Planning Board meeting Thursday February 10, 2011
Public present: Adam Goodman, Nancy Marcus, Sandra Chianfoni
Members present: Stephen Enoch, Maggie Leonard
Meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. Maggie Leonard/chair announced that there would not be a quorum at this meeting and therefore no decisions would be made a no votes taken.
The reading of the minutes from January 13th (?) was waived because we did not have the minutes.
Nancy Marcus and Sandra Chianfoni were recognized by the board to present information and review their list of requests and additions to the proposed revisions to the telecommunications bylaw. (See list that accompanies minutes). Since there were so few people present Nancy and Sandra agreed to share their time on the agenda and open up the meeting for participation by Adam Goodman. Adam lives in Monterey and also attended the meeting to ask the board questions regarding the proposed bylaw revisions.
Board member Stephen Enoch reviewed the list of requests that Nancy Marcus and Kate Ryan submitted at the last *gathering of the board [*used the word gathering because we did not a have quorum on January 27th and I’m not sure if it can be termed a meeting or what]. It took a long period of time, and was interspersed with many discussions, but over the course of the evening Stephen compared the submitted requests to the proposed bylaw changes. In some instances the proposed revisions addressed concerns.
Sandra Chianfoni commented that one of the most important requests was to create a 1500’ setback for any telecommunications antenna from all residences and schools as a precautionary procedure.
There was much discussion from Marcus and Chianfoni regarding concerns about the health effects of EMR (electromagnetic radiation) emanating from the antennas on proposed cell towers, and the impact on the environment including trees, and all animals, particularly migratory birds, bees, and humans.
Adam Goodman observed that it would be unlikely that any company would exceed FCC-approved levels of EMR, and that if such a thing were suspected it would be a matter of alerting the FCC. Goodman was formerly employed by a local company called Wi-Spring, and he has some knowledge about radio antenna and towers. Goodman said that the FCC is a very sensitive about this issue and would act immediately on such an allegation.
Sandra and Nancy acknowledged that they believed the levels set by the FCC are inadequate to insure human health. Sandra wondered if the town could invest in a meter and perform spot-checks. Adam Goodman explained that the meters are very expensive (possibly $10,000--$20,000) and that taking the readings is a complicated procedure reserved for those trained and technologically skilled in that area. He said it is not easy to isolate which signal is coming from which antenna and said that part of the reason is because the signals are so faint and tend to also be reflected off certain surfaces.
Goodman also explained why our current wireless overlay district on Mount Wilcox does not work (from his experience with his product which was wireless internet services). He studied the location for his work with Wi-Spring and found that the topography, specifically the shape of the hill (too rounded), of Mount Wilcox is not conducive to the line of sight technology.
Sandra Chiafoni asked about “nodes” which we had not heard about and could not address. Chianfoni also said that the language for the monitoring protocol is too vague and suggested that the bylaw require random checks. She compared that to the food industry where she has experience, “The health dept does not call a kitchen and say they will be checking the next day – they just show up. It should be the same for this; random checks.”
Marcus and Chianfoni also asked about repeaters being 20 watts and wanted to know if that is for a whole site or per antenna. They also wanted a clause to enforce implementation of new technology that becomes available. Stephen and Maggie were dubious if such a thing could be required by the bylaw.
Adam Goodman wanted to know if we could require minimum coverage. Stephen responded that the current bylaw requires that at least 80% of signals from antenna sited in Monterey provide service in Monterey. Goodman also wondered where the numbers for the bylaw come from, specifically the “8-mile rule” for towers in surrounding areas and the -95Dbm used in the definition of Adequate Coverage. Leonard and Enoch indicated that they would email Brian and ask.
Goodman had other items he thought might help the board: consider how many calls each antenna can handle concurrently—focus on size of antenna and amount of emissions; why limit to monopoles which he thinks are actually uglier and look bigger; if town limits tower size for reasons of blight then you get less service per tower.
Nancy Marcus was concerned that the bylaw would move forward without the board making any changes. We explained that there are 3 ways to proceed: we can disregard all of our recent work and keep the current bylaw in place; we can move forward with the proposed bylaw revisions that we presented at the public hearing on Jan 25th and not make any changes at all; we can continue work on the proposed revisions and make changes based on citizen input at the public hearing and subsequent meetings. If the board decides to continue working and revising the bylaw then we need to decide if the new revisions constitute a “substantial change.” If it does then the Planning Board would have to hold another public hearing.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Submitted by,
Maggie Leonard
| 
