ZBA Hearing Minutes
Date: 8/17/11 – 31 Main Rd
Hearing began at: 2:00pm
Members Present: Fred Chapman, Chair, Cynthia Weber, Clerk, Robert Lazzarini, Stanley Ross and Jonathan Levin, Alternate
Also present: Maggie Leonard, Planning Board Chair, Richard Comi of The Center for Municipal Solutions, Maynard Forbes, Director of Operations, Ruth Champigny, Doug Champigny, Carol Ingher, Larry Klein, Planning Board member, Beth Parks, Gene Bounous, Peter Vallianos, Chief Backhaus, Randy Howse, North Atlantic Towers, Francis Malabanan, AT&T, AJ DiSantis, Infinigy Engineering, Peter Fales, AT&T agent, Stanley Stanciz, New Marlborough resident, Mike Dolan, Attorney for the co-applicant, Dean Amidon, Fred Vorck, Main Rd, Chris Blair, Conservation Commission member, Kenn Basler, Eaton Rd, Chris Tryon, Shawn Tryon, Fire Chief and Donald Torrico, Building Commissioner
The hearing began with Fred Chapman, Chair, explaining the hearing process and informing the applicant that as of today the Attorney General’s office has not yet received or approved the pending telecommunications bylaws that were approved at the annual town meeting in May. Fred instructed everyone present that to keep order no one should speak out unless acknowledged and should identify themselves before speaking. Cynthia Weber, Clerk, then read letters from the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Emergency Services Personnel and the Director of Operations. The Board waived reading the legal notice (which was posted for 2 consecutive weeks in the Berkshire Record and at the Town Hall).
The Board of Health requires the submission of the following information:
1. Identify locations of abutter’s structures, septic systems and well water supplies.
2. Specific storm water calculations were not included. Given the limited scope of the project, this is understandable, however, during recent years our area has experienced significant back to back rain events which exceeded 50 year and approached 100 year storm data. Our concern is that abutting properties are properly protected from erosion, storm water runoff and impact to septic systems and well water supplies.
3. Drawing 25 under general erosion and sediment control notes states that final proposed drainage may have to be altered based on drainage patterns. This is a major concern based on our comments above. More information must be provided and included in the plan which incorporates measures which will prevent storm water related issues rather than altering drainage after damage has occurred.
The Emergency Services Personnel requested the following:
- Space at the top of the cell tower to place the repeater and or radio equipment
- Ground space within the fence or within 15 feet of the perimeter for a small building to house any necessary radio equipment
- Continuous access to the tower for maintenance or for a situation within the tower which requires emergency medical or police response
- Use of the standard power and emergency power
- Rights to the tower to continue with any deed change
- No charge for tower use
The Director of Operations had comments regarding the impact on the public way and the importance of removing the water off of the top of the hill and not allowing it to reach the traveled way. He also had requests for emergency services.
The Conservation Commission had the following comments:
1. The roadway to this tower is very troublesome. It may fall through all the other permitting cycles because it is a road, except for you at the ZBA. We think we have jurisdiction over activity above 1,500 ft in elevation. It appears that this road may be very under-engineered. In comparison to the 73 Chestnut Hill Rd tower drawings, the water management does not appear to be of the type required for preventing severe wash out:
a. It does not distribute the water away from the roadway and dissipate the energy accumulated by running down the "gutter of the road".
b. It may become the water-slide of Monterey. We don't want the mountain coming down into Mr. Bounous' house. A site visit to a similar road, already constructed, to serve an already installed tower, possibly 2 or 3 years old, would be a good idea for the Conservation Commission.
2. At least one member of the commission thinks the properly colored monopole would be far, far less intrusive than a “simulated pine tree”. We just do not have 160’ pine trees here.
3. At least one member of the commission recommends ZBA members viewing towers in Otis, Winsted, CT and Colebrook, CT.
4. We believe it may be possible to push the monopole further back from the edge as a way to reduce the visibility from Lake Buel.
5. From the balloon test we see the tower will be highly visible from Lake Buel and the Lake Buel boat ramp.
6. We believe the tower can be shortened. If each antenna array is about 10 vertical feet then the use of (4) arrays, one for a different carrier, the tower could support (4) carriers. By our rough calculation the 160 foot tower could come down to 125 feet.
7. We believe the monopole construction project will need a building permit (tower, machine cabins), so we believe the project will have to be permitted through the Conservation Commission under the Scenic Mountain Act.
The Planning Board had a lengthy response which is available at town hall for anyone that wishes to read it.
The representatives introduced themselves and briefly explained the relationships with the applicants and co-applicants. Michael Dolan stated there is a “hole” in 21st century technology coverage on RT 23 which prompted this tower application. The tower will be owner by Florida Tower Partners dba North Atlantic Towers and will lease space to AT&T. The nearest tower owned by North Atlantic Towers is in New Hampshire. The prime lease is between the property owner and North Atlantic Towers for a 5 year term with a 5 year renewal. This particular contract with the owner is for 9 – 5 year terms. It was asked if Florida Tower would proceed with their tower if the other cell tower application (which is not by North Atlantic Towers) were to be denied. They
replied that yes they would.
It was asked if after the 45 year lease expires and if it wasn’t renewed again is there a bond posted for removal of the tower. It was also asked if the lease was transferable if the property owner were to sell. The applicant confirmed that the lease runs with the land. According to the applicant it is approximately three to four hundred thousand dollars to construct a tower. It was asked how much rent they would be paying the property owner, Michael stated that this is not typically public record and would only be stated if the property owner agreed which he did not. Market in this vicinity can run from $800 – 1500/month with a 3% escalator.
Fred noted that the ZBA has hired a consultant to help with the application process and they are requesting an escrowed check for his expenses as per our bylaws, this will be a special revenue account set up by the Town Treasurer. Fred stated that a $5,000 check should be sufficient to start. Richard Comi, the ZBA’s consultant introduced himself and listed his qualifications. His company is The Center for Municipal Solutions out of Glenmont, NY. They have no affiliation with any of the tower companies or service providers. This is his 2nd town in Massachusetts that he’s worked with.
Francis Malabanon a radio frequency engineer for AT&T presented why a tower was needed in Monterey. A third party provides a “drive test” to let AT&T know where there is good coverage, no coverage, weak coverage and dropped calls. Monterey’s terrain is extremely difficult. The maps used for demonstration are computer simulated. Several technical signal level questions were asked by Robert Lazzarini and Richard Comi. Clarifications on the questions will be provided by AT&T at a later date.
If both proposed towers were approved most of RT 23 would have coverage but it would be spotty North of Monterey. Robert asked if there were projections with both proposed towers if the Main Rd tower did not require the variances being requested. AJ DiSantis of Infinigy Engineering explained why it’s necessary to have the tower where they are requesting it, he stated if it were to meet the setbacks it would need to be a lot taller and the coverage would be affected. The Board requested maps showing how the coverage would be affected if it were to be moved to be more compliant with the towns zoning setbacks. It was also asked to do a projection of loss of coverage if the tower were to remain where it is but be shorter. Another request for projections was requested that would require no
variances at all. The Board didn’t feel that any evidence was provided that supported the current proposed location.
It was asked if there were any pending AT&T plans for a tower in Tyringham, at this time there is not.
Michael Dolan stated that the abutting property owner, the Appalachian Trail are pleased with the plans and do not have any issues with the setback from their property line.
AJ DiSantis spoke to how the towers are designed and manufactured to handle impact from wind gusts and loading from ice. The Board and those present were concerned about another tornado considering that those are unusual for this area yet we’ve had 2. AT&T will provide more information on the tower’s capability to handle wind gusts and other weather related incidents. Maynard Forbes noted that we have had 2 tornados and he would’ve preferred to have had the towers then so emergency calls and communications could’ve been made.
Carol Ingher asked about the policy of AT&T in allowing other providers to use their signal. The tower can be designed to be extendable in case a height greater than 160ft was needed. It was asked what would happen if North Atlantic Tower were to default on the bond which is posted with the town; we could require a removal bond be one of the conditions to prevent abandonment of a tower should this happen.
AJ DiSantis, of Infinigy Engineering explained the site design. He stated he is not an engineer himself but is here on behalf of Infinigy. Their proposal is to use the existing driveway (450 linear feet) at which time they will hug the left side of the property, go to the right and back to the left with their proposed access road. The tower is proposed to be located in the north corner of the property. A 75’x 73’ compound is proposed with a 9ft vegetated buffer. Their will be a 12 ft wide access gate on the compound. There will be a transformer, telephone vault and a meter bank. There is a concrete shed proposed and a backup generator with space allowed for future tenants. Other carriers would not be allowed to use AT&T’s generator and would determine
if they needed one individually (not all companies install generators). The emergency generator would keep power going to the tower for a cell signal when there isn’t power elsewhere. The generator is approximately a 192 gallon tank. AJ DiSantis will provide the run time of the generator as well as its specs at a future meeting. Access to the tower typically runs about one visit per month. The generator does automatically cycle test, typically once a week.
It was asked if there would be high speed internet access available from the site; there will.
In the event of a fire the tower relies on local services to put out the fire (there are no fire suppression systems). There was concern about the access road and its grade and the ability for emergency vehicles to access the tower in case of an emergency. The Board felt that there were deep concerns about the road, drainage and runoff. It was asked that they reconfigure/redesign the road to meet those concerns.
Above ground utilities are being proposed to the tower. The Board felt that underground utilities were preferred considering the number of emergency situations that Monterey has incurred which all involved downed trees and power lines for extended period of times. They also felt that was how it was initially proposed and now the abutters would not be aware of the visual impact changes. It was asked if it could be underground most of the way and run above when there is ledge located.
Maggie Leonard stated that our bylaw specifies a mono-pine for better or for worse and therefore could not be changed to a standard looking cell tower as requested in some of the letters read and by some of those present. The closest residential structure is 738ft. It was noted that the only abutter affected by the applicants request for a variance aren’t present today to object to the tower’s location. The applicant is aware that they will need to file with the Conservation Commission due to the fact that the grade is steeper than 15% and it is above 1,500ft in elevation.
Photo simulations were provided to the Board as well as conditional specifications. Construction, if approved would take about 3 months. It was asked what methods would be used to maintain and keep the access road open in the winter months. AJ DiSantis stated that if there is a scheduled maintenance or an install scheduled, then they would go in and have it plowed. For day to day use, the access road is left as is and is not regularly plowed. It was asked if in their experience if there has ever been a fire; in 25 years none of the applicants were aware of anything of that nature.
Donald Torrico was concerned about road access during since some people do not have 4WD vehicles and getting an ambulance up there in the winter months may prove difficult and suggested putting something in the conditions to address this issue. Don was also concerned with the maintenance of the wooden fence proposed and thought a chain link or something that required less maintenance might be more appropriate.
Robert asked what the Appalachian Trails authority was with regards to this application that certain items have been run by and approved by them first. As part of the FCC regulations AT&T is required to get federal approval from any historical properties.
Michael Dolan reviewed the information with the Board that they are going to compile prior to the next meeting which they believe they will need at least 4 weeks for and then the ZBA’s consultant will need at least 2 weeks to review and comment on. The biggest issue for the board is that they would like to see a plan that does not require a variance.
The hearing was continued until Monday, September 26th at 2pm. The hearing concluded at 5:21pm
Submitted by
Melissa Noe, Inter-Departmental Secretary
| 
