MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING
OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
AUGUST 27, 2008
PRESENT: Chair Pat Halpin, John Baker, Karen Paré, Lawrence Salate
ABSENT: Vincent Vignaly
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Amico (VHB), Kyle MacCallum, Michael Coveney, Simon Brighenti, Eric Phelan
Ms. Halpin opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. The public hearing was originally scheduled for August 14, 2008 but was cancelled due to a lack of quorum. No member of the public was present at the August 14 meeting.
Ms. Paré read the Public Notice of the public hearing and accepted the proof of notification from the applicant.
Mr. Simon Brighenti from the firm of O'Connell, Flaherty & Attmore, LLC in Springfield reported that he is representing Omnipoint Communications, Inc. Omnipoint is requesting a Special Permit and Site Plan Review for a wireless communications facility to be co-located on the cell tower on the West Boylston Water District land on Lawrence Street. The Water District leases the tower on Lawrence Street Crown Castle, Inc., who in turn, leases space on the tower to several wireless communications providers.
Mr. Brighenti indicated that they are requesting to install a ten-foot extension to the tower and place an antennae array on the top of this extension. They are also planning to install computer equipment in the compound. The existing tower is currently 100 feet high, which is the height limit allowed by the zoning bylaws of West Boylston. According, Omnipoint Communications petitioned the West Boylston Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to this bylaw. On May 15, 2008, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance to Omnipoint Communications to allow the 10-foot extension to the tower, install an antenna array and accessory structures as shown on the plan dated December 19, 2005.
Mr. Brighenti noted that the current height shown on the cited plan is incorrect (150 feet) and stated that this will be corrected on an updated site plan. Mr. Brighenti provided to the board copies of 1) the Site License Acknowledgement between Crown Castle and the Water District, 2) the Memorandum of Lease Agreement between Omnipoint and Crown Castle, 3) a letter to the Conservation Commission from Mr. Brighenti dated July 25, 2008 regarding the site and the Commission's response letter of August 14, 2008 stating that they do not have jurisdiction, 4) the Zoning Board of Appeals May 15, 2008 decision, and 5) the certified list of abutters.
Mr. Brighenti noted that the Omnipoint co-location will not result in any significant traffic to the site, possibly one truck a month. There are no parking issues on site. Omnipoint will be constantly monitoring the function of their equipment from offsite and has a preventive maintenance plan. The computer equipment to be placed on site consists of 3 large computer cabinets (83"h x 52"w x 28"d) and 2 smaller cabinets, all of which will be placed on a 6' x 12' concrete pad. These cabinets produce approximately the same amount of noise as a commercial air conditioning unit. There will be no vibrations generated by the new equipment and no smoke. The revised plans will show the wiring attachments. Mr. requested structural calculations for the additions and the other proposed changes
to the tower. Mr. MacCallum reported that the calculations are available and they include the extension, the Omnipoint new antennae and the equipment from Metro PCS. Mr. Amico requested that the revised plans show the Metro PCS equipment.
Mr. Salate asked whether the tops of the new antennae are at the 110' height. Mr. Brighenti responded that the top of the tower is at 110' and that the antennae arrays are centered on the top of the tower, leaving 3' above and 3' below the top of the tower. Mr. Salate noted that there are whip antennae that extend well above the top of the tower. Mr. Amico noted that the decision by the ZBA entitles the applicant to extend the tower an additional ten feet and referred to the plan. The whip antennae are on the cited plan and are currently mounted on the tower. Mr. Baker asked who owns the whip antennae and was informed by Mr. Coveney that they are owned by the Fire Department.
Mr. Baker asked Mr. Coveney how much revenue was generated by the cell tower. Mr. Coveney informed the board that they received approximately $16,000 per year from Crown Castle for the tower lease and about $600 per month for each provider. If the two pending applications are approved, there will be 4 providers on the tower. Mr. Baker noted that is about $45,000 a year for the town. The Water District applies these funds to system improvements.
Eric Phalen, an engineer for T-Mobile described why the new antennae and extension were needed. T-Mobile's main goal is to address the coverage deficiencies on West Boylston Street and Route 190. Mr. Phalen displayed a map that showed the current "in-vehicle" coverage and illustrated the area where coverage would improve with the proposed additions. Mr. Phalen explained that it is necessary to separate the antennae arrays of different carriers by approximately ten feet because of intermodulation distortion when two signals of different frequencies mix. Horizontal separation is necessary to address signal propagation.
Mr. Amico noted that he has issued two review comment letters on this application: the first on August 6, 2008 and another on August 25, 2008. In these review letters, Mr. Amico asked for structural calculations that show that the tower can support the extension and new antennae, as well as the structures being added by Metro PCS, whose application for co-location is also under review, and the existing other carriers on the tower. VHB also recommended that the town receive a reasonable bond for dismantling and removing Omnipoint apparatus and that the revised plans, include Metro PCS antennae and the driveway renovations. Mr. Brighenti has addressed many of the other issues noted in the review letters. Mr. Amico requested that the applicant send a response letter that shows how the noted issues have been
requested. He also reminded the applicant to include a signature block on the plans, add the names of the abutters to the plan as required by the zoning bylaws.
The required performance bond was discussed. The zoning bylaws require that a bond be provided for dismantling a tower in the case that the tower or equipment is unused for two years. In this case, it seems reasonable that Crown Castle should be responsible for the tower while each provider is responsible for their own equipment. The board agreed that Crown Castle must provide a bond for $25,000 the dismantling of the tower. Each approved co-locator must provide a bond for $10,000 for dismantling their equipment. Mr. Brighenti agreed that $10,000 was reasonable for this type of installation.
Upon the motion of Ms. Paré and a second by Mr. Salate, the public hearing was continued to September 24 at 7:00 p.m. All in favor.
| 
