Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2009
The Board meets with Craig Pettigrew, Roger Phelps, Kevin O’Connell, John Gryval, Dan Dineen, and Loren White present.
At 8:00 pm John opens case 09-1 by explaining to the gathering what the hearing is for and the procedures the board will be using tonight, and that he has spoken to the applicant and due to the complexity and volume of the information to be presented that there will only be the presentation of the case, questions and comments from those present, and that the board will not be deliberating tonight. John also explains that Loren White is our alternate member who will be participating but will only be voting if the board needs.
John asks the applicant to proceed.
Atty. Doug Wilkins from Anderson & Kreiger LLP states he’ll be representing the case for AT&T, and states that they’re looking for one special exception, and two variances, and that the projects site plan was conditionally approved by the Planning board on July 13, after a balloon and crane simulation and site walk.
Attorney Wilkins goes through the application, points out items such as the setbacks, distance from the street, the fall zone, road, and the trees in the buffer and the fact most of the buffer is low lying scrub. Attorney Wilkins describes the monopole, notes the Planning board requires some camouflage, and states one of the goals is to have good location for other carriers to use. Attorney Wilkins then explains the equipment shelter, its perimeter fence and backup diesel generator, and location for an additional service provider’s equipment.
Attorney Wilkins then talks of the appraisal study they’ve submitted that show no diminution of property values from the placement of a cell tower.
Attorney Wilkins then goes on to speak of the site walk and tower simulation that took place with the Planning Board and shows the board photos and a topographical map with the cell and photo locations. Attorney Wilkins shows additional photos associated with a visibility study done over the winter.
Attorney Wilkins then introduces Dan Goulet, the contracted RF engineer from C Squared Systems LLC who performed their Radio Frequency study.
At this point John asks Attorney Wilkins to confirm that the package presented is the same as the one submitted. Attorney Wilkins confirms that it is.
Dan Goulet consultant for AT&T mobility then introduces himself, and discusses the PCS system proposed and the submitted material, the wavelength it will transmit at. He then shows the Board the map of existing and proposed coverage footprint for both in car and in house reception. Mr. Goulet then discusses AT&T’s coverage and lack of coverage in Greenfield, and how if they were putting in a 140’ tower the proposed coverage area would be larger.
Mr. Goulet then discusses how they looked at co-locating on other towers and structures, but none would cover the area desired without an additional tower.
Dan Dineen asks a question of the cell towers for co-location.
Dan Goulet shows the locations including one location not existing, but far enough in the process to be included.
Attorney Wilkins states the Planning Board had an independent review of the RF mapping done and submits a copy to the board.
John asks if this is the report the Planning board requested, Attorney Wilkins replies yes.
Attorney Wilkins then continues the presentation, going through the application submitted to the Board.
Attorney Wilkins then goes through the variance criteria, and why they believe they have met the condition to approve.
John talks about the possible conflict in height limitations in the ordinance, stating he believes the max height for a new tower is 100’ and rebuilding of and existing tower is 140’.
Attorney Wilkins states that’s why they’re proposing a 100’ tower.
John asks Gil Morris to speak, as he’s the Planning Board chairman. Gil discusses the site plan review hearing the Planning Board held and its subsequent site walk and tower simulation. Gil identifies the locations board members drove to to observe the crane, and their reports on what was visible and what was not. Gil also stated that on the east side of the location the visual was significant.
Dan Dineen asks what the distance was between the crane and the balloons.
Gil replies about 250’, and adds that the Planning Board voted to recommend the granting of the special exception and variances.
Dan Dineen then asks what the elevation of the crane was.
Gil states the balloons were tethered for 100”, but weren’t that high because the breeze kept blowing them below that, and the crane was up a little higher than 100” to compensate for the land sloping down a bit from the actual tower location. Gil also stated that the Planning board thought that since the tower was in a field, that camouflaging it as a tree would only make it stand out more, and that it should be painted muted colors.
John asks about the antenna mount variance request.
Attorney Wilkins states they asked for the variance even though they’re not sure it’s needed to made sure they can get the array in.
John asks the audience for comment
Gene Mitchell asks if a Radio frequency study was done with the tower within the 20’ over tree canopy zoning limitation.
Dan Goulet replies that he’s shown that a 100’ tower doesn’t fill all the coverage gaps, if the tower is less the coverage will be even smaller.
Gene asks if they can cover the same area with more towers. If it can be done with more towers, towers that meet the town’s 20’ requirement.
Gene states he understands a 140’ tower will cover more area, but in some places a 100’tower will be 40’-60’ over the tree canopy. Gene states that when Attorney Wilkins showed the board the photo from his house of the crane he mentioned the utility pole in the view, but that pole is well below the tree canopy. Gene also states he recalls that some court cases Zoning Board was to consider visual impact.
John asks Mr. Goulet, based on what Gene said, could other towers be placed?
Mr. Goulet replies yes, the tools will work with 20’ increments, but the town wouldn’t let us put in 100 towers.
Gil states that at the Planning Board hearing he questioned why not co-locate with Verizon, they have coverage in the area.
Dan Goulet states because at 800 Mhz, Verizons footprint is twice what theirs is.
John asks Mr. Goulet if the software they use could model other tower heights.
Mr. Goulet replies that a drive test covers every 90’; it’s the industry standard.
Craig comments that based on the Mhz, you’d need more towers.
Dan Goulet states that if they go lower with the tower, co-location probably won’t be possible, and that tree height is about 65’.
Dan Dineen asks how many towers it would take to cover the area if they were within the height requirements.
Dan Goulet replies he can’t answer the question because he doesn’t know where they’d be located.
Dan Dineen replies assume you had Carte’ blanche to place them, how many towers.
Dan Goulet replies he still can’t answer the question.
Attorney Wilkins answers the question is unknowable. We’re talking of hardship because we do not currently have coverage there.
Kevin talks of the Londonderry v. Ryder-Daniels Supreme Court case. He feels the court established denying the ability to provide coverage was the hardship, not how that coverage was provided. In that case the town didn’t allow towers in that section of town, we’re not questioning that towers will be allowed, we’re questioning the location and characteristics of the tower or towers.
Attorney Wilkins replies he feels it would be a hardship if they can’t use the ideal site.
John states that it’s not a matter that it can’t go somewhere else.
Gene states that if he picks up an AT&T phone, it won’t work.
Dan Goulet replies that’s because roaming is dependant on technology and they use different technologies.
Gene asks what about using an 80’ tower, it would meet the requirement for co-location, and it wouldn’t be too small.
Dan Goulet replies then they’d have to use more towers.
Karen Day asks if it would provide Internet coverage.
Dan Goulet replies it will through AT&T, via things like I-phone, PDA, or cell phone, and that other towns sometimes have whip, emergency antenna, etc. on towers.
Gene states co-location would work, but not as well for some uses due to the smaller coverage of a smaller tower. You could get co-location coverage, but not large area coverage.
Kevin asks Dan Goulet if co-location is really practical. Because if carrier A has towers that already exist, then the footprint of new towers would be close to the maximum range from that tower as not to duplicate footprint. Carrier B would be doing the same, but from a different location. So the effect would be that without some kind of regional plan for coverage designed by all the carriers so they’d all have the same footprint, leapfrogging of towers would almost be necessary.
Dan Goulet replies that there is no regional location plan between carriers.
Craig asks if the FCC requires co-location if the providers are using the same frequency.
Dan Goulet replies that companies bid large amounts of money for spectrum licenses, and are in business of providing competing services. Attorney Wilkins replies that tower coverage does vary.
Gene talks of the tree height in the area.
John states that the state looks at the subject of cell towers a little differently, they have their own notice requirements, and since the Londonderry case, their own definition of hardship.
Gene states he heard the applicant state that they will not devalue his property.
Attorney Wilkins replies the have submitted an opinion of appraisers, and he has no problem giving Gene a copy, but doesn’t have an extra one currently.
Gene asks the board if they’re looking at doing a site walk.
John replies they haven’t discussed it yet.
Gil replies, “I don’t feel the pictures (of the tower simulation) due it real justice, looking at it, it does stand out.”
George Rainier asks where the Planning board viewed the simulation.
Gil elaborated all the locations, and asks why.
George replies that the zoning ordinance is specific in protecting the scenic landscape, and vista to be protected, and that the Planning Board viewed some of them, but not all of them.
John asks Gil; ”You visited some of them, but not all, when the Planning Board passed the site plan, it was after the site walk?”
Gil replied, “Yes.”
Dan Dineen; “Right now we’re looking at a 100’ tower.”
Dan Goulet; “With 65’ trees.”
Dan Dineen; ”Right now you’re 40’ over regulation, theoretically, you could go down further.”
Dan Goulet; “ But the Planning Boards RF consultant suggested we not go lower, that it be 100’ minimum, and it still would have coverage lapses.
John asks Dan Goulet if there is a way to estimate coverage of an 80’ tower.
Dan Goulet replies there is but that would reduce coverage in-car and in-house.
Dan Dineen asks if they could reach the center with an additional smaller tower.
Dan Goulet replies, “Yes” but then they’d need three towers instead of two. “ We do reach the center at 100’, but would have to do an RF study for 80’.” This is designed to be an anchor site; it would determine how many towers would be needed.
Gil explains that when AT&T came to the Planning Board they let them know they’d need additional towers.
Kevin asks Attorney Wilkins about in home and in car signal amplifiers. If someone has one they can get coverage in an area that didn’t grant access before. How does that effect the granting of hardship? And what about someone with a weak cell phone battery, if they can’t get a signal, is that denying access?
How do the courts look at that?
Attorney Wilkins replies that the courts haven’t addressed that.
Gene replies he thinks using more shorter towers is better, because you can camouflage them.
George asks of one of the variance request, what it’s for.
John replies to place the antennas on the outside of the tower.
Gil states they also discussed monopoles and lattice towers, but the ordinance doesn’t allow lattice towers.
Gene discusses the topography of Crotched Mountain, Top-of-the–world, and the shadow effect because of plateaus on the hillside.
George asks of Section V B2e1d; “…PCS shall not project higher than twenty (20) feet above the average tree canopy.”
Attorney Wilkins replies that 20’ above the trees won’t meet their technical needs.
Gene states that he feels it can be done within the ordinance, it should be.
George asks of the visual protection in the ordinance, he states he’s not criticizing the Planning Board, but viewing from the visual locations was specified in the ordinance.
Gene tells the Board they really need to do the site walk, that they really need to see the simulation for themselves.
Craig replied, “We were invited, we could have gone.”
Dan Dineen asks Attorney Wilkins if they’d like to do the crane simulation again
Attorney Wilkins replies that they tried to comply with the towns’ request for simulation and site walk, and states that the cost is substantial.
Gil was asked if he could have made an informed decision using the photos of the site. Gil replied, ”Probably not.”
At this point John states that it is getting late, and if no one has anymore questions, he like to close the public portion of the Hearing.
Hearing no objections John closes the Public Hearing, and tells the meeting that the Board will continue the Hearing on September 2 at 8:00 pm.
Roger then motions to close the meeting; motion seconded, and motion carries.
| 
