Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBlue Sky Towers 03.09.23 Minutes Files Link Video LinkTOWN OF YARMOUTH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES for MARCH 9, 2023 The Yarmouth Board of Appeals met in quorum at 6:00p.m. on Thursday, March 9, 2023 in the Hearing Room at the Yarmouth Town Offices, located at 1146 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA. The meeting was held in hybrid mode, where the public could attend in person or via Zoom. Board Members Present and Voting: Chairman DeYoung, Mr. Igoe, Mr. Martin and Mr. Mantoni Staff Present: Dolores Fallon FILES LINK FOR PETITION #5005 (FILES SUBMITTED TO ZBA): https://lf.yarmouth.ma.us/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=1704735&dbid=0&repo=LASERFICHE VIDEO LINK FOR PETITION #5005: https://reflect-yarmouth.cablecast.tv/CablecastPublicSite/show/2699?channel=1&seekto=2316 MARCH 9, 2023 MINUTES FOR PETITION #5005 AS FOLLOWS: PETITION 5005: Blue Sky Towers III, LLC dba BSTMA, LLC. Property Location: 1044 Route 28, Yarmouth, MA. Map & Lot #: 50.189.1; Zoning District: B-2, HMOD-1, VC-3. The Applicant seeks a Special Permit per §103.2.2 and §408 to construct a 110-foot wireless telecommunications facility tower. On behalf of the petitioner, Attorney Ricardo Sousa presented an overview. Blue Sky Towers is an infrastructure company that is in the business of building infrastructure to accommodate wireless antenna installations for FCC-licensed wireless companies, such as the two co-applicants: T-Mobile and AT&T. The purpose of this structure, which is a clock tower, is to accommodate up to 4 wireless antenna installations in order to fill a significant gap in coverage in the vicinity of this property. On behalf of the petitioner, available to speak on the gap in coverage that T-Mobile and AT&T customers experience in the vicinity of this proposed structure: Sohail Usmani, Radiofrequency Engineer & Consultant for C-Squared Systems. Mr. Usmani is responsible for representing the wireless coverage needs for AT&T. Ryan Monte de Ramos (via Zoom), Radiofrequency Engineer for T-Mobile. Blue Sky Towers has been working on this application for almost 2 years. The application has been heard by the Cape Cod Commission and a decision was issued for Development of Regional Impact (DRI) approval on January 10, 2022. Since then, the application has also made it through both the Design Review Committee and Site Plan Review Committee, in order to satisfy the requirements of this bylaw. The applicant is seeking a Special Permit, together with certain waivers, in order to permit the construction of this structure and accommodate the wireless carriers who will utilize the structure to propagate their signals and fill that significant gap in coverage. The first rendering is what the proposed structure will look like. It’s 110 feet tall. The wireless antenna installations will be behind the gray, vertical louvered sections. Those materials are an RF transparent material (Attorney Sousa provided a sample of the material to the Board) which permits wireless propagation through the gray sections of the structure.  Through the Design Review and Site Plan Review process, there were a lot of comments about improving the aesthetics of the structure, which we think we’ve done here, in order to hide the industrial elements. When we first started with the Cape Cod Commission, we had proposed originally a traditional monopole design which is encouraged under your Bylaw; that is a monopole without this clock tower structure. The structure’s original height was 120 feet; it’s been reduced to 110 feet.  We selected a wooded area on the church property. The entrance (which is an existing parking lot) to the tower structure will be off Route 28. The tower structure will be a fenced compound with a fair amount of landscaping to hide the compound, the fencing, and the radio cabinets. At the top would be T-Mobile antennas, below that would be AT&T, then the clock itself (no antennas), then it would be able to accommodate up to two additional wireless carriers. Currently, in the marketplace, Dish is another carrier that is building a wireless network. Verizon may also need a spot on this tower. Verizon operates a “flagpole design” across the street (behind the South Yarmouth post office). AT&T and T-Mobile cannot utilize installations in order to deploy 5G technology. The equipment does not fit within the flagpole. It’s one of the reasons we need this type of structure. We meet all side setbacks and the 1:1 fall zone of the structure itself within the property boundaries. Mr. Igoe: On page A-1, in red, it looks like your fall zone would cover 50% of the church parking lot; this could fall into the church parking lot. Attorney Sousa: It conceivably could. However, these are designed to very high standards, including the high wind and structural standards passed in Massachusetts. Part of the analysis, prior to proposing a new structure, is to ensure that we can’t use other existing structures. Identified existing structures in Town of Yarmouth and within a 1-mile boundary outside of Yarmouth. Those structures are nowhere close to this proposed structure, and can’t allow AT&T to fill this gap in coverage. Mr. Igoe: You have towers now on Whites Path? Attorney Sousa: I’d rather defer to Mr. Usmani on that answer. Mr. Igoe: What is the range of coverage that this is going to encompass? Attorney Sousa: It’s also an RF (radiofrequency) question. It depends on the topography. There’s no simple answer. It’s not a defined circle. It’s more of a blob. Mr. Igoe: What is that? Attorney Sousa: I can have Mr. Usmani talk about that next. Mr. Igoe: These are the questions that are material and may get us to the chase a little quicker. Attorney Sousa: If we could have Mr. Usmani come up and I’m going to switch out my thumb drive for his. Chairman DeYoung: Before we go there, we’re going to come to a point where I’m going to say to you, “Is there any other alternative?” and you’re going to tell me, “No, there isn’t.” And I’m going to say, “Well, you’re the one who wants to build the tower, that’s why.” Let’s get our own people to determine whether it’s doable; if there’s an alternative solution. I respect that your experts will tell us, “Yes, it is.” I also respect that this is an enormous structure for the Town of Yarmouth. It is, in my mind, an eyesore of no utility. The clock aren’t going to do anything for anybody. Shame on anybody looking back that far as they’re driving on Route 28 because they’ll drive into a pedestrian. As you might be aware, the Rules & Regulations of this Board allow us to ask for consultants. You are aware that you pay for the consultant. Attorney Sousa: I’m very aware of that. It’s a common path for these applications. The first step of this application was the DRI (Development of Regional Impact) process at the Cape Cod Commission; they hired a consultant to review our application. Cape Cod Commission hired Isotrope to review the application itself, the alternative site analysis, and the radiofrequency plots submitted by AT&T and T-Mobile, to re-affirm that what we’re telling you is, in fact, the case, and that there are no other viable alternatives. Chairman DeYoung: Most times, we supportive of the ability to upgrade to a 5G antenna and enhance the signal of a 5G system. I’m not convinced this is the only solution. The flagpole solution across the street (behind the Yarmouth post office) was screened by a building and trees. Its height is only 65 feet. This will be 135 feet. Attorney Sousa: 110 feet. Chairman DeYoung: 110 feet from what grade? From the street? Attorney Sousa. Correct. Mr. Igoe: Elevation of 13 feet at the top of the hill. Attorney Sousa: I wouldn’t consider that a hill. Mr. Igoe: The parcel is above Route 28. How far are you above Route 28? Attorney Sousa: I’d have to refer to the plans. It’s measured from the ground level of the base of the tower. Mr. Martin: It’s in the flood zone. Attorney Sousa: We’ve been to Conservation Commission. Mr. Martin: Concurrently. [1044 Route 28 is on the March 16, 2023 Conservation agenda] Attorney Sousa: They haven’t made a final decision. Chairman DeYoung: I could not vote in favor with the limited information in front of me. Attorney Sousa: The nature of this gap is that it would take an innumerable number of small cell wireless. We’re trying to build a structure that can accommodate multiple carriers. Mr. Mantoni: That’s why you have to be 110 feet because you want 4 carriers. If Verizon is at the bottom, would they have any less coverage than AT&T would have at the top? Attorney Sousa: Yes. It’s a line-of-sight technology. It’s important to get the height to accommodate multiple carriers and to get that propagation further out, essentially to cover a larger mass of land and more residents/businesses in Yarmouth. Mr. Usmani can speak to that: what the gap is now and how this fills that gap. Chairman DeYoung: The only assurance of that is subject to topography. If you get into a valley, you’re not going to have coverage. Attorney Sousa: Valleys are affected, but as you can see from the radiofrequency plots, this is going to be a pretty effective site. It’s going to fill a significant gap in coverage. Chairman DeYoung: Any alternative to what we’re looking at now? Attorney Sousa: The Verizon flagpole across the street has limited propagation because of its height. It’s simply not traveling far enough. Because of the space limitations without that flagpole, they cannot place the remote radioheads and the necessary antennas to deploy 5G technology. Chairman DeYoung: On Siting Elevations (SE-1), you have a tower that at an elevation of 13.6+/- is depicted to go to ~128 feet. So, when you tell me it’s 110 feet, I don’t know how you can get that. It’s something in the excess of 120 feet. Attorney Sousa: All of our measurements for 110 feet pole are above ground level. Mr. Igoe: Your ground level is at the base of your structure? Attorney Sousa: Correct. Mr. Igoe: You’re at elevation 13. Do you know what is the elevation at Route 28? Attorney Sousa: I don’t, but I can find that out. Mr. Igoe: On Alternative Sites (PS-3), these are all the sites you looked at. Basically, you rejected everything except this site. Attorney Sousa: Lots of factors for selecting a site. It has to be leasable. There’s a lot of Town-owned lots, but I’m not aware of an RFP to attract a wireless installation at those lots. Mr. Igoe: Did you approach the owners of these properties [that were rejected]? Attorney Sousa: Some of them. Mr. Igoe: On PS-3, there’s a property behind Skull Island Golf Course. Attorney Sousa: My notes have it as 908-928 Route 28. Mr. Igoe: Is that the location or just the identified property? Attorney Sousa: It’s just the identified property. Mr. Igoe: If you went all the way out to the back of that property, it’s 600-700 feet back from Route 28. Any discussion about putting this tower back there? Attorney Sousa: There was a certified letter sent to him with no response. Mr. Igoe: He’s probably in Florida. You’ll find him over there in a couple of weeks getting ready to open the place. I’m not suggesting that I can support that, but that site back there is less intrusive than the site that you’re proposing. It appears to me that the site you chose is the easiest place in town to put it up. It’s right on Route 28. You drive in. Cut a little road. Put a tower up. You’re done. I just don’t know the effort that you made to solicit these people. This is a serious structure. Sending a certified letter. We’ve read all the opinions about this from various people in the town. Attorney Sousa: The Cape Cod Commission. Mr. Igoe: I don’t listen to the Cape Cod Commission. I listen to the people in the Town of Yarmouth and those affiliated with the Town of Yarmouth. You might want to re-visit some of these locations that you’ve discounted. My earlier question was about the tower on Whites Path and the coverage you have from Whites Path because that’s about 300 feet in the air. Attorney Sousa: Whites Path is listed as an existing site. AT&T’s antennas are 287 feet tall and it doesn’t fill this gap in coverage. See green/orange below (MA1119) for coverage area (Whites Path):  See green/orange below with blue start (MA 1010) for expected coverage area (Route 28)  Mr. Igoe: You don’t get much coverage. Mr. Mantoni: What’s the difference between the colors? Mr. Usmani: For AT&T (the carrier below the top spot) green is -83 dBm (decibel milliwatts) which is a stronger threshold and provides coverage inside buildings. Orange is -93 dBm (decibel milliwatts) which will allow users to use their phones inside vehicles, not as much deep inside buildings. Attorney Sousa: You’re on a major artery. It’s necessary to have reliable coverage (which you don’t have now). There are a significant number of streets being turned on, and a significant number of homes on those streets. Our goal is to provide reliable coverage for these homes and these businesses. Chairman DeYoung: Are there AT&T customers and T-Mobile customers living in this geographic area covered by this tower that do not have the use of their phones? Attorney Sousa: They don’t have reliable coverage. They have poor coverage. The signal simply doesn’t travel to this area in a reliable fashion. Chairman DeYoung: Even if we proceed with this hearing further, if we’re asked to take a vote, you would fail on the vote because I’m a “no” vote. I would suggest that we have our own consultant provide the information that we’re querying, including: Is it needed? Is there an alternative? From every depiction I see of this [proposed clock tower] along Route 28 from as far away as West Yarmouth through South Yarmouth, you’re going to see this. Mr. Martin: It’s too tall. Attorney Sousa: It’s really the opinion of the Board. We disagree. We think this is a responsible application. However, we also respect this Board’s ability and right to hire a consultant, and pursuant to the 53G account, we will contribute a reasonable amount of funds to pay for that consultant, so that you can make an informed decision. This happens on a regular basis. Not every application that I work on, but a decent number of applications. Chairman DeYoung: You say it happens on a regular basis. Are there independent sources that you’re aware of? Can you provide that information? Attorney Sousa: I can do that. Mr. Igoe: I’d like you to re-visit these locations to see if there’s an alternative. Attorney Sousa: I will talk to the Site Acquisition Agent at Blue Sky Towers and make sure he comes to the next hearing. Mr. Igoe: Have you talked to the Conservation Commission about any wetland that might be a feasible spot for the tower? Mr. Martin: The problem with Nickinello’s property (behind Skull Island) is that it becomes very visible across Swan Pond and people aren’t going to like that either. Route 28 is too visible and it doesn’t even look like a clock tower because the clock’s in the middle. Would you have any less coverage if you knocked off the two top portions and have the clock at the top? That seems more feasible. Attorney Sousa: We could ask the carriers about moving down 10 feet and putting the clock at the top. Mr. Mantoni: Go with less carriers. Go with only two carriers. I’d want to know what the coverage would be if the tower was half the size. 60 feet. 70 feet. Attorney Sousa: If it was 60 feet, we wouldn’t have to come here [before the Board]. It would be a streamlined process. Mr. Mantoni: Would you have the same coverage? Attorney Sousa: We would have very inferior coverage. Even with this installation, there will still be some gaps to the north. We’re trying to maximize the use of this structure and fill as much of the gap and service as many customers as possible. By building a structure that is multi-carrier, to a certain extent we’re solving a problem for all the carriers, instead of just two. You don’t want a third and fourth carrier to come here and say, “We need a second clock tower. And by the way, you now can’t discriminate against us, because that one’s up.” Chairman DeYoung: We have a marching order, too. And that’s to try to improve the vistas of Route 28. One of the notorious pictures of Route 28 has telephone poles leaning over Route 28 right through West Yarmouth. Whenever someone wants to talk about the bad parts of the Yarmouth, they use that picture. At the end of the day, I don’t want to create another problem, if there’s a solution that’s better all the way around in terms of aesthetics and utility. Attorney Sousa: Mr. Usmani can talk about the comparisons of dropping the height of the tower, if you want to talk about that now or defer until you have your consultant. Chairman DeYoung: If you have more information that will help identify questions for the consultant. Attorney Sousa: In my experience, he will review everything that we have submitted to make a determination 1) Is there a gap in coverage? 2) Will this fill the gap in coverage? 3) Are there other alternatives that are better for the Town and will fill the gap in coverage? Mr. Usmani: Other rejected locations: 104 Route 28 (steeple); WXTK Newsradio 95 Tower. Mr. Igoe: Add one on the existing tower on South Sea Avenue and a smaller one on Route 28 in the steeple? I don’t think any time in the near future the tower on South Sea Avenue is going anywhere; it’s been there since I was a little boy. Attorney Sousa: T-Mobile is installed [on the South Sea Avenue tower], but AT&T is not. Mr. Martin: I’m not thrilled with the fact that this [tower] is within 200 feet of houses. Almost within the fall zone of residential properties on Bryar Lane and Long Pond Drive. I don’t think that makes it an appropriate location for something this tall. Great care be given to the comments about aesthetics because that’s mainly what we’re talking about, from the Site Plan Review report that spells out a lot of concerns. Attorney Sousa: We have improved the application since Design Review. It wasn’t this same structure; it looked very different. Chairman DeYoung: Main questions for consultant are: Is there/is there not an actual coverage gap? Are there alternatives? Is there anything that can be done about aesthetics? It’s a monstrosity from the depictions. This Board, in conjunction with the Town Planner, will ask questions of the consultant, which may be exactly as you have depicted, but let’s find out. Attorney Sousa: The consultant will need time to review all the materials. There’s the engagement process between the Town and the consultant, and us funding the 53G account. I think 3 months is a reasonable time period. Attorney Sousa signs an extension agreement to continue to June 22, 2023.