ultimately need.
I do get that with the timing of when
[2:20:13] you actually purchase the bond. It's a
>> right
[2:20:15] » it's a little premature till the project
starts. But
[2:20:18] » yes,
>> I think I think this is sufficient to at
[2:20:24] least documentation.
I've just looked at it. I don't know
[2:20:28] about the amount. I haven't really
studied it, but uh
[2:20:31] » it's gone up.
>> Okay, good.
[2:20:33] » Just a quick question. What what
triggers a removal?
[2:20:37] I mean um
>> disuse
[2:20:40] » abandonment removal.
>> Yeah.
[2:20:42] » D disuse is disuse. The minute you stop
using it,
[2:20:45] » you must take it down.
>> There's a standard.
[2:20:49] » Does the ordinance give a period of
time? Usually what we see if um the the
[2:20:55] tower has been abandoned for a period of
two years, you know, meaning that
[2:20:58] there's not a carrier on there, then
within
[2:21:01] » Yeah. Our ordinance says 12 months.
>> Okay. But
[2:21:07] We usually see, you know, 24 months and
um 180 days of notice so that, you know,
[2:21:15] we can find a vendor
>> get, you know,
[2:21:19] » get it done.
>> So, which which which is it 12 months or
[2:21:22] two years?
>> It's in our ordinance.
[2:21:24] » So, if you go by our
>> It's 12 months. The code officer issues
[2:21:29] a notice in 90 days and they have 30
days to remove it.
[2:21:35] And so if the the technology does in
fact evolve and in five years nobody's
[2:21:42] using cells anymore.
>> They still pay for it.
[2:21:47] » They get rid of
>> how many of those boxes.
[2:21:50] What do you call those thing? The actual
module that beams out the the
[2:21:55] » antenna antenna.
>> Yeah. Can you keep adding to like
[2:22:00] four, six, 8, 12 and keep going and then
have someone else take it over?
[2:22:06] » So Verizon has Verizon is installing
three antennas per sector and there's
[2:22:11] three sectors. So
>> should be nine
[2:22:14] » nine on that on that at that particular
level. And T-Mobile and AT&T are about
[2:22:18] the same.
So that's that's how many you need on
[2:22:22] average to provide service uh with the
multiple B uh bands that the operators
[2:22:27] use.
>> Yeah. And you might see that towel with
[2:22:30] 15 20 of these antennas.
>> That's how whenever you look at a site
[2:22:36] that's what they look like. Yes.
[2:22:41] » Any other questions on maturity?
>> Uh yeah, back to the bottom real quick.
[2:22:45] Is
I'm not a numbers person. I can't tell
[2:22:48] quite by looking at this. Is there a
mechanism to account for the increase in
[2:22:52] cost over time of the removal?
>> Not in that document, but I believe in
[2:22:57] the um if you get a bond, you can you
can purchase it with an escalator that
[2:23:06] it follows uh
>> like inflation,
[2:23:08] » right?
>> I think I believe that's a standard,
[2:23:12] » right?
>> Yeah.
[2:23:13] » And so that that's like a present day
cost like you said.
[2:23:17] » Yeah.
and I don't know bond company make sure
[2:23:20] that we're paying enough in annual
premium so that
[2:23:23] » this does illustrate the what the range
of the coverage and and it would be good
[2:23:29] to have the escalator at the point that
somebody's in a position to purchase
[2:23:34] this built in
>> but that's a great point
[2:23:40] » any other questions
>> okay so the next area within And the
[2:23:48] very next item and and we are getting to
the end of this.
[2:23:53] The uh the 300 yards of route one is the
the variance has been requested and
[2:24:00] that's going through the appeals board
next week. So I don't think we need to
[2:24:04] talk about that.
Um, municipal sighting standards are met
[2:24:10] not applicable according to this
design or collocation of at least three
[2:24:17] additional.
It says facilities or providers
[2:24:22] facilities.
That doesn't mean we need extra
[2:24:25] buildings, does it? Or
>> it's for collocation.
[2:24:30] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. If we look at the site,
[2:24:33] » it's inside the
>> Yeah. What it means is inside the
[2:24:36] compound there was four total earlier.
There could be more but there's there
[2:24:40] were at least room for four
typical commercials.
[2:24:45] » Yeah.
>> You know that plus the power itself
[2:24:51] » will have the only person we know for a
fact that that's interested [snorts] at
[2:24:55] this point is Verizon. However, um there
are three other levels that will be
[2:25:03] designated and have placeholder values
for commercial equipment built in to
[2:25:08] allow that.
>> And that's that's shown on the compound
[2:25:11] plan and elevation drawing.
>> Okay, I remember that. And the height is
[2:25:19] um 195 ft and is 194. The 200's the
limit. So it's 194 plus 5T lightning rod
[2:25:27] which came up in an other conversation.
So you see that's been added.
[2:25:32] Um
>> just point of clarification um for the
[2:25:35] height maximum height of new expanded
wireless to telecommunication facility
[2:25:39] shall be 195t.
>> Oh okay. So the lightning rod is not
[2:25:44] part of the five the fact that the
lightning rod adds overall height. Is
[2:25:49] that is that what that's saying or
>> um the the
[2:25:54] ordinance is not clear about if the
lightning rod counts towards the height
[2:25:59] or not. So that's something for the
planner to discuss. Um the the
[2:26:05] um the ordinance simply says the maximum
height of new or expanded wireless
[2:26:10] telecommunications facilities shall be
195 ft. The facility shall be designed
[2:26:15] to collapse in a manner that does not
harm other property.
[2:26:19] So it caves down.
>> We didn't want I mean I know people
[2:26:23] brought that up before the addition of a
lightning rod. How do people feel?
[2:26:27] » It looks like the lightning rod
>> puts it over the 195
[2:26:32] » but it's a lightning rod. Is it I mean
[2:26:36] » yeah the size of that
>> the discussion is the light is the
[2:26:40] lightning rod qualified as part of the
structure.
[2:26:42] » Well does it does it take us over the
195 do we need?
[2:26:48] you know, how do how do you all want to
handle that?
[2:26:53] I think the consensus in an earlier
meeting was that we did want a lightning
[2:26:56] rod.
>> Yeah.
[2:26:59] » I think we need to be also consistent
with what's happening in projects that
[2:27:04] don't come before us but come to the
town and hear from the code officer that
[2:27:08] if you we have maximum height for new
buildings like barns.
[2:27:12] » Great point. If there's a lightning rod
on the barn
[2:27:16] » in other applications counting that or
not.
[2:27:20] » Do you know?
>> Do you know that kid or
[2:27:23] » our code officer is is present with
>> us
[2:27:29] [laughter]
typically for like a structure it goes
[2:27:33] off of the structure itself. Um, but it
I mean I could see how the lightning rod
[2:27:40] could be considered the structure, but I
could see how it could not be as well.
[2:27:44] But I mean typically if someone was to
put like a weather vein on the top of
[2:27:46] the barn, I wouldn't consider that as
part of the structure for for me
[2:27:52] anyways. [snorts]
>> I think I think that makes sense.
[2:27:54] » Yeah, that makes that makes sense to me.
I think the only the only thing I
[2:28:00] I mean a plane shouldn't be flying that
close to the top of the tower anyway,
[2:28:04] right? So, um,
>> they have FAA
[2:28:10] » permission.
>> Okay.
[2:28:12] » They do in in your original packet. They
had
[2:28:14] » 200 ft.
>> They didn't need it.
[2:28:18] » So, so that's the lightning rod.
>> What's the trigger for needing a light?
[2:28:23] » I I agree.
>> Ask them. What's the trigger for light?
[2:28:26] » Uh, 200 ft uh and above or if it's in a
area that's a in a flight path that they
[2:28:33] determined The lightning rod would put
it into
[2:28:36] » No,
>> no.
[2:28:38] » Oh, okay.
>> 199. [laughter]
[2:28:43] So, it's not
>> And it's not in the flight path, too.
[2:28:44] » It's not in the flight path either. So,
I mean, the study is two parts. So, it's
[2:28:48] a is it a hazard to air navigation
because it could be lower than
[2:28:53] » you know that and be a hazard?
light.
[2:28:56] » We generally don't consider that as part
of the structure because it's a it's a
[2:29:00] safety thing and it's the size of
>> I like the point about the continuity
[2:29:03] what we do with other structures in
town. So
[2:29:06] » generally just as the code enforcement
officer had said that um FAA looks at it
[2:29:11] very similar. There's a structure height
and then there's what's called an
[2:29:14] pertinance height which would be in this
case the lightning rod is considered
[2:29:19] anertinance.
Both yeah both are both are provided and
[2:29:24] categorized in there. So if you know if
if the tower was raised for some reason
[2:29:29] or lowered or the impertinence height
was changed then that gets filed with
[2:29:34] FAA. So they they need to know that but
it is a distinction the structure height
[2:29:39] from an impertinence something that's on
it.
[2:29:42] » Yeah. And and the reason for that is and
you've seen this you've seen this on
[2:29:45] towers um just coming up here there's
one in u forget the the town um it
[2:29:53] starts with a W is it
>> scasset there's a on route one off to
[2:29:58] the right there's a tower and there's
actually blinking light on it
[2:30:02] » and then there's um several antennas
that jut way like probably 20 feet above
[2:30:07] that. So in that situation you can see
where that tower structure height must
[2:30:13] be over 200 and there's a pertinances
that are higher as well. That's an
[2:30:17] example of how the two kind of work
together.
[2:30:22] » Um the next thing here um we are we
voted to follow the old rules. So the
[2:30:30] the setback
meets meets the old yes
[2:30:35] » rules and that we've got that outline
here on landscaping.
[2:30:42] Um it says waiver requested but we have
a new landscaping plan that appears to
[2:30:46] me to I didn't
>> they didn't update the checklist to
[2:30:49] reflect they have submitted okay they
have submitted.
[2:30:54] Okay, perfect. And my recollection is
that we had we had uh
[2:31:02] these
have limited fence. We have the the
[2:31:06] lighting that we discussed confirmed by
the planner. Um color and materials. I
[2:31:12] can't remember what we said about that,
but did we did we specify color of the
[2:31:17] fence?
Um
[2:31:24] Did that come up? Show
>> I don't remember previous conversations
[2:31:29] but um we're strand
[2:31:34] » right now we're showing just galvanized
chain and fence but there are other
[2:31:37] options at the board.
>> It's um just color and materials. A new
[2:31:42] or expanded wireless telecommunication
facility must be constructed with
[2:31:45] materials and colors that match or blend
with surroundings natural or built
[2:31:48] environment to the maximum extent
practicable unless otherwise required.
[2:31:52] intermediate colors, earth tones, or
subdued hues shall be used.
[2:31:56] » Okay. I I I
would advocate at least on the fence, I
[2:32:00] I realize that you still have a tower
that's very large that is some
[2:32:06] galvanized e silvery color probably. But
um at least when you're looking straight
[2:32:12] ahead, it's every project I've ever
worked on, I've advocated for um the
[2:32:19] black chain link because I just think it
disappears more. And
[2:32:23] um that would be my personal opinion. I
don't know how other people feel about
[2:32:27] that, but it's if if there's a such
thing as aesthetically pleasing chain
[2:32:32] link, I think black chain link comes
closest.
[2:32:36] Um and the buildings I trust are an
earth or grayish or neutral.
[2:32:42] » Yeah. No cabinets.
>> No, no buildings particular in this one.
[2:32:45] Verizon is just proposing um um
refrigerator size cabinets, but yeah,
[2:32:49] they are sort of a gray tone.
>> Yeah.
[2:32:52] » Um I we've done black fence before, so
if that's something the board wants to
[2:32:58] condition or if that's what they want to
see, I don't think
[2:33:01] » I think that it's just
>> think there's a problem there. Just keep
[2:33:04] in mind it's far off the road, but
that's that's okay. It's still
[2:33:08] » sure
>> when you come upon it. I mean it just if
[2:33:11] you're going to put chain link up
anyway. I mean
[2:33:15] » you know it's
>> again they I've seen them do it. So I
[2:33:18] don't I don't think
>> and the towers themselves silver is kind
[2:33:21] of the only option isn't it?
>> That's what we're showing is the is the
[2:33:26] galvanized. I mean that's the the one
that's used more often because you it's
[2:33:30] you're not it's not flaking paint and
things like that. So it's it's uh
[2:33:36] it works from that perspective.
>> Yeah. I I mean I
[2:33:43] it
>> I'm inclined to agree that the black
[2:33:47] chain link fence is a harmless but
potentially positive request to good
[2:33:53] » um any other comment on color materials?
uh structural standards.
[2:34:01] That's
okay. Can we
[2:34:04] » but New York expanded wireless
telecommunication facility must comply
[2:34:07] with the current electronic industry
association telecommunications industry
[2:34:11] association
um 222 revision standard and titled
[2:34:16] structure standards for sealant power.
>> So so that's been met. Yes. and and then
[2:34:21] the noise the question about
just want to bring up the the generator
[2:34:27] piece and check back in on that and the
the decibb and when
[2:34:32] » so to actually run
>> last time it was um
[2:34:37] wanted additional information on the
generator which we have here um the
[2:34:42] particular generator is a a 50 kilowatt
uh generator. It has an enclosure and it
[2:34:49] also has a tank if some of that
information is is in here. Um
[2:34:56] » can um
you remind me a couple quick things.
[2:35:01] Does
>> when and how long is this going to like
[2:35:05] it it turns on weekly, right?
>> So yeah. So what what happens is um um
[2:35:11] there's a period of time and it can be
set um to go off and the idea is that it
[2:35:18] it starts up so that it's available when
you need it, right? The idea can charge
[2:35:22] its batteries. It it runs and makes sure
that um it's operational. So, that can
[2:35:27] be set on your ordinance says uh between
7:00 a.m. and 10 p.m., but we've seen
[2:35:33] boards set a a time, say 11:00 a.m. or
12 o'lock on a Tuesday, and it could
[2:35:42] run. Um,
>> and how long does what's the duration?
[2:35:46] » Usually, it's about uh 20 minutes to my
recollection. There's a warm-up period.
[2:35:50] It runs for a little bit and it shuts
down.
[2:35:53] Um,
we're getting close to transitioning to
[2:35:57] public comment. I I I'm just I just
can we set Let me do it this way. Can we
[2:36:05] Can we get back to you on that range?
>> 100% like the neighborhood would prefer.
[2:36:11] » That's done quite quite frequently.
Absolutely.
[2:36:15] » Um, all right.
Under all these papers is an agenda.
[2:36:22] The um application review next is C
public comment and then D board
[2:36:28] deliberations and recommendations. It is
um 9:24.
[2:36:33] » That was the next thing I was going to
in your in the ordinance have any sort
[2:36:37] of um time limits to your meetings,
>> right?
[2:36:42] » So we can run as later as long as the
board desires. Um there is a limit to
[2:36:48] human endurance.
>> Right. Right. So So what are the
[2:36:50] alternatives? And I I I guess I would
feel awkward not giving all people that
[2:36:58] came at least a a little bit of
opportunity to speak tonight. Um but I
[2:37:05] also
>> I would suggest and you don't have to
[2:37:10] make the suggestion. This is really a
suggestion. we have public comment and
[2:37:13] then we um suspend the the um meeting
just also because we were handed a lot
[2:37:22] of materials tonight. I think you're
going to be handed more materials
[2:37:24] tonight. It would be good for you guys
to review and digest I
[2:37:28] » um what you talked about what you
thought about your questions before you
[2:37:32] come back to discussion. Um because the
next step is the deliberations and
[2:37:37] really setting what conditions andor
deciding whether or not to approve or
[2:37:42] not approve
>> and we would also know the result of the
[2:37:45] meeting next week
>> and you would know the result of the
[2:37:47] meeting next week. So is that a public
meeting?
[2:37:50] » That would be a public meeting.
>> The deliberation
[2:37:54] so
>> yeah with no comments. The reason I
[2:37:56] asked with no public comments on
>> the public if we allowed public comments
[2:38:01] tonight you wouldn't have to allow
public comments. you could if you wanted
[2:38:04] to.
>> So, so this is my thought that maybe we
[2:38:07] go total.
Um,
[2:38:10] first of all, I want to thank you guys
for, you know, providing answers and
[2:38:14] helping us get through this checklist.
Um, I didn't want to make an awkward
[2:38:19] transition and just getting late. But
what if we go till at least I would say
[2:38:24] quarter of just giving folks who are
here because they came here and they
[2:38:27] listened for all these hours a chance to
to speak. But also when we resume after
[2:38:34] we because it sounds like we're going to
have another meeting after we go over
[2:38:37] all this and we discuss give give the
public another opportunity another
[2:38:42] window to speak after they've had a
chance to process as well if that seems
[2:38:46] scary that
>> I would second that proposal.
[2:38:50] » I don't know if you'd have to make a
motion of that but I think you could I
[2:38:54] think that is what the board should say.
>> Yeah. We do we have consensus with that
[2:38:57] idea.
>> So 15 more minutes.
[2:39:00] » Yeah. give give these guys 15 minutes
to,
[2:39:04] » you know, get started, but also give
them another another opportunity the
[2:39:07] next time we meet.
>> And um
[2:39:12] » um I generally approve of the idea. We
may want to do a little more than 15
[2:39:16] minutes because I count at least eight
people here. That's, you know, less than
[2:39:20] two minutes a person.
>> Try for 15 minutes, but I'm going to
[2:39:23] make a hard stop at 10. How's that?
>> I I think I could agree.
[2:39:26] » Just
procedurally, you should if you're going
[2:39:30] to continue the meeting then you should
have public comment from the first on
[2:39:35] the next agenda.
>> Yes.
[2:39:38] » Before the vote.
>> Y I just wanted to make sure that
[2:39:41] » Yeah. Just consistent with Yeah, I think
that's what I was saying.
[2:39:44] » We could just postpone all public
comments until the next meeting.
[2:39:47] » I I just I just feel I I I would I would
not sleep well letting these guys say
[2:39:54] something. They've been very patient.
So, I'm I'm going to entertain.
[2:40:01] » So, I would like to motion that we have
30 more 30 minutes of public comment up
[2:40:06] to 30 minutes of public comment and then
suspend this and have another period of
[2:40:12] public comment and our final
deliberations at an upcoming the next
[2:40:15] meeting.
>> Do I hear a second on that?
[2:40:19] » I second that.
>> Um, all in favor of that.
[2:40:24] I see at least the majority.
>> Um, [laughter] okay.
[2:40:32] » And I'm gonna ask all you is it okay if
I have the time?
[2:40:37] » Yes. Thank you.
>> And and I I will remind that
[2:40:43] well I I'm not going to remind you of
anything. It's just you've been in the
[2:40:48] room. So you'll have other opportunities
but go ahead.
[2:40:52] » So you all know me. I'm Sally Williams.
This is my son Christopher Chase. We
[2:40:56] live at 2790 Friendship Road.
I want to address some of the questions
[2:41:02] that were not answered and I'm going to
start with the photo simulations.
[2:41:08] So, we know that last meeting on the
9th, Attorney Dval made his apologies
[2:41:12] for speaking out of turn in the November
25, 2025 planning board meeting about
[2:41:17] the options for photos to be taken from
people's properties. He indicated at
[2:41:21] that meeting that when he went back and
quote unquote fought with folks, it was
[2:41:26] a hard no that they just don't do what
we originally asked.
[2:41:30] Um
I just I have a problem with that
[2:41:35] because
we were promised something. There is the
[2:41:41] ordinance that requires the photo
simulations to be done and it states
[2:41:45] that we get to ask for what we want. We
did. A list was given to them, but they
[2:41:52] were not taken as specified.
There are actually some problems with
[2:41:58] those photos. I don't know if any of you
have them here with you or would you
[2:42:03] like me to hold up the images when as I
speak about them?
[2:42:08] » That's probably
[2:42:13] » I've got them.
[2:42:17] » All right.
I limit it. There are problems with many
[2:42:19] of the photos because they were not
taken and they minimize what is actually
[2:42:24] going to be seen by the residents. So,
I'm going to pull them up one at a time
[2:42:29] and I'll have Chris bring it around and
show it to you. So, my first primary
[2:42:33] concern is the image that is for 2500
Friendship Row, which is photo 2A.
[2:42:41] Because it was taken from a public
rightway, it does not represent what the
[2:42:46] homeowner would actually see because
just past the bushes in the picture, the
[2:42:50] view opens up providing the homeowner
with a very different vista.
[2:42:54] » It's completely different.
[2:43:00] » Which side was on this one, Mom?
>> I'm sorry.
[2:43:02] » Yeah, I don't see a tile on that sign.
>> Uh, so this is the driveway. The opening
[2:43:07] is right here.
>> That's right. Yes, that's this one.
[2:43:10] Yeah.
>> So, do you have an image of what the
[2:43:13] owner would
>> do you have the image of what the owner
[2:43:16] would see? Did you take it?
>> Do you have the image
[2:43:20] » exists? Yes. Are you Are you saying like
we we were getting a little superimposed
[2:43:24] of
>> No. Do you have a photo of the balloon
[2:43:27] test that a
>> I don't have it with me, but yeah.
[2:43:30] » Well, I mean, so you're saying this is
not what the owner would see.
[2:43:33] » So, can you plan to bring it next time?
>> You don't have what the owner,
[2:43:37] » right?
>> But you do have it,
[2:43:39] » right? So we will provide that in the
next public comments. The next one is
[2:43:44] the image for 2458 friendship road which
is 17A.
[2:43:53] That's the picture that was taken.
However, there has GPS coordinates on
[2:43:59] it. The actual GPS coordinates are for
2450
[2:44:03] Friendship Road, not 2458.
So it was not taken at the specified
[2:44:09] property. So that is not in compliance.
The town asked for 2458.
[2:44:15] It was taken at 2450.
[2:44:26] » It's another house all together. Another
driveway. So it's not even remotely
[2:44:31] close. And then of course there's my
property.
[2:44:35] So, the photos for my property are 4 A
and 4B.
[2:44:40] And hold on a second.
[2:44:46] This is what it looks like. Show them
that first, please.
[2:44:50] That's what is being shown as represents
Christopher's in my property.
[2:44:56] Now, I did email Kate about this, and
Kate did make some inquiries about it,
[2:45:01] and it was acknowledged that it was not
taken at my home, but from the entrance
[2:45:05] of my driveway.
>> However, the GPS coordinates for that
[2:45:11] image.
>> Yeah.
[2:45:13] » The picture was actually taken, now I'm
2790.
[2:45:17] The picture was actually taken at 2810
and it's of an image of 27.88.
[2:45:25] That's not my house, not even remotely.
And I understand that I have an easement
[2:45:30] driveway, but there was a reason why I
asked for the pictures to be taken from
[2:45:35] my property. Now, we're going to show
you what it would actually look like
[2:45:40] from our property,
[2:45:48] right? Let's really take a look at that.
This is the my house. That is my deck.
[2:45:54] That is the balloon.
An answer to your questions earlier.
[2:45:59] What this is going to look like.
>> Yeah.
[2:46:01] » Right. This is not going to be pretty.
That is a You can use your imagination.
[2:46:08] That is tethered.
It's going to have a threepart tower,
[2:46:14] three sides.
>> Did you take this photo yourself?
[2:46:18] » Yes, ma'am. Because nobody did. because
nobody Okay, that's it.
[2:46:21] » And it's going to have all the
collocators on it.
[2:46:24] » Got
>> four potentials.
[2:46:25] » That is
>> three panels a piece in height at the
[2:46:29] top.
>> This is standing in our driveway.
[2:46:32] » That other photo was
>> This is actually from my h inside the
[2:46:35] house.
>> Oh, you said that inside the house.
[2:46:37] » That's inside the house.
>> Okay.
[2:46:41] » So, this is not going to be Oh, it's off
the street. I'm not going to see it.
[2:46:48] And these pictures should have been done
for you with the images superimposed so
[2:46:55] you could determine effectively whether
there's going to be negative aesthetic
[2:46:59] impact.
>> Yeah, that would be nice to have the
[2:47:02] tower.
>> Don't you think?
[2:47:04] » Just super just to g give you a a real
sense.
[2:47:07] » Correct.
>> And I think you can do that, right? I'm
[2:47:09] no
>> Are those digital photos?
[2:47:12] » I took digital camera.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Is that something I my tech
[2:47:16] is really
>> well without having without having the
[2:47:20] GPS coordinates of exactly where we
stood, they wouldn't be able to
[2:47:22] superimpose
>> um on the Well, like you know that the
[2:47:27] balloon is allegedly the top. So could
somebody photoshop in a tower?
[2:47:32] » Well, sure, but it's a But why have I
got to do that?
[2:47:35] » I'm not asking.
>> Why do I have to do that? I I'm I'm I
[2:47:38] guess what I'm thinking is if if you
were to provide the digital
[2:47:42] » to I don't actually want to give them
anything. I'm I'm being belligerent and
[2:47:47] I know that.
>> No, that's all right. I I'm I'm just
[2:47:49] trying to solve problems for people.
>> It was it was our understanding for the
[2:47:53] last for the last meeting that one of
the reason why they didn't do this go on
[2:47:57] people's property because of a liability
issue and they weren't they were allowed
[2:48:00] to do that
>> and I was allowed to sign the waiver. I
[2:48:02] w I agreed to sign a waiver. Well,
>> did you
[2:48:07] What about Maine's landowner liability
laws that protect anyone on someone?
[2:48:11] Like Maine has a landowner liability law
that protects anyone who crosses anyone
[2:48:16] else's property. So why was Maine's
liability law not taken into effect on
[2:48:22] that?
>> In other words, just to clarify what you
[2:48:25] said, in other words, if somebody's out
hunting deer and crosses your property
[2:48:30] and they break their leg, the owner is
not liable for that.
[2:48:33] » Yeah. Not if you're hunting deer. No. As
long as you are just walking across
[2:48:37] someone's property
>> and as long as you do not put out a
[2:48:40] trap,
>> the law does not stand if you're like
[2:48:43] putting bootby sats on your property.
But as long as you're not putting booty
[2:48:46] traps on your property,
>> you are allowed to walk on anyone's
[2:48:51] property and the you cannot see the
land. So I was just curious as to why
[2:48:56] they're saying they couldn't take photos
because of liability, but Maine has a
[2:49:00] landowner liability.
That is genuinely a question. This was
[2:49:04] the one.
>> So, I give that all to you to think
[2:49:07] about, but I want to in the interest of
time, I have more important information
[2:49:11] that I think you need to do that will
answer some of your questions and Daniel
[2:49:15] some of yours. So, I looked at that
impact study and I'll be honest with
[2:49:21] you, I was appalled.
So, I did some homework
[2:49:27] and
that is not even remotely what should
[2:49:33] have occurred.
So, I contacted another appraiser and I
[2:49:40] didn't ask them do an appraisal because
it's expensive. It's very costly to have
[2:49:45] them do that. But I share with you what
an impact study is supposed to look like
[2:49:52] because I had another appraiser give it
to me. That's what you should have
[2:49:58] received. And Daniel, you are absolutely
correct. None of that data
[2:50:04] opinions. It's nothing. There is no data
in it at all. And I'm going to explain
[2:50:10] to you why.
>> It is absolutely a bogus piece of
[2:50:15] information.
And I have here
[2:50:19] from
that appraiser his critique
[2:50:25] and it explains why it's eight pages but
I'm going to give you some highlights.
[2:50:36] So I had um
certified a New Hampshire certified
[2:50:43] general appraiser and he could do a
critique. He's not licensed in Maine,
[2:50:46] but he can do a critique because I
didn't ask him to do an appraisal. His
[2:50:50] name is Louis Manius, and he reviewed
that study by Vern Gardner and prepare
[2:50:55] that was prepared for the applicant. On
page two of his letter, Mr. Mania
[2:51:00] states, and I quote, "The first item
that I must highlight is that Gardner
[2:51:05] did not complete a study or analyze any
data that would provide you or the board
[2:51:10] market evidence to support a claim of no
impact to property value." That's a
[2:51:15] direct quote. I'm going to quote again
page three. He, Vern Gardner, makes an
[2:51:21] unsubstantiated comment that based on
the orientation of the property of 2790
[2:51:27] Friendship Road, its distance and
obstructed view of the proposed cell
[2:51:32] tower, there will be no adverse effect
on the selling price of single family
[2:51:36] dwellings. The reason, according to Mr.
manus this is unsubstantiated
[2:51:43] is that he never viewed the subject
property. He admits that in his own
[2:51:49] report that he did not go to the
property. He was not present for the
[2:51:54] balloon test and cannot make the
judgment without being present. This
[2:51:59] impacts the credibility of any
conclusion he arrives at. Also on page
[2:52:04] three, and I quote, although they can be
related, price, to Daniel's point, and
[2:52:11] value can also be very different.
Typically, real estate agents work with
[2:52:17] sellers in order to determine price to
sell a property. Value is determined
[2:52:24] through exposure, negotiations, demand,
supply, concessions, and need, which are
[2:52:31] then determined between the buyer and
seller. Gardner makes a conclusion above
[2:52:36] regarding price only which is what was
some of what was discussed here that all
[2:52:42] it was was selling prices. There's a
whole lot of other data that should have
[2:52:47] been considered in that example report.
He does do just that where he takes a
[2:52:55] property prior and and then later and
then one that's equivalent that didn't
[2:53:00] ever have a tower and then compares them
using a whole lot of other data.
[2:53:06] Page three, another quote. The document
prepared by Gardner is only a survey of
[2:53:10] real estate agents with no specific data
or analysis completed by an appraiser.
[2:53:16] Page five. On page 27 of Vern Gardner's
document, he stated, "The purpose of
[2:53:22] this exercise is to analyze an element
of value. That element of value is
[2:53:27] whether or not a cellular communication
tower has any effect on the selling
[2:53:31] price of a single family dwelling.
Important within the first line of the
[2:53:35] conclusion page is the word analyze.
This implies that some type of analysis
[2:53:40] has been completed. This could not be
further from the truth. This document is
[2:53:44] a survey of unsubstantiated opinions. In
the beginning of this document, he
[2:53:50] indicates a study was completed. His
document is not considered a study due
[2:53:54] to the lack of data or analysis
included. His document is essentially a
[2:53:59] compilation of unverified interviews
with real estate agents involved in the
[2:54:04] sale of properties that are in proximity
to cell towers. H5. He generated this
[2:54:10] quote unquote new study within seven
days which does not allow adequate time
[2:54:17] for research and proper analysis to be
completed. It appears reasonable to
[2:54:22] conclude that he did not conduct any
research in the subject community which
[2:54:26] you already questioned relative to
potential cell tower impacts that may or
[2:54:31] may not exist. We have two other towers
in town. there could have been some
[2:54:36] research done.
Since he did not go view the subject
[2:54:41] property, it would appear reasonable to
conclude that he did not take the time
[2:54:45] to do any new research in Walderboro and
is trying to present this older
[2:54:50] information as being credible.
His final conclusion is based upon the
[2:54:55] analysis the cell tower proposed will
have no effect on the market value of
[2:54:58] single family dwellings in Walderboro.
These are interviews, but there is no
[2:55:03] material evidence or analysis presented
in this document to support that claim.
[2:55:09] The document produced by Gardner does
not provide the board with any
[2:55:12] information by which they can make a
reasonable judgment. It does not, in my
[2:55:18] opinion, satisfy the criteria necessary
under the zoning application relative to
[2:55:23] impact to property values.
per Louie Manius. It is my conclusion
[2:55:30] that the gardener report is lacking in
enough detail and has no current
[2:55:34] analysis of any kind specific to
Walderboro or the surrounding
[2:55:38] communities and that the planning board
for the town of Walderboroough, Maine,
[2:55:42] should not rely on it based on its aged
content with unsupported conclusions.
[2:55:48] The Gardner report fails to provide any
data or credible analysis that will
[2:55:53] support a conclusion of no change to the
market value of abuing properties.
[2:56:00] » A quick question. Did in in this
research that you've done um did anybody
[2:56:06] tell you how much something like this
would cost and roughly how long it would
[2:56:11] take to execute?
>> He did tell me a good analysis would
[2:56:14] take two months.
>> Okay. the cost
[2:56:17] » uh5
to$10,000 was my understanding
[2:56:23] » and his and the end of that example one
it does say that it is just logical
[2:56:30] right as was said that there's going to
be negative impact there's just no
[2:56:36] getting around it it's going to vary the
national realtors association on their
[2:56:41] web page will even say it does cause
negative value but it varies Because
[2:56:46] there are variables that have to be
considered. The proximity, how tall the
[2:56:50] tower is, how visible it is, all of
those things. But you cannot say there
[2:56:54] will not be negative aesthetic impact.
And that falls under undesirable change.
[2:57:04] If we allow this to go forward, we're
going to suffer financially because of
[2:57:09] that. So will several other houses.
Those photo simulation photos do not
[2:57:14] really show the impact to the
neighborhood and to the other houses. A
[2:57:20] lot of the photos are taken from the
street, but people have windows in the
[2:57:24] back of their houses and they can see
something different from the backside of
[2:57:28] their house than can be seen from their
driveway.
[2:57:32] So this is not fulfilling the land use
requirements in order to tell us so that
[2:57:38] you can make a really informed decision.
>> I think would be good again a
[2:57:44] superimposing of the tower from that
picture you took.
[2:57:48] » That's what they were supposed to do.
[2:57:53] » That picture would speak volumes.
>> So float a balloon. I will sign off on
[2:57:58] you coming to my house and taking all
the pictures that make you happy.
[2:58:02] » That picture again
the uh the big photo.
[2:58:07] » Yeah.
[2:58:14] » November. Yeah. But in November. Yes.
>> This one.
[2:58:19] » So I would ask the board to take that
impact study and set it a
[2:58:23] » talking people get here.
[2:58:29] This is
[2:58:40] » so I would just ask that the impact
study created by Vern Gardner be set
[2:58:45] aside and not be considered as
acceptable meeting land use criteria.
[2:58:50] And as a side note, Burn Gardner has a
huge history in litigation where he's an
[2:58:57] expert witness where he has been proven
not to be credible and if you want that
[2:59:02] information, I can give it to you. He's
also been caught lying in court and I
[2:59:06] can also provide you with that
information. So please think very
[2:59:11] strongly about whether you want to
accept that impact study provided by
[2:59:15] Blue Sky Towers.
The other couple of things that I would
[2:59:19] like to touch on and I will go away
because I know everybody needs to go
[2:59:23] home but the application has
historically even in its current form
[2:59:29] had inconsistencies throughout it.
Please be aware of that and I won't go
[2:59:35] into all of them tonight. I can bring
more of that to your attention next time
[2:59:38] if you want.
The application also does not provide
[2:59:44] any real actual RF data needs. There are
specific things that I would ask you to
[2:59:53] be requesting from the applicant in
order to prove that the maps are there.
[2:59:58] That's great. But I want to know more
than just that. I want to know um
[3:00:07] actual size of the gap. They do the
maths. What's the actual size of the
[3:00:11] gap? The number of users in that
reported gap. How many of Verizon's
[3:00:16] users in the area are actually affected
by the gap? We do have 10,000 acres of
[3:00:21] conservation land, right? the Verizon's
data about the percentage of
[3:00:25] unsuccessful calls or inadequate service
during calls in a said gap along the
[3:00:30] area along with drop call records from
Verizon because that's the only place
[3:00:35] you can get them and actual road drive
test data for the area they want to
[3:00:39] serve. That would really give us hard
information on what the need is, not
[3:00:46] propagation maps that are created by
predictive modeling.
[3:00:51] And it's all based on what they put in
the system that they want it to show.
[3:00:56] And I said it last time and I'm going to
say it again. There's questions about
[3:01:00] whether that program is still supported.
All research shows that it was dropped
[3:01:06] in 2004, no longer supported by Ericson.
The trademark has been cancelled
[3:01:13] » and it was not designed for the current
generations of cell phones. It was
[3:01:16] designed for the cell phones of that era
up to 3G. And if I'm making ridiculous
[3:01:22] comments, so be it. You saw what this is
going to do to my property and the
[3:01:25] potential of what it's going to do to my
property value should we need to sell
[3:01:30] that house at some point?
>> Does your research um show a the name of
[3:01:36] an alternative modeling?
>> There's several out there and they're
[3:01:39] all a lot of them have AI stuff. The
only person on the internet, the only
[3:01:44] company is CQ Systems that is still
using decibel planner. I can find no
[3:01:48] reference to it anywhere else and there
are other reports out there. They are
[3:01:52] the only ones. And I want to address
that marine thing you said about
[3:01:56] lobstering.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but the
[3:02:02] Telecommunications Act of 1996,
cell towers are a landont controlled
[3:02:09] service.
The FCC has different systems that cover
[3:02:16] what goes out over the water. If you
look at the propagation maps, they're
[3:02:20] not showing you that there's coverage
over the water. There's no green over
[3:02:23] any of that because they can't they
cannot tell you it's going to provide
[3:02:29] coverage there. So, you can't use that
as a basis
[3:02:34] for well, we might have some help for
lobsters. You might lobster men. You
[3:02:39] might. You might,
>> but it's a lucky happen stance. It's not
[3:02:44] guaranteed because radio communications
is what they're supposed to be using out
[3:02:49] on open water. That's a whole different
system. And they can't promise you that
[3:02:53] there's going to be any coverage to help
lobstermen and clammers.
[3:02:58] So, that's one piece. And as far as when
you ask, please ask the emergency
[3:03:05] service people not for their reports of
what they've heard. Please ask for real
[3:03:10] data.
>> I I will, but I don't know that there'll
[3:03:17] be real data other than anecdotal data.
>> But that's not that's not quantifiable.
[3:03:23] » But I understand that. But if you can't
make a phone call, I don't know how that
[3:03:28] gets recorded. But there is systems for
that and you need to ask that question
[3:03:34] because
an anecdotal story is just that. It's an
[3:03:39] anecdote. I'm not saying it didn't
happen. But again, just like looking at
[3:03:44] that impact study and needing hard data,
you need the same thing around where
[3:03:51] were they? Were they in a low spot?
because the sell service may never make
[3:03:54] the low low spots
>> and so that may not be stuff we can
[3:03:58] produce again,
>> right?
[3:04:00] » I'll do my best,
>> right? But I just I want to make sure we
[3:04:03] understand that quantitative hard
concrete data is what you should be
[3:04:08] using as opposed to anecdotal things
which is qualitative.
[3:04:13] And there's all kinds of factors that
could have influenced that. old old cell
[3:04:18] phones that you know don't work very
well or weren't meant to they should
[3:04:22] have been replaced 20 years ago or
whatever, but you can't just determine
[3:04:27] it could have been the weather that day.
We don't fog impacts things sometimes.
[3:04:33] So, you need to look for really hard
data.
[3:04:37] And with I'm sure, trust me, and I know
I will have more things to say next
[3:04:42] time, but I will leave you tonight.
Thank you for indulging for this amount
[3:04:46] of time so I could at least give you the
actual factual data that I had collected
[3:04:52] that I thought it was important for you
to see.
[3:04:53] » Points don't use shiptoshore radio. They
use cell phones because they're their
[3:04:59] vessels are not designed for that.
They're they're basically
[3:05:02] » and that's fine, but that still doesn't
guarantee coverage on the water.
[3:05:06] » Oh no, I don't I don't
I don't think there's I don't think
[3:05:12] there's a guarantee. But I will say that
the maps did show some of the some of
[3:05:16] the islands and I think you none of it's
absolute
[3:05:21] » right
>> point but but you you could see changes
[3:05:26] according to that modeling that would
were positive on some of the islands and
[3:05:30] so you can infer
>> you can infer absolutely but it's not a
[3:05:34] guarantee. I don't think any of it's a
guarantee with our geography to be
[3:05:38] honest with you. But anyway, no, I
appreciate your I appreciate your
[3:05:42] promise. I appreciate your hard work.
>> I just want to say even kayakers have
[3:05:49] channel 16 radios attached to them. Like
yeah, kayakers have it. like that is
[3:05:55] standard water safety is to have a
marine channel radio talk tuned into
[3:06:00] channel 16 whether you're walking or
kaming or whatever.
[3:06:08] » Um we have four minutes. Are there any
last shots or people to wait until the
[3:06:15] next
[3:06:20] » minute?
>> Okay. All right. Can you go to the left
[3:06:24] for
[3:06:31] some of this may have been something
inferred um some of you but not all were
[3:06:36] present um when it was last shared. So
just for clarity and simplicity there
[3:06:40] are three points to focus on in the
forefront to keep it in the forefront of
[3:06:44] our minds. Each one is explained in
greater depth in the memo of opposition.
[3:06:48] So number one, propagation maps do not
pro prove the existence of a significant
[3:06:53] gap in service. The gap must be, and
this is quoting from the memo, the gap
[3:06:58] must be large enough in terms of
physical size and number of users
[3:07:01] affected to distinguish it from a mere
and statutoily permissible dead spot.
[3:07:07] Indeed, federal regulations contemplate
that areas enjoying adequate coverage
[3:07:12] will still include spots without
reliable service. Dead spots are defined
[3:07:17] as small areas within a service area
where the field strength is lower than
[3:07:22] the minimum number level for a reliable
service and the presence of dead spots
[3:07:26] does not mean that the service is per se
inadequate.
[3:07:30] Sally already. So bearing that in mind,
uh, have we received the substantive
[3:07:35] report that tells us the physical size
of the said gap, the number of users a
[3:07:39] said gap affects, whether all of the
carriers users in that area are
[3:07:44] similarly affected by said gaps, data
about percentages of unsuccessful calls
[3:07:49] or inadequate service during calls in
said gap area. Hard data such as dropped
[3:07:54] call records and drive test data from a
third party. So a third party is
[3:07:59] straightforward avoiding error or
inaccuracy and essential to determining
[3:08:04] process that's before the board. Number
two, the proposed cell tower is
[3:08:08] incompatible with our town's responsible
comprehensive plan and land use
[3:08:13] ordinance are two visionary documents
that uphold town values and is used as a
[3:08:17] measure to identify what stands to
jeopardize those values.
[3:08:22] A variance from a 300yard restriction is
only permissible if granting such
[3:08:27] granting does not result in an
undesirable change in the character of
[3:08:31] the neighborhood and will not
unreasonably detrimentally affect the
[3:08:34] use or market value of abunding
properties. Also from the memo, quote,
[3:08:39] "Federal courts around the country,
including the US Court of Appeals for
[3:08:43] the 1st, 2nd, 7th, 9th, and tenth
circuits, have specifically held that
[3:08:48] significant or unnecessary adverse
aesthetic impacts are proper legal
[3:08:52] grounds upon which local governments may
deny a zoning application seeking
[3:08:55] approval for constructing a wireless
telecommunications facility." Also
[3:09:00] quote, "As logic would dictate and as
federal courts have held, it is the
[3:09:04] homeowners who are best suited to
accurately assess the nature and extent
[3:09:08] of adverse aesthetic impacts of an
irresponsibly placed wireless
[3:09:12] telecommunications facility upon their
homes. This is especially true of
[3:09:16] homeowners whose property is adjacent or
in close proximity to a proposed cell
[3:09:20] tower." Quote, "Federal courts have
recognized that it is completely proper
[3:09:25] for the local zoning authority to
consider the professional opinions of
[3:09:28] licensed real estate brokers as opposed
to appraisers as direct evidence of the
[3:09:34] reduction in property value that an
irresponsibly placed wireless facility
[3:09:38] would inflict upon nearby homes. And
number three, the board has the
[3:09:42] authority to uphold our town's
responsible comprehensive plan and land
[3:09:46] use ordinance without the threat of
suit. Documentation sufficiently
[3:09:50] explains how the proposed cell tower
would have an undesirable change to the
[3:09:54] character of the neighborhood, a
negative aesthetic impact to immediate
[3:09:57] or nearby neighbors and a negative
market value impact to immediate or
[3:10:02] nearby neighbors. an in writing decision
to deny the proposed cell tower based on
[3:10:08] the substantive evidence satisfies the
requirements of the Telecommunications
[3:10:12] Act of 1996.
Um, and then just as a I'll save it for
[3:10:22] » just before I entertain the the motion
to adjourn, is there
[3:10:29] is there any chance that
I'm thinking particularly of the
[3:10:36] the appraisal
and the the uh propagation maps with to
[3:10:43] their point. Is there any
is there any possibility that um the
[3:10:48] blue sky team would entertain those
suggestions
[3:10:52] to redo those two items?
>> I will follow up with blue sky. That
[3:11:00] that sounds absolutely that sounds
great.
[3:11:02] » Um I'm willing to entertain a motion to
continue the meeting. Is that the
[3:11:06] correct
>> I think we have to set the time for the
[3:11:12] » say the motion.
>> Okay.
[3:11:14] » It would be at the next board meeting.
>> But before we do that,
[3:11:18] » when does the stop clock run out?
>> Uh it would be the end of September. So
[3:11:22] our next meeting would be within
>> So we're fine.
[3:11:25] » Okay. And our next meeting
>> would be the second Thursday of
[3:11:30] September,
>> which is the 10th.
[3:11:32] » The 10th.
>> And the appeals board is meeting when?
[3:11:35] » Next week.
>> On the 20th.
[3:11:38] » Oh, yes. 20th.
>> Yeah. 20th at 6:30.
[3:11:41] » Okay. I move that we continue this
matter until our next regularly
[3:11:46] scheduled meeting and adjourn this
meeting.
[3:11:50] » I second that.
>> All in favor?
[3:11:54] Thank you to everybody watching