Wellfleet Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting of May 15, 2002
Town Hall Hearing Room
Present: Lisa Brown, Co-chair; David Wright, Mark Berry, Alfred Pickard,
Helen Miranda Wilson, Gerald Parent; Rex Peterson, Assistant Town
Administrator
Excused: Dennis O'Connell
Co-chair Lisa Brown called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. She moved to change the order of the agenda in order to allow the Shapiro ANR to precede the lengthier Sprint hearing; Helen Wilson seconded; unanimously passed 6-0.
ANR 02-03, Philip M. Shapiro, 56 Warren Street, Assessor's Map #36, Lot #107, 1 lot proposed. Philip Scholomiti of Ryder & Wilcox presented this proposal to combine two existing lots, 18 & 19 (Plan Book 29, Page 31) and the abandoned Beach Avenue for a total of 12,500 square feet. This property, located in an old development, is surrounded by paper roads: Bayview on the north, Warren Street on the east, Chester Street on the west, and (abandoned) Beach Avenue on the south. Mr. Scholomiti stated that paper frontage existed on all 3 roads. Helen Wilson asked if there was documentation of the abandonment of Beach Road and was answered yes; she then inquired of Rex Peterson what length was required for frontage in 1975 and was answered 125 feet.
Scholomiti showed the Board a plan of land from 1969 containing the endorsement of the Wellfleet Planning Board and including the abandoned Beach Road in the lot. David Wright asked if the claiming of abandonment of the road had been formalized in any way. Wilson commented that all the roads in the plan with the exception of Warren Avenue do not exist; she added that the depiction of wetland is not accurate on the surveyor's plan. A discussion of frontage ensued. Co-chair Brown moved acceptance of the plan as an ANR; David Wright seconded. Helen Wilson stated her wish to continue the ANR, since she was unclear about whether the lot had been in single ownership since 1975. Scholomiti pointed out that frontage existed over a previously approved way. Gerry Parent stated that at the time of the creation of the subdivision of which this plan is a part, predating subdivision control, roads were never constructed; lots were
placed on a plan and the roads were placed in the plan, also. The Co-chair called for the vote and the motion passed 5-0-1 (Wilson).
Sprint Spectrum request for Special Permit to co-locate wireless communication facility on Nextel Tower: Co-Chair Lisa Brown began the hearing by reading the legal advertisement and announcing the order of procedure. Sprint's request was presented by Atty. Scott Lacy, with assistance from RF Design and Operation Engineer Yogesh Shah, Site Acquisition Specialist Brady Goodell, and TerraSearch Consultant to Sprint Elizabeth Clouthier (see minutes of 2/602 and 3/6/02 for information on the pre-application discussion and conference on the Sprint proposal). After the initial presentation, the Board was invited to question the presenters.
Helen Wilson asked the number of Sprint customers in Wellfleet and whether the number was under 300; Atty. Lacy informed her he was not legally required to reveal this information. She then suggested that any Board member using Sprint as a customer should be required to reveal that fact. Gerry Parent disclosed that he was a Sprint customer. Ms. Wilson advised him to file a disclosure form.
Atty. Lacy informed the Board that Bell Atlantic and Telecorp were already licensed to go on the tower; in fact, Sprint's application represented the 6th set of antennas to go on the pole. He added that Sprint's request for antennas on the pole and related inside structure had already been approved by the Cape Cod Commission. Sprint, he continued, was obligated by the FCC to cover a significant gap in its coverage. He offered the services of Mr. Shah, a radio frequency expert, to explain the reasons why the other area sites considered for such installation were not chosen.
David Wright asked if lighting for the pole would be by motion sensor rather than constant flood lights and was answered that they would use motion sensors.
Gerry Parent asked if Sprint was the lowest applicant in height on the pole and was answered affirmatively. Lisa Brown, asking the reason for the relative heights and Sprint's position on the pole, was told that each carrier was assigned a different frequency and its frequency determined its pole height.
Ms. Wilson asked about the discrepancy of Sprint's application to be the 6th carrier on the pole and the CCCommission's approval of only 5; Lacy pointed out that the Commission had amended this approval for 6 and that there are 3 FCC-licensed carriers already on the pole, with Sprint requesting to be the 4th. Question was raised as to whether the other carriers would also come before the Board for permission to locate.
Parent pointed out that Sprint has permission from the Commission to co-locate on the pole and that Sprint has come before the Wellfleet Planning Board with application for Special Permit--that they "wouldn't be here if they didn't have to."
Co-Chair Brown turned to the letters received from abutters; these included:
Harrison Gruman, CC National Seashore--concerned about placement of additional antennae on monopole. How will it look? How high will it go up? Speaks of Seashore's mission of protection, preservation, and conservation.
David Friend, 675 Gull Pond Road--in favor of camouflaging the new cell phone tower.
Stan Kugell, property owner in Wellfleet--urges approval of Sprint's application conditional on Nextel's camouflaging the tower, cites websites about successful camouflaging of cell phone towers and monopoles as sources.
Elizabeth and Michael Rigolo, 19 Gross Hill Road--see no significant need for such a facility.
Brian Richter, Gross Hill Road--opposes project, discusses humming noise of substation and imminent change to the look of the landscape of National Seashore.
Christopher and Karren Perez, Gross Hill Lane--in a lengthy letter (discussed below), urge rejection because of Sprint's noncompliance with cell tower bylaw. (Ms. Brown commented that there are two different bylaw sections.)
Atty. Lacy offered Mr. Shah's assistance in explaining the necessity for Sprint's co-locating at the Gross Hill Road site and stated that Sprint could not provide information about camouflage of the tower--that would be up to Nextel and the Town of Wellfleet. Mr. Shah then turned to a set of transparency maps to illustrate the radio-frequency coverage that the Gross Hill Road site would provide to Sprint.
Helen Wilson asked why Sprint was targeting Route 6; Lacy replied that it was the main thoroughfare for Wellfleet, most used by both travelers and emergency vehicles. Wilson stated that dialing and talking on cell phones while driving was very dangerous, that the State of New York had make it illegal; she asserted that Sprint has adequate coverage of Wellfleet, that Route 6 has lots of accidents, and that Sprint is not entitled to seamless coverage. Lacy replied that the CC Commission's report concludes that there is now a gap in Sprint's coverage.
Alfred Pickard asked how far into the bay Sprint's coverage would extend, since he did not feel that the coverage now available for boaters was adequate. Mr. Shah indicated that once the coverage extended over water it would go a long way--far off the demonstration maps he was using.
Wilson asked if legally the Board should consider coverage on the water and how far out it should consider; Pickard replied that property lines are not of first consideration if one is out on the water in an emergency.
Co-Chair Brown commented that so far Sprint had cooperated with everything the Board had asked; she then opened the discussion to the audience.
Chris Perez of 80 Gross Hill Lane, an abutter to the subject property, requested that his letter (mentioned above) of May 13 be added to the record of this public hearing; he asked that an additional letter of May 14 which paraphrases the first letter be added to the record also. Points raised in the letters follow:
Perez stated that the Town is in the position of siting a 140 foot high tower in the middle of a residential neighborhood as a result of a settlement with Nextel (with conditions set forth in his letter); a consent decree gives permission for Nextel to construct its own antenna at this site but it has not yet begun construction; there will be both a visual impact and a financial impact to the town; only Nextel should be permitted to construct on its equipment; many homes exist in the neighborhood, some very new.
David Wright pointed out that a "crane test" had been used to help the Planning Board sitting at the time of the Nextel hearing visualize the height of the tower. He added that the concept behind the Cape Cod Commission's approval of the tower was that it had the capacity to contain other carriers and, therefore, to prevent other poles going up in other neighborhoods.
Perez differed with the Board's interpretation of his reading of the bylaw. He added that the Town had bargained hard and wanted Nextel to come back and prove the structural safety of what they built, but he noted that since the pole does not exist, how can it be proved that it can withstand co-location equipment structurally? He felt that Sprint's application did not provide technical evidence and that there is no pre-existing structure for them to attach to. He asserted that the application fails to provide screening from the visual impact, particularly to abutters' property. He asked if and how much each co-locator adds incrementally to the radiation load. Perez also noted that home values would suffer financially, that the installation provides a health risk to the
community, and that the town would suffer reduction of tax revenues because of it.
Perez continued that he had examined the plans for the Nextel tower at the Building Department and that the plans already show the existence of other co-locators. He asked if these others have come before the Board, stating that he believes that they all have an obligation to do so. He added that he believes the plans are incorrect according to the Nextel/Planning Board agreement since they show that Nextel's antenna exceeds the height of the pole by 2 ½'. Discussion ensued concerning the antenna's height.
Perez concluded his comments by suggesting that the Police/Fire Tower would serve Sprint very well as a co-location source.
Miles Dempsey, of Old Valley road off Gross Hill Road, stated that he had not known of the existence of a consent decree and advised that the Town should not consider any agreement until the consent decree has been complied with; also, he added, if there is a structural integrity problem, this should be addressed. He added that driving while using a cell phone is dangerous.
Jane Dempsey, speaking after her husband, assured the Planning Board that they were not anti-Sprint; they own three Sprint phones and are not concerned about their present coverage. She asked about alternative sites and why they were insufficient.
Joe Recko stated that he did not think the Town should jeopardize Route 6 to benefit a few fishermen.
Mr. Perez reviewed the alternative sites for the tower that the applicant should have considered.
Co-chair Brown invited the Sprint representative to respond to the questions and comments from the Board and the audience. Brown reiterated the fact that Ms. Wilson had questioned the necessity for further coverage and had stated that she did not have enough information about what constitutes adequate coverage.
Yogesh Shah, using his overlays, demonstrated that a gap in adequate coverage on Route 6 would still exist if the Police/Fire Tower (suggested by Perez) had been selected for co-location. Brady Goodell, the site acquisition specialist for Sprint, ran through the sites which had been considered and presented at the preliminary session before the Board; he noted that all alternative sites had been presented. He acknowledged that the fact that Commission's approval of the Nextel structure made it the obvious choice but emphasized that Sprint had considered the others.
Lisa Brown asked a definition of Sprint's criteria for coverage and was answered that it fell between adequate and seamless. Helen Wilson asked the time element when a cell phone cannot connect on Route 6; Scott Lacy replied that as soon as one hits a gap in coverage, one loses the call. Brown cited a hypothetical case of an accident on the highway as providing a scenario calling for adequate coverage.
From the audience, Steve Kopits asked Atty. Lacy whether coverage of Route 6 was a litmus test for his definition of adequacy.
Helen Wilson stated that she lives on Route 6 and that when there is trouble, neighbors on the road call the police.
Atty. Lacy cited a decision involving adequate coverage to the Town of Plainville which stated that one cannot say that because coverage is provided by one provider that there is no need for another provider to also have coverage.
With the following points, Gerry Parent attempted to answer discussion questions and concerns from the above discussion:
The 140 foot tower is a "done deal"; once the permit is pulled on a Special Permit, it's on its way to completion.
Going over previous history, Parent noted that the plan had been submitted to the Building Inspector showing all co-locators; therefore, the tower will be structurally "specced" to support these co-locators. It will offer additional coverage to fire and police. Because it is located close to the school, the tower is extremely limited in structure and size. The Town of Wellfleet wished to contain as few communications towers as possible; the only way a tower could have few abutters would be if the Seashore were cooperative.
On adequate coverage--the CC Commission has said to Sprint that this site will give it adequate coverage for the Town of Wellfleet. If Sprint is one of five on the tower and all of them state that they have adequate coverage, this limits them as co-locators. There will be no need for any of them to construct a tower anywhere else in Wellfleet; this, therefore, limits them in the future.
There is a question whether the consent decree plays a major part in this process, whether Nextel needs to have the tower constructed; if the Board needs legal advice on this, it can bring in Town Counsel.
David Wright asked whether the Board should grant Sprint approval conditional upon the tower being built by Nextel, waiting until the tower is finished to give complete approval.
Mark Berry asked about an implied discrepancy between the plan of the tower and the diameter of the pole. Parent replied that the Building Inspector is responsible for this.
Helen Wilson stated that neither Alfred Pickard nor Gerald Parent was a member of the Planning Board when the Nextel plan was considered and that she was a Board member but did not vote. Referring to Sprint's application to co-locate, she stated that any change in a nonconforming structure makes it more nonconforming. Parent pointed out that this structure had been approved with "x" number of co-locators.
Alfred Pickard commented that the Board was only dealing with a 90 foot section of the tower, that the Nextel plan had already been approved and that the Building Inspector would scrutinize it, but that this evening the Board had been asked to consider one section that the CC Commission had approved twice.
Co-Chair Brown added that one issue that is questionable is whether the tower should be built first or not. Mark Berry stated that the Board might assume that it will be built since the permit has been issued.
Rex Peterson, Assistant Town Administrator, pointed out that the Board had 90 days to make its decision. If the Board were to continue this hearing until June 19, it would have time to consult with Town Counsel as to the consent decree and submit questions to the CC Commission and have one of their experts get an opinion back and a staff person at the continuance meeting.
Parent stated that the Commission had already seen these plans twice.
Peterson suggested that the Commission might be asked (1) if existing sites were adequately explored and (2) what would be the cumulative effect of six co-locators? He added that Town Counsel could be asked (1) what constitutes adequate coverage, (2) how much ocean lies within Wellfleet's coverage, (3) must the consent decree be complied with first, and (4) is this as approval of the 6th antenna on the pole as well as an application to co-locate?
Parent stated that he agreed with asking the Commission to address questions which have never been addressed. He commented that when the Nextel application was submitted 18 months ago, 5 carriers plus Nextel were approved; it was not possible to label every carrier to go on the tower.
David Wright added that the approval was there and each applicant should present an individual application. The Board does not know the specifics on all the other carriers; the Commission should be able to provide these.
Mrs. Dempsey asked about the expertise of the Building Inspector concerning the structure of the planned tower; she expressed herself worried about "a tower built on sand." Mark Berry answered that the plans are "specced" for a Force 5 Hurricane, and Parent added that the Building Inspector is very conscientious and would allow no deviations from the plans.
Helen Wilson moved and Mark Berry seconded that the Board continue this hearing to Wednesday, June 19 at 7:00 p.m. in the Hearing Room, Town Hall. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Other Business
Minutes of 5/1/02--David Wright moved and Mark Berry seconded approval of the minutes of 5/1/02; passed 6-0-1.
Gerry Parent disclosed that, although he no longer has any building connection with the subdivision on Gross Hill Lane, he must approve two house designs for it. He will check with the Ethics Commission on whether or not he is cleared to vote on the Special Permit application.
Co-Chair Brown reviewed the mail, including information from Housing and Community Development, a notice of a Truro Special Permit Decision on Cingular Wireless, and the CC Commission monthly report.
Ms. Brown stated that it had been suggested for covenant (and to be stamped on the plan) on the Chavchavadze subdivision proposal that the 12 foot wide dirt road is only allowed for two buildable lots and that anything else must be returned to the Planning Board.
Helen Wilson moved and Lisa Brown seconded adjournment. Unanimously passed, 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________ ______________________________
Frances J. Castillo, Assistant to the Lisa Brown, Co-Chair
Committee Secretary ______________________Date
| 
