Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminofzba03022010 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 2, 2010 Present: Jack Vultaggio, Chair; Elizabeth Garber-Miller, Clerk; Kevin Mackie, Dave Rapoza '__ '..1 -:': I ("C "'- i i i Vi... 1. Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. L~ 2 2. Public Hearing continued - 1007 West Street - Wireless Communication Facility - T-Mobile Mr. Vultaggio explained there are four members present and asked if the applicant would like to go forward or continue the hearing. Attorney Simon Brighenti, representing the applicant, said he would like to go forward. Attorney Brighenti introduced Mark Arone, site acquisition specialist and Mohammed Ibrahim, radiofrequency engineer. Attorney Brighenti explained the site has been reviewed by independent RF engineer Mark Hutchins, whose report has been submitted to both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Brighenti summarized Mr. Hutchins' report, which analyzed the application and agrees with the applicant's assertion that there is a significant gap in coverage along West and Tremont Street. Attorney Brighenti said the tower was originally proposed to be 143 feet from Route 95; the new plan proposes to move it closer to the highway, at 123 feet away. Attorney Brighenti said there had been discussion about moving the tower closer to the church and further from the residences. The new plan proposes the tower be moved 50 feet closer to the church, leaving a row of existing trees as a buffer. Attorney Brighenti said the proposed fence is eight-foot tall chain link with barbed wire on top; however, he said they would be willing to do any kind of fence the town wants. He said sound-deadening panels could be used in a chain link fence. He said beyond the fence area, the sound from the computer cabinets would be virtually inaudible. Attorney Brighenti said the compound size has been reduced to 50'x50' from the originally proposed IOO'xIOO.' Attorney Brighenti said the original plan for tree clearing included 16 trees greater than 2" in diameter and 20 saplings; moving the tower 50 feet could reduce the number of 2" trees to 12 and approximately 30 saplings. He said they would plant arbor vitae around the fence. Mr. Vultaggio said the board and the neighborhood were concerned that the removal of trees would make the highway noise more audible. Ms. Garber-Miller asked about the noise made by the computer cabinets. Attorney Brighenti said it is similar to an air conditioner condenser, or about 50 db at the source. He said that is about the level of ambient sound. He said the noise level goes down just Zoning Board of Appeals 3/3/20 I 0 beyond the equipment, and beyond the fence, no sound would be audible. Ms. Garber- Miller asked if the noise would be cumulative if there were co-locations at this site. Attorney Brighenti said T-Mobile's equipment is external, but some carriers use pre- fabricated sheds, so there would be no external noise. Mr. Rapoza asked how big those sheds are; Attorney Brighenti said he doesn't know that because his company doesn't use them. Mr. Rapoza said he would be uncomfortable voting on this without all the information. Mr. Vultaggio suggested there could be a condition that there cannot be any decibel level increase in the event of co-locators. Attorney Brighenti said that would be fine. Mr. Rapoza asked the height of the sheds; Attorney Brighenti said they would be 7- 8 feet high and would not be taller than the fence. He noted the building inspector would decide if the sheds require building permits. Attorney Brighenti asked Mr. Ibrahim to explain the coverage maps. Attorney Brighenti said the "significant gap" standard has a number of components, which are all used to determine the coverage maps. The maps show what service is currently available, as well as the connectivity of the calls that are being made. He said the facilities are for both emergency and non-emergency situations, and the towers in the area handle approximately 900 E-911 calls per month, so he would expect a similar volume with this tower, especially with its proximity to the highway. Mr. Vultaggio asked how moving the tower 50 feet closer to the church would change the variance request. Attorney Brighenti in the tower's original location, there were two structures within 200-300 feet, two within 300-400 feet, and six structures within 400- 500 feet. He said moving the tower closer to the church would eliminate one or two of those structures; the closest would be 230 feet. Mr. Ibrahim explained how dropped call figures are determined. He said they base the numbers on both the retainability and accessability of calls. The threshold for accessability is 1.3%, which includes data and voice services. Retainability is 0.6% in order to compete with other carriers. The error rate is +/-5%. He noted these are industry standards. He showed the board a map indicating in-vehicle and in-house coverage numbers. Mr. Ibrahim said they currently have a 2.8% dropped call rate with their tower in Foxboro, which is 80 feet tall; he said the height of that tower cannot be increased. Mr. Rapoza asked what the figure for cell phones would be without the in-house and data numbers; Mr. Ibrahim said the numbers are integrated and cannot be separated. Mr. Vultaggio asked if the Gilbert Street tower is included on this coverage map. Mr. Rapoza said he thought the reason for the height of the Gilbert Street tower was to expand the coverage, and asked why the map appears to show this proposed tower has more coverage than the Gilbert Street tower. Mr. Ibrahim said a tower's coverage varies depending on the topography of the area. Mr. Ibrahim showed the board a map of the Oxford Road water tank tower, which he said has 2.6% lost calls. Mr. Vultaggio asked how to figure out from where those calls are being made, noting that if Foxboro has an 80-foot tower limit, then the higher towers in Mansfield must have to cover that town's gaps. He asked to see where the gap in coverage is in Foxboro or other towns compared with Mansfield. Mr. Ibrahim said their statistics show their coverage suffers in the area. Mr. Vultaggio said he would be concerned if all the dropped calls were being made in Zoning Board of Appeals 2 3/3/2010 Mansfield, which he would consider evidence of a significant gap in coverage. However, he said Mansfield shouldn't have permit towers to cover Foxboro's or other towns' gaps. Mr. Vultaggio said it appears T -Mobile has in-vehicle coverage in that area, but the gap is with data services. Mr. Ibrahim said their in-vehicle coverage exists, but it is poor. Mr. Mackie said with about 200 homes in the area, this would give service to approximately 24 households, and he said he doesn't consider that a "significant gap." Attorney Brighenti said they are trying to provide a level playing field for their customers. Mr. Rapoza said he doesn't think the Telecommunication Act intended cell towers to be within 500 feet of residential houses, because that would result in reduction of house values. Attorney Brighenti said the intention of the law was to allow the towers within certain criteria; Mr. Vultaggio noted the applicant is asking the board to waive one of those criteria, the 500-foot setback. Attorney Brighenti said the by-law allows towers within residential areas, but the 500- foot setback would require a 1,000 foot circle with no residences around a tower, which would require several acres in order to site a tower and may not be reasonable. Attorney Brighenti said the reduction in property value issue is consistently raised, and his position has always been that if anyone has evidence of value reduction, he asks that it be presented to the board. He said he has anecdotal evidence of people, such as telecommuters, who wouldn't see a tower like this as detrimental. He noted the residences' proximity to Route 95 is an existing issue that may impact property values. Ms. Garber-Miller asked where the Foxboro tower covers; Mr. Ibrahim said it covers areas to the north and Route 495. Ms. Garber-Miller said that is close to the junction of Route 95 and 495; she asked how many emergency calls that tower receives. Mr. Ibrahim said all the towers in the area get 900 911 calls per month. Ms. Garber-Miller asked about data versus voice coverage. Attorney Brighenti said those things have become integrated, and for some customers, the data is more important. Mr. Rapoza asked if a dropped voice call and data would be counted as two dropped calls. Mr. Vultaggio said that would be counted once if it came from the same phone. Rich Wuschke, 987 West Street, said there has been no differentiation made between the voice and data calls. Mr. Vultaggio said the carrier doesn't differentiate between the two. Mr. Vultaggio said all the towers in the area have around the same dropped calls rate. Attorney Brighenti said at least 60% of 911 calls come from a mobile device, so emergency calls are a big part of what cellular carriers do. He said it is impossible to differentiate between data and voice coming through one number. Mr. Wuschke asked about the map showing what additional coverage this tower would provide. Mr. Ibrahim showed the board that map. Attorney Brighenti explained the first map shows the proposed location of the new facility, with different colors representing current levels of service. The second plan shows the same area including coverage from the proposed new tower, along with the new towers on School Street and Gilbert Street. Zoning Board of Appeals 3 3/3/20 10 ~ Attorney Brighenti said cell towers are typically uniform in design, and because towns encourage maximum co-location, towers are designed toward that end. He said another option is a "unipole," with everything internal to the tower, so what is visible is a long pole with no exterior antennas. In this scenario, different antenna can be used, but one spot for co-location would be lost and the tower itself would be slightly thicker to accommodate the internal equipment. A resident asked if Mr. Hutchins had the School Street tower data when he did his report. Attorney Brighenti said he did. The resident asked about using "flex wave prisms" on telephone poles to boost the signals and avoid building towers. Mr. Ibrahim said the tower has to be above the tree line, which in this area is 85-90 feet, so using telephone pole mounted equipment would not work. Attorney Brighenti said in order to work, the flex wave system has to first have a tower to get the signal out, with the telephone pole equipment used to carry it along, but he said the topography has to be relatively level. Mr. Wuschke said he thinks there are about 12 homes in the area that would be devalued by the installation of this tower, which he doesn't think would be enough of a benefit compared with the number of new customers T -Mobile would pick up. He asked if this would set precedent; Mr. Vultaggio said the Zoning Board is not held by precedent. Attorney Brighenti said they and other carriers get calls from landowners frequently, but it wouldn't make sense for them to try to permit a tower in an area where they don't need coverage. He said this property fits the coverage gap need while allowing them to meet the majority of the zoning requirements. A resident asked if all cell towers have to have more than one carrier on it. Mr. Vultaggio said the town encourages co-location to reduce the number of towers. Ms. Garber-Miller asked if the figures reflect the proposed relocation of the School Street tower. Attorney Brighenti said moving that tower 25-50 feet would not affect this one. Mr. Rapoza asked if the quality of a person's cell phone has any impact on signal strength. Attorney Brighenti said it does not, because the internal equipment inside phones is basically the same. Mr. Vultaggio asked about constructing a steeple instead of a tower. Attorney Brighenti said the steeple would have to be as high as the tower, so it would have the same visual impact as the proposed tower. Ms. Garber-Miller asked if the accessibility percentages vary seasonably. Mr. Ibrahim said they do not. Attorney Brighenti said the dropped call numbers are based on the tower closest to where the call is being made. Mr. Vultaggio said there seems to be a big difference between he dropped call numbers from tower to tower, and it appears there are fewer calls dropped in the Mansfield area than in Foxboro. Zoning Board of Appeals 4 3/3/2010 Ms. Garber-Miller asked about the configuration areas on the map. Attorney Brighenti said that map shows the direction in which the antennas are pointed to get the best coverage. Mr. Vultaggio said the School Street tower will probably help with additional coverage in the areas with higher dropped call numbers. Mr. Ibrahim said one of the benefits of the School Street site was that it will cover railway passengers. Mr. Rapoza asked ifT-Mobile would be coming back for coverage of the East-Southeast part of the map. Mr. Ibrahim said T-Mobile is looking at a site for a possible future tower, but there are no plans in place to begin permitting now. Mr. Wuschke asked if raising the height of the School Street tower would solve T- Mobile's problem in the West Street area. He said he was concerned about there being several T-Mobile sites in town, all being presented by different teams, none of whom appear know what the other is doing. Attorney Brighenti said T-Mobile does have a master plan. Mr. Vultaggio said the board had discussed increasing the height of the School Street tower, but it was determined that would not help. Mr. Rapoza said his assumption is if this gets denied, T-Mobile would sue the town. He said he recognizes the applicant has tried to answer as many questions as possible. He said he would like to see mature arbor vitae planted so the fence wouldn't be visible at all. Attorney Brighenti said that is the kind of issue that falls under the special permit, which is before the Planning Board, but said they would be willing to do that. Motion: To approve the variance (Mackie-Garber-Miller) Mr. Mackie said he doesn't believe the applicant has proven there is a significant gap in coverage, and he doesn't think the construction of this additional tower will make much difference. He said he does not believe the applicant has demonstrated a hardship, and added a few seconds of dropped calls does not demonstrate a hardship. He said he does not believe locating the tower 230 feet from the nearest residence, less than half the 500 feet required, is enough of a concession. He said he does not believe the tower would be enough of a benefit compared with the number of new customers it would pick up. o in favor. Four opposed. Denied. 13. New Business I 4. Old Business I 6. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 9:35 p.m. (Rapoza-Mackie) All in favor. PASSES ~ Tues~ay, April 6, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. ~ 5"8'.10 Signature of Clerk Date of Approval Zoning Board of Appeals 5 3/3/2010