[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

Planning Board August 13, 2026

Transcript