ZBA Hearing Minutes
31 Main Rd
Date: 11/16/11
Hearing began at: 2pm
Members Present: Fred Chapman, Chair, Cynthia Weber, Clerk, Robert Lazzarini, Stanley Ross and Jonathan Levin, Alternate
Also present: Richard Comi, Chris Tryon, Peter Fales, Maggie Leonard, Michael Dolan, Attorney for AT&T, Eugene Bounous, Francis Malabanon of AT&T, Randy Howse of AT&T, Fred Vorck, Alan Salamon, Wayne Burkhart and Carol Ingher
Fred welcomed everyone and reminded everyone that this Board doesn’t write the bylaws their job is to interpret them.
Michael Dolan stated that since the last meeting AT&T has received a unanimous approval from the Monterey Conservation Commission and they have submitted updated plans. AT&T’s findings were that there weren’t any measurable or significant coverage benefits to raising the tower height from 160 feet. The Appalachian Conservancy requested that is be a monopole design vs. a monopine design and they requested that the bottom 40ft of the tower be painted brown and the rest grey, which AT&T has no objections to.
Francis presented proposed coverage maps at various heights.
Jon Levin asked about the reason for a larger compound at this location vs the other proposed location to avoid the waiver AT&T is requesting. Michael stated that because this tower is 30 feet higher that the other one it requires more space in the compound. Randy Howse of Infinigy Engineering explained that on page Z3 of the plans it shows why this compound needs to be the size as proposed (essentially because it will house more co-locaters than the other). AT&T confirmed that the offer to the town would include space on the ground and tower but not in the compounds. AT&T and Florida Towers agreed to make the compound 50 x 50 and if any future carriers needed extra space they could argue and apply for that when they submit their special permit application. The 50 x 50 size is
still larger than what our bylaws allow and Bob noted that the applicant is requesting a waiver which is something that our bylaws don’t allow.
At this time the Board agreed to end the public session and go into the deliberative portion of the hearing.
The Board discussed the waivers/variances being requested. Jon felt that not all the applications are going to fit the parameters of our bylaws and it the Board should have the authority to waiver or modify requirements as they deem necessary with the caveat that they are not positive that they have the legal authority to do so and their decision may be appealable and the applicant would then bear the burden of fighting any appeal. Bob Lazzarini noted that our bylaws are currently being revised and some of the items the applicant is requesting would then be allowed if approved at the annual town meeting in May.
Compound: Fred interpreted the current bylaw to mean that it doesn’t prohibit a compound for each carrier and thus by granting one larger compound rather than multiple compounds would have less of an impact on the site. Jon noted that if any portion of our bylaws are more restrictive than the Federal laws, Federal law trumps our bylaw. Fred asked Maggie where the numbers for the compound size came from and she wasn’t sure and agreed that they needed to be changed.
Height vs setback: Bob felt that they demonstrated that the appropriate coverage can not be attained by raising the tower or moving. Fred stated that this request is a traditional variance and he isn’t comfortable granting it. Bob stated that the topography of the site is unique and therefore allows the Board to grant this variance. Jon felt that the information presented has convinced him that to get the maximum coverage under the bylaw that we’d like to see we need to grant the variance. Jon also noted that we have not had any testimony from any abutters or anyone that they are concerned about the setback and/or the variance being granted.
Monopine design: Jon stated that after considering all the locations and elevations that this tower will be viewed, he concludes that it should be the monopine design. Our terrain is rolling and mountainous and a monopine is more likely to blend into the environment. Cynthia did not feel it would blend in at all and was in favor of the monopole. It was agreed to allow a monopole design with the bottom 40 feet being painted brown and the top being grey. 4 members were in agreement that a monopole design would be less intrusive than the monopine.
The bonds that our bylaw requires were discussed and how the town would go about enforcing them. Richard Comi offered 2 suggestions on how to do this. AT&T stated it’s typically about $20,000 to remove and decommission a tower. AT&T agrees to periodic reviews of the amount of the bond and agrees to increase it if necessary.
It was agreed that at least 4 of the 5 members were in favor for each of the requested variances.
The Board continued the hearing to November 22nd at 2pm to determine the findings and conditions
Variances: 4 yea on setback no Fred, compound at approximately 2,500 sq ft – Unanimous, monopole vs a monopine – 4 in favor Jon no
At this point a vote was taken to approve the special permit unanimously. The Board will meet on November 22nd to make their findings and set conditions.
The hearing concluded at 3:21pm
Submitted by
Melissa Noe, Inter-Departmental Secretary
| 
