I'd like to open the zoning board of appeals meeting for February 20th 2025 my name is Peter wak I'm sitting on behalf of David singer who's the chair unfortunately his mother is in has some severe health conditions and these the chair statement this meeting
is being recorded by the zoning board of appeals if any other persons present are doing the same you must notify the chairperson at this time is there anyone recording this me record it recorder in accordance with Mass General
law 30A subsection 20g no person shall address a meeting of the public body without permission from the chair and all person shall at the request of the chair be silent no person shall disrupt the proceedings of a meeting of a public body if after clear warning from the
chair person continues to disrupt the proceedings the chair May order the person to withdraw from the meeting and if the person does not withdraw it the chair May authorize a constable or other officer to remove the person from the
meeting M please read the he for 6:30 all right so application of Sydney St John for property located at 138 Highland Avenue assessor map r01 lot 4N which is located in the urban residential ra zoning
District for special permits pursuing to sections 200 d4.4 C1 and 200 d8.3 with the zoning ordinance in order to allow a farm to grow the flowers on land less than 5 Acres at this location the the appeal has been okay
withdrawn without prejudice to make a motion to except no motion necessary okay Mr so uh just real quick if anybody's here for the very first item on the agenda Sydney St John to withdrew the
application without prejudice the what she plans on doing the ZB zba has no Authority at this time so she withdrew the application without prejudice it will not be heard this evening read request for approval the minutes of
meeting uh yes me so um we will start with approval for the meet meeting minutes from December 19th uh 2024 are there any alterations or anything have a motion to approve it make a motion to approve I'll second
it all those in favor you need to identify yes I will do that members on the board Mark Maloney Debbie jokes bar Charles Roberts Jim W Peter
next all right and so that was approved and then we have the approval of the minutes of the meeting for January 9th 2025 it say 2024 by the 2025 any corrections or comments I'll make a motion we accept
the minutes I'll second all those in favor I right for appr so our next application is at 6:45 and so gota wait for
6:45 raise and open it up or do you want for regular m without addressing the substance of our matter can I just ask about who would be seated tonight for the hearing and whether or not we will or won't have a
compliment uh of of a full board for our presentation the only member not here is David singer Jared vers David singer the other board members are here would a fifth was anybody present last time that would be eligible to vote
I'm I'm the alternate I was I've been here for all these meetings yeah so would he be participating this evening and be eligible to vote he would that is up to the acting chair yes okay so we would still need a four fifs and and be
participa okay and does the board have any preference as to what we do I know this is important and I know Mr s has been intimately involved I would want to be respectful to his personal situation uh so I wouldn't want to press
on if this board the the attent tonight's presentation is to have you give a presentation okay your entire presentation on the on the variance what my understanding is we going to close out the variance portion this evening
the goal yeah so I also had a conversation with acting I mean with chair person David singer um the intent for today's meeting since he's absent will be for you to complete your presentation um relative to the entire project whatever you have remaining to
present to the board you you would do so this evening and then the board will consider the variance when jar person singer returns okay so he would Mullin in and so we would have another meeting in March yes correct okay okay attended
tonight's meeting is just to have you give the presentation so we can get all the information obviously the public is going to hear that but we're not entertaining any public info after your presentation sh started that okay there's a potential that we
would leave it open because of the discussion about wanting to do a site visit in a second room test so it would be potentially be open and we would continue it to the March meeting yes we would show up at the March meeting maybe a couple hours early do a S visit and
then come in close the heing and then you would okay okay I just want to make sure we're on the same page because if you wanted us to pack up and call it a night we would uh rather be on the road soon or rather later hockey at
800 we don't so at the end I mean we really did think we were focusing on the variants tonight so we don't necessar we might not have everybody that you want to hear from but let's see how much of it we can get through and minimize what might be left for a March because I I do still think we want to do the second
balloon test if the if the abuts want us to do it and if this board wants us to do it so I do still think it would be open but hopefully we would minimize the the topics that would remain open for the March meeting which and con inform
it's March 13th second Thursday March meeting is March 20th as this meeting is because of a conflict on the second Thursday so it's this meeting and next meeting the 20th the rest of the meetings will return to the second
Thursday okay okay great thank you appreciate wait to 625 I'll read this read that I'll read the and the vote and then you can open it up to the presentation res in
I can read you wondering why you're wearing the mask and you're not feeling up my wife just got out of surgery I don't want to bring anything home to her we told to stay away from everybody
right surgery good yeah Dr old down there back surgeon you said it was a textbook page came out flying now she's got to starts meet weeks and weeks of physical therapy you take her a full year before she gets
back to where she is about skinny he was on Broccoli everything from top of to the bottom she's had some shots shots so uh for the board members that don't know Charles Roberts he's our new
alternate on the board [Music] meeting I cheered the planning board for five years couple years ago yeah just a couple years now a little break and then uh I tried to sign back up for the planning board but I was a little late on draw but there was an alternate seat
available here so it's good to have another young fell sit in yeah young young as a debatable term you guys were on the planning board together yeah we were welcome back to the board world yeah thank
you really happy to be here yeah Mark I remember when I first heard your name right after our Mark passed away whoa wait a minute this guy again got have at least one you're not fully qualified to be the cler because you're I'm not fully
now oh now are it's not too late to screw it up sa yourself fill in chair EMB don't tell me about I see a lot of my friends and Neighbors from Barton Road in the uh in
physical Presence at the hall tonight Vinnie Mr O'Neal Bob recognize some faces out there hey
everybody Max Ma second second4 go next this wait just waiting for the clock to take over okay so application of Jeffrey J Brusco for property located off oakill road
assessors map R20 lot 17 which is located in the rural residential RC zoning District a special permit for Su section 200- 5.3 E2 and 200 d8.3 the zone in ordinance in order to
allow up to a 20% reduction of the frontage and area requirements for two Lots at this location Mr T Mr chairman we received a request from the applicant um for a continuance of the public hearing on his application special
perment application to the next available zoning board of appeals meeting signed by Jeffrey brco like to make make a motion to approve the request for the continuance
second all in favor ex me before go around the board each one of us Mark Maloney de Jes green Jim L here motion to approve what what wait wait what we have a chance to say
anything we're here all the neighor from neighborhood the applicant requested that we hold off they asked that we that they can reschedule reest a contingence the the app person who put in the special permit
they requested for a continuance so they're they're not here to give a presentation there they're going to come forward in another meeting to give the presentation all NE oh absolutely it's going there'll be another Public public notice you know
that the special permanent meeting will be held IDE on that meeting so Mr chairman I can explain so the way it works if an applicant requests an applicant has the right to request the continuance of his special permit public hearing which its
applicant did to the next available zba meeting which is March 20th 2025 at this location at 6:30 and there will be no further legal ads in the newspaper or butter notification because you're all here and
we're making the announcement right now this seems like rigging the system against the neighborhood and it's not fair you have you have a plethora the entire audience is filled from the community of the neighborhood that's impacted by by the
decision if I can recognize the board I'm I'm sorry to interrupt here ex excuse me a motion has been made and accepted and this hearing is closed you know I I have a question this is a circumvent of the of the public of
the public process you have a plethora of the neighborhood impacted respond Mr tonight uh sir um you have you're ignorant on the process of how special permit public hearings work no no problem with that so let me explain it to you this is the precise
legal precise manner on how this gets done an applicant has the right to request a continuance we read the continuance into the public record board is in the midst of taking a vote to accept the continuance to March 20th that meets all legal requirements of the
state and the City of greenp rules and regulations so the board so excuse me the board is ignorant to the disposition that the neighborhood finds themselves in to attend and follow on top of these continuances because this seems to circumvent sir that's what
I'm trying to explain to you that it's not circumventing any leg manner or rule this is how the system works everywhere so followup continuances don't not don't require public notification is that what I understand from the announcement it
does not require a second public notification that is correct you're hearing it now so you heard direct that it's March 20th so come back March 20th and then we had been here tonight to hear it we would not have know and you wouldn't have been
required to put you could review the meeting minutes and you would have learned then and you could check the City calendar I'm telling you that we met all legal requirements this conversation's over I just want to know when when did the continuance applied
for an applicant has the right to request the continuance at any moment before the public hearing starts which this person did and the board is voting if you let him continue to accept the continuance to March 20th this is not a good faith
position of the town and the community like I said sir this is this is not this is not the expectation that the your ignorance of the law it doesn't our ignorance of the law doec that we're doing anything wrong here is
irrespective of the sentiment that is conveyed by the actions of the board and we expect that the public is represented better we are here to speak and respond tonight to the
solicitors and they have chosen a method that will obfuscate this process from the public without further notification um can I ask a question yeah are we talking about Jeffrey brusco's application at this
point yes yes okay I I just I I just there's there is a lot of emotion in regards to what's going on here I'll be honest the application I received was very light on information so I'm working from a place of ignorance I have no idea right now yeah why you are here and
until Jeffrey can be here and present his application and we can hear from him as to what he's looking for then we can proceed and allow you an opportunity to have your peace that is how it works he's not even here to defend himself
answer any of our questions and therefore that will not occur tonight we have a vote on I I was going to make that exact same statement that the the process allows I understand the the the frustration of the public but the appellant has to the abil has to have the ability to be part of that process
absolutely you feel we're excluding you but he would say to us I didn't have an opportunity at that hearing to give my presentation and respond to the question so I understand the frustration but this meeting is this issue has been closed and you can get angry at me or the board but we're fine following the due process
that would be violated if we didn't allow the appellant to participate so I I mean I I I get the frustration but I'm not going to violate the procedure because people are angry at us okay you you can use all the legal language you want that doesn't change
the fact that we've made a decision and we're going to move along I understand the legal position yeah please understand we are disappointed and I fully understand in the in this in the solicitor tactics in achieving their desired end
goal this is this is not above board I think everybody understands the sentiment look at look look out at the audience that sits before you this is 100% of my community that sits adjacent to the
subject at hand for this time period these tactics this is this is not above board tactics we'll see you again at the next interval yeah I we're all disappointed yeah there there is no
tactic to try to avoid a fair and public meeting okay I I guess you know my apologies for being this ignorant but I have no idea why you're upset I don't know anything about a solicitor I have no idea why you guys are here right now
the application did not explain other than what I read out loud that's all the information I have and one map can I do understand that but I'm you keep saying we're be you know this isn't above board this isn't whatever there's
no agenda here there's there's nothing going on here but the legal proceedings which is we voted on this and and and we're going to allow him his continu and his opportunity like a c like any other citizen to come forward and speak their mind and everyone here will have that
opportunity I am and I appreciate that himself refering to okay refering was not clear to me and I appreciate I appreciate the position
Community ATT one person not day we are 15 members of the community here present we have families we have commitments we have work we have everything and we made time to come and
be heard and to hear and to listen to someone making a proposal that we don't know anything about we want we want to have this conversation more than anyone that's why
we are all really want to learn like you all not knowing what's going on we're all a little frustrated and we're goingon to have to come back on March 20th do it to play this you know what EXC excuse me how does the zoning board
not know what's going on you look at the parcel I urge you please please take take the 10 or 15 minutes drive out to this area drive drive view physically go and view the lot this abuts and is
adjacent to conservation land the whole purpose of the neighborhood and these laws is to allow for open spaces and conservation and an an an aesthetic and a property value that is not in
alignment with the exception that is being proposed and I understand the the the solicitor is not here to defend to defend their position that's fine I urge you as the board go and physically experience this space this is not a
space that is just in enjoyed by the people you see here today this is wildlife conservation area in extreme proximity EXC I I apologize Mr Brown for interrupting you like you miss I want to
I want I want to finish the meeting I went out there and I did spend time out there and I looked at the what was there and I looked at the documentation we receive it is poor okay that would have been fleshed out today but without that person here that conver what you're
going to say is good to hear but we need the solicitor to be here to hear that and without them there they can't explain what they're doing I mean I went out there and I just saw a bunch of dirt with snow on top of it without appreciating also did you also make note
of the in development in progress buildings I have I moved into this neighborhood in 2018 and the buildings that are in development and in progress have been in this state since 2018 which surely runs
a foul of the regulations and intentions of the zoning board and development in Greenfield and so I ask the committee we we don't have to make a decision tonight I I I implore you we're not in the intention of the regulations and the zoning of this
property is this solicitor are they aligned to the ass I I appreciate values this is I'm I'm going to call this the quote I've heard we've heard all that multiple times and I fully understand what you're
saying I was out there I saw the foundation appearing to be in the ground you know without further information sir sir in the adjacent buildings where I can drive up and I can show you that there's incomplete siding where the the
structure has been exposed to the elements for years on end where the siding and the sheathing is flapping in the wind it looks derel is is this if we make an exception for this 20% where do you draw the line on further exceptions
because the entire property visitors everything is it's a list of exceptions isely long I'm tell you this will stop right now and if you don't we're gonna cut you off so please please us give us the
professional opportunity to put this in the continuance and discuss all this at the next meeting where we going have all the time in the world to tell me this but until then the meeting is done all right I think you're doing it to service to the public if you don't you feel that way we we also have a legal we
also of the next followup wish I had an officer stop can we we yeah let me just shut him down right now sir are you gon to allow the ZB to proceed or must I shut you down I will meet myself proceed thank you
meeting is done we voted on a continuance and it's was there an actual vote Mr chairman yes there was okay one o' Bard please notice the disappointment and frustration in your community that is exiting the hall right now this is
who you serve this is the community we'll see you on March 20th thank you chair need a poli offic with us next [Music] probably wasn't like this was meeting
mons ago wey turned around gave everybody the bird in the door okay 7 CL are you sure oh yes yes all right um this is continued from January 9th 2025 application of bir Wireless LCC for
property located at zero Fair viiew Street West assessor map tax map r24 lot 7A which is located in The General commercial GC zoning District variance pursuant to section 200- 8.7 of the zoning ordinance in order to allow the
construction of a new wireless communication structor comprised of groundbased equipment cabinets and antenna uh mounted on top of a monopole measuring 170 feet in height with an insent fall zone um Mr chairman would
you do you want me to read in second continuance even though it's 7:15 they are kind of entwined are we just going to go with go with this some rate just just show clear when I spoke with David SLE it's intent I don't know if I want to be clear in what we're going at this
particular here what indic ask me to do indicate that you folks are to give a presentation that deals with the entire Quest and Deals also variance and the special permit are presented at the same time and if you may have question about the variance but we would like you to
give the presentation the through the entire project excuse me I'm very confused we I had conversation with the agent singer and he made it clear that the this was going to be on the variance tonight yeah but
we're combining the presentation as the start variance as part of this presentation and also details relative to disc special first so you're going to hear the commentary about the request foring we're for speediness because we
we invited them here to also get conversation about special permit was that I mean I'm trying to if this is clear that is my I will read you my understanding uh as I
understand it both hearings remain open yes we are continuing presenting at the next meeting the preference is we focus on the variance once the board hears what it needs from the applicant it will at
their option open the variance discussion to the abuts if the board is ready to do so this evening my understanding based on what I heard before the meeting is Mr singer's absence and we would agree we would
continue to the next hearing for any remaining items and then at that hearing the board could close it however at the same time as as you were saying Mr chair as we said at the last meeting because these hearings are both so
intertwined any evidence that's being submitted we're submitting it to you and the spirit and understanding that it's being considered for both the variants and the special permit because it wouldn't make sense to come back in a room and weate everything that we've already
stated and therefore anything we state in this meeting you are free to use it in our favor or against us in the special permit hearing um or any future hearing until both are closed and
deliberated and voted on I guess what I request is as best you can give the presentation that highlights the details for the various and if you need to present other information it's appropriate perf i' like to at this this particular hearing have you give the presentation highlighting the issues of
variance and then whatever else you feel you need to put in with that that would be that would be fine perfect chairman I had a subsequent conversation with chairman singer and he made it clear that you know the intent is if you can finish your presentation of the project
in its entirety today your presentation that' be preferable but I heard you say earlier because of the last minute change because of his mother's illness he weren't aware of this so your folks may not be available to give the complete presentation that would have to
be continued to the next but if you can do your best to complete your presentation this evening that is Chairman singer's reference and excuse me add to that if for some reason because I overheard a conversation if you feel that that isn't doable and you
need to give additional information we we'll discuss how that takes place you know correct we would identify you know so and so is not with us tonight they didn't think that they were going to be speaking as to the variant um to the extent I can answer your question someone else on our team can
answer your question we will but if not I I would suspect that that would get continued to the next meeting I do have one caveat on that uh and that is uh I have a conflict on March 20th um which means I would respectfully request that
whatever we continue did it be to the April meeting um so I I I prefer not to do that but unfortunately which is why earlier I asked is the next meeting March 13 I actually had that booked on my calendar and
again I understand these things happen and it is what it is I think guess a question has Eric is there any time problem with doing that I believe if the applicant requests the extension beyond the March
27th date in which a variance decision must be made which is 100 days from the filing of the application for variance the applicant can request an extension is that what you're doing by requesting the meeting to be continued to April and not March 20th yes I will go through the
calendar with you I will make sure that you have the 100 days plus SA 20 additional days to write a decision and file it and I'll exchange an email or documentation with this board uh reflecting that it the date will be April whatever the second Thursday and
April so whatever it is if it's the 10th then I would agree to extend until April 30th the time frame to Grant a variance or deny a variance thank you thank you thank you all right so um Michael Rosen Roberto is real and Wier on behalf of
already Wireless with me this evening George chanice from R Wireless also at ra Council for AT&T evening Martin LA and um I always forget the
company I'm sorry right Peter Marsh from C squ fromt agent for AT&T and you have with us from my office uh Michael Cronin um who can put up the slides like last time if we just tell him which
slides we want on the board we can put them on there um we have Lou hodet our engineer we have Don Hayes who is an environmental engineer that we asked to join us this evening and we have Steve hubard from ver also um and we have
David arshambo um also with us who um presented the balloon test and the photo simulations at the last meeting since you we need to introduce ourselves also Mark Maloney Debbie Jes Eric green Jim wi here was
I guess I myself yet do I I think you're your yeah yes thank you um so at our last meeting we went through a list of topics that we were G to cover um we started with
location um and um that was presented uh at the last meeting I don't think we have anything to add on that the second uh presentation that we had at the last meeting was regarding the site design and layout I don't think we'd have anything further to add on that the
third topic from the last meeting was the fall zone so I would like to take up the fall zone at this point um I think there were two things um that were submitted uh that I hope that this board has at this point received uh one is a
preliminary uh drawing for a construction for a foundation that was based on the presumptive soils I think that was something that we talked about at the last meeting uh that we were asking to not have to cut down trees and and and um do Geotech but we did take
presumptive soils and we designed a preliminary Foundation based on those presumptive soils and that was submitted in addition that was also submitted to your peer Consultants who also the other issue on that evening was that the pure consultant was going to review all of
our engineering data they were also going to comment on on the Geotech um we communicated with them we provided this to them and you have uh received on the 17th of February uh P's report prepared
for the city and I believe unless you have any specific questions uh hopefully everyone's read it but I believe that the report uh concurs with the uh statements that were made at the first hearing uh last month based on the peer review and your
talking about a presumptive set of s conditions will that be part of a construction set that gets submitted to the building official for their review and approval absolutely positively we want you to put a condition in our approval that requires that and we're also comfortable with t reviewing it uh
once we do the actual Geotech so we would do the Geotech we would have that we would attach that to uh uh building um construction drawings we would invite the board or a planning director to reach back out to te if they feel as
though they need further confirmation and that would be our recommendation for analyzing it one of the Genesis for the fear review is from the building official saying I I don't have a but I feel I can I don't understand how to do that he wanted to do that so that's I
came and then the other thing in this obviously is they um provide you information regarding what we discussed about the hinge point in the tower and the design design so I would suggest that those two things answered any open questions on the third topic from the
last presentation which was the fall zone um now just but this that deals I assume that's a detail that would be pertinent to the variance request I believe it's more pertinent to the variance request I believe it is less
pertinent to the special permit that's yes yep and that's why I took the time now to explain to those who here um the fourth thing we discussed was visual impact and we had uh David arshambo
present and we provided um slides we provided pictures we talked about uh proximity to other uh properties we talked about viewshed and we have David here if there are any follow-up questions um I don't know that there are
any but if there are or when it's open to the public if the public has any comments David is here with us tonight and we can put those the photo Sims and all of that U Back on the board and that would be the fourth point from our prior presentation and I believe that that in
fact is also relevant to the variance because you have to balance um you know the public good uh with the benefits uh and and the rights and the variance under 4817 um the fifth part of our presentation last time and we really
only touched on it brief briefly uh and unfortunately they can't be here tonight was uh Mark Ry uh who did prepared a evaluation report which this board has had uh since before the last meeting and if you recall um at that last meeting
did open uh Mr Ken's report uh one of the reasons and one of the things we pointed out in that report was that there is a 20000 foot tower that also um is adjacent to residential property and also um doesn't comply with the fallone
requirements so we did a comparison of that exactly at the Country Club so I'm happy to go through Mr currency's report because again unfortunately he couldn't be here on the other hand it it this board has had it for now more than a month I don't know if the members of the
board read it and would have any questions U but he did a detailed analysis of alternative um properties to assess their impact um he he found properties that had cell towers and so he did a comparative
analysis to both pre and post cell tower construction to give you an analysis of the impacts on those properties is that your tower that That's Country Club no no none of the towers in this report are our Towers now in that discussion was
the foundation for that to kind of similar to what you're proposing for your I I I drive every day so let me take a look because I do think one of them was not a monopole one of them was a lattice but I do believe that this is
a similar monopole yes this is a monopole application so this is I I can't tell you what the stoil conditions are so I can't tell you what's below the ground but this is the design of the tower monopole design uh the tower we're proposing this one is 200 feet tall ours
is 166 and then there's the an is so if you have an 8ot antenna mounted at the top of 166 we call it 170 ft because that Top Antenna is 4T above and 4 feet below and that is what it would look like does anyone want me to go through
each property in this report or you comfortable that you have the report I guess the property up near the uh be that was when that was so that's that's alternate site analysis that's
okay and I'm gonna get yep I'm gonna get to that next okay um the last thing that I felt so Geotech we covered that was going to be one of the things we were going to discuss uh the foundation in the hinge was one of the things we were going to discuss which is the te report
so one of the questions that came up at the last uh hearing were some discussions about some greater detail and getting some insight from AT&T as to the locations and how they determined the coverage need needs and how they
assess the various locations and that is why uh we asked attorney paray to come tonight on behalf of AT&T and he can uh run you through some slides when you're ready you can tell like which ones you put on the screen and uh we uh AT&T
submitted a report today um we we only got and I In fairness to everybody uh we spoke with that for the first time last Thursday or Friday so uh he's catching up with us a little bit um but um I
don't want anyone to think we only submitted it today because we only wanted to submit it to that we talked to that last Friday um he can go through that's all on the packages that were submitted to you but In fairness to the audience we can put it up on the screen Ed can walk you through that and he can give you some of the additional
information on that okay so good evening my name is Ed Parry uh I'm going to turn Brown Rudnick I'm aide counil AT&T I've been doing this for about 28 years um I've been representing AT&T for probably an excess
of 20 years so I do apologize for the tardy delivery of my letter and I hope everybody received it I see my letter head around the table so I'm going to assume everybody did Michael if you could put up uh my coverage plots the PDF I sent I did
bring some copies of the maps can I ask you can can I get one set I want hand it behind us to the extend so for those who didn't print one that's a i they're basically 11 Maps um
so let me let me start off with a little bit about AT&T so AT&T is a license carrier they're licensed by the FCC to provide Wireless telecommunication Services they're licensed nationally they run a national
and support a national network the Commonwealth of Massachusetts obviously and the City of Greenfield uh atmt was also awarded a bid under an RFP for something called first net and I will say that I did uh I
did watch the full public hearing uh from the last proceeding uh just to get a sense of kind of what the questions were you know where there was confusion what the confusion was and I think probably we just the board just doesn't have a good sense of what our Gap looks
like the size of Gap what AT&T is trying to cover and likewise uh to explain a little bit about AT&T's first net so I'll start with that c&t was awarded a contract to operate the first net Network this was done post 911 for to
the 911 Commission there are many first responder Public Safety networks out there they don't operate in singur together and some of the lessons we've learned from these large scale public safety issues is that coverage just gets
eaten up so everybody's trying to make same call do the same thing on their phone at the same time First Responders are also subject to that science and they can't get their calls through so the idea was the federal government would establish first net as I said AT&T
won the bid to oper develop and operate the network and what it does is it allows the First Responders to basically have a priority Network it's preemptive Network so just to give you a kind of a lay in sense of what first net does is if Cell
Site in a particular area was overwhelmed and you know was shutting down because there weren't enough enough capacity there wasn't enough coverage in the area some of were the first responder phone somebody on first net would be able to connect to the network and those typical commercial callers
personal callers would get dropped so it's an it's a way to get the necessary Communications in place during times of High Vol volum high stress on the wireless network I don't mean to interrupt you sit sign signal strength what that when
that that decision making is taking place is that done signal strength well if if if a first responder on first net cannot attach to the network people will get bounced off the network they can so that's I guess it's a backward way of saying yes but it's not really signal strength it would be
we're overused and we'll free up Spectrum so that you can so it first responding at that thank you city of Greenfield is a first net customer as is the city of Greenfield's fire department so if two customers this is obviously an
important you know piece of Public Safety in Green Field also so some of the maps I'm going to discuss tonight I have Martin Lavin is is on the uh Zoom portion he was with you last time I don't think there was a real sense of what AT&T is trying to do
existing coverage proposed coverage and then I prepared some or had Martin prepare some slides for some of those alternative sites that you mentioned such as the fairground so this is AT&T's existing coverage uh this is basically the plot
that was in Martin's radio frequency report it was submitted with the application you see a blue star I mean that's typical of one of these Maps this map was produced by C squ based on AT&T's network information uh that's shared with C squ
uh we have information about existing AT&T sites how they cover the area how they don't cover the area uh so basically seeing a representation of AT&T's coverage in the 700 megahertz uh Spectrum so the blue star in the middle
is where the site proposed SES to be located you'll see it's right smack in an area of white white is not what we want to have for coverage that's below atp's threshold now you might be able to get a call through there but it's not up
to standards for AT&T's network that would that would be clearly a gap in coverage the black stars you'll see them they you know they'll kind of over on the right hand side in the middle each of these each of the uh existing sites
have a number they begin with Ma you can see the black dots and any way you see green if you look in the center of it you'll see a black dot so that's kind of Representative of what what the carrier attempts to do so let's take the site up in the top right
hand corner uh you know that's a site that's operating you can see green closer to the you know site itself it's green then starts to fade away as you as you separate from uh the site itself so it'll fade from Green then you get that
orange so orange is a it's a signal that's degraded uh you could still get a call through you may be able to uh have data but the idea would be in busy areas we want to be all green and that's why when we you know construct a
site it's kind of like a jigsaw puzzle or a honeycomb as I mentioned in my uh cover letter today they create these little pockets of cells uh coverage of cells and then we try to interconnect those providing some overlap so that as
you drive through one cell as you kind of hit a right white area the next cell picks it up so you have you know continuous coverage there was also a question I thought was kind of interesting at the last hearing there was a question about why the road is red uh and I do know that when you print
these things because I did it on my printer I had trouble telling that that was red you know i91 was red versus the orange and whether it was the same just to be clear the Maj the interstate is red whether there's coverage there or not that's just how we identify the
interstate it is a different shade than that orange it may not always come through uh in that fashion but the idea would be if we wanted to have complete coverage good solid AT&T coverage in this wherever this map is representing
it would all be green now Interstate 91 as I mentioned in my uh letter today so we can get some Mass DOT reports on traffic now in the area let's see north
of 116 back in 2021 the the traffic count was 29,000 that is a huge amount of traffic and I I cannot imagine and looking at some of the opposition materials that
were filed that there's even a an honest argument that this is not a significant Gap I also looked at the uh traffic counts for uh Highway 2 and
2A uh between the Home Depot in Big Y do estimates 15,000 cars a day on Route 2A east of Elm Street 12,000 cars so we're talking about significant traffic volumes that AT&T will be able
to cover if you take a look at Martin's initial report that was filed the on page five 1.6 miles of Interstate 91 is not covered by AT&T at a sufficient
level one mile on route two and0 6 of a mile on Route 2A these are very busy areas needing coverage and as I think Martin tried to explain and and if you take a look at his report the other sites that are
surrounding this get stressed so you know as as the signal comes out from these other sites if they're straining to get too far your phone doesn't attach properly and you've probably had situations where if you use your phone you're having difficulty maintaining a connection it warms up it happens to me
also if I'm not in an area where where my phone really has to work harder then the phone starts heating up because it's it's trying to latch on to something producing more power to connect to a site that's too far away but because there's enough signal there it does try to connect so as I said if we can
imagine love this toall be green everybody would have great AT&T coverage that's not likely to happen so this is existing coverage this is existing coverage and I do want to this is in the P this was with the application that was filed but I saw from the hearing I just
don't think that message got across or maybe I saw there were a lot of issues going on so I want to walk through this this is existing AT&T coverage if we can focus on that blue star because that's what we're looking to do and Michael if you can switch to the next one can I ask
a question oh absolutely the design of your intendis system is really trying to gear up to pick those high traffic areas Or the critical areas to serve some of the white area there you know I mean it's good to get everywhere
but 912 2A yeah are your target improvements two-way the area surround the neighborhood surrounding it you know the air the roadways the side roadways the businesses in the area I mean we're in a busy area we'll have you know
businesses nearby that will benefit you know we'll be be providing in-building coverage so folks can work from home business can operate you know on the wireless network so that that's why eventually it would be great if it's all green that's not going to happen there are going to be areas that going to
remain white they'll probably just from the cost and the limitation on budget and investment some areas just not going to get covered at the end of the day but I'll tell you what needs to get covered is Route 91 and Route two and Route 2A and the reason I'm asking this question
I me that location is pick provide best service you can from that location to these critical areas with right now AT&T we're interested in coverage now we have a partner here with viid who is you know
going to provide the infrastructure for us to attach to so we're we're interested in the coverage they're interested in the infrastructure our interests are aligned but we would we're the ones driving this we're saying this is the height we need this
is where we need to be we need to be within this search area that's why we gave you all of those alternative you know potential alternative locations to look at but that drives the decision where monop correct I'm trying to put yep those two aspects together so I
understand that's right by that location coverage is the key so we don't come in saying we want to build towers we come in and say we want to provide coverage we need the infrastructure to do it now if you had a like in Boston if you had 150 story building you know where the
tractor company is would go on the roof of it so it's not so much we need the tower you just don't have you know as many communities you don't have the infrastructure to support you know providing wireless coverage did I answer your question or should I okay Micha can we go to the
next slide so one of the things that was a little confusing to me also as I heard some of the questions last time is you know what exactly the coverage is going to be so I asked Martin to prepare a plot showing just the coverage that
we'll get at this 166t we call it an antenna Center Line it's it's it's 170 ft to the top of the antenna but this is the coverage that we'll actually get from the site as proposed we've shut off as you'll see we shut off all the other
sites all the black dots uh dots all the black stars no longer have green around them so this is just the site that AT&T proposed it's site ma 5014 up in the top left proposed at 166 feet above ground level it's the antenna
center line so you know I think you get the sense that you can see where the the green coverage is it's going to be close to where the tower is located then we get a lot of spill over in the orange we get up north and we get down south cover that Gap look previous one that's that's
why I printed them so you can go back and forth and look at what we're covering now I'm going to run through these next set I'll do this rather rather quickly B if we can flip so what I did was I went through each of the alternative sites that you discussed
with Michael and Martin last time and I asked Martin to prepare a a similar plot we call these plot maps or a 160t above ground level Tower if it were located at the alternative location and what we did
was we identified we identifi those alternative locations with the yellow star so this is the I think it's called The Long View Tower it's up in the top left hand quadrant there or it's it's north west of our proposed blue star and
you'll see it just doesn't provide the coverage all the way down as our location does Michael can you flip again this is the so this one was kind of interesting this is the wh Tower I had Martin run it at 166 but we can't
attach to it testified last time that it's an AM Tower using 4G and 5G am tow is no longer uh permissible for us to use from an interference standpoint the 4G and 5G are just too sensitive uh Martin talked about that last time you
also say it just doesn't proide provide the coverage to the south of the blue star next Michael this is the fairg ground so you see the yellow star it's to it's due east of the a blue blue star now what
was interesting about the fairground was I took a look at you know the location it's it's going to be awful hard to screen that thing at 170 ft and then I realized that it's not in the right zoning District so even if we were looking at to go in there you'd be
forcing us back to Something in the GC District not something in the ira District but out of fairness I prod the plow anyway next slide Michael this is uh there were a couple of church buildings or Parcels that you
know we had listed again this is the Latter Day Saint Latter Day Saints property you'll see again yellow star uh to the north northwest of the blue and it frankly justes doesn't even get down to where the N you know the red white and blue 91
is next slide Michael before that that location I'm looking at it is would that have F Zone that would deal with the 1 70 ft uh that's a pretty sizable lot so very well could but it's not something we'd be interested in we need it right whether
we need a relief or not it's not it's not a site we would build because it doesn't provide the coverage next next slide Michael this is the next slide oh so uh oh sorry this is the Jo witness uh
property location again it's it's in a similar vicinity you'll see the yellow star to the north west of the blue star where our and again we don't get the coverage down 91 next slide uh this is a western Mass electric property uh this is again to the
Northwest which most of these appear to be again yellow star uh this one's even worse because it doesn't even make it close to where the 91 symbol is next slide Michael question all the ones you talked about there there with a a monopole that's 170 ft High
70 ft right distance distance stays the same at all locations correct and the height stays the same exactly so we didn't want to go we we want to cabar give the board a sense of Apples to Apples the sense I got from the board's questions last time was he didn't have a good feel for that so would that change
if you made it 200 feet high uh it would change it would change some I'll have Martin uh it would change some but I can I'm quite confident I think Martin will testify it's not going to cover 91 we want I'll also warn you that if you get
to 200 ft you may have to light the tower so you'll be deal you know you're going to deal with you know we have this we always play this kind of hypothetical game and so when you when you move you know it's kind of like a jigsaw puzzle if you move one it's going to affect the rest of the puzzle so if you say all
right we're going to put one here but you know we don't like it there so we want to move it there and it's like well now you're too close to this one and it causes interference or you've opened up another area which becomes problematic for us we also have constructibility issues such as you know if we put up a
400t tower would have worked no because would be too high and I think you heard Martin explain that is that decision made out of int Intuition or is it done with science pure science so as I said this is all based on the AT&T network actual results not based on a drive test
but what we usually find is that a drive test will confirm what C squ has done cqu in my opinion is the gold standard for uh these radio frequency plot maps we work with C squar across New England
they're accepted as experts at all of the agencies the state agencies the capod commission the Connecticut Cen Council they are they are truly the gold standard so what you're seeing is based on science and C s's experience and let
me just bear with me if you ran iterations picking asite and you changed the height and you're running the coverage you're also running the constructibility cost with it so that you know at the end of
the day you're not going to do that to every site but is there at some point because you I'll give you for instance the fair rounds we wouldn't consider because we're not the right Zing District so we couldn't get your by your OD says whatever use an existing facility
use an existing structure use industrial lot use a General commercial you don't get there you don't pass go corre correct me if I'm wrong does residential get excluded or is that just the last site of choice or is that just not
usable not usable okay so residential a are not usable so next slide Mike what you like we also looked at Hampton in I think there were two I think we called one a sign and another raw land but again this will be you know more north
of the blue star that we have again 160 foot6 170t Tower uh it doesn't get down T even when the 91 is next slide Michael I don't know if we have any I have a quick question now the the goal is to cover Route 91 as
much as possible and as much up you know two and twoa as possible visually when I'm looking at some of these green areas they seem very close as far as the proposed site to like the amount of 91 you're cover covering there I mean because based on the drawing there
there's green coverage down around that lower 91 marker is even going further down than even the the proposed one it do you actually have any percentage like if we go here we're covering 80% of what we wanted to cover this one's covering
83% of what other one better because one of the charts I gave you de the population and area so we can run through that I'm not you know the goal is the 91 cars going down let's not adjust my goal AT&T's goal though 91 2 2A and everything
around it so anything we can get coverage whether it's a house on a side lot that's another customer for us more coverage so it's we're not limiting 912 2A otherwise we'd be in here saying those are the only things trying to cover we want to cut we'd love
everything to be green it's just not that's just not going to be realistic next slide Michael uh this was a proposed possibility at the community college that that doesn't even come close uh you'll see the again the community
college is noted as the yellow star north north northwest matter of fact that's probably an area that needs something else you know down the road or in the future every populated area probably something that you know at some
point based on investment in budgets uh you know there might be development in the future again very consent you know very based on you know where the population Center is going to be and obviously the interstate highway next slide Mike then there's a question about a
town parcel now this is going to have a whole host of issues as whether we can even do this would have to be an RFP issue the town would have to show interest but you know was a parcel that was identified so we again we put the tower up and again it doesn't it doesn't provide the coverage that we get from uh
the site at uh at the BL star now I also submitted hey Michael can you punch up the uh I should have sent you a PDF with the chart yep I do have some copies of this also
if you don't oh is this the correct one yes can you make it a little bit bigger yeah this is one problem let still I have that's good thank
you so see what's I'm sorry are we we good I also have pop of my letter so let me I'm going to leave those on the table you don't you don't really need them now but if you did get a chance to review it if not uh copies of there so I'm going to put
my glasses back on so I can so what C squ is also able to do is to based on these plot maps that we just showed you and the coverage that gets provided from4 the blue
star csquare is able to extrapolate that and deal with you know how many how how many people are being covered like what is this cover so what Martin did was he he did a if you look at the the blue shaded
area it's it has coverage at 166 feet so that's as proposed so this are the new the new amounts of coverage where we're going to cover population being people so about 247
people so by Martin taking and producing that plot map he can figure out using Census Data what we're capturing as far as population in that blurb now these and these are going to be new customers customers that don't have good AT&T
coverage at this point if you recall if you went through Martin's initial report you know he made a he made a chart about the network traffic that's on all of those other sites that we have that the black stars around as I said we're really you
know if close are to a facility the better your coverage is the better your phone works the better customer experience there is in the in the situation where those sites become overloaded the people near those sites also suffer but Martin was Martin Ken
you know estimate what the new population count would be and so because there was a big concern about height and the fall zone and the height of the Tower and the visibility I asked them to do it at 20 foot in so you could see what happens if
you sit here in know the zoning board of appeals and make a decision that well you know we don't think it needs to be 166 feet I'm just going to arbitrarily suggest 126 M uh can I ask a question by changing the distances do it
impact the coverage that you talked about from responders and the police department is that does that degrade as a result of that without question the more coverage we have the the better off it is for all all users veret users AT&T users I just want to make have you make
that clear that this impacts customers but it impacts First Responders in that that First Responders your your fire department and whatever City agencies are using first net and I got to tell you you know if if if police and fire are in this instance like you you have
fire and City officials if they're using firstnet they probably have AT&T as their personal phone or their side phone and so this will provide coverage whether it's a personal phone or you know a city supplied provided phone for them so that you know if they have to be
in an area where there is no coverage with this site they'll now have coverage so they're also users let me just ask the stuff that's being covered by these charts and stuff is probably primarily for the special permit not so
much the VAR well here so I I just want so we we had this we had this discussion so my feeli now I've been doing this a long time I've got a lot of variances I've done a lot of special permits to me the coverage goes for both so when
you're tinkering with the variance because your the variance is based on a height calculation so you can call it a fall zone but really you're going to you know you're going to if if we didn't need the variance we could have some height of a tower I mean we could probably have a 35 ft Tower here that's
completely useless but you know the lot will support a tower without a variance so my feeling is these height requirements uh AT&T's height analysis is for both it's both for the use as a special use permit in a variance because
we need the height at 170 question did the First Responders in terms of making this decision obviously trying to improve service but was it driven by upgrading first responder coverage or just overall dealing with the area it's
both so are we doing this site for as a first responder site no I mean I there have been some where where were you getting service complaints or service issues from them regarding upgrading the service from the first n folks yeah I don't
know I assume so because 91's not well covered so I know that the city has been in touch with the first net Folks at AT&T and they want improved coverage I've done sites where they wouldn't be built except for the first net you know
Network that's this is not one of those it's not a dedicated first net site uh so it' be fair to your question yes you know those have happened especially out here in western Mass but they're pretty infrequent okay thank you somebody thought is yeah what's
somebody asking question I was gonna ask Mr chair someone keeps popping comments on the screen while the presentation's going forward I I would only ask one thing and that is that the person identified themselves oh there's no questions being asked by anybody somebody's asking somebody's chat
apparently somebody is chatting and and they don't have their name on it they they say safe Tech forward and I do believe that the people should be identifying themselves as part of public and they should be they should be asking questions through the board not through a chat so I don't know if you can shut off the chat but yeah I do see questions
popping up gra my that so no this this is your presentation exactly we'll answer all the questions I I don't yeah but that's for that's for another portion of so I'm not going to go through all of these chots but you'll see that you know the coverage at 166 ft produces you know
the best population coverage best business population coverage and the best area coverage obviously as you start to reduce the height and as I explained in my letter we did 20 foot increments now this is kind of a standard you know 10- foot increment we're not going to see a lot of change
so it's not going to be easy to identify we can't be assured or it's not as reliable what's changes will look like but somewhere in between is going to be that result so if for whatever reason this Tower will reduce to a height of
146 ft we're going to lose about 13 uh we're going to lose about 133% of the population coverage that we have 16% of the business population coverage that we would get and then if you reduce it further to 126 we'll lose you know a full 25 28% of what we're looking to
cover can I ask a question why you're doing this sure I ask by the folks that might have been here aren't here is they would they add anything to this or is that just a separate detail I think separate detail I think so right now this is not
impacting anyone else who should have been here could have been here well actually it's Martin Lavin who is who is here he's up on Zoom so he was here at the first hearing all of this is in his report I mean between what we find I'm not giving you much new except I am giving you new data
was was point out I think earlier that if he had someone had known there would have been someone else here he said Martin are you here Martin are you muted Martin yes I am okay thank you yeah I mean any specific I mean I'm giving you a summary
and I'm just saying if we I I will I will let you know if there's a topic or a question you ask that we have somebody missing I would say Mr chair uh we we have so and so who's not here this even and and I would want them the next
correct okay y just want to be clear that there's nothing that's being impacted no not at all no no I also you know one of the things I took a look at I went into Martin's radio frequency report and for anybody who wants to know this is what
it looks like in your packet there was originally filed RF report and you know these plots are in there now you certainly have more plots tonight than you don't Martin provided initially um but I will say you know I did take a look at this sheet is always informative
and this is this is just the sheet um which is labeled ma 5014 neighborhood sites and Radial distances so this is the AT&T network that we were showing you uh with those black dots Stars you'll see them all over the place and then we have distances most kind of
interesting is AT&T's closest facility is 1.5 miles away I mean I'm amazed that we don't we don't have something closer uh and the one after that is um 3.3 miles away
so the need is obvious you don't you just don't have coverage here and you know I've done sites in western Mass like this uh with you know with this decent coverage um and you know some sometimes have no
locations town uh so while you know while there's decent coverage in certain parts of town this is toly lacking by you know having the closest facility at a mile and a half away the last thing I'll talk about I
think I know last thing I'll talk about is the emissions so you know I know I have a following from time to time with some of the people on zoom and I do want to just chat about uh AT&T's emissions I
have have with us tonight Don Hayes who we introduced uh he is a uh radiation specialist uh expert but you know csquare did provide a radio frequency
emissions report uh obviously Tower you know being up at 166 feet it's going to be very low emissions when it gets down to the ground so I think in this instance it's less than 5% of the FCC maximum FCC maximum already has conservative estimates etc
etc as a federal lensey and under the Telecommunications Act we only need to satisfy that standard you know the standard matters people can talk about it till it blew in the face and we encourage people everybody has a right everybody has free speech they can say whatever they want the bottom line is if
we comply and game is over and in this instance as I know as I noted c squ provid a report that shows that the emissions will be less than five % of the of the FCC maximum we can
all agree whether we like the FCC we can all agree whether we should follow the FCC but the federal law is we have to follow the FCC that's it and this and this Bo this board has no jurisdiction ma the Commonwealth of Massachusetts no
jurisdiction so long as we comply but the the radiation talk about the impact of Health it's the it's the emission so the FCC I want to be clear I understand what you're saying correct so we have to show you as a board that we comply with the
SEC standards which we did other people are going to raise health issues but that's not something you can consider in your report but people can say what they want it's just that you can't consider that in your evaluation of our application and I only suggest if that is going to be the topic dour that you
pause on that and get your town counsil year no I'm just trying to understand what that that means I'm not I'm not here to well emissions means a lot of things some people say it's Health it's the FCC just says the environmental impact of emissions are under the fcc's exclusive jurisdiction I don't like
using the word Health but I'll so yes yeah yes people with health people with health concerns over the emissions we only have to sh that we comply yeah and because that's the issue that'll that'll be commented about I get I get a feeling that might be a topic I think at this point I've done
enough babbling I have as I said Martin is with me uh if there are specific questions about the coverage um you know I did note in my letter that you know if you have if you basically have two sites they're in close proximity and they're
basically at the same elevation and they're not going to you know get a lot of interference from trees buildings terrain Etc you know they're probably going to work for the most part because you get above the trees and you know so there is a site at the track I me I
think I mentioned the tractor uh Supply Company across I think it's across the street from where we are so I took a look at that I don't think it's going to meet fall own requirement it is in the GC district and the thing is you know pretty much fully developed with the river to the rear so you're facing the
same thing from AT&T's perspective we get a lot like this next to the highway that's pretty heavily treed and then you look and you look at some of the limitations on you know where the development could take place I mean this site is
is topnotch I mean people may not like to hear that but that's what it I mean it's well screened it's next to a highway it's it'll provide the coverage that AT&T needs which is a benefit to the community benefit to Public Safety benefit to First
Responders and it it really has minimal impact These Are Not Invisible so it's going to be whatever the Height's going to be it's going to be a piece of Steel rising up to that height we have to be be above the tree line so by definition somebody's going to be able to see it
from somewhere we try to minimize it we try to balance that the audence tries to balance that but you get a site that's a good site you should maximize it and your ordinance actually requires that you know collocation is mandated that it should be the minimum necessary you
don't want multiple polls you know you can't have a situation you have all right AT&T you know you can come in uh but we want off short polls but you can only have one well that's just not that's not functional so you know the city has made a decision we want fewer
taller Towers on whatever this reference to a Smart zoning thing I just read your ordinance and say all right here's the path the city wants me to follow we follow it with the help of R they located the site they're a pod to hear and with that I'd be happy to answer any
questions n now I I am sitting here trying to think of what questions they so let me also say if we're coming back we come you can digest this I'll be back
I'll bring Martin back we'll the nice thing is David will have a chance to listen to this so Mr I listen to him when we prepping for me to fill in to try to get all the things that he was asking me Fair
Point can I just clarifying question please can you help me it when I look at these Maps like I know that at our prior meeting you kind of talked a little about how the Hampton Insight didn't really work and I can't recall if it was about height or whatnot
but that coverage looks comparable if not better to me when I look at these maps and it just kind of feels like well that's close to the highway it's not residential at all it's not the most attractive area regardless why why is the Hampton in sight not a contender
when like when you look at this coverage compared to the proposed site yes I think that's a better question for Martin I don't know were you able to hear me well enough with that question uh yes um the um the original time we went around it
was we were going to build on the roof of the what was in the um s scrub was the roof of the in yeah and the sign outside um that's why things look better this time these plots
are based on the Assumption being able to build 170 foot Tower yeah Martin he his I think the question is he's looking at new comparison at 166 at the Hampton in compared to what we're proposing so
where where are the coverage limitations from the Hampton in as compared to our proposal I'm just going to pull up my geographically they're not that far apart they're not well when you look at
the spread of green it just it I I don't see the compelling reason why the proposed site like when I look at this map Hampton looks more compelling to me than the proposed site so I just don't I'm just trying to get a sense of if coverage is the driving concern and
this was a viable site Contender why is that not the site that you're applying for well number one we choose the site that's that's question is why not why this site and not the hamton in site when we look at these coverage like I get that there might be other reasons or circumstan question is
what are they Michael can you pull up the put bring up the other pet which one the maps yeah the maps and go to the Hampton in Martin the question is the coverage coverage comparison between the
Hampton in and our propos site that it looks the handon inside looks better to the this my lay person status it does yeah Martin yes um based on the assumption that we could actually build 170 foot Tower
there that the coverage does look comparable the original scrub of course we were just looking at putting it on the sign and or the roof of the hotel which didn't do very much for us um it's a matter
of I think not so much from RF but any other considerations such as F Zone and so forth um we haven't dug into this site at all uh when it was proposed to AT&T it was to build on the sign or on
the roof of the end which wouldn't work at all for us what about coverage to the South does the Hampton Inn get us as far as I mean are there any limitations between the Hampton Inn and our proposal uh Hamp does not reach
91 uh south of The Shield there as well as our proposed site does any any other neighborhoods Martin uh the neighborhoods we have a lot more green and orange through there it's just a matter of getting down 91 I think is the main reason if this
does turn out to be feasible at all but there are limitations going south it doesn't reach as far south on 91 it's not as well aligned as our site is hey Mike can I ask you can I ask you
a question can can you go to the shield the 91 shield and can you zoom in on the Hampton site scroll up a look keep better yeah and zoom in and scroll up keep keep
going go one more if you can go Zoom one more time and then put the 91 shield in the middle of the screen and then leave that up there for a minute if everyone can get a view of
that so it looks like there's a little bit of white just above the 91 so Martin correct me if I'm wrong it looks like it's orange on both sides of the shield and then the coverage really below the shield
is um kind of Gap is yeah there's about half a mile there if you look at the yeah so I was gonna ask I I would like Mike if you can then when the this board is done looking at the Hampton in at 200% with the shield in the middle could
you then and and I'll ask the chair to let us know when everyone's ready I would like you to then put the proposed site and do the exact same thing put the shield in the middle and then put the shield at 200% thank you
Mike go ahead yep so it looks like there's no no white around or above the shield and it does seem like it's pretty solid at least a 91 it's not getting businesses or homes
in but it certainly does seem like it's following the highway for almost another three4 of a mile but but is not the driving or sole concern within this right half mile while going 65 miles per hour means a relatively short period of
time with no coverage before you're back in the orange or green unless you're broken down there unless you break down there right not get a sign please I think if you also take a look if you look at the blue star you'll see
that there coverage to the east that you don't get from Hampton in because again you're going to have you're going to have a situation where you're looking at one map if and if you look if you flip back and forth you'll see you know there's more coverage over by months in there where the town property line is there's more there's more green there
there's more over if you go to the east of what's that wisdom way you'll see additional coverage so it's not a matter of we have this little gap on 91 it's everything in the footprint and then comparing there would be no reason for us to duplicate
coverage up at Hampton in if that's what we were going to do or the target is down here 912 in all those surrounding areas to to to add to Mark's question when I talked about earlier doing a comparative analysis between this side and Hampton in and I look at fact that
just we here but again the orange isn't that you don't have coverage you just don't have as good coverage ex that's correct in Orange in Orange you have coverage it's not as good coverage it's green obviously white is problematic you still might get as I said at the outset you may still get a call through it's
not reliable coverage yeah I mean the only thing I can say is just looking at the looking at the Hampton Insight if you take the total coverage whether it's green or orange it to me it appears it's taking up more of the map than the propose site
that there's more green on the Hampton site than there is on the propose site if you just if you took if you if you added up all of the coverage both orange and green and you just even as a percentage there's more green showing on
the Hampton site than there is on the post site and that might be all well and good for those areas but it's not what we're targeting so you're going to leave something on 91 we're not interested we're not interested in gaps on 91 in those areas so it might look like a bigger green we could do you know a site
with there's no terrain issues and you'll have a Big Blob of green you'll say this is even better but it's our Network that we're designing and how the pieces fit together so could be the green could be a large area of vacant land um and where understand you try trying to get popul
businesses and uh traffic right but we're we're not here to hear just about what you're looking to do but what's best for our community and know just so the fact that this is better for you doesn't mean it's best for our community I'm trying to that but best
for your community is is kind of a work of art there we're talking about are we meeting the standards of the ordinance and in light of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 do we meet those standards not what people's feelings are or what how AT&T should be investing their money
and their limited resources to provide coverage yeah I'm sure that everybody would say put it out where nobody can see it but nobody nobody benefits from it why would we do that this is the area where targeting we comply with the zoning ordinance at least from AT&T's
perspective in light of the Telecommunications Act we comply with that analysis and that's what we're trying to demonstrate that we have a need we have a coverage G this is the feasible way to to fix that in accordance with the case law in the Telecommunications Act of 1997 and if
this was simply a matter of meeting ordinances you wouldn't be a special permit here well that's what your ordinance requires so your ordinance is saying come get a special permit warm here that I'm I'm gonna let I'm gonna let Michael deal with the let
me just say something one of the things you made asked earlier how how this is done and you said scientifically yep that takes away the artism to the process I mean I mean if you if you set up your array with your antennas and again there's that small area is it
possible with because this is all done with computer analysis and Y designing the array to kind of try to get this coverage if you if you alter that at all does that have that disappear and and change this dramatically I mean I'm I'm
trying to understand because you know the antenna is to cover 91 and there is that slight blipped in there and if happen to break down I get that but is there any possibility scientifically to kind of do an iteration of this that changes that coverage to includ well I I don't want to keep going back to this
intent thing but you you know members of the board keep saying it's the intented to cover 91 that's one of the one of the intentions is to cover 91 that's important because it's an interstate highway and you we get 29,000 cars on it but you made an important statement about that white piece not being covered
so that what I'm hearing is that is important as is as is the other areas and the other neighborhoods so but fact to Debbie's question if if that isn't as critical as you say why isn't this an appropriate solution to the problem you know I'm Berney Rosen can
I statement yeah our engineer Lou hodet uh engineer um one point that I think is being lost in this conversation um the
pbridge map that we're showing assumed a 170 foot Tower um at the the Hampton in just for a comparison standpoint the ability to put 170 foot Tower at the Hampton Insight is kind of questionable
that that lot is not big enough uh it would have the same variance uh request for a fall zone um there's also the question is the visibility of the tower uh greater at
that location um which we haven't assessed but just just to the point the original assumption at that Hampton in location and why it was excluded was because we were proposing to go on the rooftop and not the not put a 170 foot
Tower there um at that point the coverage map is considerably less coverage um yes if we put 170 foot Tower there the coverage is probably fairly similar but is 170 foot Tower capable of being
placed there is is really a question that I don't believe we've evaluated um but can I ask you and ask you a question if you're putting it on top of the camp in you don't really need 170 foot Tower you need from the top of the assuming you're putting on top of the building or
adjacent to the building if you're putting on top of the building it isn't have 17 foot Tower it's whatever the height of the the motel and the structure that becomes started well that's so I I will tell you you can share your experiences I have seen antennas go on the roofs of buildings
I've never seen anybody build a tower on the roof of a building and in particular where you're looking at height and the need for a foundation and potentially if we have a fall zone issue I I think putting a tower on a roof would be distinctly different than like um you
could you could look at if this for a 12-story hotel what somebody would do is they would build a faux Elevator Shaft and they would make it out of radio frequency trans transparent material and they would put the antennas behind that material and those antennas would be 120
130 140 feet like you could come visit me in my office in Boston and I go to the window and I say see that right there that's a cell tower and people will be like no it's not it's it's a it's a smoke stack or it's an elevator that Lou makes a good point because I want to be can can I just let me let me
just you're the chairman I know that that's I mean I understand fully what you're saying but we've got a public here sitting shaping at the bit to participate in sure you know and I didn't see a statement in the report that says here's why we excluded hampon
in other than it was excluded I mean I I understand what you're saying but that hasn't been you know public publicized or documented so the publicans say here's why we excluded the Hampton in because if you were to do that you'd have to kind of re re rebuild the Hampton in hold that structure out so so
I I do believe we did that at the last hearing I think we went to each site and we eliminated the S sites and we explained why the difference between what we explained at the last meeting and and what Mr paray attorney paray is doing tonight is to give you an Apples to Apples comparison if you took 166
feet at each location because it seemed like there was a an implication at the last meeting that that would be something that you would want to see so this isn't necessarily saying that it's feasible it's saying what would the coverage look like at 166 feet at each
of the locations that we had analyzed even though we eliminated some for instance because um I mean we did the fair ground at 166 ft but we eliminated that because it's in a residential Zone we eliminated that because there's no screening at all because there are
dozens of neighbors that would literally be right out that Tower yeah and I actually I believe we're getting more detail about those specific reasons for each one you went through all of them correct so we disregarded this one we disregarded that one and part of the
part of what we had asked you at that meeting was to come in with more details to why those particular sites are excluded and you're answering some of those questions now so I appreciate that y I mean you know being a money person we C I'm making these numbers up it's $2
million to do proposed location and if you do it at hampt it in it's going to cost four mons you got to rebuild the structure I mean it becomes extremely costly or you know impossible to build for whatever logistic reasons I I just want to make sure that you know because
the Public's in asking of us to ask you kind of or ask you to so as I started off let me be clear about so I represent AT&T we're about service so all of my I don't know if any of these people would lease these properties to us or to I
don't know if they're constructible as I went through them and looked at the notes like I picked up the one the you know the uh background lot looked feasible you look at it and it's like well you know not bad the coverage isn't as good but then as I went through the property card I see it's in a
residential district well that just takes it out but my job tonight was not to come here and say what we can do what we can't do from a constructibility standpoint these are all just hypothetical towers of 170 ft to show you what AT&T would get out of each of
them so that you had a sense of what AT&T would be willing to do and what gaps remain so other issues that you have I mean they may be fair questions but like I have no idea that the Hampton in you know leis said you there's no way you're
gonna get the fall zone well these sites are equal then but ours is treed so from a practical perspective I get better coverage that's our goal I cover our objectives from AT&T questions regarding feasibility I think a better directed Michael and ver
but to the extent I can help I'm happy to help and I I I I understand that I mean there's two entities here you're you're concerned about coverage they're concerned about the constructibility or leasing or whatever it takes to help you provide that coverage and I'm just trying to distinguish the facts so that when the public gets to participate
their understanding that there needs to be some more specific and I'll also say I have never seen a tower of 100 feet or anything like that on mounted to an existing building so that's that's just I don't think that's a reality but in my world I would say well Hampton in they must have a parking lot we could
put it in a parking lot and give up and give up coverage and have all Zone issues and give up 20 or 30 parking spaces right right I so I I mean I'm happy to go back and go through our notes and at the next meeting provide information uh but but I do think I do
want this board to know i' I've I've come here twice I've come here several hours before each meeting I've around I've looked at some of the various sites I'm familiar with what the residences look like in the neighborhoods that we looked at um I'm I'm familiar with the
the tree coverage and the screening and the ability to get screening uh so we are looking at all of those different things um looking at that the amfm tower um as you talk about one factor would be constructibility another Factor would be
residence another Factor would be whether it also needs a fall zone barri like this site would um it's all of those other factors um you could you could focus on any one site and I guarantee that there would be a a
portion of the population that would have a plausible argument for why they don't want it at that particular site it's kind of a balancing of and and I guess our our point is we did look at 16
different sites we looked at a lot we we tried to identify the best ones possible that go to both constructability and coverage need we have a particular client for this site um and they do have a coverage need and this one slightly is the best site
slightly um the other site is close um from the other factors that are involved the availability of it the screening of it um the impact on the neighborhood it was our opinion it's VI's opinion that this is the best site because it's
located in a well screened property it's immediately adjacent to the highway um it's in a in a neighborhood that does have other Industrial and Commercial uses and it's down a 15 foot Bank just you know what I'm trying to have us be
as informed as we can with information so we need to make an effective decision because we're going to be hearing another side of of the audience and I want to make sure we can balance what we're hearing from the public and what we're hearing from you and I am taking copious notes on this so
that the next time we get together I can uh provide you any additional information that will help you with that thank you you got it um else so I I think from the variance perspective well let me do this you were
asking questions so I don't want to jump back in if anyone else had any questions members have any questions not not at this point okay so from a variant perspective I think that we have presented factually um the information
that we would present um as we mentioned there were a few people that aren't here tonight and therefore I won't have them present on the um special permit um but from from a variant perspective I do think we presented everything and I I
guess I would ask you whether you want to open it up to the public on the variance portion of this application um the one thing that I had discussed with attorney singer is that we would have the opportunity to make a closing argument to the extent that you close
out the variance portion I asking now not because I think I'm going to do that later tonight I presume I'm going to do that at the next meeting but before I kind of seed the floor now and ask you if you if you're done with your questions if you want to open it up to the public I do want to just confirm
that we'll be able to make a closing at the end of the variance and at the end of the special PR I'm struggling to make sure I understand if we're talking about the variance how do we articulate what information is appropriate to the
variance I mean it seems like they're very intertwined so so so for me to try to say okay I'm going to conduct a hearing strictly on variant without getting into all of the other I say the other issues that kind of blend together I mean I know you gave a description
those there but I I guess we need to be somewhat narrow to articulate those to be able to discuss the variance details but which portion of everything is just about well that's that's what I'm trying to no no no no no like the variance is the height of a ble well they gave five
five five things that they felt were appropriate to the variance or four so so essentially we're looking for variance um for I guess the height in the fall zone um I'm not sure technically you need a height variance but I think we asked for height Zone uh
because I think the height requirement and the bylaw is that it has to um be the the minimum height necessary in order to accommodate collocation um but then by the same token you have the fall zone provision
which limits the height based on the fall zone so we call it both a height and a fall zone variance so when I look at so there's two ways to look at a variance request in in um in a in a wireless Forum the first is
Massachusetts law so what are the standards for a variance so it's your 20-64 um a literal literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would involve a substantial hardship Financial or otherwise to the petitioner or the applicant so I think our argument is
that there is a hardship we may not be able to get a cell power that would provide us uh the appropriate coverage that we need in addition I also think that it would um preclude the use of this property um and that's kind of part
of the second Point um under Massachusetts law the hardship has to be owing to circumstances relating to soil condition shape or Topography of land or structors not generally affecting the zoning District but affecting the general lot so for those familiar with
this lot in the neighborhood it does go down a slope so it meets it does have soil conditions as we talked about at the last meeting uh there's significant Wetlands out there that really limited where our footprint could be otherwise we would have moved it back further on the lot that
limitation also would limit us to be able to develop the lot in general for any other use it would limit a footprint of about 800 ft um and limit the number of parking spaces you could get down there so you'd literally be coming down the slope side about 15 ft at a curve to
literally a building and a parking lot that would be you know nominal in size at best um so it does it this lot is unique it also if you go through that neighborhood almost all the other lots and properties in that
neighborhood in that District are at the same level this one happens to go down and then go up along the side of the highway so it is a unique lot so I think it meets the second criteria for variance and this is the top one so the third one is desirable relief may be
granted without either substantial detriment to the public public good and point out substantial detriment or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or the purposes of the chapter so the difficulty here is Mr Sher as you just
alluded to what other information would help you do that because you kind of have to balance everything so there's positive to the public good there's first net there's coverage there's in today's day and age people working from
their homes because Co and the world and we reme work force after Co and uh people flocking major cities and moving to rural locations and trying to work from their home so all of the things that are potentially benefits but by the same token you may want to consider
anything that any of the abutters have to say on the basis that that might be your balance of public good so I don't know that there isn't anything else that might be talked about that would impact that that balancing the weighing
um in all honesty our our approach this evening was at the request of the chair um and to try and keep everyone focused on the variants and that was the goal and I I'll give you the best example I can give you um and I'm going to use the term not because I'm picking on anybody
it's the term of their document so there was a document submitted called opposition memo okay so there is an opposition and I used that term last time and I think the sherff was like don't call them the opposition well I'm only using it because that's the title
of their document so we're preparing a response to the opposition memo that response that we're preparing and our view was based on the entirety of the special permit and therefore we didn't complete it for tonight's meeting because the request for this evening was
to stay focused on the variants and try not to go too far into much of the rest of the project so when you asked earlier based on who's not here and what are the things that we might not be able to present on tonight that probably is the
biggest thing um but you're also saying that that impacts the discussion about variance it it may and I I mean I guess the question becomes do you open the floor at this point to the other the the the public citizens
and I I the reason I asked the question that I started this part of the discussion with is would we have the opportunity to come back and present further in close because we want to be able to take in the things that they say because it may not just impact the variance it may also impact the special permit portion
of and again again this isn't an easy question I I'm trying to work with what you've indicated you are preparing a response to the yes would that would it be appropriate to have that so we can have that as part of the conversation with the public or can we get it now I
mean I'm just saying I'm hearing you say that but does that give us information on what they've what they've it's certainly helpful to hear what the the um I mean they're here tonight and I heard what the people said in the last meeting they came here and
and they want to speak and we have people in the room and I want to be respectful of that I don't want to sit here and ask you to not let them speak until I Write a response to their memo uh but I do just want to ask the board your Indulgence in that we prepared for
half of the hearing tonight and not necessarily all of the hearing tonight and I don't want to be adversely impacted by seating the board at this time to give the public an opportunity to speak because they've been here and I think they deserve that opportunity I mean I I would I would say this you know
I want to be I want to be aware of the time and but I also want to be aware you know this is our you know we've had multiple meetings on this and and the public has yet have an opportunity to speak but I also want keep you know my thought on that would be you know
obviously there's there's multiple people here is if we do allow people to speak that we have to kind of limit how long that if everyone's going to speak you know there's 15 people here and everyone talks for 10 minutes that that's an excessive B time to ask for
everybody to be here well this before I close this portion of the I if we do that I want to make sure that whatever an issue is we don't hear the same issue different one person represents that
issue one represents another so that we we don't kind of spend till midnight here Mr chairman so my second conversation with chairman singer was you know he apologizes emergencies happened he would like to have been here
and done what was said from the last meeting but it's not able to be done because his mother's in the hospital he his intent was for you to finish your presentation which you cannot do because of the previous guidance you received so you have some folks that were not here
based on we were going to concentrate on the variance here what Mr singer said to me is that the next meeting would be 100% dedicated to hearing the Butters but it can't be 100% now because you still have some business to finish
up relative to the special permit portion of your project so Mr chairman I would recommend based on my conversation with singer is that have the applicant complete but they can this evening if it's complete it's complete the next meeting which is the 20th will be
dedicated to their completing the presentation from the folks that were not able to be here this evening and then dedicate the entire rest of the meeting to the abuts to the abuts that is what the chairman singer wer done
Mark I hear that and I completely respect it and I guess just even by virtue of the tone that we started this meeting with the prior thing I just wonder if I would think that some of the public that's here tonight and it's not that many folks some might wish to just say a few words tonight say their piece
and have it done some might elect to wait and kind of just hear everything more I just wonder if we could spare 20 minutes to see of the folks that are here a few things people online can I out of 19 like 12 of them
are they do have Council and Council just raised his hand and I know you can't see it because you guys are facing this way I if if Mike can you stop sharing and I again I want to be respectful especially after watching the
earlier hearing this evening I do believe attorney Campanelli raised his hand I don't have a objection if you allow him to ask whatever question he had when he raised his stand and I want I want to be respectful everyone's been in this room for a couple hours now may
I be heard uh Mr chairman of the board this is Andrew campelli yes so um I understand the concerns of the board I've been listening to this entire hearing I also sat through the last hearing and all of that um I think it makes some sense to allow the residents to be heard however
I also understand that the applicant submitted additional material just today which I've not had the opportunity to see so I would respectfully request one thing I'd like to address only one issue this evening and then wait till the next hearing so that everybody else can speak but I think it's very important given
what I see as basically misinformation that's been submitted to the board tonight regarding the coverage issue so I would very much simply like to be heard on the coverage issue and that issue alone and the alleged evidence that has been provided by the applicant I think it's critical to address this
issue tonight while everything you heard from the applicant attorney is fresh in your mind because this is a very important issue it goes to the heart of criteria number one without which you cannot Grant this application they have to establish your hardship and they can
establish a hardship if I'm afforded the opportunity to explain to you why what they consider to be evidence that is submitted to you has no evidentiary value whatsoever I can probably complete that in under 10 minutes so I would limit it to issue number one the coverage issue I would love to discuss
with the board again just so we can see him he's on a tiny screen can't zoom doesn't work that way it's not the way Zoom works this is the way Zoom Works Mr chairman would it be acceptable to you in the board that I simply address the coverage issue
tonight and nothing else and then that would allow the other residents to speak and then I would compete my presentation during the next meeting after had an opportunity to review whatever it is the applicant submitted this evening because it's unfair of me to try to address things I haven't seen would that be
acceptable to the board before we do that I close this portion of the hearing from presentation from you folks because they they don't represent you right Mr Campanelli does I'd like to close the presentation portion and open it up to him and then so so long as
we're reserving the right at the next hearing I'm not saying no no absolutely I just I just want to be done with this card so we can then include the public okay and what I what I'd like to do is set set a limit of 9:45 we're done we're
so I mean can I mean I understand what what their attorney is saying is that he needs 10 minutes to address issue number one at coverage and then everyone would go home and come back on the 20th he would hear the rest of it they they can digest the data that was given out today I just want to be
clear is that what you're saying well I I thought it'd be a little time for the residents if they do want to speak that's up to them well I'm sure they probably will and you know if if we're going to allow that we need to make sure we have a time limit on it you know but what what AR is saying in his interpretation what what you're
requesting is your attend minutes for you then to come back with with the community or the abuts and have questions answered on the entire presentation because there's still more of your presentation that hasn't been done today right correct okay that's acceptable to me if that's
acceptable to the ab Mr chairman well can I take a two- minute break yeah I I I guess I'd like that I'm running out of voice with you sir I'd like to take a five minute break I need to go to the restroom
okay right so 836 yes Andrew Andrew are you ready to give your 10-minute presentation I am if I may I'd like to ask the applicant and their attorney to put up back on in view it's
uh it's m 700 mte megahertz um map that I put up before it's page 34 from the maps that you showed earlier today could you put that back up on the screen can I that don't mean to interrupt Michael but as best we can could we deal with the information
that's that's dealing with the variance you know so that that's because that this is for the variance that's great I don't mean it okay thank you yes the first page page 34 first one you put up okay so the very first criteria for
granting Avance of course is 200 -64 A1 and that is this this board cannot Grant the variance unless the applicant proves to the statisfaction of the board that literal enforcement of the code would involve a substantial hardship Financial or otherwise on the applicant now this
applicant comes before you claiming that its hardship is that it needs to reild build this 170 foot Tower to remedy a significant Gap in service and they submit this map m5014 as alleged evidence to substantial iate their claim of a significant Gap I
respectfully submit to you this map does not serve as evidence of any gaps anywhere in the entire city of Greenfield now I'm not saying this perfect coverage in Greenfield but I'm telling you and I'm going to prove to you right now that this map proves absolutely nothing and here's why first
I want to preface this by pointing out exhibits E and F on the submission that I submitted to you according to Verizon according to AT&T's own data AT&T has no significant Gap in its personal wireless service at the precise location where they want to build the Tower you can see
AT&T's own coverage map which was attached as exhibit e to my presentation more importantly according to the records of the FCC based upon evidence provided to them by AT&T under penalties of criminal perjury they have no gaps in
wireless service at the precise location that they're claiming this Tower is necessary to remedy a gap look at exhibit F I believe it was current as of the past 30 days now what does this map show it really shows nothing and here's why number one if you look at the top of
the map it describes that this is allegedly AT&T's coverage on the 700 mahz LT band okay the first problem is that that is only one of 12 bands upon which AT&T provides its end use
customers with wireless coverage in my brief to you I submitted the case of exet thirst to the Village of flow Hills most people don't realize if they are driving through the city of Greenfield and they're on a 5G call and the 5G signal strength drops too low to maintain the call your telephone will
downshift to 4G or 3G or 1G and so as a Federal Court ruled against Verizon in that case which was one of my cases to establish the existence of a significant Gap in personal wireless service a carrier has to prove that its end use customer cannot connect to a landline on
any of it frequencies this is one out of 12 frequencies upon which AT&T provides its wireless coverage that's not the most important part what's most important is the coverage key on the lower right if you look on the lower right hand portion it describes as good
coverage coverage which is above minus 83 dbm dbm stands for decible Mills this is the signal strength reading now I've been handling these cases for 30 years I have never before found any wireless
carrier anywhere in the United States claiming that to maintain reliable wireless coverage in a city county town or Village it needs a signal strength greater than minus 95 dbm in most jurisdictions they'd say it's minus 98 okay now the important thing to
understand about dbm coverage is the lower that number gets the stronger the coverage gets and for every three DB you go up the signal strength doubles so in most jurisdictions minus 98 dbm is sufficient to provide personal wireless
service minus 95 dbm is 200% as strong as that they're claiming the absolute bare minimum which they have in brown to provide coverage is minus 93 dbm which is 300% stronger than what all Wireless
carriers claim is necessary to maintain reliable service elsewhere but it gets worse their map in Brown goes down to minus 83 minus 83 dbm is 2, 100% stronger than
minus 98 dbm now if someone can explain to me why AT&T claims to provide reliable wireless service in Greenfield it needs a signal strength 2,000 times stronger than anywhere else
in the United States this map shows nothing this map was not created based upon actual data you heard the attorney for the applicant say this wasn't based upon a drive test that's the gold standard not a map that somebody created
using a desktop computer maybe using atol software this map has no probative value if it was challenged in court no court in this country would accept it as evidence of anything there's no data to back it up this is why the map doesn't
match the data in the fcc's database because according to the FCC there are no significant gaps in the precise locations where this applicant is now coming before you saying that's where this thing is needed it makes no sense at all and it's nothing to do a drive
test all they have to do is attach a recording device put in a car and drive through the city if and only if they provide that data to you does it then place you this board in a position to determine if this Tower is actually necessary number one it'll show if there
are gaps in service number two it'll show where the gaps are and number three it'll show the boundaries of the gaps if and only if they give you that data does it then place you in a position to actually find that unless you build this Tower at this location at this
height it's going to be a hardship for the applicant they can't remedy a gap which according to the FCC does not exist and again the AT&T the the data that's on the fcc's website exhibit f it doesn't mean this perfect coverage seamless coverage what the fcc's map
shows there are no significant gaps in the personal wireless service and again that fcc's data was received by the FCC from AT&T who submits it under criminal penalties for filing a false instrument for filing with the federal government
so there's a reason why this map doesn't match what the fcc's records are or AT&T's records and I've seen this all over the country but I've never seen a carrier claim it needs 83 DBS M to maintain reliable wireless service 2,000 times stronger what they need everywhere
else in the country it makes absolutely no sense so I respectfully submit this applicant has in no way shape or form proven that without allowing them to build this Tower it's going to impose a substantial hardship on them sufficient to REM to meet the requirements under
subdivision a in similar vein you ask smart questions why can't you use the other location under federal law if they want to claim that turning this down would be an effective prohibition they have to prove two things that they have an identified significant Gap in its personal wireless service and that a
proposed installation at the place they want it and the specific height they want it is the least intrusive means of reming that Gap and they have come nowhere near establishing that based upon actual evidence not desktop generated maps and worst of all they say
they chose this site as opposed to the other one because in their words it's well screened I ask you to look at their drawing C7 which shows this tower that they want to propose is going to Tower a 100 feet above the tree line that's not
well screened and they haven't proven that it has to go here much less that it hasn't been 17 stories tall any questions from the board I'd love to answer them at this point I don't have any questions not yet no yet great I thank
you for the opportunity and I I again thank you for the opportunity to speak at the next meing where I address the balance of the issues that are going to be raised thank you very much thank you thank you but I want to wait till the next
me have a daughter who's exhausted and waiting for me to come and I was hoping to speak much earlier so I'm going to wait two minutes anyone else yeah I'll I'll just uh I ask what's
your name and where do you live are you my name is Diana I have a business in grei indust okay so that's your comment why I'm here that's not comment she's
'll speak I think I think are there well yeah are we ready are we limit to two three minutes so we can get through yeah minutes I I I apolog I didn't ask your name to identify try behind
youor live near the proposed site and I have number of things I'd like to said but can can I also ask when people identify themselves if they can give their first and last names okay and address please thank you
again you have did they identify their name and address I me I should ask them again uh no if they're not speaking we don't if they're not speaking only those that speak we need their name and address correct thank you anyone
else yeah so Jonathan in 224 Aver Brook Road in Charlemont um my interest in this in the Greenfield site is is mainly comes out of that I I from a theater company and we have two employees who have small children who live near the
pro site so that's why we've heard about it um I guess I'd like to just Echo some of attorney campanelli's points around um coverage we walked around this whole area with a cell phone and and checked ourselves uh it's a little hard to
videotape the cell phone in the glare but it's always you know two three bars at least uh my understanding is that there were some people maybe at the first hearing which I wasn't able to attend like maybe deep in some of the GCC buildings where you have like certain kinds of concrete whatever that
maybe there's you can't get AT&T coverage at certain places in GCC um but of course youg CC has one of the most robust uh Wi-Fi networks of any organization in Franklin County so they're not no one sitting around not
able to make a call at you of course and question would be you know if I if the goal is to cover a few people at GCC you know could they could there be a booster could there be an addition to an additional antenna but yeah my my understanding of having lived in this area for since 2005 is that there's you
know at lived experience there's no significant gaps that I've experienced in Greenfield which I think is why you haven't had a a cell tower application in 20 years another thing just on the coverage issues um is that my understanding is that very soon if not
now there won't be any drop calls anywhere in the world including Antarctica and other places like that because any call that was about to be dropped will be rerouted to starlink and other satellites believe T-Mobile is fully pursuing that business opportunity and maybe AT&T should think about the
same um I got into learning about this issue because uh my wife uh was injured by exposure that was below FC's limits that's not what I'm here to talk to you about today but I've followed many of these uh conversations cell tower conversations
in the hilltowns over the last 10 years and my experience is that at& will not provide you drop call data no matter how many times you ask for it they will not provide it it's not part of the business plan if they started having to provide drop Bell data they wouldn't be able to
show you these maps to prove gaps and coverage which may or may not this so I I really I believe that the butters requested drop call data back in December I don't believe it's been provided as attorney Tamp said would be very straightforward to provide that but
no my is no carrier will provide it because it's very difficult you know the business strategy is to sort of go the path of least resistance and once you start providing real data with real numbers that dist is to operate so thank
you very much for your time appr thank you anyone else want have stop sharing Mike can you stop thank you the hand there's a hand up it what
is it Andrew ver and G I'm saying that right so we're good take Andrew first Andrew Vernon hi there can you hear me yes we can good evening um I'll
be as quick as I can I'm Andrew excuse me could you give us give us your address please absolutely it's also relevant to the conversation Andrew Vernon 17 Sunset Square Greenfield Massachusetts uh I'm also an employee of
Greenfield Community College and I happen to live in the neighborhood um so a lot of things to to comment on um I'm also a first net user and have been
for near at least two dozen years probably 25 years since I worked at UMass Amherst uh but I work at Greenfield Community College I am a first net user uh north of two and west of 91 there are a
a decent amount of first net users um but I can only speak for myself so I am a first net user so earlier a member of the zba asked about uh if complaints were being made to AT&T first net about coverage uh my answer to you
is yes I am one of the first net users who's lived in this area who has made those complaints to AT&T firstnet for many many years um I'm in support of a tower
uh I'm in support of a tower because it is needed uh and the first net users in our community do need it uh there are first net users at Greenfield Community College and first net users do often go
to and from Greenfield Community College so that should be noted also uh the impact of this was to as the one of the gentlemen was saying earlier to help with to help in part with coverage of
first net users and that is absolutely needed from the Big Y parking lot north past shelburn Road along Homestead and two Greenfield community college and that neighborhood that is our community that
Community also does not have efficient cell phone service including on the AT&T uh network uh let alone first net so that should be known um an individual
commented uh a moment ago about Greenfield Community College um it is important that or to AT&T and vet's credit I think it's the the the the outdoor coverage and interior building
coverage are kind of two separate conversations um I will say though that as is seen on almost all of those Maps aside from the one at the hotel that
Greenfield Community College does not have coverage let alone on first net uh throughout most of those aside from the potentially proposed site at the hotel um so I'm in support of the Tower
it is needed uh there is not first net service in that area and there absolutely needs to be um that in my opinion that completes the hardship
necessity um but that's just my opinion uh that hardship has existed for quite some time um I can say that that that hardship exists in that area that Community uh but that can't speak to the
hardship of any safety concerns that may exist about where the tower would go so it is absolutely needed thank you Andrew is it my turn to talk yes it is do you give us your name and address
please so my name is godier Richard and um I live in um 2 to4 every Brook Road charamon or Sheran Falls um my husband actually talked he
he's with you but yes actually that was kind of my question if you had testimony that actually some people um needed this coverage um because so I don't live in Greenfield but we know
some people who live around around and um yeah it seems to me that it would be good if the towers would be in some places where everybody is happy about it um so it would be good that you listen to yes the people living around that are
going to have to be living with this Tower and yes actually my main question was that is that do you actually have testimonies or clear evidence that you really need uh this Tower there thank
you close the public comment portion of the meeting yeah for tonight yes I can make a motion make a motion public comment part of this meeting second all in favor I I
that's okay we try we're trying to follow BL best we like to make motion though to continue the hearing to February what army s March 20th um should we
consider oh that's sorry another we just have to kind say to future date the next available CDA meeting making motion to continue the meeting for the next available date for
the CDA so that David can work with you just where's going to be was it 8 March 20th March 20th the next uh regular meeting of the board that doesn't work corre it does it it does not doesn't work so the next one after
that is April 10th however uh board members AR able to make April 10th so is there another date in early April that works for you yes I will make another date work yeah so we'll do a special meeting
correct um and I'd want to check with everyone our team for everyone's here but why don't I look right now do you prefer Thursday evenings and if so do you want to do the third and yeah um and then I'd like to make the arrangements now so announce it so
that you don't have to worry about having to deal with posting um and you can get it on the on agenda so I'm going to just go grab my phone from the back and grab my Cal would be be 9 o' well March 20th will be fora
group correct and this April one will be just strictly for the to and I would say if if at all possible probably best if we kept it to just the tower I'm yeah Special meeting for April 3rd
would work and I would also in April 3rd and I would also inquire oh no no okay um um can we lock this in without David present I I wonder if it makes sense to
just make a motion that closes this I we're choosing dates because Debbie can't make it I think the issue is this so um the public hearing must be continued by vote of the board and we need to pick a date now so that we don't need to send out legal notices and a butter notification I
understand so you pick a date and then what would happen is on that date at that time if we had to change the date then it would be announced again in a public do it um no no we we would prefer not to wait till May what what about um
the week before what what about um bch be there because I don't want maybe March 26th gone the last week of March first week of April okay um and somebody can't make it the 10 um
is that person out the whole week or just that particular night just that one day we could do other days rather than yeah Thursday 7th 8th or 9th or any of those three work what's the Wednesday date the nth the 9th is that work for no
problem can I ask one other question do you want to do it earlier like at 5 or 530 and is that something maybe I would then work out with Mr singer about if he still wants that second balloon and
whether or not people want to come and look at the site first and then come here maybe you want to see the balloon you want to look at the view of the balloon from some of the homes on Newton Street and then come here and continue
the discussion I know that was something we had talked about for this meeting and then obviously with David's uh concerns we did we didn't get that done um been starting a meeting like if five doesn't allow folks who are working
try hard yeah that could be that could be speed I think I think we need to keep it that because try I know Debbie travels from work to get here to be on time so um I am um excuse me I apologize for the
interruption I it's Andrew I'm just curious if there's not going to be a public notice then which that is what it is then how on the 20th or April 10th will it be the same Zoom join
information there will be an and I'm sorry there'll be an agenda it's you just don't post a brand new notice which is why when you continue a hearing as a matter of law you continue it to a date certain that's it's just uh as what said
earlier this evening that's that's kind of Legally how it's done it's not um right so you put it on the calendar you do that tonight and then you would still it still has to be on the agenda and the agenda has to be posted what 48 Hours
yes we post the agenda way in advance and it'll also be on the city meeting calendar oh so it is going to be posted publicly it just when we say notice we mean legal ads in the Greenfield Recorder and notifying all the butters within 300 feet those two things will not take place but of course the meeting
calendar and agenda will be posted okay that makes worse okay I apologize it that may have been what the gentleman much earlier this evening was concerned about in part yes thank you Andrew thank you
Andrew that's that give you the answer you needed here all right so you move to continue to a date specific and we're trying to figure out the date which I believe is now April 9th is that correct that's correct
so is was there second and the motion I'll second all those in favor I I April 9th here at 6:30 yes wait here we're not going to try to do John on for this
one Mr chairman what's your opinion on that we could schedule the meeting at the johnan Comm Center for bigger yeah I think we need to have at the John so the moing out there so the motion is to continue the public hearing to April 9
at the John Zan Community Center so there's space for room for enough people to attack okay we need to reschedule the O AC the John C or room no we going hold here I think so people
that okay Community M the vote uh there was a motion to in a second if we did vote I didn't favor I I'll second if you need a second no
there was a second already so we have five thank you very much thank you thank you nice to meet everybody thank you I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting I'll second all in
favor hey we still catch the last period of hockey game right [Music]