 |
Wellfleet Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting of January 29, 2003
Town Hall Hearing Room
Present: Dennis O'Connell, Chair; Lisa Brown, David Wright, Helen Miranda
Wilson, Mark Berry, Alfred Pickard, Gerald Parent
Chair O'Connell opened the meeting and the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m.
Public Hearing: AT&T Wireless Request to Co-locate on the Nextel Tower on Gross Hill Road. The Chair noted for the record that the Pre-application Conference for this request had been held on December 4, 2002; he added that he would later read into the record letters received by the Board concerning this hearing. O'Connell suggested that Mr. Douglas H. Wilkins, the attorney representing AT&T Wireless, should lead the Board through the application, a 19-attachment package which requests consideration for AT&T Wireless as an aspect of the previous Nextel approval. Elements of his presentation of the application and supporting materials follow:
Exhibit 3, Page 3--explanation of equipment cabinet; Page 4--antennas at 120 foot level, 3 antennas in initial build, 6 in future build also pictured. Question of which antenna configuration conforms with RF report in this section, initial or proposed? Answer--initial, but will serve as well for future configuration--"footprint remains the same." For more information, Mr. Wilkins referred the Board to section 5A of the application (Report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health confirming that proposed facility complies with FCC and Public Health radio-frequency emission regulations).
Question on Page 3 of plans concerning how far off the pole the antennas will hang was answered by Tyler McAllister, Director of Site Acquisition from Turning Mill Consultants, Inc.--approximately 6 feet from the tower with no intention to go any broader than Nextel or Verizon.
Exhibit 5A, Page 3--Atty. Wilkins points out Public Health chart of distances between tower and public; Page 7--Chart of power density for 2 heights which demonstrates a result more than one-thousand times less than the regulatory limit.
To a question on radiation overlap from next nearest tower; Wilkins states that this overlap goes ½ mile at less than .2 microvolts/cm. Exhibit 5, Item B is composed of comparison charts the Board requested illustrating flat earth power density fall-off for present, proposed, and combined coverage. The graph in Item C answers another Board question, this on topography; Wilkins explained that the "blue blob" represents a set of points that are 2% of the regulatory limit. He noted that Item D is a statement explaining that the state Department of Public Health no longer requires "notification and approval from companies that install radiofrequency antennas or facilities . . . "
Wilkins distributed a letter from Bob Alach of Alactronics, Inc., a noise specialist who came out and measured existing noise readings at the tower. Alach noted that the most significant noise source from the AT&T equipment was two air conditioning units in the equipment cabinet, sound from which declines from 55 decibels at 6 feet to below 30 decibels at the base of the driveway on Gross Hill Road. He projected that less significant noise would be generated by the antennas. Wilkins concluded that AT&T would conform to the noise bylaw. He stated that he also wished to introduce into the record the Cape Cod Commission Staff Report on sound at the Nextel site (5/24/99). To Helen Wilson's question as to whether AT&T's report conforms to the zoning
bylaw (6.18.2.4. (3)) on sound, Wilkins cited page 25 of the sound analysis of the Nextel site (Aerodynamic Sound from a Radio Antenna at Nextel Site MA 095-C) as evidence that AT&T can live up to the expectations of the bylaw.
Radiofrequency--Wilkins, after noting that AT&T could not accurately depict marine RF coverage, as the Board had earlier requested, turned to Radio-Frequency Specialist Ajay Sawant of Bechtel Communications for a run-through of his RF presentation (Exhibit 4 of the application packet. Alluding to this section, the Chair advised the use of letterhead identification of the specialist in future presentations). Mr. Sawant, in connection with this discussion, distributed a full package of topographical maps to illustrate coverage of proposed and existing sites in the categories listed below, as had been requested by the Board.
Coverage without proposed site
Coverage with proposed site
Coverage with proposed site only
Existing and proposed coverage
Existing coverage
Coverage in Wellfleet
Mr. Wilkins then opened his presentation to questions from the Board:
Mark Berry asked the composition of the anchor bolts on the pole; McAllister replied that they were galvanized steel cables.
Helen Wilson, referring to Exhibit 4, Section 4, The Need for the Proposed Facility, asked Mark Berry, an AT&T cellular customer, to relate his experience when using his cellular phone while riding on Route 6. Berry noted that the coverage drops off considerably as one drives up Route 6, with satisfactory coverage in the middle of the town and, although he has gotten calls at Duck Harbor, he usually starts to lose coverage at the blinker light south of Moby Dick. Wilson then inquired as to whom among the general public the Board is supposed to be "worrying about" here and what is considered adequate coverage. Adjay Sawant replied that adequate coverage is neg 95 on the phone, the parameter set by AT&T which allows the user to both call and
carry a call. To Wilson's question about the public being served, Wilkins replied that this is everyone traveling along Route 6 on the Outer Cape in the scope of the pink area (on illustrative maps). Wilson noted that the nature of this kind of phone service is that it is never everywhere; Wilkins begged to differ, citing the Federal Telecommunications Act and its design to make coverage possible in blank areas.
Mark Berry asked the RF specialist whether, in the maps of Eastham and above, the white area (non-covered) would stay white; he was answered affirmatively. Alfred Pickard noted that the housing for the AT&T equipment was smaller than other such equipment and commented favorably about its downsizing with the same noise factor. Lisa Brown related that she did not notice excessive noise on her site visit, that most of the sound emanated from the trees, with two triangular arrays on the tower at that time. David Wright stated that his major concern was looking for anything excessive, that he found nothing excessive here, and that he was therefore inclined to approve the application. Pickard added that the monopole looks better than that of Eastham when viewed
from the water.
Chair O'Connell then invited comments from the Board (none more were forthcoming) and from the public.
Chris Perez spoke in behalf of himself, his wife Karren, Hans and Laura Dijs, and Marcel and Gaye Lamy. He proposed to read and refer to portions of his letter to the Board of 1/2/03 during his discussion, which he began by questioning the fact that Nextel has installed arrays of other providers previous to their having been approved for special permits. The Board then determined that AT&T's equipment is up on the tower but not running. Gerry Parent asked the applicant if they had received a building permit; when informed that they had, he noted to Mr. Perez that his questions and comments on this matter should be taken to the Building Inspector. Wilson added that the Planning Board's role in granting the Special Permit is to review and then to vote on it;
she asked when the applicant is allowed to turn on its equipment. The Chair answered that the Building Inspector has issued a permit to cover Verizon and AT&T but that they cannot operate equipment until they have a Special Permit and the Cape Cod Commission has conducted a review and issued a Certificate of Compliance. Atty. Wilkins stated that what had just been said was the Board's position, that AT&T has reserved its right to disagree, hoping that it will be moot. The Chair replied that he believed the bylaw was clear and that AT&T needed to be here.
Mr. Perez then referred to his 1/2/03 letter, reading the portion of it dealing with the visual impact of the tower, which he stated needs to be addressed according to the bylaws, and asking that his proposed "camouflage condition" be imposed by the Board on the granting of the permit. David Wright noted that any artificial construct would look completely out of place from everywhere except properties near the tower. Helen Wilson stated that she would rather look at a piece of carefully painted good engineering and not have something as large as the tower pretending to be something that it is not nor have attachments which would interfere with its workings. Perez inquired whether there was not a bylaw to protect the people most impacted; the Chair replied
that there were several elements here which would be considered when the Board reached that section of the bylaw.
Mrs. Denise Matolcsky, an abutter and resident of River Harbor Road, told the Board that the tower stands out atrociously behind her home, that she had invested $5000 in fast-growing red cedars this summer in an attempt to mask the view, and that a meter should be installed to measure the noise of the electrical substation, without anything other noise going on. (Wilson advised her to send this latter complaint in writing to the federal government.) Mrs. Matolcsky added that new technology for tower facades has changed and is definitely more appealing than the old ones; she concluded with a plea to the Board to consider camouflaging the tower.
Rex Peterson reported that he had spoken with Tanna Watt of the Cape Cod Commission, who informed him that subcommittees of the CCC tend not to favor camouflaging towers and that towers such as Gross Hill are not favorable to retrofitting; their suggestion is painting the tower to blend with its environment. He added that a representative of a firm that provides tower camouflaging stated that retrofitting would be prohibitively expensive. David Wright, noting that to camouflage means to blend in, pointed out that there are no 140-foot trees growing around here. He added that part of the rationale for the tower siting was that the ComElectric facility was already a disturbed environment. Helen Wilson, citing 6.18.2.15.D (landscape plan, topography and screening),
stated that this part of the bylaw does not specify where the screening should be and that she felt that the Board could ask the applicant to pay for planting trees in abutters' yards. David Wright asked whether this should not be requested of Nextel rather than the present applicant.
The Chair then read three letters: from Harrison Gruman of the National Seashore, from abutters Mr. and Mrs. Hans Dijs, and from abutters Mr. and Mrs. Henry Seidel. All three protested the visual intrusion and requested that the Planning Board impose camouflage requirements on the applicant.
At 8:55 p.m., Chair O'Connell closed the Public Hearing. The Board then reviewed 6.18 of the Wellfleet Zoning Bylaw point-by-point. The results follow:
6.18.1. Purpose. This paragraph was ruled not applicable. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Brown, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2. Requirements. Finding was that appurtenances have already been constructed but that it appears there was a building permit validly obtained; however, the antennae were not in operations. Therefore, the Board determined that in sufficient aspects the application complies with this paragraph of the bylaw. Moved by Brown, seconded by Wright, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.1. ACEC. Finding was that site was outside the ACEC; therefore the application complies with this paragraph of the bylaw. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Brown, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.2. Setbacks. Findings were that structure is pre-existing, that there are no guy wires, that the setback requirement was approved with a waiver for the initial Nextel tower construction; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph of the bylaw. Moved by Brown, seconded by Berry, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.3. Parking. Finding was that the application indicates no assigned employees and a very minimal floor area and therefore complies with the parking provisions of paragraph 6.3.7 of the zoning bylaw; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph of the bylaw. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Brown, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.4. Safety. Finding was that applicant has agreed to comply with all regulations cited in this paragraph of the zoning bylaw; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Pickard, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.5. Removal. Finding was that this paragraph of the zoning bylaw will be satisfied in that the applicant agreed to comply with this requirement, unless otherwise permitted by state or federal law, and the Board imposed the condition that AT&T post a removal bond in the amount of $25,000 (agreed to by applicant); therefore, the application complies with this paragraph. Moved by Pickard, seconded by Berry, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.6. Fencing. Finding was that applicant is mounting antennas, etc. on a pre-existing structure; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Brown, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.7. Lighting. Finding was that AT&T is not proposing any change in lighting facilities; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Pickard, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.8. Signs. Finding was that applicant proposes to construct signs that comply with requirements of this bylaw; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph. Moved by Brown, seconded by Wright, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.9. Visual. Findings were (1) the proposed antenna structure is a co-location and is consistent with the anticipated tower design. (2) The visual impact of the antennae needs to be considered from all perspectives and camouflaging possibilities would not be in the best interest of all views as additional bulk would be added to "hide" the antennae. (3) The vegetative screening, etc. is part of the responsibility of the builder of the tower, Nextel, as previously required. Therefore, the application complies with this paragraph. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Berry, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.10. Regional Criteria. Findings were that this is a co-location and consistent with the Cape Cod Commission's regional criteria and that the co-location concept for this project was reviewed and approved by the Cape Cod Commission; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph. Moved by Brown, seconded by Pickard, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.11. Environmental Requirements.
Hazardous wastes. Finding was based on the statement from Kieran Kelly, Bechtel Telecommunications (Exhibit 7 of the application), which represents that the normal plan does not anticipate hazardous discharge; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph of the bylaw. Moved by Brown, seconded by O'Connell, passed 6-1 (O'Connell, Brown, Wright, Pickard, Parent and Berry said aye; Wilson said nay. Wilson stated her opposition to bringing in potentially hazardous backup from outside.)
Storm water runoff. Finding was that co-location was to pre-existing structure; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Brown, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
Noise. Findings were based in part on the statement prepared by Bob Alach, Alactronics, Inc. on Acoustical Noise Study: these are (1) existing sound level was influenced by existing electrical substation, (2) comparative measurement of sound over the range of wind conditions suggested in the bylaw has not been achieved, (3) findings can be referenced to the Cape Cod Commission's Nextel report. It was found that the application complies with this paragraph. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Brown, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.12. Siting standards.
Finding was that this application met the desires of the bylaw as it is locating on a pre-existing structure. [Denny states that "we got all messed up in looking at this section of the bylaw" and suggests a revisit and revote.]
Finding was that this bylaw item was non-applicable as the installation is on a pre-existing structure. O'Connell moved, Wright seconded, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
Finding was that this bylaw item was non-applicable. O'Connell moved, Wright seconded, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
Finding was that the application is a co-location as desired by this section of the bylaw and therefore complies with this bylaw item. Brown moved, O'Connell seconded, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
Findings were that this installation is below the full height of the tower and AT&T will agree to paint the appurtenances to match the tower; therefore, the application complies with this bylaw item. Moved by Brown, seconded by Berry, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.13. Pre-application consultation. Finding was that this had been done on December 4, 2002; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Brown, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.14. Application submittal requirements. AT&T requested a waiver of 6.18.2.14 of the bylaw. Findings were that because the data was represented by AT&T as being accurate, including certain certifications by professionals, and because there was no perceived benefit from more detailed and costly certification of professionals submitting information, 6.18.2.14 could be waived. O'Connell moved, Pickard seconded, passed 6-1 (O'Connell, Brown, Wright, Pickard, Parent and Berry said aye, Wilson said nay. Wilson stated that she could not waive or ignore the requirement of 6.18.2.13 and that all the information was not certified by a licensed professional. She added that she is not criticizing any information submitted.)
6.18.2.15.
Draft contract. Finding was that AT&T representatives agreed to submit a draft copy of the contract between applicant and owner; therefore, the application complies with this bylaw item with the condition that AT&T submit a draft copy of the contract to the Board on or before 2/5/03. Moved by Parent, seconded by Pickard, passed 6-1 (O'Connell, Brown, Wright, Pickard, Parent and Berry said aye, Wilson said nay. Wilson opposed because she had not seen the contract before the vote this evening.)
Description of facility. Finding was that this had been received; therefore, the application complies with this bylaw item in that conditions have been met for prime site and alternate sites (which have been justifiably waived). O'Connell moved, Berry seconded, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
And (D) Site and Landscape Plans. Findings were that sufficient plans and details have been submitted to meet the needs of the Board; therefore, the application complies with these bylaw items. O'Connell moved, Berry seconded, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.16. Finding was that 6.18.2.16 was not applicable, since AT&T made application under 6.18.2.15; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph of the bylaw. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Brown, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.17. Referral of applications to other boards, agencies. Finding was that no action had been taken since it had not been deemed necessary; therefore, the application complies with this paragraph of the bylaw. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Berry, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.2.18. Completeness. Finding was that Board had selectively waived portions and that the application was otherwise complete; therefore, it complies with this paragraph of the bylaw. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Brown, passed 6-1 (O'Connell, Brown, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye, Wilson said nay. Wilson stated that the waivers were not appropriate, that all sections of the bylaw should have been completed.)
6.18.3. Approval criteria and 6.18.4. Severability. These paragraphs were ruled not applicable. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Brown, passed 7-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Wilson, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye).
6.18.5. Waivers granted must include a written finding as to the benefit. Findings were that waivers granted have been documented in this decision and with conditions cited in the motion below, the Planning Board has complied with this paragraph of the bylaw. It was further found by the Board that the application is in accordance with not only Section 6.18 of the bylaw but with all parts of Section 8.4.2. (Special Permits) and with Massachusetts General Law.
Brown moved and Berry seconded that the Planning Board grant a Special Permit to AT&T Wireless to co-locate a wireless telecommunication facility on or next to the Nextel communications tower on Gross Hill Road with the following conditions:
that a removal bond of $25,000 be posted with the town by AT&T
that a copy of the draft contract be submitted to the Board by AT&T on or before 2/5/03
that within two weeks a decision be written which adequately presents why this granting is in the best interests of the town.
The motion carried 6-1. (O'Connell, Brown, Wright, Pickard, Parent, and Berry said aye, Wilson said nay.) Those members voting in favor of the motion found that based on the above findings, granting the Special Permit would provide benefits to the Town in that better cellular service will be available in Wellfleet, and given that the town generally needs to make provisions for telecommunications facilities under the Federal Communications Act to licensed operators and that AT&T is one such operator and has agreed to a co-location approach, that benefits will outweigh any adverse effects. Helen Miranda Wilson explained that she voted in the negative and that she did not feel the granting was in the best interest of the town because actual use by Wellfleet residents and others and the actual need of
such people is undetermined and because the opportunity for use of mobile phones while driving is hazardous.
Alfred Pickard moved that the meeting be adjourned; Mark Berry seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________ _____________________________
Frances J. Castillo, Assistant to the R. Dennis O'Connell, Chair
Committee Secretary Date_________________________
| |
