Minutes of the Meeting and Public
Hearing
Members
Present: MarthaThoits, Martha
Mical, Kenneth Klinedinst,
Members Absent: Martha
Latuch
Alternates Present: Eve
Joss
Alternates Absent: Joanne
Hinnendael
Presiding: Martha
Thoits
Recording: Sissy
Brown
I.
Open Meeting at
II.
Roll Call
Ms. Thoits said that a quorum was four voting
members. Ms. Mical agreed, but stated
that because there was not a full Board present, the
applicant has the right to choose to continue the hearing because if there is a
tie vote, it goes against the applicant.
The applicant (
III.
Approval of the Minutes of the June 12, 2002 Zoning
Board of Adjustment Meeting
A
motion was made and seconded to approve
the minutes of the
IV.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Case #13-01: Special Exception –
Amendment of Application
AMERICAN
TOWER CORP.,
[Received: ZBA
approval of a Special Exception (
American Tower Corporation requests to amend the above
application for a Special Exception to state that the tree cover in the
surrounding area is 89 feet, +/- 5 feet, which would allow a total tower height
of 114 feet.
Carrie Fitzsimons, Project Manager,
American Tower Corporation
Charles Schwartz, Verizon
representative, and Jared Robinson, Verizon RF Engineer
Ms.
Fitzsimons said that because this was a new hearing, she would like to
incorporate by reference the previous testimony presented in the minutes that
have been approved for the hearings since the filing of the original Variance
application on behalf of Verizon on
Mr.
Robinson presented testimony as to Verizon’s need for this particular tower
site as well as the elimination of the possibility of using other towers that
are already in existence or permitted in the general area. He showed a map of the existing coverage in
and around the Town of Warner.
Mr.
Robinson: The town of Warner asked us to address co-location on existing
towers. The approved Webster tower (US
Cellular) will cover Exit 7, but will not get to Exit 8, whereas the proposed
tower will cover Exit 8. If we were to
use the Webster tower, we would need probably two more sites.
Question: Ms.
Mical: At what height on the Webster
tower did you measure the propagation?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: We were doing the propagation
at, I believe, 100-feet, which I believe is the highest currently available
spot on the tower, which is the second slot.
US Cellular will get the top of the tower.
Mr.
Robinson: The other tower that the Board
had questions about was the Mt. Kearsarge tower. While this tower does create a lot of
coverage around Mt. Kearsarge, it does not get down to I-89 at all. If we were to use the 89-foot spot, if the
tower were not extended by this amendment, we would not get to Exit 8 on I-89
and we would probably need two more sites along I-89 instead of just one. We also looked at the IWO tower that was just
recently approved in town, and it does generate some coverage along I-89, but
not anywhere near where the American Tower site is going to be. We might look at this to help fill in the gap
around Exit 9 that we are experiencing, even if we were to get the American
Tower site. That is still being looked
at. I’d be happy to answer any questions
on the maps.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: My questions relate to
statements that you made at the last meeting relative to the maps. Specifically, propagation. From the minutes of 6/12/02: Mr. Schwartz
said, “These maps show our guaranteed coverage – we guarantee that we cover all
of these areas. How this works is that
the more phone calls that you have talking to a cell tower, the smaller that tower’s coverage area is.
So you could be in a spot at 3:00 in the afternoon and not have a
problem. If you were to be in that same
spot during rush hour, like at 5:30 p.m., you wouldn’t be able to make a
call. As the cell increases and
decreases in traffic, the coverage rate increases and decreases in
proportion.” These maps you refer to as
propagation maps, right?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: Yes.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: I know enough about
propagation to get myself in trouble here.
But as I understand propagation, and the way these maps are, you’re
basically showing the areas that your radiated signal from these proposed
towers, where that signal would appear at a level that is usable by a cell
phone, or some personal wireless communication device, right?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: In the simplest terms,
yes. In actuality, what our propagation
software allows us to do is to basically load the system, and the propagation
software will simulate how much power the cell site has to transmit in order to
serve as many customers as it may have on it.
By dividing up the power among the different subscribers, the actual
range of the cell site diminishes, and our software can’t estimate that. So, whereas a strict propagation model will
just show that you have an antenna with this much power, the signal will
propagate this far, which is what you were saying.
Mr.
Klinedinst: Right.
Mr.
Robinson: But there are added levels of
complexity. In the algorithms that
generate these maps to show different things, such as loading and subscriber
usage.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: So you’re saying that as the
traffic load increases, the propagation decreases?
Answer:
Mr. Robinson:
The cell service area decreases.
Say a cell has a one-mile circle radius.
When it is fully loaded, a cell site may only have a .75-mile circle
radius. A mobile, between that .75 and
one mile area, will be able to hear the cell tower, but will not be able to
access it.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: So the subscriber would go
to roam?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: He would either go to a
neighboring cell site or, if there were no other neighboring cell sites, he
would go to a roam mode.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: Neighboring being being a
Verizon cell site, and roam being a competitor of yours?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: Correct.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: From the 6/12/02
minutes: Mr. Robinson stated that,
“Coverage is basically made up of a few key points: The antenna type in terms of how wide it is
electrically, and how much gain it brings to the equation. The height of the antenna, which is in direct
proportion to the amount of coverage we have.
And also the amount of power – we are restricted by the FCC on the
amount of power we can have.” My
question there is – in your proposal here, to put your system on this tower,
are you using the maximum amount of power that the FCC will allow you to have?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: No, we will not be, the reason
being that in the system the power setting fluctuates, based on how many users
are on the system. If there’s only one person
in the area, the transmitter will transmit at a very low power. It will just transmit enough power so that
the mobile can hear and have a conversation.
There is a maximum built in that we could transmit to, but for the most
part we don’t – the reason being that we don’t want to overshoot the intended
service area of the proposed cell site.
For example, say in downtown Boston.
We are allowed to transmit at x-number of watts. But if we transmitted at x-number of watts,
we would be interfering with every other cell site that we have in downtown
Boston because of the cell density that we have there. So we transmit at a much lower density, much
lower power, so that each cell site has a defined coverage area and does not
excessively infringe on its neighboring cell sites. Even though there is a lot of uncovered
terrain in this [proposed] cell site area, we have to be concerned that the
neighboring cell sites don’t have too much overlap. With too much overlap, you can use your phone
but the phone won’t be able to process the calls properly. So we want to make sure that each cell site
doesn’t eclipse the other one. If the
phone gets confused, the phone will drop calls and you’re more likely to get
garbled transmissions. So we set the
power at the cell site so that there is a good overlap section on the borders
from one cell area to the next.
Question: Mr. Klinedinst: I understand that. But it appears to me that you’re trading
height for power? For
example, if you reduced the height of your antennas and increased your power?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: Increasing the power will get
us so far, but height is always better in terms of the terrain. No matter how much power you have pumping out
of your antennas, if you have a hill blocking it, it won’t get past the hill.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: You haven’t proposed to us,
on the propagation maps, a lower height with an increased power. It is strictly at this height at x-number of
watts.
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: On the model for the new
proposed height, when I changed the antenna heights, that conversely changes
the power.
Question: Ms.
Mical: To lower or higher?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: If you decreased the antennas,
it would raise the power.
Question: Ms.
Mical: So what I think that you’re
telling us is if you kept the power up there, and you went up the five feet,
you would go farther on that road.
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: Slightly, yes.
Question: Ms.
Mical: I understand the problem with
Boston, but we’re not Boston. So why
can’t you crank it up to the top and you’d cover the whole road and you won’t
have to deal with it again?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: Even if we cranked it as far
as it would go, it would not cover this area.
Question: Ms.
Mical: But it would cover a greater
distance, wouldn’t it?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: It would probably cover a
greater distance, but to show it on a map, it would be almost insignificant.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: My question is, why can’t you take a lower height section of the tower – let’s
assume that there’s no one else on the tower but you. You want to operate at 100 feet because you
see that 5 watts will provide you with the propagation that you want without
interfering with the other towers. My
suggestion is here, if you went down to 80 feet, and you increase the power to
10 watts, that we’ll say is the maximum FCC allowable, what kind of coverage
comparison are you going to get between the two scenarios?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: Say you’re at 100 feet with 5
watts and you went to 80 feet at 10 watts, and say that the tree canopy is 80
feet, the 80 foot height would be drastically worse than the higher height.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: But what I’m suggesting is
that you haven’t proposed that second scenario here to us. All that you have given us is the highest point
on the tower that you can operate at the power that you want to operate at, and
I’m saying that maybe you should look at or maybe you should have proposed
Option A at this height, and Option B at this height
with this type of power. Maybe that
doesn’t work for you. But after reading
and rereading these minutes, I’ve come up with some questions here about what
propagation really is as you define it by traffic loads, etc. I guess what I’m looking for is an
alternative for you to place your antennas somewhere else on the tower and then
crank the power up somewhat to make up for that difference in height.
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: The reason that we need to be
higher on the tower is to get over trees.
No matter how much power we pump out of these antennas, if we’re
shooting into the trees we’re not going to get very far.
Question: Ms.
Fitzsimons: Can I ask Mr. Robinson a
question using the map? I think I
understand what you’re getting at. If
you were to run this map again at the 89 foot level with the same power as at
the 94-foot level – or at the maximum increased power allowable under FCC law –
would the coverage on I-89 change significantly because of the increased power
at 89 feet?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: It may get to about here
(pointing on the map), but it wouldn’t get any farther than that. It would get about halfway from the current
end of the cell coverage area to Exit 8.
Question: Mr. Klinedinst: How much power are you running now? Or what is your effective radiated power?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: It would vary everyday, but
the max averages about 200 to 250 watts.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: What is the maximum FCC
allowable effective radiated power?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: The maximum that our license
is stated for is 1000 watts, but our equipment doesn’t even approach those
power levels.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: But that’s a design
consideration.
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: No carrier operating in the
Ms.
Mical: Nobody
has created the equipment for 1000 watts.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: Yes, they have. But,
realistically, you could double your power – you could go to 500 watts?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: We have multiple transmitters
at a sight, and each transmitter is operating at a different frequency. If six transmitters were each operating 200
to 250 watts, if all six of them were there and they were all operating at that
level, we’re over that 1000 watts.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: You’re talking about your
effective radiated power vs. your actual transmitted power?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: Right. So the reason that we’re not going to be at
maximum power at this location is because we don’t need to have as many
transmitting radios to serve the demand.
In downtown
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: How many personal wireless
service customers are you billing out of the Warner zip code?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: I would have no idea. We would have to go into our billing records
to find that, and I’m not even sure that we can legally do that because of
privacy rights.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: I assume that you’re familiar
with RSA-12k – going down 1,2,3,4. Are
you familiar with that?
Answer: Ms.
Fitzsimons: Not by number only.
Question: Mr. Klinedinst: One of the requirements of this RSA – The
State and it’s Government, chapter 12k: Personal
Wireless Services Facilities. The first
paragraph states, “All wireless carriers or their appointed agents doing
business or seeking to do business in this state shall: …. (4)(b) Upon request, detailed maps
showing all of the carriers current externally visible
tower and monopole PWSF locations in the state within a 20-mile radius of the
proposed external, visible PWSF, both active and inactive.” Have you done that?
Answer: Ms.
Fitzsimons: We did it for the original
application, which had all towers within a 20-mile radius. But we haven’t done it for this
application. I have the maps with me.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: I’m making an assumption
here, which might be wrong. You’re the
agent for Verizon as well as the two other carriers on the tower, so this map
is going to show all three?
Answer: Mr.
Fitzsimons: Yes. This is the map that we
submitted.
The
Board looked at the map that had been presented at the original meeting.
Ms.
Thoits asked if there were any further questions. Hearing none, she closed the Board meeting and
opened the Public Hearing.
Question: Mr. Derek
Pershouse: Isn’t the most limiting
factor in the propagation issue based on the handset power?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: The limit on the system
performance is always the handset, but as far as the propagation, how the whole
system works is the limiting power.
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: Are you saying that the .6
watts or whatever the effective radiated power is – I guess what I’m trying to
say is isn’t that basically the propagation area and your increase in power and
all of the other elements are to handle the load of the system within the line
of sight transmission?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: In the algorithm that we use
to produce the maps, there’s a section with a set of plus and minuses in terms
of the link between the phone and the cell tower…
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: What I’m saying is, though,
is that there is no variable. Well,
there is a variable as to what height a person is at, whether they’re in their
car or whatever, but just a basic approach – that .6 watts is only going to go
so far. I’m sure the weather conditions
would affect it, but essentially that’s a fixed point from which you have to
receive from that handset, correct?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: Correct.
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: So that’s a fairly well
defined area that doesn’t take into account terrain or other variables.
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: We try to incorporate as much
as we can.
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: If someone asked you what the
line of sight range is for a handset, I realize that there are variables. But essentially, what is it? I think that the State, for instance, went
through this with the Kearsarge tower, and one of the arguments that the State
had was that the handheld units were, I think, 5 watts. They were whining and saying that if you were
to put the tower on top of Kearsarge plus 180 feet, handhelds aren’t going to
work. That’s their limit in that
particular article.
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: Actual line of sight is so
rare, but I have seen instances where line of sight from the tower to the phone
was 20 miles.
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: Allowing for these variables,
what do you use as a number in your head – is it 5 miles?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: An average cell radius is
anywhere from 2 to 5 miles.
Question: Mr. Pershouse: At the higher frequencies? And PCS mode?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: At 800 megahertz. PCS, I would
say 1 to 3 miles, 3 being extremely aggressive.
Around this type of terrain, it’s closer to 1 to 2 miles.
Ms.
Fitzsimons: To further answer your
question, I was at a hearing last month and this has always been a really hard
concept for me to grasp – the difference in the power coming from the tower and
the handset. The way an RF engineer from
our company in
Mr.
Klinedinst: Maybe Verizon,
and maybe your competitors as well, could increase the handsets up to 3 watts –
like the pedestal phones.
Mr.
Robinson: That would violate so many FCC
rules, I couldn’t even imagine.
Question: Ms.
Mical: After Mr. Klinedinst’s discussion
about turning up the power, if you turned up the power and you put it on
Webster’s tower, would you cover the same area?
Because you’re not that far off now.
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: No.
Question: Ms.
Mical: You would not cover the area that
you would cover at the 94-foot height [on the proposed tower]?
Answer: Mr.
Robinson: Correct.
Hearing
no further comments from the public, Ms. Thoits closed the Public Hearing and re-opened
the Board meeting.
Ms.
Fitzsimons asked if she would have the opportunity to give a very brief closing
statement. Ms. Thoits agreed.
Ms.
Thoits re-opened the Public Hearing to read a letter received from Mark Lennon
to the Warner Zoning Board, dated Tuesday,
“To
the Warner Zoning Board:
I
won’t be able to attend tomorrow night’s meeting.
I
understand the proponents of the new cell phone tower behind the flea market
and cemetery in Davisville will be approaching the Zoning Board to request a
variance or other permission to increase the height of the tower.
I
would like to register my strong opposition to any increase in the allowed
height of the tower. After reviewing the
photo simulations provided by the proponents, it’s my opinion that the
currently allowed height of the tower already puts it higher than the 20 feet
over average canopy height allowed by Warner regulations. Any increase in the allowed height will only
add to the already significant visual impact this tower will have in the
Davisville area.
Further,
given that the town of
Thanks
for your consideration.
Yours,
456-3262”
Ms.
Thoits closed the Public Hearing and re-opened the Board meeting.
Ms.
Fitzsimons: I just wanted to briefly
state, first of all, that this Board had received a letter from John Springer,
our attorney in New Hampshire, prior to the last hearing, and I would also like
to make that a part of the record for this hearing as well [letter
attached]. It did address the specific
Special Permit criteria and I think we’ve gone over this quite a bit. But I just want to state to the Board,
regarding the application, that you’ve heard a lot of testimony from Verizon
about the need for this site. We at
Ms.
Thoits: One of the things that we need
to discuss is that if this Special Exception were to be accepted, we’re back to
a monopole. That this negates the tree,
and that would have to go back to the Planning Board and they, again, would
have to change it. But you’re asking for
an amendment to the original application for a Special Exception and,
therefore, if we pass this it would go back to a monopole. That doesn’t mean that the Planning Board
couldn’t go back and change it back to a tree.
Ms.
Mical: If we pass it, it goes back to
the Planning Board because it is a new Site Plan.
Ms.
Thoits: Yes. If we pass this, it would have to go back to
the Planning Board for Site Plan Review because it is a whole new thing, and
then they could go back and put it back to a tree. But if we accept it, it’s back to a monopole.
Ms.
Fitzsimons: And if, for some reason, it
didn’t go back in front of the Planning Board, it would revert to the original
Site Plan approval, the only thing we could build up to – so there wouldn’t be
a chance of us going back and building a 114-foot monopole.
Ms.
Thoits: Right. If it’s denied, you’re back to your
original. We’re going on the amendment,
and if it’s denied, you’re going back to square one or the original Special
Exception – which is already finished with the Planning Board, correct?
Ms.
Fitzsimons: Correct.
Ms.
Thoits: If this is denied tonight,
you’re back to building what you’ve already received
acceptance for. Does everyone understand
that? Does everyone understand it that
way?
Mr.
Klinedinst: Yes.
Mr.
Klinedinst: I would like the Board to
consider a couple of things. First of
all, you mentioned a letter from John Springer – that’s the May 10th
letter? In his letter, on the last page,
which is Page 3, paragraph 2, he writes:
“The
essential use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or
welfare. As set forth in the pending
application, this proposal maximizes the co-location on the facility which has
already been permitted, and allows Verizon Wireless to provide service to its
customers in this area.”
I think
what we have here, if we go back to the original application when the tower
company had three tenants and Verizon chose to not participate at that time, or
withdrew their participation as a tenant – for a period of time – and then came
back after the approval process of what we have in front of us now, I don’t
believe that putting Verizon on this tower does satisfy the “essential and
desirable” part of our ordinance. The
simple fact remains that, by this gentleman’s own testimony, if you lose a
signal from Verizon you’re going to go to roam.
I believe that this is a financial decision for Verizon to be in a
competitive situation. Verizon doesn’t
know how many customers they have in the greater Warner area. It may maximize the tower as far as the
number of tenants on it, but I don’t see where it maximizes or
has the potential to maximize service.
The simple fact is, and we’ve heard people in the audience and myself
and others that have cell phones – you can go almost anyplace in Warner and not
lose service. You may end up roaming,
but I don’t think, at least it’s my opinion, that if customers roam, they
roam. They still have a phone connection
and they still can communicate. I don’t
think it’s a welfare issue, as well. I
don’t see where that comes into play here.
This “plus 5-feet +/-“ waiver or amendment that
we did before, I don’t know if it plays into this or not. Those are my comments to the Board. I just don’t see where this is really more
than putting another vendor on the tower.
I don’t see how it satisfies the requirement that is desirable and
essential to the public.
Ms.
Thoits: So you don’t see how “b” is met?
Mr.
Klinedinst: “b” is met. This company,
Ms.
Thoits read the part of the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance charging the
ZBA with their responsibilities in deciding the merits of an application:
1.
The legitimate
requirements of the applicant cannot reasonably be met by any alternative tower
structures or use of the available alternative technologies.
2.
The applicant has
presented written information that addresses, to the Board’s satisfaction, how
the proposal is consistent with the provisions of paragraphs b, c, d, e and f.
Mr.
Klinedinst: It is mentioned in the RSA
about using alternates, and Ms. Mical said that in this case the alternates
were the other towers. Mr. Klinedinst
stated that there are alternate technologies that weren’t addressed.
Ms.
Fitzsimons stated that the company exhausted all of the alternate towers in the
area. She asked Mr. Robinson if, in
Mr.
Robinson: I’m assuming that the RSA is
referring to some sort of light-post mounted equipment to generate a signal. At this time, there are no commercially
available products. This would consist
of boxes mounted on light posts, and fiber optic cable would be strung between
the boxes. This is being tested in the
Ms.
Fitzsimons: You referred to our original
application where we had three carriers.
We’ve never come to before this Board with an application with three
tenants. When we originally applied,
Verizon was a tenant. At our first
hearing in front of this Board, Verizon pulled out and AT&T went in. I think at the second hearing, we had
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: Verizon was the first
tenant, but they did withdraw, correct?
Answer: Ms.
Fitzsimons: Right.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: Back to Jonathan Springer’s
letter and the paragraph that I read earlier.
I think that one of the things that is disenchanting here is that, in
his last part of the sentence, he says, ”…and
allows Verizon Wireless to provide service to its customers in this area.” Personally, I think that any company that you
have on the tower should be providing service to the general public. Verizon or XYZ Company are all going to be in
the roaming process somewhere along the line, and I assume there are revenue distributions
and there are financial reasons to spell out their program that way and yet
Jonathan Springer points out that it is Verizon that provides services to its
customers.
Answer: Ms.
Fitzsimons: And AT&T and IWO will be
providing service to their customers as well.
But for the purposes of this hearing, Verizon is an FCC licensed carrier
and they are under an obligation pursuant to that license to provide service to
its customers – that’s very specific language for a reason, because when the
FCC gave them their license, they said, “Here’s your license. To keep your license, you have to provide
service to your customers.” Roaming
agreements were something that were created at the onset of cellular PCS
service as a convenience to the customers because when you travel everyone
knows you use your phone in your car and sometimes, if you have an AT&T
phone, you’re not going to have AT&T service. So it’s nice when you want to make a call
that Cingular steps in. Correct me if
I’m wrong or mistaken, but when I’m driving through Warner, and I have a
Verizon phone and I’m roaming on IWO service – even though that’s a great
service that Verizon provides me as their customer, that’s not helping them
fulfill their obligations to the FCC. So
for all intents and purposes, Verizon is an applicant on this, and they’re
requesting pursuant to your bylaws permission to fulfill their FCC licensing
obligations by providing service to their customers.
Mr.
Klinedinst: That statement, in this
letter, does not satisfy the ordinance, and that’s where I am. And your description of roaming isn’t any
different than if you were to make a call from here to California on your MCI
long distance -- when you get to California and you get to that telephone of
your sister or your friend or whoever you’re calling, when they pick up their
telephone they are not MCI. They may be
Pacific Telephone or something like that.
So as a user, generally speaking, I don’t think users
really are concerned at the other end or in between, as long as they can make
the call – and roaming satisfies that requirement.
Ms.
Fitzsimons: Right, but in terms of the
FCC… Jared can explain it better.
Mr.
Robinson: Regardless of all the roaming
and licensing, Verizon currently has employed high-speed data capability on
their handheld phones. They’re the only
carrier in the area that has high-speed data.
So if you’re a Verizon customer and you have high-speed data and you’re
in Warner, you do not have service. You
cannot roam onto another carrier and use high-speed data because they don’t
have high-speed data for you. I don’t
know when, if ever, IWO is going to deploy high-speed data.
Mr.
Klinedinst: In my opinion, I don’t think
that this Zoning Board is responsible for competitive issues between
carriers. We satisfied the tower
company’s requirement by granting them a permit to build a tower,
essentially. And the fact that Verizon
dropped off early in the game and then decided to come back – that was a
business decision that they made.
Verizon doesn’t know how many customers they have in the greater Warner
area.
Mr.
Robinson: I’m an RF engineer.
Ms.
Thoits: I disagree with you. I think Verizon probably knows.
Mr.
Klinedinst: But they didn’t come to this
hearing with any representative with their information and say, “Hey,
look: We have 3,000 customers in town
that we want to provide service to, and we want to expand that service.”
Mr.
Robinson: If the Board had asked for
that information, and if we’re legally able to give that information, I think
that we would have provided that.
Ms.
Fitzsimons: We can obtain drop call data
and things of that nature…
Mr.
Klinedinst: I don’t think that it’s our
responsibility to ask for everything, either.
But that’s just my opinion. As I
see it, we’ve granted American Tower permission to build a tower and they have
their tenants, and I don’t see how adding Verizon is beneficial and essential
to the general public of Warner.
Mr.
Schwartz: I cover an area for Verizon as
far north as Tamworth, NH to as far south as Rhode Island near the Connecticut
border. I don’t have all the sites in
between, but I have quite a few sites in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and New
Hampshire. There is no question that
Verizon has a number of areas all over those three states that need work, and
Verizon makes decisions on what things, what areas, they’re going to be
expending their funds on in certain time frames based on what they feel the
needs are of the people in that area and how they’re going to deploy their
network. It’s a business decision –
they’re not sending me to build a tower where there isn’t a need. They have a lot of people that make the
determinations on where they’re going to provide service and improve service,
and they’ve given me the assignment of providing and improving service in this
area based on the information they utilize.
Now whatever has happened in the past and whatever decisions were made
on whether Verizon was going to go on this tower at a higher or lower height,
or we made a decision to go with another carrier and things changed along the
way, I’m not sure that that really should have an influence on how you folks
make your decision tonight. What you
need to decide on is, “Does Verizon have a need to provide service and how are
they going to do that?” and if you approve or deny this application, what is
going to be the outcome? I can tell you,
based on the assignment that I’ve been given – unless someone changes the
assignment, and I don’t see that happening – my job is to get those antennas in
the air at a location that is acceptable to Jared and that’s going to work to
deploy the network. If we can’t get the
antennas on this tower to do that, and assume my assignment doesn’t change,
which I don’t expect it will, I am going to find some other way to accomplish
the job and I’m going to be back here trying to figure out how that’s going to
be done. So denying the application for
this is going to be beneficial to the Town, as far as the ordinance is written,
I don’t think so. Also too, taking
Verizon’s network and saying, “Well, you don’t really need to deploy your
network here because if it doesn’t work so hot, you know, you approve the tower
and someone else is on it, you know, you’ll probably just roam onto that” – I
don’t believe that is equal treatment under the law and I don’t think that’s
how you can make decisions, saying, “Well we approved something, so now we’re
going to treat you differently.” In
addition to that, on the same subject, if the Board decided to look at the
Kearsarge tower and decided that the Kearsarge tower should have +/- 5-feet,
then I think that the Board probably would be required to treat all towers and
all applications that are similar in the same matter.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: I’m sure your competitors
have people in similar positions as yours who are always trying to improve
their networks. You mentioned that if we
didn’t approve this, you’re going to come back.
Are you suggesting that if we do approve it, you won’t be back? That Verizon will never come back for another
tower?
Answer: Mr. Schwartz: I’m talking about this particular site and
location. Assuming that this gets
approved, we still need to do some more work, and I’ve been working on it for
over a year, farther north, because no matter what we do, this tower isn’t
going to connect to the next tower. So
we still need to put something in the middle.
If we don’t have a site that’s going to be acceptable on this American
Tower site, we need two sites: either on
the American Tower or in the vicinity of the American Tower site if we can’t
get enough elevation to satisfy the engineers.
Question: Mr.
Klinedinst: So you’re saying that if
you’re not approved, you’ll be looking for another site in Warner that will
satisfy Verizon.
Answer: Mr.
Schwartz: We need two sites in
Warner. One of them could be on or near
the American Tower site. The other one
we’re trying to get near the center of town, and I’ve been working trying to
get the MCT tower to work for us, because that’s how your zoning is written,
and I’ve been working on it for quite a while and I hope to be able to
accomplish that, but I really don’t know.
So I think I’ve answered the question.
We need two sites – one of them to connect the site at or near American
Tower to the site that’s farther north.
So I will be back, I’m assuming, as long as Verizon wants me to keep
working for them and they want to keep pursuing this and fix their network for
the tower in the middle, but also they will need a tower at or near the
American Tower site at an elevation that’s acceptable.
Ms.
Thoits: I’m probably the outcast on the
Board, but I feel that we’re doing a disservice if we don’t accept this because
it’s only five feet and I know that everybody is all into this whatever it is
that Ken’s into, but I feel that I would not like to see another tower have to
go up. And I feel that if we gave the
five feet, Verizon could build on it and we wouldn’t have to be having them
back asking for another tower. I don’t want
to see two towers down there – I’d rather see one tower that’s 5-feet taller
than two towers. Now I know I’m
different, but I can’t help it. Our
federal government says that we’re supposed to allow all of the carriers equal
rights to have competition, and that’s, in my opinion, what these people are
doing. They’re all coming out for their
part of the competition. They have a
right to compete just as much as AT&T and IWO and CellularOne and
whatever.
Ms.
Mical: I do agree with you, Martha. The only thing that the federal government
also says is that the carriers can have gaps.
Ms.
Thoits: I understand that, but that’s
just my opinion and I’m entitled to it.
Mr.
Klinedinst made a motion that American Tower’s application requesting an
Amendment to Case #13-01 for a Special Exception, stating that the tree cover
in the surrounding area is 89-feet, +/- 5 feet, which would allow a total tower
height of 114 feet, be denied based on the fact that they do not satisfy
Article XVII of the Zoning Ordinance regulations, Paragraph C (1)(b) The requested use is essential or desirable to the
public convenience or welfare. There
was no second to the motion.
Ms.
Mical made a motion that
Mr.
Klinedinst amended the motion, stating that if this application is accepted,
the Board will no longer accept the +/- 5-feet.
The
amendment was withdrawn when Ms. Mical said that she had planned on making that
a separate motion that would cover all applicants, not just American Tower
Corporation and Verizon.
A vote
was taken on Ms. Mical’s motion.
Votes: Ms. Mical: Yes; Ms. Joss:
Yes; Mr. Klinedinst: No;
Ms.
Thoits: Yes. The
motion to approve the application passed by a majority vote.
Ms.
Mical made a motion that the Zoning Board of Adjustment not accept any
future tower applications with a “+/-“ definition as an average tree canopy
height designation because the Town of Warner’s Wireless Telecommunication
Facility Ordinance states that an exact number is required regarding the
average tree canopy height. Mr.
Klinedinst seconded the motion.
Ms.
Thoits asked Derek Pershouse, Co-Chairman of the Planning Board, if the wording
in the ordinance regarding tree canopy height is specific enough, or does this
part of the ordinance need to be addressed and possibly changed. She asked if this motion was the appropriate
way to deal with this issue. Mr.
Pershouse said that this gets the process where it needs to be, and if the
ordinance isn’t specific enough, it will have to be better qualified.
Mr.
Klinedinst read from the ordinance, and said that it states, “average height of the tree canopy.” Ms. Mical said that an applicant would have
to come up with a specific number.
A
vote was taken on Ms. Mical’s motion, and the motion passed with a unanimous
vote.
Wayne Eigabroadt, owner of
property located on
Mr. Eigabroadt showed the Board a plan of his property, and said that
he would like to create 3 lots out of the 2 lots he currently owns. He stated that the original subdivision plan
had an error on it. The engineer who
made the original plan transposed the size of one of his property lines incorrectly. The plan and the deed originally said 280.66
feet, and it actually is only 160 feet in length. The boundary markers are still in their
original places.
He said that he wants to create a lot for his mother and
father-in-laws, who now live with him.
They sold their home, and in the process of subdividing his property,
the error showed up. He asked if he
should get one Variance on one lot and have the other two comply with the
regulations, or if he should ask for a Variance on each on each of the lots.
It was suggested by the Board that he go for only one Variance, on one end
or the other. The frontage requirement
is 200-feet per lot, and he is approximately 80-feet shy of the required
frontage for the subdivision of the lots.
Ms. Mical asked Mr. Eigabroadt if he has the required 2-acres per
lot. He stated that he will add land
from an abutting lot that he owns, located behind the proposed lots, to make
the required amount of land.
He was told that he would need a licensed surveyor to prepare a survey
of the property before he goes to the Planning Board for the actual subdivision
application. They stated that for the
Variance, he would not be required to have the survey done. Mr. Eigabroadt asked if the Variance could be
granted contingent on the subdivision.
Could the ZBA tentatively approve the Variance provided that the
subdivision reflects what the Board wanted?
Ms. Thoits said that the Board would agree to that provided that the
drawing clearly shows the 2-acre minimum per lot as well as the frontage
measurements proposed.
Mr. Eigabroadt was given an application and the requirements needed by
the applicant for a Variance.
VI.
Communications and Miscellaneous
Budget
The budget report for June 2002 was reviewed and discussed by the Board members.
VII.
Adjourn
A motion was made and seconded to
adjourn. The motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at
Minutes approved: