Chairman: William Manter
Members Present: Richard Baker, Ralph Viscomi, Laurie Levy
Kim Ames (7:42 p.m. arrival)
Members Absent: None
Recorder: Melanie Rich
Other Attendees: Stephen Madaus (Town Counsel), see Sign-In Sheet
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Manter informed the audience that the hearing would be delayed until Ms. Ames arrived. The Board took up other items on the agenda.
Planning Board Report regarding Acceptance of Redwood Circle – Mr. Baker made a motion to report to the Selectmen that the most recent engineering report of Redwood Circle indicated no outstanding issues and to recommend the street be accepted at Town Meeting; Ms. Levy seconded the motion. All in favor; none opposed; motion approved.
Public Hearing (continued) – Special Permit Application (Verizon) 599 Main Street – Ms. Ames arrived at 7:45 p.m., and the Public Hearing was resumed. Mr. Manter summarized the proceedings: The application was received on February 6th, with this being the third session of a public hearing opened on March 5. He noted that Dr. Haes (author of the RF exposure analysis) was present to speak on behalf of Verizon. The board enlisted Isotrope LLC to conduct a peer review of the Verizon application, and its report was received on April 23rd.
Mr. Klasnick, representing Verizon Wireless, stated he believed he had covered most outstanding issues at the last meeting. He was asked about the Mile Hill Road site (the old landfill). Mr. Klasnick said that site would not provide adequate coverage. Jason Flanagan (RFP Engineer) presented coverage maps with proposed sites at Boylston Center and Mile Hill Road both plotted.
Mr. Viscomi had questions regarding the information on display. Mr. Viscomi asked if it was a simulated model or whether they used vehicles with testing equipment. Mr. Flanagan stated it was a computer simulation. Mr. Viscomi asked how they could determine there was a gap if it is only a simulation. Mr. Klasnick referred to the Isotrope Wireless report. Mr. Viscomi also said that the Verizon, Sprint and AT&T’s coverage maps on their websites show no gaps. Mr. Klasnick said Verizon's analysis is the acceptable practice and, if there wasn’t a need, it wouldn’t be proposed. Mr. Viscomi asked if the numbers of dropped calls and the number of homes affected had been quantified. Mr. Flanagan said no. Mr. Klasnick stated that is was an industry standard to
provide statistical data. Mr. Viscomi said that his understanding of case law indicated that the burden is on the carrier to provide detailed information proving that significant gaps in coverage exist. He hasn’t seen any quantifiable data regarding a gap in coverage. He also interpreted the case to say that not every carrier has to have coverage and that small dead-spots do not constitute significant gaps in coverage.
Stephen Madaus (Town Counsel) read from the case law, and agreed with Mr. Viscomi’s statement. The attorneys agreed that cases tried in the Federal 4th Circuit may not be binding on the 1st Circuit, which would likely hear a Verizon appeal.
Dr. Haes (author of the RF exposure study that was submitted with the Verizon application) spoke. He said he has spent 30+ years in radiation safety, is a certified health physicist, and is licensed in Massachusetts to provide this type of service. He said he was asked to look at the proposed site. He said they conducted the study through a theoretical analysis; not only to comply with the FCC and Department of Health, but to determine potentials for RF exposure at locations in the vicinity of the proposed tower. In one analysis, he assumed a 140’ pole with Verizon on top, utilizing all their licenses bands, including point to point communication. He made a worst-case estimation assuming the site is at 100% capacity and with ground being a perfect reflector. He further explained
the graphs and factoring, and concluded that the exposure at the base of the tower would be less than 0.5% of the exposure limit. He stated that coverage is mostly limited by the ability of handsets to communicate with the tower; therefore, it is of little advantage for Verizon of employ higher energies at the tower. He stated that the wireless RF signal is lower in power than radio and television. The proposed tower could have 200 times more antennas and still be in compliance with FCC and health regulations. Mr. Manter asked the audience if they had any questions for Dr. Haes. No questions were asked.
Mr. Manter said he conducted a site visit with the Fire Chief. The ladder truck passed through a 20-foot wide corridor measured from the Town House steps. Both the Fire Chief and Mr. Manter agreed that 24’ can be negotiated.
Robert Richard, Jr. (632 Main Street) asked if there will be a need for longer and larger fire equipment in the future and could the Fire Chief confirm that. Mr. Baker commented on the compound expansion noted in the Isotrope report and said the tower should be more centered. Mr. Viscomi asked what the compound would look like with six carriers on the tower and whether there really was room on the site for all carriers.
Wayne MacNeil (22 Woodland Drive) presented lengthy testimony explaining his opposition to the tower (on file with the meeting minutes). Repeating what he stated at the previous session, he asked the board to uphold the town's zoning bylaws, deny the requested waivers, and stop construction.
Elizabeth Anderson (25 Woodland Drive) gave a PowerPoint presentation focusing on safety. She showed video of a cell tower that burned and collapsed in Wellesley MA. She also presented information about the dangers of falling ice including how fast the ice would fall (at what speeds), damage caused by falling ice, and how often Boylston has ice.
Mr. Viscomi asked if the monopole is designed to collapse onto itself and what is the minimum exclusion zone for a fall. Mr. Flanagan stated that monopoles are designed to fold like a pocket knife at a point 60% of the height from the ground level, but failed to provide any distance requirements. Mr. Klasnick said it is built to a high structural standard, and falling trees are more likely to cause damage. Ms. Levy asked if there are any state or federal government safety regulations. Mr. Klasnick said there will be a stockade fence. Ms. Levy asked if falling ice would be contained within the fence.
Mr. MacNeil was given more time to continue his presentation. He presented a financial impact analysis and explained it. Mr. Viscomi stated that he spoke with Tina Bilazarian after the last meeting, and she contacted three licensed real estate appraisers who said, in their professional opinion, an uncamouflaged tower would have a negative effect on property values.
Cathy Richard (632 Main Street) asked if zoning had been changed. Mr. Manter said it was at the November 2009 Town Meeting that zoning was changed to allow wireless facilities in the heritage and residential districts.
Mr. MacNeil said Verizon’s published coverage information contradicted the coverage maps presented with the application. Dale Aimes (Worcester resident) said safety is a big concern.
Jamie Rame (620 Main Street) again expressed her concern from the last meeting about the safety issue for children and asked if it is worth taking the risk. She said it is not positive for the town.
Deborah Klingener (600 Main Street) asked who would be responsible for dismantling the tower if it becomes unused. Mr. Manter said Verizon will post a bond to take it down.
Jacqueline Moore (1 Scar Hill Road) asked how falling ice would affect the propane tank. Deborah Klingener read from guidelines stating that even with the weight of snow would present a danger. Mr. Viscomi asked Mr. Klasnick if they considered using diesel fuel rather than propane, if it is a safety concern it should be a consideration. Mr. Klasnick stated that Verizon’s standard practice was to use propane and that they will be responsible for maintaining the propane tank. Mr. Viscomi asked how many similar installations are located in proximity to public buildings. Mr. Klasnick stated that it would not be unique. Mr. MacNeil asked if it is normal to bury it. Mr. Klasnick said that would cause more disturbance for necessary maintenance it and refilling.
Mr. MacNeil questioned Verizon's decision to abandon the possibility of using the church steeple. Mr. Flanagan stated that they did an inspection and found insufficient height and ground space. Ms. Levy, after going over maps on display, felt in her opinion that the gain in coverage is minimal.
Mr. Baker stated that if credible evidence exists to show there is no gap in coverage, then Verizon is not entitled to have the application approved. He expressed doubt that coverage maps available on the Verizon website intended for sales purposes would be considered as valid as computer models prepared by a licensed RF engineer.
Cathy Richard said the tower would be in the heritage district and they are severely opposed to it. You could see it from their property.
Mr. Baker said that the board has been presented with engineering evidence from two different sources showing there is a gap in coverage, and he believes the evidence would hold up in court. He told the audience that if the board were to deny the application, as they were asking, there may be unseen ramifications. He stated his belief that a gap exists and eventually a tower will be built to close it. Someone in the room may even be willing to lease part of their property to Verizon. He asked Mr. MacNeil to substantiate his claim that alternative sites existed. Mr. MacNeil presented a list of FCC-licensed sites in Boylston obtained from the FCC.gov website. He stated that Mile Hill Road is a clear alternative. Mr. Baker told him he would have to be convinced that the gap can be filled
by Mile Hill Road tower, noting that Verizon claims it cannot.
Dennis Costello (4 Woodland Drive), Health Agent for the town, stated that the entire Mile Hill parcel cannot be used for locating a tower due to environmental concerns.
Mr. Viscomi said that it is the burden of the carrier to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they have a significant loss of service, and he hasn’t heard that yet. Mr. MacNeil said St. Mary of the Hills is seeking proposals for wireless installations at their church on Cross Street.
Mr. Viscomi asked if Verizon located in the church and at Mile Hill Road would that close the small gap. He said if two sites could fill the gap, we should explore it.
Mr. Richard felt they gave overwhelming evidence and they should look at other sites.
At this point, Mr. Manter, noting the late hour, suggested we should recess and continue on May 8th.
Mr. Baker made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to May 8th; Ms. Ames seconded. All in favor; none opposed.
Mr. Viscomi made a motion to adjourn; Ms. Ames seconded; all in favor; none opposed. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Meeting Materials:
1. Verizon Special Permit Application (599Main Street) (on file in PB office)
2. Presentation Materials presented at Meeting
| 
