Zoning Board of Appeals Special Meeting April 17th 2025

001This is a meeting of the Greenfield special meeting of the Greenfield Zonoting Board of Appeals. We're at City Hall on the second floor meeting room at 14 Court Square in Greenfield, Massachusetts. It is Thursday, April 17th, 2025. It is now 6:30 p.m. 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. accordance with math general laws chapter 38 section 20 small section B no person shall address a meeting of a public body without permission of 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 a person continues to disrupt the proceedings

002the chair may order the person to withdraw from the meeting and if the person still does not withdraw the chair may authorize a console or other officer to remove the person from the meeting. Okay. All uphill from here. Um, all right. So, the let's do a roll call to members. Members present state, Mark Maloney, Jim Wyn, Debbie Jokes, Eric Green, Charles Roberts, and David Singer. And sitting on the panel today listening to these matters will be Peter, Mark Maloney, Jim W, Debbie Jokes, David Singer. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, would you please read the uh we're we're we're going to uh well, do we need to vote to come out to come out of uh we continue we don't need to vote. need to vote. Would you please read um the applications for both the variance

003and the special continued from April 9th, 2025, application of Vidity Wireless LLC for property located at zero Clearwood Street West Assessor's Tax Map R24, lot 7A, which is located in the general commercial DC zoning district for the branching exceptions 300-8.7 the zoning ordinance in order to allow the construction Construction of the new wireless communication structure comprised of ground base equipment cabinets and antennas to be the top of a monopole measured 170 ft with insufficient volume. Yeah. Continuation from April 9th, 2025. Application of Verie Wireless LLC for property located at Zil Fairview Street West Assessor's MAP R24 block 7A which is located in the general commercial GC zoning district for a special permit pursuant to sections 200-4.9C3 2000-74 200-8.3 and 200-8.4 four of the zoning ordinance in order to allow the construction of of a new

004communication structure comprised of groundbased equipment cabinets and antennas modeled on top of a pole measuring 170 ft in height at this location. Thank you. All right, so um tonight we're going to hear from the concerned citizens. Um this night is open for you all to speak and your representatives to speak. Is there somebody that's leading the concerned citizens tonight in terms of how this is organized? Should I know that you have an attorney uh waiting? Do you think maybe the attorney should be speak first, sir? Uh attorney Campanelli. Hi. Good evening. Hi. Thank you. Hi. Would you like to wait or would you like to go first? I think she had uh I think one of my clients had an expert uh to go before me. Um but I'll I'll do as the board wants,

005but Oh, I see. I see. Dr. Chamberlain, I'm sorry. Thank you. Yes, I'm going to press pause on you. Thank you. And uh Dr. Chamberlain, hello. Hi. How are you? Uh I guess would everybody be okay if Dr. Chamberlain spoke first? Okay. Would you uh would you state your name and I guess where you live for the record and why you're here? Thank you. Okay. Yeah. My name's Kent Chamberlain and I'm uh from Durham, New Hampshire. Profer Professor Ameritus. And the reason I'm here is that I've been asked to weigh in on a tower. And in addition to that, I've served on a state commission in New Hampshire where we explored wireless radiation in depth. And I've been working in that area ever since. So I'm an expert in radio frequency engineering. And I'll be

006going over my credentials as I give my presentation or before I give my presentation. So you'll get a sense of what my background is and how it might be applied to the the question you're considering today. Is that a question? Oh, and can I break in here? Unfortunately, Alana is held up. Her babysitter is not there. Is there someone Eric, I think Alana sent you um Dr. Chamberlain's introduction. Would you like me to read it or would somebody on the ZBA or public like to read it to introduce Dr. Chamberlain so you know his background? I didn't receive that. So, I thought the board's board chair's perview. Okay. Um, anybody have an objection with Safe Tech Board? Um, my name is Pam. I'm sorry. My they again your settings don't allow me to change my

007name and I'm a colleague of Dr. Chamberlain's. Okay, please do. Give me just a second here. Thank you. Okay, so Dr. Chamberlain is the past chair and professor Emoretus in the department of electrical and computer engineering at the University of New Hampshire. In more than 40 years of his work in academia, he's performed research for over 25 sponsors, including the National Science Foundation. He's received two Fulbright awards, including the prestigious Fulbright Distinguished Chair. He's also served as an associate editor for the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the E, and he regularly performs reviews for them and other technical and scientific publications. Dr. Chamberlain also served on the New Hampshire State Commission that was convened through legislation to explore the impacts of wireless radiation. Since serving on the commission, he's been active in carrying out

008the recommendations of the commission by working with legislators and community groups around the world. Dr. Chamberlain is a founding member of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, which is an international group of renowned scientists with expertise in radiation and the biological effects. He's the president of the environmental health trust and last summer he engaged in a speaking tour in Europe where he presented the findings of the New Hampshire Commission to a group that included the Royal Society of Medicine in London. So Dr. Chamberlain, we're ready for your presentation. Thank you very much for reading that. I know it's a mouthful, but I do want to give you all a sense that I'm not I'm coming at this not as a a lite, somebody who hates technology. Far from it. I uh

009I do have some things that you know show I talk I will be talking about that reflect on the bad sides potential harms of technology but at the same time being a radio frequency engineer I know of solutions and I'll be talking about some of those as well but I think maybe to the best way to move forward is to start showing my slides which I'm assuming you can see now yes thank you fantastic so I also need to have this conflict of interest declar claration. You know, so many people do that that you're going to be hearing from regarding this issue have very much vested interests. I don't I'm not being compensated to do what I'm doing and I don't have any tie or any tie to the outcome. If you choose one way

010or the other, it's not doesn't affect me. So, I'm really speaking to you today as citizen to citizen. And I should let you know also in addition to what Pam read, uh, I serve on a school board. I'm chairing a school board and I've been on boards not dissimilar from the one I'm looking at right now for most of my career. I've kept a hand in as a good citizen or trying to be a good citizen. So that's where I'm coming from. And the next thing you'll want to know is, okay, is this guy qualified to give us comments? And I'm not going to go through this in great detail. I know it's a busy slide, but you do need to know where I'm coming from, what my credentials are that allow me to say

011the things I'm going to say or to have you believe the things I'm going to say. And uh seeing how uh you're looking at the screen, you may not be able to see everything, but I'll go through some of the highlights. I started my professional career as a co-op student working in electronic countermeasures for the Air Force. So I got an understanding of what it jamming is and uh what the the basic parameters are. Then I went to Ohio University and I did work on well avionics and so I did computer modeling and made measurements on navigation communication systems including the instrument landing system, microwave landing system, the VHF omni range which is what VR stands for, airto ground and ground air groundtoround communication system. So I in that in in that position I went

012out and I would create a model first of all or use somebody else's model and then validate the model was giving accurate results. And that very much applies to what you're considering because you're looking at coverage maps. And that's what I've done through a lot of my career is taking models and making sure they give the results you want them to give. Not no I better rephrase that. that they that they give accurate results. Uh so I did develop my own models and I've published on about those models and I've worked for I think almost every government agency in helping them in predict you know where a signal will and will not be. I then moved to uh from Ohio University and became a faculty member at the University of New Hampshire in New Hampshire

013here and continued some of the same thing. I did modeling and measurements of meteor burst communication for the air force. I modeled uh air ground data link for the Federal Aviation Administration. I developed adjacent channel and co-ch models for the Federal Aviation Administration. I did uh perform measured and modeled lowaltitude propagation effects for the US Navy. Uh and then using measurements and modeling tools to evaluate alternative cell phone communications for the Department of Justice. and that's going to be particularly relevant to your issue when you're looking at alternative ways to provide coverage. So, I've developed and taught courses in computational electronics my electromagnetics my whole career and that includes having students create their own propagation models. So, in terms of having the knowledge to be able to answer questions that I suspect that you would

014have, uh, I hope that I' I will have satisfied them or I can go into greater detail about each of those bullet points. So let me move forward and just what's my motivation for being here for presenting to you and that is after serving on this state commission and it's a formal state commission that was about five years ago I saw that there was a lot of misinformation going around about wireless communication and some of that misinformation led to people being harmed and and I can go into greater detail about what that harm constitutes Ed and so kind of took it upon myself feel duty bound to spread the word. I found out something that does impact people's health and well-being and and and and then other things beyond that and I'm not going to

015I'm going to be able to provide to you I hope this evening. So I can see that there's a fair number of people in the room there and there may be a fair number of questions. So, I'd like to have this conversation be pretty much guided by you. I have I could go on I can go on for the next hour easily with no interruptions, but I want this to to to when we're all said and done this by that you walk out of there going, "Yeah, I I have a pretty good idea of what's going on. I have a much better feel for the issue. So, I don't want to just simply get up here and yak as I can do. I'd like to have this be interactive." So if and the reason I'm

016saying that is if you have questions, if I say something that really you don't quite get or maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear on, feel free to stop me. So I I also want to note that I I'm not going to be providing you a detailed engineering analysis. I'm going to give you an overview and let you know what questions need to be asked. And so I hope that the the answers that I give will help you make uh the right decision regarding the variance that's being sought. So having said that, I'll take a breath and a sip. So what's going on now is that you know cell towers are being put up near residential areas. Uh and we saw that when we when I was serving on the commission. commission ended in 2020 and uh

017even during that time we saw this huge roll out of towers in and near residential areas and we wanted to know why. So there were big changes then and are and now in where and how cell towers are cited and things are changing and escalating and we're seeing a significant escalation in telecom companies citing towers or attempting to sight them outside their normal zoning areas because they are zoned for for industrial as you know and so they're being put and varants are being sought so that they can be put in people's neighborhoods near their schools or even on their schools. So that was one thing that we saw on the commission and it really raised some questions. You know what's going on here? We are seeing people trying to put in cell towers in areas

018where there is already clear coverage, clear cell phone coverage. Why are they doing that? Well, the answer is it's part of a business model. So let me run through this and it's something that you're probably already familiar with. Maybe not by looking at this, but from the ads you've been hearing for wireless home internet because what you're looking at now on the left uh is what is wired. And that's what most of us have today. That's what I'm talking to you over is wired internet. And so it goes into everybody's home. It doesn't matter if you have a cell tower nearby. You still have lightning fast connectivity to the internet. So the I don't know if you can see this very clearly from your vantage point, but you do have a cable going into each

019home and you can hook it up to your own in a wireless uh router if you want or you can just wired it to your computer. In fact, after serving on the comm commission, I have it wired to my commu computer now. So that what is what exists right now and I have to pay a wireless provider, I'm sorry, a wired provider every month. Now what telecom is seems to be shooting for this seems to be their business model and it's been confirmed by a number of people and that is in instead of having these uh the wire having the internet go into everybody's home they've pulled it out of the homes and hooked it up to antennas near the home. And so what the idea is is with wireless home internet and some of

020you probably are very familiar with this. You go to your local Verizon office or AT&T office and buy one of these little boxes. It's a wireless home internet and it's got one plug on it and you plug it in and voila, you have Wi-Fi in your home. You don't have to deal with that cable guy anymore. And so it does offer a convenience and that is the idea and uh it's why that you need to have nearby strong signals in order to to make this idea work the wireless home internet but it does have drawbacks. So it's definitely going to be more convenient and the beginning and in the beginning it's going to look a lot cheaper. You're not going to have to be dealing with that cable guy. So it's taking one bill that

021you don't have to pay. But it does introduce some major problems. And one is that it's a far greater exposure to wireless radiation. I'm not sure what your feelings are about exposure to wireless radiation, but on the commission, we we felt that people should have the opportunity to opt out. In other words, if they didn't want to be exposed, they should be able to turn off their own devices and have very low exposure to electromagnetic fields. But if you have wireless home internet, it's likely that you'll have a tower close enough to your home where you have no choice. You're going to be exposed. And uh I've done work with the Department of Justice and it shows that wireless communication can be unreliable and I don't think that'll surprise anybody. Uh but they they u

022may not be available in an emergency and that was one of the things the Department of Justice asked me to look at as a researcher. You know what happens if cell towers become saturated be in an emergency situation when everybody grabs their cell phones and and what about their hackability? The fact that you have a signal being radiated out where anybody with an antenna can receive that signal means that you're not going you're going to be far more easily hacked than a wired solution such as the cable guy paying the gay cable guy. And and here's a surprise for a lot of people. wireless devices can be jammed very easily and for example just do a Google quick Google on uh cell phone jammers and you'll come up with a lot of options for reasonable

023prices and why that matters or there by way using them is illegal so you don't want to do that if you want to buy one be really careful that could get you in trouble but what you can do if you have one of these and you are a unscrupulous type and you want to rob somebody and you know that they have wireless home security devices. You don't like the uh you know the sensors, wireless sensors, wireless motion detectors, wireless window opening detectors. You simply go up to their home, turn on the cell phone jammer and everything shuts down, including their connection to the internet if they have wireless home internet. So they go in, they burgle you, they turn their jammer off, walk away, and you never knew that what hit him hit you. So

024there there are issues like that, cyber security issues that you should be aware of as a zoning board. And there's another thing and I don't know if this is something that a ZBA will consider but by if people do go to with you know a large percentage of people go with a wireless home internet a lot of these cable companies are going to dry up making the only way to communicate available to the internet is going to be through the that uh the wireless approach. So just saying that there are a lot of problems associated with this with the wireless home internet and I don't know how you uh what you need to assume or what you need to know about that and I can maybe give you a give a pause here and see

025if you have comments or say Kent you're going in the wrong direction or can yeah can you tell us more about something because I I can tell you a lot more about this. Well, and Kent, can I pop in? What I'd like to mention, too, is that um some of you in the ZBA have probably heard about a month ago or two, there was a lot of reporting on the transnational gangs that were going around the country that were robbing people's homes. Oftentimes, there were athletes that were targeted and they were using the jamming that Dr. Chamberlain's talking about. A lot of more fluent areas have been targeted this way. And unfortunately with some of our convenience, we're seeing some vulnerabilities that have some pretty significant consequences that we need to be aware of when

026we decide about how we're going to site the infrastructure in our communities, right? Um and so what people uh what the companies the telecom has to do sometimes is they have to seek these variances that Pam just mentioned. And doctor, yes, sorry to interrupt. Be hard for you to see. I have a woman in in the audience who wants to ask you a question. Can you It's a quick question. Can you just identify yourself, please? Julie Page, owner Nine Miner Street. Thank you. My quick question is this. We can't get landlines anymore because of what's happened with the cable company. You know, no matter what it is you're trying to put in, you can't get a standard landline. I'm an EMTN firefighter for the fun of it. I do disaster response for fun. I became

027a ham radio person because when the systems go out, that's all you've got left to communicate between ambulance and hospital. If we're stuck with only wireless, any from what you've seen in your studies, any chance landlines, traditional landlines might come back. Well, that would be great if they did come back. And I would say keep your wired connection if you can because I even if our phone goes down, of course, our fi phone is tied in with breezeline. So yeah, you could have robust phone communication with wired connections that you won't be able to enjoy with wireless. Thank you. And thank you for your service, by the way. Um, so let's say that you're a telecom company and you want to you're trying to justify putting in enough infrastructure to make this wireless home internet

028work. Well, what do you do? You have to show you have to demonstrate a gap in coverage in many cases and that's what's going on in your case as I understand it. And so the ways to show that one would be a dropped call log and that is the gold standard. And so if you have a company that's claiming there are gaps but they don't provide a the gold standard for you. I would look at that very much a scance. I'm not in your position right now. I'm not serving on your board, but that's something that I would really demand knowing what I know now. And that's why I think you're you're listening to me right now is to find out what somebody who's been in this field a while knows. So, no dropped call

029log. There's probably not dropped calls. And I'll back that up in just a moment. uh measurements and probably the best way is just if the there's a claim about gaps a gap in coverage question go and oh doctor I'm sorry Dr. Yeah, you you said it was okay to interrupt you, but yes, absolutely. Absolutely. And uh I'm the designated interrupter. So, nice to meet you. Nice to meet you, too. Uh my name is Terry and Can you see Terry or hear Terry? I can hear Terry. Terry. It's kind of a question. Sorry, full name and where Terry Kashner Street in Greenville. Yes. Thank you. Um, is this really about what he said or is it about a variance? Is it really about coverage or is it about whether you're going to grant a variance? I

030mean, all right. Can I can we put that question aside for now? Okay, good question. Let him continue and people can ask him about his presentation and there will be a point in time when I will you can come back to me if I forget, but I will answer your question. Okay. All right. Thank you. because it will take more than a minute. Could I ask Okay, wait. If is your question relative to Dr. Chamberlain? Yes, please. And name Kami can't please. Can Okay, Milan Dragovich on High Street in Greenfield. Thank you. Um, thank you for this presentation, Kent. Um, you mentioned that it's increased wireless radiation. Can you maybe you're going to get into this uh a little bit later in your talk. What is the nature of that wireless radiation? What in fact

031does it do to the environment or the body? Uh I've heard various things over the years. Cell phone comp, you know, we all have these smartphones in our pocket. The smartphone uh companies deny that there's any u causal effects. Uh it doesn't seem to interest the media much from what I'm gathering. Main main mainstream media. So what what are what is the latest I guess on the this wireless radiation and you're saying it's much higher with these with these towers and what what does that mean in terms of real oh my gosh you have asked the question that perhaps I should hold back on I when I agreed to do this it was suggested that I really focus on the engineering to begin with. I have a full presentation that I can give to tell

032you what an independent uh commission of experts found that answers your question directly. And I hope that we can get to that. And I hope I'm allowed to present that information because that's really key. Even though you can't use the healthy or in the environment to to turn down a permit, you can you should know it as being board members. you should know what the harm is c what c is caused by exposure to radiation and I definitely can can answer that question in excruciating detail if you'd like but uh perhaps the best thing for me to do now is just get through some of the engineering questions and then I can go right and I'd like to go into what we found on the New Hampshire commission does that sound like a a reasonable

033sure please name name. My name is Shannon. Yes. Can you stand up so we can Mr. Chairman, please? Just a procedural thing for the minutes. It'd be good if they could give their numbered address for the meeting so I can do the meeting minutes. Sometimes I can't catch the name, but if I know the address, I can look it up. Did you not get the address? No, they they all just said the street name. Nobody gave us a number. Minus 210 High Street. Thank you, sir. Go ahead. Can you give it again? Can you please stand up? Yes, it would be helpful trans and your name and address again. My name is Shannon Tink. I'm about 49. Thank you. And all I'm asking I know that and said he hopes that he can get to

034the health stuff and I know that for myself like my family's here. I know some like three other neighbors of mine are here and even some other people that I know that we're all here for that information. So if we could definitely cover that, that feels like the reason why we're here tonight. Um, so I just hope that we could get to that far as I probably Okay, by a show of hands, is this why most people are here? Yes. Well, I'm glad to to have that information. Okay, that's fair. Um, and that said, Kent, and just for the audience to know, Dr. Chamberlain does cover this. You know, he wanted to meet the asks of the ZBA that he used his engineering um analysis to be able to discuss the variance. So there's a

035short presentation on that as well. And then if you want him to expand on the public health piece, he's capable of doing that. Um that's up to you guys. You guys do it, but it's going to be it's up to me. Thank you. Thank you. Um All right. So I need a minute to think about this. I do want all of you to get the information from Dr. chamber. So, I'm going to allow him to give that information to you. You all have to understand if you're also here to oppose the tower and you think this is the reason that the tower can be opposed. That is not true. Our board does not have the power to get involved in that aspect of this permit. And don't misunderstand me. I may feel after listening that

036I don't like anything he's saying and that I want to react to what he's saying in some way, but that is not what I can do on this board. So, I'm happy to do this because we're all citizens together and let this happen, but I want you to understand. So, if you have things if if I will let Dr. Shaman speak on other matters but it's the other matters that matter to the variance and the special permit not this it is something that I need I mean can I be any clearer than that I'm going to let him speak but I just have a clarify yes but you're saying that even if he was to say the worst thing that it is absolutely terrible for people's health and it should not go into a residential

037neighborhood that will not play any part in your decision- making process and you'll just ignore it regardless of what we say. No, I didn't say that at all. So, but you're saying it's not coming into the equation on how you can, you know, get these people. Is that there's an equation in which we get from point A to making a decision. There's an equation, call it an equation if math is the thing. This is not part of our equation. Now we can condition the tower to follow FCC guidelines so that you know that the whatever the US government says is safe is going to be followed with it. But we cannot incorporate this information into our decision. Number one. And number two, that would mean that the applicant would also get a chance to bring

038their expert to tell us maybe that this isn't really what's going on at all. So, we're not this is not our jurisdiction, but I'm happy for you all to hear this. If you think it's a good tutorial and if it's good for our city councilors and it's good for other people that are legislators and you think you want to talk to them about this, that's fine. We are we're judges. We're not legislators. So, we judge based on what is in our jurisdiction to judge. I'm just telling you that that if we were to incorporate this into our decision, it would be appealed and overturned and the tower would be allowed. So you do not want us to make this the reason if we decide not to have the to grant the variance. So you just

039have to understand that I'm saying that from my heart. So you have to understand that's the way it works. I'm happy to have him speak. I'm happy to listen. Maybe some cells in my body will be affected by what I hear, but I am not going to put that into any of the decisions. We're not I'm not going to allow this to be a part of where how we decide the case. Yes. Just to be sure that everybody fully understands. Does it make sense to just provide the context around some of the federal laws that say that this isn't our choice as a ZBA not would it be helpful if I gave a little tutorial about I think you need to provide that context for folks. Okay. I think you should. So ordinarily people come

040before us and we have jurisdiction over the case based on state law and local law. Our ordinances and our ordinances have a lot of power and the courts especially uh have said that localities have a right to control their existence through zoning to some degree especially health and safety. Okay. So that's the norm. What we've all had to learn is that this time there's a federal law that specifically says in it, we know that these local communities are not going to be happy with us putting these cell towers in. So, we're going to write language that uh the constitution allows us to write, which is that because this is interstate commerce, we get to supersede the local laws on some levels. It it does pay lip service to local control, but as you read the

041cases, you you understand that that local control has to come from a place that has nothing to do with the radiation. I'll I'll start with that. But it comes from a place of is this tower safe if it falls? We have a safe we have 170 ft safe zone. Is it safe if it falls? Do they have a hardship on the parcel? Is this parcel shaped in a way that they it's impossible for them to achieve the 107 footfall? Which is a fact. They can't. They were pushed over because of the wetlands and now the lot has different uh attributes. And they're asking us to say, "Oh, that's tough luck. We'll grant you a variance." So that's what they're asking us to do under state law. The special permit, I think, is more straightforward. is

042that in our zoning laws, if we don't want something to happen for free, like you can just walk in and get it done and your neighbors don't know anything about it, nobody can comment on it and it just happens. Those are called things that are allowed by right. Then you have things that are allowed by special permit and those are things that we would like to see happen, but we want to give you all an opportunity to come in and tell us what you think about how they're approaching this particular use or structure. and either tell us that it's totally out of line, which is probably a hard standard to achieve, or we want conditions on it. And so your input and the applicant's input all come together and we give a special also has

043to be compatible with the neighborhood and all those kinds of things. But a special permit kind of means that we're looking for people to make that application. A variance is make an exception to the general rule. And the law in Massachusetts provides certain factors that we have to look at. And they're a sum they're summary. They're not or one plus this plus this. They all have to they have to meet all the criteria. And it's difficult to get a variance in Massachusetts. Okay. The circumstances really have to be I'll call for lack of a better word unique. So, I know your I know your brains are all moving around, but just let me continue. So, now we're back. We're circling back to the federal statute. So, this federal statute says, "Oh, by the way, if

044the carrier comes and proves that they both have a significant gap in coverage that needs to be filled because we, the federal government, are we we created this statute because we want these gaps to be filled. That's our primary purpose. This law's primary purpose is to fill gaps in wireless cell service. So they have to prove that this is the only place they could do it. And if we say no that there will be a tremendous gap in service area causing distress in the system that they're pro that they're that they're legislated to protect. So if that were the case, then that those factors are defined as hardship like in Massachusetts variance law. So now you have a federal statute defining hardship as not the shape of the lot or any of the unique factors

045or anything else. But if they can't get sell surface, guess what? That is a hardship. And you have to consider that a hardship. And and you have to consider the degree of that hardship when you're making a decision. So those are the things that interest us. Have they proved this a significant gap? Is this the only place they can put this is the 170 now that there's a remedy that they're proposing the applicant's proposing which is that there'll be a uh a part of the tower that will be softer than the rest of the tower. So if there's a monumental event, the tower will break and fall in the middle. So it will land within technically the the zone that we've created the 170 ft or whatever the the the distance is. So in line

046with the federal statute they're also pushing us by saying well you've enacted this ordinance because of safety but we can overcome the safety concern and now you have to look at it like the regular factors in in zoning and you know and we have a hardship here and you have to let us have our talent. So, those are the things, doctor, and I know attorney uh Campanelli will speak to all those things because those are the things that we can really focus on. But because you're all here to listen to this, and thank you for listening to me, uh I will go forward, but I I'd like it to be maybe 15 minutes because I know you could probably give us all the without going into much more detail. So, I'm gonna let you proceed

047for 15 minutes on the effects of radiation. Well, this is not the effects of radiation. This is what you need to know to and what you need to do to justify and show that you have a gap. And if you don't have talk about that if you want. I think people here want to hear the health effects of the radiation. That's good. Okay. And I so I can jump right to that. Okay. Whatever they want. It's your Okay. I don't think there's a first of all, I would like to make the statement on the record that I don't think there's a gap. uh look at what it takes to get a good phone call. And I know this is a busy slide. To have a great signal, it's minus50 to -79 dBm. That's just a

048rating of power. Good signal is - 85 to - 89. And then when you look at their map, they're showing, you know, as good as everything that's greater than minus 85. So, in other words, I'm pretty confident you could go into this area right here and you'd be able to make a phone call just fine. So, I don't think there's a gap and I can throw the question out to to everybody there. Is is there a demonstrated gap outside? You know, can people go out and make a phone call? Yes. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. All right. So, this has not I don't think this has anything to do really with complying with, you know, or filling a gap. This has to do with putting up the infrastructure that will allow industry to put in wireless

049home internet. So, enough said. And because people want to hear the the health and environmental impacts, I'm simply going to join go forward. This the the commission I served on was formed by legislators. They were the legislators were being told by their constituents that they were being harmed by wireless radiation. And yet these same legislators were being told by industry that no, it's totally harmless and you need to put in more infrastructure. So what did they do? The legislators ca formed this bipartisan commission or this and they through bipartisan legislation that was to convene the right number of people to ask the right number of questions to answer once and for all we had hoped uh whether or not wireless radiation is harmful. And so in the end we ended up with 33 commission members.

050This happens when I try to go quickly and I want do want to get quickly because there's some things that I think you need to hear. So in the final analysis we had uh people with backgrounds in medicine we had two medical doctors physics toxicology electromagnetics that was me epidemiology bioatistics occupational health etc. So we had the expertise of nonbiased experts of unbiased experts to make the to answer the questions that were being asked of us and I'll just give you the first question right here and that is why does the insurance company and why including uh Lloyds of London they recognize wireless radiation as a risk but there's not an insurance company there around that will insure against it and there were a number of other questions that were pretty obvious you know there

051there clearly is a problem that is not being recognized in with the limits that are set right now. So what did we do in our over a year of the commission meeting? We looked at peer-reviewed publications. We we invited the regulatory agencies but none of them would come talk with us and provide us with the information about the harms of wireless radiation or or whether or not or even if there were harms. And we brought in outside experts, people recognized nationally and internationally with expertise in the relationship between wireless radiation and health. And all of them, all of them, but one said, "Yeah, there's a problem." And they demonstrated why they thought it was. They showed us the information they had that demonstrated that there were problems. And that's except for the one presenter who

052was brought in by the telecom industry. And that was the only presenter that was paid to be there. And that's why in the beginning I made it really clear that I wasn't getting paid to do this because the only people that I've ever heard claim that there are no harms associated with wireless radiation are those with some affiliation with the telecom or yeah with telecom. So uh what we found in our study is that the uh the only problems or the not the only uh to jump here um the mechanism is well known but the way that the long-term exposure to cellular cell phone and wireless radiation it works on creating oxidative stress within the body. And I think most people are familiar with free radicals and the fact that they're something you don't want

053to have because free radicals, oxidative stress, lead to chronic inflammation that lead to a host of diseases, including the one shown right here. And I'm don't have time with a 15 minutes to go over this in detail, but if you look at what's been going on in this country in the past well 25 years or more, you've seen this very significant increase. Alzheimer's, for example, has more than doubled since the year 2000. You look at what's going on in diabetes. You know, it starts out with relatively low in 2004, but then as the years increase, the incidence of age adjusted diabetes, type two diabetes, has been increasing. So, what happened between 2004 and 2012? Well, that's when the iPhone came out, 2007. So we're seeing these marked increases in these diseases that have been shown

054to be associated with radiation exposure. And then you can see the same thing for tumors, an increase in tumors and brain tumors, not necessarily malignant tumors, but tumors. By the way, a tumor doesn't have to be malignant to kill you. A brain tumor in particular. So we're also seeing this increase in Parkinson's disease. And and notice the break points on this curve. Wow. I mean, that's really significant. I I know people that have Parkinson's and I now that I that never I knew people never before knew that people that had Parkinson's. So, I'm going kind of quickly so but but feel free to interrupt me. So, what has changed in the period of time roughly between well the 1990s and present day is our exposure to electromagnetic fields. And I'm we can judge that by

055the wireless network density in the United in the US start off 2004 and you can see that as we step forward in years to 2008 to 2012 to 2019 my gosh at 2019 which six years ago it's hard to find a place where you don't have exposure to electromagnetic fields. So, another one that can very much convince the commission that there was something going on. You know, it wasn't what industry was telling us. Industry was saying, which some of you I think somebody just said there that it's harmless. Well, uh this is something that has been known for quite a while. This is a 2004 report. And that is if you do a comet assay on uh DNA, here's a single cell of DNA, a control. You pluck it out and you do the assay

056on it. It's nice and symmetric. You expose it to equivalent of in this case 6,600 chest X-rays. You would expect to see a problem. As we know that X-rays are ionizing radiation and so you'd expect to see this type of effect. And but you see the same type of ex effect when you expose a cell or DNA cell to wireless radiation like a mobile phone as is shown right here. So clearly something is going on. Um something else and I I I'll try to go through this quickly because this answers some questions very directly and that is uh death rates from cancer versus distant people live from a cell tower. And this is very much applicable to the question you're addressing. And this is a peer-reviewed article uh and explored the relationship between cancer deaths

057or the death rate and the distance people lived from a cell tower. They collected the data. They the the researchers used a government database to find out, you know, when people died of cancer, where they lived with respect to a a cell tower. And so they were able to come up with the death rate versus distance people live from a cell tower. And so they looked at a large number of cases, you know, over 7,000 cancer deaths for over 800 towers. And if you are understand statistics, you realize that having these large numbers gives you a high degree of confidence in in the results obtained. Now, what's important here is this study was done between 1996 and 2006. And the reason I say that's important is that during that time frame, not many people in

058that area, in the area where this test was done, the study was done, had their own electronic devices, had their own cell phones. And so what we're looking at is simply the effect of living near a tower and not the effect of their own electronics. So the results of the study can be shown in a single slide, which is this one right here. And what you're looking at with the blue line is the death rate by a cancer as a for the population in general. What you're seeing in the red trace is the uh for people in the study who lived within a kilometer of the of a cell tower what their death rate was. And it's monotonic as you can see. So the farther you get away from the cell tower, the closer you

059get to the death rate by cancer for the population in general. It's pretty clear and pretty convincing. The the New Hampshire Commission chose 500 meters as a reasonable place to be reasonable. Uh, frankly, I'd like to be farther than that, but we realized that by our recommending a setback distance farther than that, that wouldn't be acceptable to industry. So, we just said 500 meters that seems to be reasonable. Now, this is not just a one-off study. uh there have been other studies and in fact since then there I I need to update this slide there have been a lot more than 38 studies as you're seeing right here a meta study is where you take the results of previous studies and you combine them all together to come up with even more believably statistically significant

060results and most of them showed that yeah they're er effects they're negative effects and uh something that kept appearing is that a distance of 500 meters from a cell tower appears to be a reasonable I don't I'm not saying safe. Some people will tell you there are no safe distances for radiation of this type. So at this point you might be uh wondering well what are the standards? How were they set? And this is uh there were turns out that they were actually set in the 1980s. So the standards that are set for what we are exposed to today. The standards were set in the 1980s and they're based on behavioral studies of monkeys. shortterm behavioral studies lasting an hour or less. And this is for our 247 exposure. And the way they did it

061is they said, well, the only thing that's going to hurt you from a cell phone or cell tower or wireless radiation is the heating effect. And so if it doesn't heat you up like a microwave would heat you up, then it's not going to harm you. So that was their assumption. And what they did is they took these animals. These animals were food deprived and they had been trained to push a lever to get food. So they were food deprived at the beginning of the study. They were put into a cage and then they ramped up started ramping up the exposure, the radiation they were exposed to until the animals could no longer push the lever and get food. That's why it's called a behavioral study. And that would that upper limit at which they

062could no longer press the lever for food was designated as that the threshold dose. Now some of the monkeys had burns on their faces at that point but they said that's the threshold dose and then they took that value that number divided it by 50 that you know the number of they represented the exposure divided it by 50 and said well that's the exposure that should be safe for the population in general. By the way, if you're dealing with chemicals uh and looking at chemical exposure, you would take a safety factor of in the thousands. But in this case, it's well 50 should be fine. It's totally arbitrary. It's not based on any relative risk that they were trying to achieve because they don't know the relative risk. And again, emphasizing that this study was

063done in an hour or less. And the reason that is just not a good way to do it is let's look at long-term exposure because that's we we know to be effect to be the problem. You know, if you look at only the short-term effect of smoking, for example, we could do a study where we would have people smoke a pack of cigarettes each within an hour and if they all lived, we'd say, "Hey, smoking must be safe." Well, we know that's not the case. So, let's look at this uh the slide that's in front of you right now. Here you have a mast on the left and then uh 465 ft away from it you have a tree and back in 198 I'm sorry 2008 looking pretty good but you go seven years after

064that and my gosh what's happening to the left side of that tree and if you go another seven years four years they had to finally cut the tree down and what's important here is if you look at uh what's in in the red circle right here is that the exposure on the left side of the tree was only 0.03% of the FCC limit. I mean, it's the long-term exposure that we're concerned about, and it's why we're so concerned about kids in school being exposed. It's why we're so concerned about people being exposed by cell towers in their sleep. And the values of they might see in their home from having a nearby cell tower could very likely be greater than the values that I'm showing you right here. So, why is this happening? And I

065think this is something else you need to know and it certainly had an impact on us in the commission and that is captured agency. How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. This is not from some extremist website. This is from the Harvard University Center for Ethics. And what it shows here is that industry controls the FCC. And they have this revolving door here where people who run the FCC, well, they then one year they're going to be running industry or have a high position in industry the next year and they'll keep going back and forth. And there are plenty of examples of that that are documented in this report. So you might want to Google simply Harvard FCC captured and you'll come up with this report. It's it's good

066reading. And what that report shows is how the industry is keeping us in the dark. And that's why I feel compelled to be out here talking to you tonight because you're not going to be hearing this information from many other sources because who has a huge influence on the media but one of media's major advertisers that is telecom and also who owns a lot of telecom telecom is own the people who will own telecom off also own a lot of media outlets. So, uh, they use a lot of money and they know how to use it. Yeah. Kent, I'm going to I'm going to interrupt you for a second. Yeah. I I appreciate all that you're It feels like you're off the health issues and you're more into telling us a little more information that

067I appreciate, but um we're running, you know, time is is is important. So, are you done with the health presentation? Uh, let me make sure. Uh yeah. Yeah, I really am. But just remember what uh you I can't see you guys well enough to know if you're old enough to remember commercials like these, but cigarettes do not cause cancers. It be careful when you have people from industry funding things like this that tell you it's okay. It's not. But you can see that it's something that it radiation low-level wireless radiation is something that happens over time and you don't want to have it near your home. Okay. Thank you. Uh are there more are there more things relevant to the factors that I expressed regarding the variance for example? Uh you said you were going

068to talk about some safety issues. Well, the safety issue was in the middle of talking about dropped calls and I'd like to hear that information. Okay, I'll go back to that. Okay. So, yeah, you need to prove it. If you have you're claiming that there are dropped calls, how do you prove it? And I did want to say things about mapping because uh I'm going to go back to the map and show it show it off. Um and I certainly understand the time crunch. So if you look at the maps that are provided and I I did right. So once you got me started I I jumped away from this and right here you should see it. Um it they show this gap in coverage. Well that's for they're only showing in green things that

069are a very good and strong signal. But what it's pretty clear to me is that you have uh plenty of signal in this area right here. You you don't have an issue. You don't need another tower unless you want to put in the 5G home internet. Now, I'm not a believer I'm a I'm a very much a believer in modeling, but what I am not a believer in is looking at just modeled results that are just tossed at you. I I I've seen too many times where there's an effect called GO Garbage in garbage out. And so, they're just presenting a map. How do you know it's right? And so the thing that is oftentimes required when you're providing model data is you have to at least have some calibration point and some validation information.

070Okay. Yeah. What if they gave what if they gave us the dropped fall data? How would we know it's I mean how would we know it was honest either? I mean how we we the only way we could know this is this is accurate is one to bring our common sense to it. Yeah. And the other based on what you just said is um you know what is it that we want as a community and uh you know if the community wants 5G internet then maybe maybe that tower is a good idea. So you know it's all I so I thank you very much. Are there other things that um that you that are different from the is that was he helpful? That's fine. Um No, no, please. Um, is there anything else that other

071areas that you want to talk about? Then if there are people here that want to ask you questions, that's fine, but I just want to get an idea of what's left for your presentation. Well, I mean I I whipped through some things and I could have spent more time in explaining more deeply, but the bottom line is that you take a commission of of experts uh who have expertise to answer the question about the the effects of h on health and the environment of something like wireless radiation. And we came to the conclusion that yeah, it's harmful and you should do things to protect people against it. And towers should be located no closer than 500 m, which is 1,640 ft from where people live, work, or recreate. Okay. Well, that's that's a good point

072and thank you. We we did get that. Go ahead. Small quick question about name again just for the record, just so we can hear it. Page nine, Minor Street. um 5G, 4G, 3G, whatever. Antique buildings, my 4G and my 3G work better than 5G, especially when I'm in an antique building, which we have a lot of around here. And so to try to get coverage, I work in a spot on Main Street and if my cell phone goes off, I got to walk out to the sidewalk to get it to work. I didn't have to do that with my 4G. when you're looking at these coverage and dropped calls, is the fact those calls to be dropped under 4G at all part of the equation? Actually, I'm glad you asked that question because I was

073going to talk about inbuilding reception. I've got a lot of experience with that. But there are lots of solutions. There are some buildings where just for any of the G's just do not get inside that building. For example, buildings with rebar, metal roofs, low e-lass, those are have huge amounts of tend attenuation. And so the solution there, and it's a solution that I've implemented for people in the past, is to get a a booster. And so you can have an antenna outside and then you have an antenna inside and your reception is perfect. It's beautiful. So that's that's one solution. And you know that when you go into certain tuh tunnels like in some of the Boston tunnels, you get great reception. How do they do that? Well, they use boosters. Another thing that you

074might want to consider, which is what I use also, is uh Wi-Fi calling. Wi-Fi calling works fantastic. And so if you have Wi-Fi calli calling turned on on your phone and you don't have a signal from the cell tower, you get perfect reception from Wi-Fi and it works great. So, that would be my recommendation is just simply go onto your phone, turn on Wi-Fi calling. It's one of those one little switch and you'll find that you do have coverage that you need, assuming that you're connected to a Wi-Fi network in your in your building, in your work. You won't have to go outside again. Okay. Thank you. Uh, anyone else? You have a question, please. Uh, Kent, this is Peter on the on the board. At our la at our last meeting, we had several

075community members, fire chief included, that indicated there is a need for improved cell service in a need for better communications. He did it from a operational sense. So I know you're talking about definitive details, but certainly listening to him giving us examples of where he needs better service and other community members who indicated they did not have good service, you know, are part of what we've heard. So, you know, for me, it's hard to sift through that everything's fine, yet we're having people who provide community services for fire safety that are saying they're not. Well, I'm really surprised to hear that I've worked with our local fire department on their communications needs and they all all fire departments and police departments that I know of have their own independent communication networks. And so, and the

076same thing is that if you're talking about there being able to use a cell phone in their buildings, you can use a repeater or something like that, a booster, and and they work fine. And I know that from experience. So, there are always almost always uh other ways of doing things other than putting up a huge tower that's going to change the nature of your community and also make it so that some people cannot avoid being exposed. there's this issue and I didn't talk about that and that's called you know it had been called electromagnetic hypersensitivity it's real and that's what we found on the commission that's where there are people when they get near a cell phone or any type of RF generation generating device they can't be near they get headaches they get

077nauseous this is it's a very real thing now people in industry will say no it's all in their heads it's not it's very real and that was a finding of the commission So, you don't want to simply put up that tower. And that's why really why I'm here and saying there are always alternatives that can give you coverage. Uh you saw the the level of signal that you need to have a robust call and it's not anywhere near the type of exposures that people would get living near to a cell tower. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Alana, can you Alana 167? I just want to acknowledge that I spoke last week uh around my in-depth interviews with the fire department in Greenfield, with the police department and the emergency responders, the ambulance contractor. And in all

078of those conversations, no one indicated to me that there were significant gaps or any gaps that they were struggling with with cellular coverage. and they use a radio system as a backup. Um, the manager of the dispatch center at the the ambulance contractor said to me, and I quoted it last week, that the coverage in Greenfield is good. There are no issues even up in the hills. So, what I'm trying to say is that we had uh the fire chief say that to us last week. Um I interviewed those those people in those different emergency responder um departments who contradicted that and because of the contradictions we need the the town of Greenfield could take a deeper look at where are the coverage gaps and really explore this in a compreh comprehensive way. The question

079we are looking at regarding this tower at this location is not the answer. I mean, this is AT&T is coming in. They're claiming a coverage gap that to me has not been substantiated with data, a significant coverage gap. And the these are you don't want to conflate what the fire department chief said with, oh, because he said that, we really need to look at approving this tower. They're they're two different issues and I hope we can see the differentiation here. If there are people want good coverage in Greenfield, I acknowledge that. I respect it. People deserve it. But there are ways to achieve that in ways that do not harm neighborhoods and have the impacts that we're talking about. Um, and I'm not just talking about the health the health piece that Kent is talking

080about, which is significant for many of us here. There are other issues with property devaluation. The aesthetics of seeing a 100 foot tower looming over the sky for so many residents, safety issues. There are many many things. Kent was talking about the home internet market and the jamming of lines and the cyber security issues. So, I just I I understand that the fire chief brought this up that he pointed to two areas in Greenfield that have he has seen some areas that need improvement. I understand that, but please I just don't I just want us to differentiate the two and focus on this application at this location. There may be other way. There are many other ways to improve cell service in Greenfield without putting a this 170 foot tower in an area that is

081not zone current and requires a variance. Yes, ma'am. Suzanne Flurry, 97 Newton Street. We're right across the street from the storage unit. We saw the balloon test go up the other day. is going to completely ruin the aesthetic of the area from our our location. Um, it's insanely obvious. It's far above the tree line. Uh, I work in it. I work from home 3 days a week. I have no problem with cell phone coverage. Uh, I use Wi-Fi calling inside of my house and when I step outside my house, my service is better. Um, I have not experienced dropped calls. Uh, I can see the highway. I can walk to the highway within 5 minutes. Um, I can walk to the offramp within two. I don't see the need for this. Yes, I'll go back.

082I'll get back. Uh, Stacey Jar, 79 Newton Street. Can you tell me your last name for this? Gig E. Thank you. Did you say Newton Street? Yes. 79. Thank you. Um, I also gave the test on Saturday and it confirmed to me that that tower is from my front door. It's going to be about at my 1:00, very close to my house. Um, and it's going to tower over the trees. Um, I definitely have some safety concerns. There's a freight train that rumbles through the neighborhood several times a day. um that has not been discussed and I understand that there are provisions built into the tower to supposedly allow it to fall out of point but I'm not sure how much I trust that or pieces flying off the top of it from such a

083height. Um I additionally have concerns about devaluation of property. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just taking notes so I'll be right with the next person. sir. I live at 481 very I have two young children. one is two five and u no expert I've been around for a long time 77 years old and at one point in my career I was the responsible building nuclear site police security force for a whole year during that time we took lots of courses in health physics and the dangers of of But the building is for lowle radiation. Every day we wore seminars, okay, which measured how much radiation you got. And every day we were sure that you're not getting enough radiation, get more from the sun than you could, which was it was it was all nonsense.

084It was all they were all surveys they've done that that moved in in the direction of a vehicle. the company that owned the power point at the time. Just coincidentally at that time uh 1980 pretty well only happened and plans to build Pilgrim 2 suddenly were show and that was because two there were a couple reason. One of them was that Pilg had the worst safety reason breathing in the whole country. Okay, we would bring people in to do work in the nuclear reactor, okay? And they would go into areas that were hot, but they would work for maybe a week and then they had to they had to take the rest of the gear off because their accumulation lowle radiation was so high that it was caught. Now again they told us time and

085time again there was no nothing to worry about but every day I would get a dose reading they I would write it down. I went to a doc my doctor because my hair was falling out at that time and I I had here and it's it's left but I don't blame it on the nuclear side. both. But um I went to the do my doctor and he said if I were you, I'd find another job. Something that doesn't expose you to lowle radiation. I don't the one the one reason alone I stick to my mind but I have children and that means we're going to be they're going to be exposed to lowle radiation that they would not normally be exposed to. And I'm not talking about sunshine talking about real lowle radiation. don't want

086that for them. I'm at the point where if this tower is approved, I'm I know my property values are going down. I'm going to move. I'm not going to be within the area of that cell tower. Just like the people who moved away from one, okay, years and years later, surveys later showed that people who live just in proximity got cancelled. Why? Oh, little radiation dose of doses of it after a while. I mean, and that's just that's just I'm speaking from experience here, okay? When I first got there at the nuclear site, I was terrified. There was lead bricks floating around puddles in places where they had meat. And if you walk if you walked underneath the power lines with the with a light bulb, it was kind of a joke. When they were

087generating energy, the light bulb would light right up. Boom. So, what you can't see can't hurt you. Okay? I don't care what they're selling at. Thank you. I just wanted to make a suggestion because we had um our presenters scheduled to speak first today. That's what we were hoping. So I was going to suggest that if there are people who have comments and they cannot stay like later for other public comments, maybe you should say yours. we need to leave and then we could get back to the presentation. I just want to propose that. I don't know if Ken has finished his presentation. I know we still have Andrew. Yes, Michael. I just want to point out that Mr. Campelli or Attorney Campelli has got his hand raised for a little bit. Yes, sir. Want

088to make you aware that attorney Campanelli is your is is that on there because you want to speak? Yes. Okay. Thank you. speak. Thank you. Good evening. Uh, for those of you who don't know me, my name is Andrew. Oh, hold it. Is it Is it to make your presentation or did you want to Yes. Oh, yes. Well, I wanted to make a comment earlier, but it's a little late for it. So, I can wait for the presentation. It's up to you. I'm gonna ask you to just hold one more. You've been very patient, so I'm I'm going to I'm going to use your patience to my advantage. Um, okay. You folks are This is your presentation. You know who these people are. We'll stay here and listen for a reasonable amount of time which

089for me is a for you is a long period of time. So I need somebody to be in control. You seem to be in control of the events. You do you want to ask what? Can I can I make one more comment as part of the comments? Yes. Um my name is Buana Disovich 2 High Street. Um I'm nowhere near the area where the tower apparently is going to go up, but I wanted to bring to your attention a case that is currently being fought not far from here. Maybe some of you are familiar with Pittsfield. There's a group of uh residents in Pittsfield, Massachusetts who has been battling a very very long and glorious case with Verizon tower going up in their own neighborhood. And the tower in 2020 was built in a residential

090neighborhood. Shortly after the residents who live near the tower had started experiencing health issues, including children. uh the uptick of illness has gone has increased so much that few years later the department the board of health of Pittsfield had to be involved and I will read something just uh so that I don't misinterpret their um information. Basically, the uh the group of residents has sued Verizon um and has asked them to either remove the tower or lower the emissions. And I'm just trying to exemplify to you that once the tower goes up is it's such a hard it's almost impossible to get them to change or take it down because they hide behind the FCC outdated emission laws that as um our presenter had mentioned have not been updated since uh 1986 way before we

091had cell phones and wireless um radiation. So they're absolutely inadequate. Um so in 20 uh two years later in 2022, the board of health um in Pittsfield, this is what it says. In February 2022, the board after reaching the health impacts of radio frequency radiation emitted by the tower issued a cease and desist order to Verizon unless the telecom giant agreed to discuss removing or relocating the tower. Verizon of course sued and they have been in limbo ever since. So if you make a decision to build that tower in a residential area, you're basically con convicting these people to either relocate or for them to become permanently sick. And I will I will just read one last quote from one of the residents who is the plaintiff and who has been injured by the cell

092tower. The injured neighbors still living in Shel Town want to live safely in their own houses without feeling dizzy, nauseous, without experiencing palpitations, aids, cardiac issues, migraines, and other neurological symptoms. We have been begging for help for the last four years, 7 months and 21 days. And up until the board of health became involved, all we had is fingerpointing on whose responsibility it is to deal with the community health problem. It feels like Verizon just wants us to shut up and die. So I think we have a precedent of what happens when a cell tower goes up in a residential neighborhood where he doesn't have any business of being in. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that information. Um okay. So Campanelli is Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I left my eye behind. I

093know. I know you didn't get this. Can I ask you to fail? Are you on the paper? No. Let me know what you're doing. Okay. Thank you. Does allow for people's rights to their privacy? I have a question for Kent Chamberlain. Uh Eric Green on the zoning board of appeals. My question is this. Have you heard about other bodies such as this zoning board or planning boards who have successfully challenged uh proposals to put up a cell a cell tower and where there was a question about the gap in coverage and if so what data was used to successfully challenge the um claims of the cell phone companies that they had a gap in coverage that needed to be filled so that we can have some guidance on what kind of data we need to

094have at hand to make a a challenge if that's appropriate. Well, Attorney Campelli probably can provide you with some good information there himself, but what I've I Yes, the answer is yes. I've seen it happen in multiple municipalities where people are first of all are unaware of the harms of wireless radiation. So they are thinking along the lines of initially like what I heard somebody say a moment ago and that is yeah they want to have greater cell phone coverage that seems to be a priority but then once people hear about the harms of wireless radiation then they take action. So I've seen people be successful at the grassroots level and one way to do it is to go into the claimed areas of gap. you know, just have people do this, you know, go

095in, make a phone call from in within the gap areas and then, you know, uh, sign an affidavit, say, "Hey, I, you know, I was here and I was able to place a phone call." And that to a large degree discredits the what's being said by the or in the claims of gap areas existence. So, that's just one thing. You you also want to have a well-known and and very successful attorney like attorney Campanelli to kind of guide you through that process. What is it that you need to collect? What is it that you need to do to be successful in denying a tower and people are doing it so it's not like this is you'd be the first? No, not by any means. Lots of communities have done that. And then after that, yeah,

096my question was specific and perhaps attorney camp will address this to challenges that have survived the appeals process in the courts because there are plenty of places that have turned down uh towers, but that was then overturned by uh the courts as not being sufficient. Yeah, I think attorney Campanelli that probably wants to address it. But again, attorney Campanelli, your patience is just so thrills me. So, how about uh Kent, are you are you ready to wrap up or are you going to stick around in case there are other questions or how what what's Well, actually, I have to leave. I'm going out of town and so I need to go pack and have dinner. Okay, that's good. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming. No other questions, right? Everybody's good. Okay. Thank you.

097Thank you so much. Yeah. Yeah. Attorney Camp, I'm going to ask you for like the gold standard of patience, which is that we're going to have to take a five minute break because you could see how old we all are. So, we will be back and then we're going to be ready. Obvious otherwise, it'd all be our legs will be moving up and down. You know what I'm saying? Okay. Let's take a five minute break. Thank you, David. figure that out. Welcome to the This might be a little better than this chicken. That is the general question. editors first. So many ways to solve that. So many ways to solve it. It doesn't involve often times I don't understand the whole else. I also think about against all locations. I don't I don't know where

098to get you a copy of it, but it's in bottles. It's warm out. Yeah, it's getting warm. That's good. That helps. That's on medium. Too young. No, never too young to retire. What? Oh, no. You have to work 40 years to get 80%. Yeah. I mean, some people have reached 80% but they've never worked anywhere else their whole lives. Maybe I've traveled the world [Music] and merge all that. But I'll have to still I keep telling everybody it's an individual decision. You wake up one morning and you know when you want to retire. I mean work to me has always been a job not a career. No, I enjoy it. Yeah. Yeah. So like people life is a job. No, man. The only reason I work is I have to work. See, I don't but

099I never work. I got called my wife at 2:30 in the morning. 91 in hard. I was 66 years old. our asset retiring. I'm down here with a crew. We lost a highway. One guy was 10 years. Another guy was 20 years with a bad guy. Nice oldest guy. I'm getting out of here. Connecticut was the biggest. I just read a posting from LinkedIn. The jobs like radiation therapists and neutral ear technicians had 65 60 million job openings last year. Not us. What is our next the last one that I was made one at this point for us made it's not it's not there is ours thank you September we had to be done by the end of May right yes May 30th is the cut off okay they ask for another oh yeah they

100could you sign an agreement the board we have to make every effort to get to the finish line by the end of May. It's possible to get to the end of the finish line by the end of May. Then we'll all know it and we'll figure it out. But are you optimistic? It depends on It depends. No, I I I Yes, I am on some levels that let's put it this way. I'm optimistic that we will move forward in good faith to get to the right answers and whatever wherever that leads us. We all know what your summary was really good. I thought it was very good at pointed out to them. That's because I I've been learned not around the cell phone but the development was the same kind of thing but our procedures

101process but they don't have they don't we we have our concerns because of what we're allowed to People need they have they have different they have different concerns rightfully so if I lived in the neighborhood I'd have a different concern not the missing tic tac alcohol we're starting across the way. You know what? I will take you with that story moved. We need to finish. You good? Attorney Campanelli, thank you again in sincerity for being so patient. Your your turn. Go. Okay. Thank you. So, I'll be very brief in my introduction. My name is Andrew Campanelli. I'm hold. Can we please respect our speakers and allow them to have the screen so everyone can see that? So, we have to change the view just like we have done with Okay. this place if you ask

102a question happy to help you but that's not what you're doing. So what is it we like to do? So as we've done with other speakers um we have it doesn't matter what we do with other speakers. What would you like us to do? We enlarge it so we can see. Yes, I think we can try to do that. Okay. Uh Eric, can we try to do that? I can try to do it. I can't guarantee I can do it but let's see. View. View should be the option. Let's see. Speaker. Hey. It wasn't hard. You all set when you are we good? Good. Okay. So, again, I am an attorney. I've been handling uh wireless cases regulations since the Telecommunications Act was adopted back in 1996. So, it's over 30 years I've handled cases

103not just across the state of New York and Massachusetts, but across the entire United States of America. I've dealt with every type of cell phone issue you can possibly think of. So, let me start with some very intelligent questions that were asked by members of the board with regard to evidence. Um, Dr. Chamberlain was correct that this applicant has failed to provide you with any probative evidence to establish there's an actual need for this facility either for a significant gap in personal wireless services or a capacity deficiency. Now um in I hope that each of you have seen the memorandum opposition which I previously submitted along with the exhibits in opposition. Normally if there was an actual gap in service what a carrier would do is they would come to you and say look based

104upon the topography in your city the minimum signal strength we need to maintain reliable wireless service is minus 98 dBmi they will then do a drive test where they record the actual signal strength throughout the city. Then they give you the signal strength data that shows you three things. The existence of a gap, the locations of the gap and the boundaries of the gap. They didn't do that here with good reason because there are no gaps. Attached to the exhibits that I've submitted to you as exhibit F is the actual coverage map from the FCC showing that AT&T has no gaps in service at the precise location where they want to build this facility. The signal strength does not drop too low to maintain a call. In response, and this is particularly troublesome, the applicant's

105attorney sent a response dated April 8th and pulled what I call a bait and switch. in their response trying to explain away the fact that according to the FCC there are no gaps in coverage and by the way they have to provide AT&T has to provide the coverage data to the FCC to get federal grant money and when they do so they do so under threat of criminal penalties for filing false instruments so usually the FCC's maps are the most accurate maps of coverage that you can possibly get so in response they claim that if you if I would have looked there would have been disclaimer and if I look at the FCC's map with the disclaimer, it shows that the FCC's map is close to the map they presented to you, but it's not.

106If you look at the map they presented you, right on the top, it says FCC National Broadband Map invehicle mobile coverage. So, I provided you the actual map for their cellular phone coverage and in response they pull a bait and switch and they give you a map for their broadband coverage. They are two completely different things. You are not required to allow them to build a cell tower for boardband. This is exactly what Dr. Chamberlain was talking about. This has nothing to do with cellular coverage. Now, one of your board members asked about what evidence can we get. Well, here's the way it works. Under federal law, you get to decide what evidence you can require an applicant to produce to prove number one that they have a significant gap in personal wireless services that

107requires the building of this tower or a capacity deficiency. You also get to choose the weight to give any piece of evidence they submit to you. This applicant doesn't get to walk in and say, "We have a gap, so you got to give it to us." It doesn't work that way. So, let's talk about the evidence you can ask for. You absolutely positively can call ask for the dropped call records. They're called denial of service records. I know that because I get them on a regular basis. In fact, as we speak today, I'm representing the county the county of Mammoth in New Jersey in a case Verizon Wallace Wireless versus the County of Monmouth, New Jersey. It's in the United States District Court. The index number is 23-CV-18091. I did not handle the zoning application

108case. After the zoning application was denied, Verizon sued MAME claiming that they had a capacity deficiency and thus the denial was an effective prohibition on the TCA. And I walked into federal court New Jersey and said if they claim they have a gap, excuse me, a capacity deficiency, they have to produce the dropped call records. And the federal judge ordered them to produce the drop call records. And there were thousands of pages of records regarding alleged drop calls, which shows they don't really have a gap. They were claiming that existed. So you absolutely have the right to demand they provide probitative evidence of the capacity deficiency. And those are denial of service records, i.e. drop call records. And they can do it very easily. They can hit a few keystrokes into AT&T's computer and they

109can print out a list of all drop calls to any geographic location for any chronological period in time. Now, what about claims of a gap in service? The same thing. You can demand actual hard data. You can require them to do a drive test. Um, I would ask you to look at the Xanet case. Very important case for your purposes. Xanet Systems versus the village of Flower Hills. The citation is 617F sub3rd 125 Eastern District of New York 72922. This was one of my cases. Xanet went into the village of Flower Hills and wanted to build wireless facilities every 150 ft in a residential neighborhood for broadband claiming it was for 5G. They refused to provide data other than data regarding 5G service. and their attorneys produced evidence claiming that they established that Verizon had

110a gap in its 5G service. Based upon May recommendations and their lack of evidence, the village turned down the application. Verizon sued in federal court. Here's the citation. The court threw it out. The court said to prove that there's a gap in service. You can't just prove there's a gap in 5G service. The applicant has to prove that one of its customers cannot use its phone to connect to a landline. That's what they said and the court explained how it works. If for argument sake Verizon has a gap in 5G service and someone's driving through the village on a phone call using 5G service and the signal strength drops too low to maintain the call, your phone will simply downshift to 4G or 3G or 2G and the user won't even know it. And so

111simply proving that you have gap in one frequency, which is precisely what they're doing here does not establish a significant gap in service as a matter of law. It's clear. So you have the right to say to the applicant, you got a gap in service, give us the drive test data. Give us the actual recorded signal strengths. You got a capacity deficiency, give us the denial serer records, also known as the drop call records. You have the right to demand it. And more importantly, you have the right to choose how much weight to give whatever evidence they've given you. And the propagation they maps have given you, I respectfully submit to you, are nonsense. They don't address all of the frequencies at which AT&T provides its services. They claim that to have good service in

112the city, they need a signal strength of between 400% and 21% higher than the signal strength that AT&T needs to provide wireless services anywhere else in the United States. It's nonsense. And just so you understand, the way the dBA measurements work is the closer you get to zero, the stronger the signal strength. Every 3dBM you change, the signal strength doubles. So in most of my cases all across the country, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile say the signal strength they need for reliable wireless service is minus 98 dBm. If you go down to 90 95, it's twice as strong. If you go to minus 93, it's 400% stronger. They're claiming they need minus 83. Why didn't signal strength 2,000% stronger in your city to provide wireless service than they need anywhere else in the United States? If you

113can figure that out, you're smarter than I am. Now, the first thing you're dealing with is a variance application. The variance of law is very clear. Oh, let me back up. The reason this is so important and why you have to make a factual determination as to whether or not this applicant has proven number one it suffers from either a significant gap in personal wireless services or a capacity deficiency and number two its proposed facility is the least intrusive means. In fact, the only viable means of rememing that gap and there are no possible alternative locations is because if and only if they prove to your satisfaction both of those things that nothing else matters. You have to grant the application even if it violates every other section of your code. But you get to

114make those factual determinations, not them. Now, putting that aside because I don't think there's any probative evidence through which they can claim to have established those things. You look at the standard for a varian for a variance. You know what they are has to be a substantial hardship by the applicant. Without proof that they actually need this to provide wireless services, there is no substantial hardship. Also, they have to show it's their burden that granting the application won't nullify or substantially deviate from the purpose of the zoning regulations. There are reasons you adopted a special use permit requirement, site plan approval requirement and distance and height limitations for and they were to prevent the precise types of adverse impacts that the irresponsible placement of this facility at this location will inflict upon the nearby homeowners.

115You know what they are? Number one, you're going to have an adverse aesthetic impact. It's clear. I cited in my brief the Omnioint case. What how can you prove that there'll be an adverse aesthetic impact? Well, federal court omnipoint, which is cited in the brief, said the persons in the best position to both know and understand both the nature and the extent of adverse aesthetic impacts that homeowners will suffer are the homeowners themselves. And so they provided you with letters which rise to a level of substantial evidence. And they talk about how the colossal proposed tower equivalent to a 16 or 17 story tower building would be visible from all the side and rear windows of our home. These are the precise types of adverse aesthetic impacts you adopted your special use permit requirement and

116site plan requirements to prevent in the first place. So granted this variance, much less the special use permit, not only violate your code, it would inflict upon the nearby homes the precise types of adverse impacts that your code provisions were adopted to prevent in the first instance. Then if Kaishi got the fall zone, there's a reason that all jurisdictions across the United States impose setback zones for cell towers. In most cases, the standard is 110% of the height of the tower. It's to protect the dense the dangers of structural failure, ice fall, debris fall, fire. Please go to my memo, the exhibits on my memo, and take a look at exhibit B. Exhibit B shows many examples. My favorite is the Oswiggo cell tower collapse. This is a 165- ft cell tower that was supposed

117to be able to collapse on itself that only two weeks after it was built went from being 165 ft tall to being 172 foot long, crushing a fire chief's vehicle in the process. And I always ask town board members and village board members, planning board and ZBAS, if they can't build tower stand up in the first place, what makes you think they're going to be any better at making it fail the way they want it to fail? And the answer is they can't. Look at exhibit B and you see plenty of examples where cell towers collapse to a distance greater than the actual height of the tower. So there is no way they can justify obtaining a variance for relief from the minimum distance necessary to protect the surrounding properties from the potential danger of

118structural failures which happen on a regular basis. By the way, does any if anybody has any questions, please ask me. Um, you guys asked some very, very good questions, which shows you know what you're doing. Um, and I really appreciate that. Sometimes I deal with boards that really just don't understand the process. So, and anytime somebody has a question, please let me know. Um, there's talk about the fire department or the police department needing this. There is no evidence whatsoever in the record that your fire department or police department would derive any benefit whatsoever ever from this tower. Let's talk about it. Okay. As many of you may or may not know, fire departments and police departments work on their own frequencies. They use UHF and VHF. And if in fact there are gaps in

119those services, you have no idea if there are or where they are. The way that should be addressed is if you have concerns that either the UHF or the VHF coverage, either the fire department or the police department has gaps. It's the same thing. They do a drive test. They record the signal strength for their coverage and it would show you gaps. If and only if they provide that coverage data, are you then in a placed in a position to figure out if either your fire department or police department is going to drive any benefit whatsoever from this tower? And if to the extent they want to use cell phone coverage or cellular coverage to make a call, well, we're right back where we started. There is no hard data, no probative data whatsoever showing

120actual signal strengths anywhere within the city. No hard data showing any gaps, the location of the gaps or the boundaries of the gaps. Now, um, bear with me one second. I'm sorry. As far as the adverse aesthetic impacts, I heard the applicant say at one of these many meetings where they droned on for hours, oh, they're going to be it's going to be totally shielded by foliage. Foliage. This tower is going to is going to tower 100 ft above the tree line. It's going to dwarf any tree in close proximity. It is physically impossible for anything to shield a 17story tower at the location they want it. Not to mention that once it's built, if you permit it under the middle class tax relief and job creation act of 2020 202, if the applicant wants

121to increase the height after it's built, they can increase the height an additional 20 ft and you will be powerless to stop them. So if you think the fall zone is not sufficient now or the adverse aesthetic impact is bad now, think about when they raise it to 190. Think about the potential there. And by the way, based upon the drawings and the base being 32.6 ft deep, the base is designed to accommodate a tower of up to 199 ft. So that being said, I respectfully submit number one. They haven't shown a substantial hardship, which is one of the first criteria for granting a variance under your law. And they certainly haven't shown that granting the application would not substantially deviate from the purpose of the zoning regulations. You're going to have adverse aesthetic impacts.

122You're going to have a property value adverse impact. It's going to be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. You have an insufficient fall zone. Um, if any of you have not seen it or read it yet, please read my memorandum in opposition. um because I make sure that I guide local boards so that if they choose to deny an application, they do so in a way that does not violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996. There's just one further point I'd like to address and it has to do with one of the questions that one of the board members asked about citations to cases where a local board turned down an application and it withtood challenge in federal court. Because when local municipal attorneys do research on federal courts, they don't know it, but they

123looked at the wrong universe. I'm going explain to you what that means. I have never had a case in 30 years where I created a proper record before a local zoning board and I don't care if it was a planning board, planning council, ZBA, board of trustees when I counseledled a local board or appear before a board and advocated for denial and a proper record was created, sufficient evidence was entered into the record to serve as a basis for the denial and they denied the application. They never got sued. If there are 10 applications and in eight of them the board denies it pursuant to their local laws and consistent with the procedural requirements of the Telecommunications Act, they deny it. That's the end of it. It never makes it to federal court. The only

124time a town, county, or village or city gets sued in federal court are in those cases where they didn't understand what they had to do. And so they violated the TCA and they get sued. And so in 80% of the cases where they get sued, they lose, but only because those are the cases where they violated the TCA. So the the pitfall for local municipal attorneys is when they go to their classic research tools like Lexus or West Law and they look it up, they say, "Oh my god, 80% of the time the town gets sued." It's because they only bring the cases when you don't have a proper record before you. And you, I respectfully submit, have a proper record. This applicant has not placed you in a position to ascertain to any agree

125number one that this tower is necessary. Number two, that anyone would derive any benefit whatsoever from the tower being built. And number three, that this tower would in any way, form, or shape be consistent with smart planning. Your goal should not be to stop cell towers. They are a necessary evil. But your goal should be the same as every other local government across the United States, which regulate wireless facilities and adopt ordinances just like yours to achieve three purposes simultaneously. You want to have these towers strategically placed so that you you will enable the carriers to saturate your city with coverage while at the same time minimize the number of towers you need to provide that coverage and avoid unnecessarily redundant wireless infrastructure and number two prevent the unnecessary adverse impacts due to the irresponsible

126placement of wireless facilities like this one and to preserve property values. And right now, this applicant has not given you any probative evidence to suggest or even to place you in a position to figure out if this would be consistent with smart planning because if there are gaps and this doesn't cover the gaps, they're coming back six months from now for another tower probably for broadband as well. But that's what's happening here. So, thank you for your time. Thank you for your patience and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Thank you. before before I I recognize you, sir. Anybody on the board have any questions? [Music] Take advantage of the fact that I looked over here, but I see. Do you have a question? I do. But is it a question

127of the of attorney? Yes. Please, please ask your question. Eric, thank you for this amazing presentation. Uh, repeat your name again for the record. It's Milan Reggie Savage High Street. Thank you, Milan. Thank you. Thank you for this really uh persuasive, diligent uh presentation. I have a question about what you said about the f the um debate and switch about the 5G, meaning that just because something is 5G, you said it can downshift to 4G, 3G, you'll still get coverage and not necessarily know it. So, it's not a question of the 5G. Can you go over that one more time? Sure. So most of your wireless carriers, well AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, they provide wireless coverage on at least 10 different frequencies. And so there are 10 different frequencies upon upon which an end user of

128an of their services, a customer who's got a contract with T-Mobile or AT&T, there's 10 different frequencies on which they can use their cell phone to connect to a landline. And this was all addressed by the federal district court in the XET versus um the village of Flower Hills. And so they went before Flower Hills and they said, "We have to put these wireless facilities every 150 ft in residential neighborhood." There were like 40 of them. And so they said, "Here's proof that we have gaps in our 5G coverage." And the board based upon the record I created denied the application. And they sued in federal court. And the court said, "Wait a minute. You have to admit that there's nothing in the record about your 4G coverage or 3G coverage. And you also have

129to admit that if someone is driving through the village on their phone using 5G signal strength and the 5G signal strength drops too low to maintain the call, the user's phone will downshift to a different frequency. It can downshift from 5G to 4G to 3G to 2G to 1G and the phone user won't know it. Their phone call will just continue. And so the court said to prove a gap in service, you have to prove that Verizon's customer can't use their phone to connect to a landline. In this applicant's application, they've only provided one or two frequencies of the 10 or 11 that this carrier uses. So, as a matter of law, they've not established the existence of a significant gap. And they certainly haven't established that one of its customers can't use a phone

130to connect to a landline. and backing it up with a broadband map which has nothing to do with cellia coverage proves absolutely nothing. Thank you. [Music] Thank you. Address please. David Levit for Fairview Terrace. Um, can it be so subjective that aesthetically, um, we could win because eight people that are inside of the tower, uh, feel that it degrades their peace or their whatever it be that aesthetics affects them from that. I know it's very subjective and and so I question that. Second aspect I have is we only know of this site. I think in a prior meeting uh or two there may have been other sites that they considered but this is the prime location for them because maybe it's the least financial outlay and maybe there are other places that cost them more

131but still do the same service like Home Depot's lot or the fairgrounds property. Yeah, they might have to rent the land in perpetuity and pay more, but it's it's less residential, per se. Um, thank you. Can I answer that or respond, please? So, it's critical for the board to understand that the grounds for denying this application does not come from the Telecommunications Act. It comes from a local zoning code. And so, the best I I I tell local government boards is put aside the Telecommunications Act right now. And now just look in your local zoning code and treat this as any other 17story tower. If someone came before you and asked for a variance to build a 17story tower, how you would treat it? Now aesthetics is a huge impact in terms of zoning. We

132spend billions of dollars on Home Depot and Lowe's for aesthetic purposes. Federal courts recognize that. And so federal courts across the entire United States recognize that potential adverse aesthetic impacts are a perfectly legal valid ground to deny an application for the installation of a cell tower if the adverse aesthetic impact is signi significant enough by the ZBA who should treat this like any other zoning application. The same goes for failure to have a sufficient spall zone around the tower or reduction in property values or even that the proposed location being so close to residential homes would be inconsistent with the res residential character of the neighborhood. Any one of these is a valid legal grounds to deny the application. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else have a question? 65 street. I just wanted to know,

133did you say that the roof of a cell tower goes down 32 feet? Yes. The the standard for a cell tower like this, uh, the base is a cylinder, usually six foot in diameter, typically goes down 32.5 ft or 33.5 ft depending on the ground. The little cylinder goes down. Okay. Attorney Campanelli, were were you when you made your when you said 32 feet, were you generalizing or had you looked at the engineering for this application? I'd have to go back. I thought I saw 32 33.5 on this one, but I I admit I haven't looked at it now in a couple of months, but your comment the question I just want to make sure we're apples and apples. your comment before ca the source of that comment I thought came from your memory of

134reviewing this project not generally that all cell towers go down 32 feet I believe that I saw the base because I looked at it trying to figure out if this tower is going to be 170 or 190. I could be mistaken because I've handled probably 40 cell tower cases between the now and the past two months. Um but their plans are going to show it. Just look at their plans. Yeah. No. I don't know. I I I just didn't want people to be leaving with some general assertion and I didn't think I didn't think you made that general assertion. So, so he I think he's commenting and those plans are on public record. So, correct and I'm sure attorney not not tonight, but attorney Rogan will talk about that at the next meeting. We can

135learn. But that that that information I I believe he was talking about our particular matter. I'm not going to guess. I'm gonna pull. All right. You you have some time there. Are you asking him a question or you making a comment? It's a question, but I don't He probably doesn't know the answer. When is this being decided by when it's being decided? Yeah. And have there been other sites that have already been denied or they've gone through and said this is the best one but there's a couple set this one and we're going to pursue that. Okay. Thanks for the question. Did everybody hear the question? Um I I don't want to speak for attorney Rosen's client. Um I my understanding is that through a method they rejected other sites numerous other sites came to

136us and there were different sites that had different reasons or outside some in Greenfield and some just outside of Greenfield. I I again I don't want to be I don't it's not fair for me to say that but like up on the trail for example and I think that's still great you know the tower um and then there's you know there's Deerfield right below us so I I I'd have to look at the map but it's generally in a circle that starts I think somewhere around uh oh actually I don't have I don't want to say anything so what would the second question when are we going to decide it and Um, so federal law requires us to move as move at a certain case and so we've kind of built momentum in this process.

137There were a couple of months of not really being able to sort of get started and now we're into the spring. So it's been a written agreement between the board, the applicant that by May 30th we will make a decision. Now to say this, if we think we need more information, we will ask the applicant for more information. And if that requires extension, then we'll see how that plays out. But the the thrust of it is that we're all trying to act in good faith to get this that to the second. If I can just add to that that May 30th date is an extension of that so that well I that's not really true because your you as the applicant reads every extension that we did at the end of the meeting. So my

138point Mr. chair was that we have been cooperative with the board. Yeah. I will confirm with that sentence. Yeah. Um uh did I help you answer your question? Did I answer your question? I is there a pursuing business? I don't know. That's a business decision. But the zoning board's only really the zoning board is is being presented with what they've done and comparing that to what attorney campelli and Rosen have that they believe is the law. And so that's all we can look at at least as far as I understand. Yeah. I want to go to the board before just for just to provide a little additional context. I would say uh three or four meetings ago. If you go back on the counter to town's calendar and find the zoom video, there was some

139discussion of the other sites that they had considered prior to submitting this application and what led them to submit this application. I don't remember the exact meeting date, but in the past two months, if you just looked through those CBA meetings, you would be able to find what where a few of other like hypothetical sites were discussed and kind of the path that led them to choose the current site there. I would agree with that. So that that would be the maps were provided by AT&T of what the pros and cons of the strength of signal were at each of those sites. if you haven't if you've missed those meetings, anybody here, I would suggest you do them and you'll get you'll get the answers to those questions. I I don't want to paraphrase, but

140thank you. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarification, sake we don't post the Zoom meetings on the website. Oh, no. You make a public information request and I will get you the Zoom recording. Oh, sorry. I city council. My bad. The minutes. The minutes are online. Yes. Okay. As it says no reason to deny the request, right? Oh, no. Grant the information that they presented was in the packets that which you may have. Yeah. Under the uh board when you go look at the board's agendas and minutes the if you see a packet click on that and then it'll have the data as well. Mr. Chair, I need some clarification. I think it was the last meeting of the previous meeting. We put a framework how to review information to make a decision.

141A framework to mean that I gave you all Yeah. To the board. Yes. And I'm trying to refresh myself with what that was and then all the information we had going into that process. How much of what I've heard would be blended into, you know, kind of the overview which I give him of things that he could consider making soon. Okay. Well, I'll relate it to attorney campelli. That's what's right. So for the record, I provided the award uh and I guess you could all look at it, but it's it's it's it's an outline of how I think we need to look at this in the context of the federal law being part of this process. So they help us all be on the same page including cases that were cited by the lawyers. I

142believe that it's my experience that attorney campanelli is giving us the correct um tests that we need to look at in order to figure out what to do. I I I assume attorney Rosen will agree with that to some degree. Maybe there are things that he might not agree with specifically, but I think what attorney Campanelli is saying to us is like as if we were a jury, which we are, I guess, that um that if you take the tests as they're presented in the cases as I showed you, right, the the gaps and uh and the and we can't prohibit to prohibit uh cellular service that he believes that they they haven't given us enough information and he's trying to explain to us what that gap in informations. I'm not going to comment on

143what I whether I how I what what weight I will give to what he says, but from from the limited experience that I've had, I believe that he's telling us what he's telling us is the correct law. And he's just saying if you look at the law the way I think you should look at the law, you'll come out with an answer that says X. Attorney Rosen is saying if you look at the way at the law the way I think you should look at the law, take my facts and blend them with the law, which is what we're going to do when we deliberate, then you should uh you should vote for the permit. Um I the reason the reason I sent you those things is not that you have to understand them in

144a minute. It's that if you read this stuff and then the conversation keeps repeating itself, you're going to begin a light will go off for each of the concepts. Maybe the concept in the abstract doesn't make any sense when you first read it. But maybe at a meeting somebody asks a question or attorney campanelli makes a point or attorney Rosa makes a point or any other people and you say, "Aha, now I okay, now I know how to connect that with the standard because I I you know that that's what I'm trying to train us to do." So by the time we get to deliberate and I don't want to deliberate now I won't even have any conversation about deliberation but we start to deliberate we're going to ask these questions of ourselves and we're

145going to go around the we're going to go around the table we're going to say so do you think and if you do why and do you think I don't why and you're going to have we're all going to have to substantiate to each other the evidence as it's been presented to us now that we're in this conversation I'm hoping that um by Tuesday uh not not Tuesday, the next meeting I think was the next meeting in May, the first meeting in May. Yes. That part of the meeting will be the rebuttal and then part of the meeting will begin that conversation so that we could tell ourselves whether we are satisfied that we have enough information to go forward with this decision. If we don't then I'd like people to bring that up at

146that meeting and then we can start asking people to to provide. Let me ask another question. Sure. Have a registered professional designed self. They put their credentials on that design. They did. We hired a peer review registered professional engineer who certified that what what they're proposing to do is sufficient. What what ability do we have challenge professors who put their license in position saying this is adequate protection? That's a really good question. Um I think I think we have to peel back the onion. How did people actually this profession certified that the calculations they've done they're really standard thank you thank you thank you well they suddenly review something they look at all the data and they feel what has been proposed to their standard is sufficient because if I want to make a decision

147I have to understand how I can differ with that unless You hire another peer review. Well, we did not hire a peer review to form an opinion about how they arrived at their gap coverage. No, I I'm just talking about Okay. So, wellap. I'm talking about well the structure the structure but we the structure has the structure has been reviewed by a peerreview and I I guess if you wish to give great weight to that evidence you can because you have an expert that is telling you that the tower is safe to begin with and the tower will be safe with the uh soft part in the center to the collapse part and So I'm providing great weight with that every but all but poor people have to but that but that's how it works.

148Yeah but I mean that is documented information I would attorney attorney's going to sure challenge it but I'm just saying for me I you know we went out and hired that expertise. Yeah, I think in the end, Pet, if this helps you, Peter, I think the end, you know, when we go through our deliberations and we talk everything through, we'll have to decide how much weight we're going to give that particular component as part of our decision, whether it's to the, you know, to the positive or negative. That's something I mean, we need more time to discuss in here because I'd like to go back through and just see when they did the peer review there. I to me it was a math check. It wasn't a I agree that this is safe. it was

149their math was good. That's how I took the peer review to be. So that's something we'll have to discuss and decide as a board how much weight we're going to give that. So to to add to that, I think we have to decide on what basis was that opinion derived. I bring this up as one of Yeah, that's a good question. I've got a whole sheet question. Can we All right. Can we hold Can we hold a little bit? I I that's a great question. If there are other questions that are helpful, um you you're okay. No, I've got a I have a question for Please. I've got a board member question before. Second. Okay. My question is this. you you said that um AT&T would have to provide us with drop call data and

150um drive test data to determine signal strength um in order to prove that there is a gap. I believe that was paraphrasing what you said. If that's correct, then um what is the significance of what we were told by attorney Rosen last week, which was that AT&T refuses to provide that data? Um and is that refusal alone cause for uh dismissing the the idea that there is a gap? Well, what I can tell you is again under federal law, it remains within your jurisdiction to require of a def of an applicant whatever evidence you deem reasonably necessary to enable you to make the factual determinations you need to make. And you also get to weigh the evidence and you get to weigh the veracity of anybody who testifies. And so if you believe and you've

151got now you've got the map from the FCC which shows there is no gap. So, one might say that it's reasonable that you require them to produce probitative data. Um, and I will tell you that I've had I would say within the past 18 months at least three cases where the applicant was requested to provide drop call data and they provided it because it was necessary for the board to ascertain if in fact they have a capacity deficiency. So, if they don't want to give it to you, you can what would you do if this was just some other type of zoning application? Forget that it's a cell tower. Treat it like any other zoning application. And suppose you asked an applicant to provide you with certain types of evidence and they refuse to do

152it. How does that how would that work under Massachusetts law? Bear in mind, I'm not admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I have been admitted to the federal court of Massachusetts and I'm admitted to the circuit court. But under the standard under Massachusetts law, are you allowed to ask them for evidence? And if they refuse to provide it, what is within your powers to do? can deny based upon that. That's governed purely by state law, not federal law. Thank you. We we understand it's it's again it goes to our bringing our our uh perspective to what we're listening to. Um okay, I'm going to go back to people. Somebody behind me want to have a question? Oh, you you had the original question, remember? That's right. You haven't spoken yet, have you? Yeah.

153Let her talk. She's been waiting forever. Amen. Address, please. There was one other person who spoke. I think my question is for both you and the um there was one other person who spoke up here who said if the tower goes up move and has young children I also have young children I'm not as close to the cell tower as that person but close enough that I don't like it and if the cell tower does go up I will also look to um and so solar weight is largely most 89% income based housing that would be a big financial hardship for me to move but I have little children I'm not willing to be exposed to that type of regular basis what like does that if enough people are saying if you put this up

154I'm moving that like does that impact this at all? I'll let I'll let attorney Keelan speak first. You can't Did you hear the question? I'm sorry. Yes. Um what is the impact of people saying they're going to move? Now it can we I think your question is because people will be if if an if a large if a large enough large enough number of people decide they are going to move because of the fears associated with health risks. Let's use that as an example or for whatever reason. Oh let's just use that of the cell tower. Well it it's for reasons for whatever reason. Okay. Is that is that evidence for the board to use in making its decision? No. No. Uh three things you cannot use. You cannot use people saying they're going to

155move if the tail goes up. Um you cannot unfortunately use concerns over the environmental impacts, i.e. the health concerns. And third, if someone, you know, if if a thousand people sign a petition and send a position petition to you, that also is not a valid legal grounds to deny the application. The valid grounds for denying it are set forth in your code. They're black and white. They're very simple. I thank you for that support. Thank you. Um, well, it was a clear answer. It was a very clear answer. Yeah. Uh, I won't, I promise. But if there's somebody else who hasn't spoken, there is one financial day that will affect the town because what happened in Pittsfield is those people can't give away their houses and they had to declare bankrupt. These are working class

156people slaughter and that will happen up there if enough people move out of there and nobody wants to buy it and then you've got your little mini turnover happy day people's not getting their taxes. So this will affect the town one way or but that doesn't mean it's not the board can look at well don't try to financial impact does affectction please don't try to second guess what we're going to do I mean you can speak especially those that are out of college yeah I'm sorry did I not did I fail to get your name and address my name is Diana I'm a business in Greenfield at 6 Thank you. One behind you. Go ahead. I have a question. Jonathan Marin4 Avery Brook Road, Charlemont. Thank you. I have a question for attorney campell. You

157still there? Yes. Um my question is it seems like if you just give a little broad overview of all the cases you're working on nationally it seems like generally um your carriers are not immediately forthcoming with job call data and you know they have to be requested repeatedly um and sometimes they say yes sometimes they say no. Can you give us just a quick sense of if that information which is what Dr. Chamberlain described as the gold standard. If that was routinely given as a matter of course, um could you give us a little sense of what how that might impact um their business plan overall? Well, what I'm seeing across the United States with the alleged 5G roll out is in the vast majority of applications, the towers that are being applied for are

158not necessary for voice coverage. It's not 5G or 4G or 3G. It's broadband. It's wireless internet. That's what the vast majority of applications are for. And yet the applicants come in and say, "We need this for 5G and 4G." And because they have 4G and 5G coverage, they can't provide the data because the data will show that there are no gaps. And as far as providing it, the federal court last month just made it crystal clear in Mammoth County, New Jersey. United States District Court in the District of New Jersey. Um the applicant wouldn't provide the drop call data and they filed a lawsuit and the federal judge said if you claim you got a gap a capacity deficiency, you have to give them the drop call data. So I got a federal judge saying

159that and that's from 2024. I want to follow his follow question. I want to expand it. Um, let's say they gave us the drop call data. What do you expect we would find? Number one, and what's wrong with the data that they've given us? They haven't given you probitative data. Um, I could prepare a map showing you the locations of all chunky cheeses listed located on the Gaza Strip in Israel. It would be completely untethered from reality, but I could give it to you. The maps they provided you have no data backing them up. Consider yourself a jury, a judge. You You want the applicant to provide evidence. The maps that they've given you would not be admitted as evidence in any federal or state court of anything. Nobody's verified these maps. They don't claim

160they're based upon actual data. They are desktop created maps. Somebody sat at a computer desktop and used software perhaps a and just created a color map without data b without the data that it was created from. It's the functional equivalent of giving your grandchild three colored crayons a car on a piece of paper and say here here's the coverage map. And I don't mean to sound facitious but if anybody ever tried that to get in court with that in front of a judge it'd never be admitted. Yeah, thank you. Questions behind you. We have some members here that have some obligations. So, so they Why don't you tell why don't you I don't know who I know this woman does Kate and I know other people comment question. So I didn't know if you're if

161you if there's a time factor you can speak on a comment or you can ask a question and address 9th Street. Um, and first of all, I'm a technologist. I am technology and I love it. And so for me, wanting to be able, as you mentioned, um, this is to me not about uh, do we need service? Do we need more? We're always going to need like out of the bottle or is this going to become a neverending voracious beast beast, right? So, but what we're not really here to talk about is there were enough specific proposal at specific locations that we're talking about and I mentioned that by Zoom at our last meeting in terms of funding and the issue of scale and tar but right now I just have questions. Um so far

162especially after watching these um presentations tonight I just don't get a sense that wireless has met three criteria for bearings. Uh the first one being hardship um I don't believe that they would impose serious hardship on them. um if they were to hit some weight for um since they don't own the property. Um should they not be able to build this tower, they would suffer any loss. Um because they entered into this conversation knowing that we might not be special. um they chose a site that would not accommodate them right that's their choice but they chose a site that knowingly they could not accomodate with that one specific way and that's what they consciously decided to take um but like this were things that they do by leaf uh they kind of just searching for

163a possibility they they test to see and then just work they not going to any suffering on their part. So to me I feel they have to invest in their lives they can go find even if you're nearby still help um number two has to do with conditions um site chosen cell tower it's not unique any way the building of it um it's not the language or the topography uh it's the problem but rather they're proposing to build tower are so much higher uh that is allowed for this property. Uh so any points made about conditions of property are points and therefore it's qualified. Um and number three regarding no public good. Um this third criteria states branding guarante regulations and so in addition to this comments he purchas also numerous submissions of evidence from

164residents showing identified such as fire zone evacuations cyber security and health uh something consider um she so based on those things notion not to based on what you mindful not please apply for the other first Oh, thank you for um my neck hurts. May ask again. Name your neck. Name address again. Dan Flurry, 97 Newton Street, Greenfield. Yes. Um Justin Rock when the balloon went up the other day. Take a look. I just feel the need to mention also in regards to the aesthetic. Um there are far far fewer trees between my house and the location of that than there are some of the other residents around um particularly on Newton Street um due to the fact that the storage facilities there and a lot of that was cleared out of trees for them to

165be able to build. So it's far far more obvious from my perspective than a lot of others. Okay. Thank you. Uh, go ahead. Mine's actually again name again. Just sorry. Julie Paige. That's fine. Hi, minor. Um, the attorney said that petitions and signatures and things don't matter. But then earlier this evening it was said that individual app and David showing you do from cell phone users showing they do have coverage and they are not dropping falls in the areas in the maps proposed that those do matter. So I'm a little lost on the petition versus affidavit. I don't and I'm also like looking for people who are concerned if we know that defeating the tower is going to be based on proving usage exists and the tower is not needed. Can people turn in something

166that says, "Hey, I got good cell phone cover here." Would that be of any value? All right, that's it for any uh I I I can answer it, but I need to collect my thoughts. Do you have a quick answer? Sure. Um, so there's a distinction between a petition and the other things you mentioned. Um, someone just gets 2,000 signatures on a petition that says we don't want the tower. That cannot be used as a basis to turn it down. That's not a legitimate objection to the tower. By contrast, if you say, um, it's going to have a dramatic adverse impact on my house because if it gets built, every time I look out my bedroom window, this is going to be dead set in the middle of my view. that is substantial evidence of

167an adverse aesthetic impact that counts. Now, as far as phone calls and say, you know, I don't have dropped calls, I will tell you that in most cases, if people say, you know, I've lived here 20 years, I use Verizon out and I drop calls. The wireless industry argues that that constitutes what's called anecdotal evidence. It's not enough of a statistical sample to be deemed reliable evidence. And so that's why the burden should be placed on the applicant to provide the evidence because they have it at their hands. It's easy to provide the evidence that the board needs to enable it to make a decision. That's where the evidence should come from. Okay. I want to add to that. I I I don't mean this personally. I right now, unless somebody tells me otherwise, I'm

168not accepting affidavit from people that tell me that they have dropped calls or not. All that says is I swear that something happened, but it's not evidence of any more than that. Just like I can't get He's much better at the analogies, but I will not accept that. I'm not going to have a thousand people walk in and tell me that they do or don't get. Yes. Um I'm Elizabeth 911. Just however, if you tell me anecdotally what you've experienced, I'm glad to hear. But it's not Yeah. I don't bl [Music] uh many of my neighbors are here. Um I'd like to read this. Okay. Why was asking for a variance that exists from having to comply with zone the height of the cell tower? They are proposing 170 ft or 14 stories. That may

169be a inaccurate 17 ft 14 stories. Well, it's 170 ft. Let's let's stick with that. Yeah, stick with that. This is not acceptable to the residents. It puts residents in public against their very unnecessary risk. The various stages surrounding cell towers and inadequate fall zones of but are not limited to cell tower collapses, cell tower fires and failing cell falling cell tower debris. During last public hearing on April 9th, RCBA chair shared that he had spoken to an engineer that would not tell him that the hinge design that the applicant has proposed for the cell was as safe as a fall zone safety and protection. The engineer told him that an add was the only truly assured protective measure with regards to a guarantee of safety for the residents. Need I say more? Thank you.

170And I ask that you deny this request for variance. What I meant to say in a what I'm being quoted as saying the meaning of my quote was that yes, the engineer said that he could not say that the that the brake was as safe as the fall. He didn't say that the brake wasn't safe. He just said it wasn't as safe as the false. That's that's a true statement. But other than that, we have to give it weight credibility. So that's don't don't get all excited. Yeah. Yes. I have a question. Please say say your name again just so when he reads when he takes the notes. Thank you. Yep. Um I have a question in that. Um this the cell phone company it's AT&T. Um are they're motivated by money. They want to

171make money. Everyone in this room is motivated by safety and health and security of our families and our home values. Good things. Motivation of money is the you know expanding business is totally different. What if suddenly like they they were like oh you know what we have come up with that information about all these problems. Is there a way for them to date such a document? And how would they how would we know how would you know that it's adopted false? Do they need to provide proof where it comes from? Because I honestly don't really trust a company like that to not try to do something that because they're you know I I understand what you're saying. I can't say that in my life I haven't or that I still don't have concerns about the

172things you're expressing. But when applicants come forward and they and they do it in in good faith, which I believe this application is totally being made in good faith, and good faith just means they believe that what they're doing is important for them in relationship to the laws that govern how they can proceed with this type of infrastructure. Um, I I just I actually question him. Is the attorney still there? Does he know? Well, I just want to answer, but I I went off on my phone. Is that a question for him? It's a question for him. Go for it. Did you I didn't hear the question. Have you ever seen companies try to falsify documents to say that they do have dropped faults? And how would how would a board know that a document

173is falsified? Well, two different questions. First question, I would say that in the applications that I see, I would say in 90% of the cases, applicants file either false or materially misleading documents in support of their applications. I do not I cannot say I've ever seen falsified drop call records. I think they'd kind of be hard to falsify. Um, so I I I will trust job call records more than uh than a a coverage map with no data backing it up. I don't want to I'm not ending on this. I'm not ending on this note. You have the right to your opinion and I appreciate it and you're the experienced guy and but you go all over the country and you deal with the rest of the United States. That's not what happens here. So

174you don't we don't people never lie to people. It's not about lying. You can tell when you you it's up to us to go through the evidence and figure out whether we find it credible. If we think it's not credible, then we'll make a decision that it's not. I'm not going I I don't want to have I want you clarify how you would know it was not. That's what I was asking just because I want you to have the right information or be able to tell if something's fake. You don't think that this board could tell whether they're being given information that's Well, I I assure you that we can. And if attorney Campanelli has an has some tips for the board about how to make those decisions, I'd be happy to hear them. But

175I I I feel like this conversation has has kind of gone off the rails for me. Yeah. Sorry. I I'm really not meaning this in an offensive way. I'm meaning it you may not mean it in an offensive way and I'm not trying to say you're being offensive. I am not going to have a conversation where we're standing to have the applicant of oil. I'm not if someone were to do that. the basic concept of interest. I I think I didn't know like for example the propagation maps when I saw them I was like oh oh there's a coverage gap oh when I was in the first meeting I said oh gosh there's a coverage gap who knew and then we learned those maps are not based on actual data now I would like to

176ask the did you know that did you know that there that is misleading did you know that there are other more accurate did you know that it was in conflict with what is on the FCC and on the AT&T said yes I I would ask you we have questioned those maps since day one and that's all I have to say okay but I didn't know that as coming to all these meetings I thought that this was new and like I thought I took it as oh wow there's there's the gap so for me it's been a learning experience I hope it has been for the ZBA as this is an application you haven't seen um before we haven't had an application for cell in this town for over 20 years I will say something else

177We what we've been doing here is given the applicant their opportunity to speak and present all their evidence. We've then opened it up to the public to speak and present all of their evidence and in count the board has yet to have those conversations amongst themselves. Those have to be public. And so if you guys just can get through this, wrap it up. Let's if we have anything to say, let's make it new and relevant and move on so we can get to the point where we can deliberate and then you can hear what we want to know, what we want to think. We spent a lot of time hearing everybody else. The board has yet to have their opportunity. I'd like to make a we made a very diligent effort over several meetings, listen

178to all kinds of input. We've digested it as best we could. you've been asked that questions in multiple ways. we're trying to focus on what are the malicious so you know to start coming at us you know for wait please you know we we've we've made an exception effort to try to digest all the information like I we're going to use that very precisely to come up with a solution but it's not going to be an easy process so you know yeah with all due respect my comment wasn't intended to say that the CBA is not doing that my comment was to say that information has been presented and then it's been we've had Kent and Andrew say well this information that was presented by the applicants actually misinformation is not representing a true action

179look at so for me like but that's but that's their opinion and so we're going to decide whether we believe their opinions to be credible and then we'll weigh all that everybody has said and that's opinion or fact I feel like I feel like attorney campanelli has provided It's you guys have provided you haven't proving the fact that there's an FCC map and then it's different from the other map. Yeah, that's a fact and we'll put weight to it. Okay, that's but but because they did that because the applicants did that. I think attorney Campanelli has been excellent in telling us in explaining to us especially from your point of view what weight we should give the evidence of the maps uh that that were given to us. He's saying give it low. So, we're

180listening and we're going to we're going to listen to what everybody says and we're going to put it all together in a reasonable fashion in a thoughtful fashion. If we were to ask AT&T for their uh data, I would assume like every other applicant that comes before us by the time that what they're tell that we've asked for it and they're telling they're giving us what we've asked. That's how it works. That's how you work. That's how it works. If you came in for a permit, if you came in for a permit, if anybody is not, we don't take testimony. We don't put people under oath. you all have done an excellent job of bringing our attention to things that are outside of what they brought our attention. And so that's been very useful, but

181I don't think it's fair even if you didn't mean it to have this discussion about whether or not they're going to lie to us. It's it's not a conversation. It's a speculative conversation. I know you want to speak. I I just want to I just maybe attorney that I didn't he say though factually I don't think it was another opinion that the broadband not being provided actually is not getting any data whatsoever 5G that's his opinion no I think that's fact it's not fact it's his opinion I have no idea it's fact and 5G are different things that's what he said okay so if you want to believe that and that's fine I just think it's important to say that it's not a matter I'll tell you what, if you want to make a statement

182that you think that his evidence should be considered by us with great weight, I would welcome that. Yeah, there you go. Thank you very much. I mean, I think that it's very Thank you very much saying that is is, you know, is the same thing. Okay. And and I honor and respect what you say and it may be a great way to have no weight, but I I appreciate you saying it. That's the reason you're all here is to give us evidence. But I I but I have to draw the law. David, I'm just curious if we turn this down and voted to put it in the fairgrounds. How many people here at this meeting would object fairs? I just curious. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Um just so you know, there are some hands raised

183from the internet world. Stephanie Dupos had end up for quite a while. All right. Uh, attorney Campanell, are you done? I mean, you don't have to leave the meeting, but can I take you off the full screen? Yes, you can. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I know how to view. Can you pin? Okay. There we go. Still got a hand up. Yes. I'm sorry. I didn't know if I was being recognized. It took us a moment. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Um my name is Stephanie Dlo. I live on Chapman Street in Greenfield. Um I want to reiterate the email I sent is a uh bonafide um offer for remedy. Um I don't know if that's been forward to another attorney. But that's uh something that I believe that fell

184under the second um consideration for the variance. Um, also as a longtime cell phone um, user for various companies, I know that in the past when I had dropped calls significant enough to impact important, you know, emergency um, issues that the companies then credited um, my bill with a um, either a discount or a um, a promotion or something. But that may be able to reiterate, you know, a potential call log uh discrepancy that, you know, how much is your real financial loss? I mean, if you're, you know, it's just an inconvenience for your customers, you know, we, you know, I just traveled all the way up to New Hampshire and back and, you know, there was a dead spot in Northfield, but it doesn't mean that I would want to um, you know, have

185another cell tower in Northfield and degrade the aesthetics of that. Um also that um there is other options to the customers themselves. They can go out and get a booster. Um given the location of my home and topography as well as the um insulation of my home, it does it does impact uh what my ability to make some calls at at times. But I but the company offered me a booster so that I wouldn't continue to call and say, "Hey, my service has been interrupted." Um, and I did have a question because I I have been watching the FCC uh um teams that are working on the new technology of 6G. So, um, not quite sure how that impacts maybe what they're putting up, but I'd be concerned with not having the evidence if that's

186going to be a 6G tower. And if the people really wanted to, I mean, Chevron deferences overturned. So, if you want to challenge the FCC, go right ahead. I think you guys have a lot of evidence that would support, especially given the testimony from um, the I think his name was Kent in the very beginning. and I hope that his documents or his slide presentation um is entered into the record regardless of whether or not you put weight to it. Thank you. Anybody else that wants to talk on the internet? Anybody else here want to talk? Stephen, pardon me for interrupting, but he's been trying to talk for a little while. He has. Well, I don't I haven't seen his I've been raising my hand. I don't see. Thank you. Um it's a question for

187you, Dave. Yes. How did we formally request data from AT&T to provide drop call data to provide uh drive test data and to provide maps showing signal strength at lower levels because I believe those are three factors that have been stressed by attorney Benelli in uh making it if if we should decide that they have not proven that there's a gap in coverage and if we haven't it hasn't come formally it hasn't come from the chair I well I know that it has come it was informally discussed but the response that we got was no we're not going to give you that information you did formally ask last meeting he did we were he said it was proprietary data and they would not Oh I did ask yes I did ask that question that was

188formally request. Was it theoretical? Is it if I asked you the word? Yeah, I thought I thought you didn't say if I asked that. I think we should formally request. Yeah. But thank you. Yes. Okay. Hold that in oance for a second. Well, question mentions or something. So the applicant has the right to say what they want to say because it's their application. So they get to have the final word. Know that folks who would like to have the final word. Also, I don't know if I'm going to give you all the final word, but if I do have questions, I'm happy to go back to folks and have you clarify things for us. I'm not leaving you out, but the it's the applicant's application. you've given us a lot of information and it's important

189information but it's their application so they're it's um thank you. So um the next steps are that at the next meeting Rosen and others will probably rebut what was said tonight in some way shape or form. Uh I have asked I do I have made a request that the engineer come and talk about uh how they gathered the data for the mapping and they're going to be there on the next meeting to talk about that and answer questions about that. So, we didn't make a specific request as uh member Green had said, but we did we we were prepared to um we expect that um AT&T will come to the next meeting prepared to answer with the background of how they provide how they obtain the data. So, we we from the last meeting and

190and a meeting further back and attorney campell brought out the point about drop call information. We've been very aware of uh the importance that information in the context of discussing this. Yes. Just hoping I I need to leave home. I just wanted to have a statement I wanted to read um before I leave. So good evening. We are representing myself 22 others and nearby residents of the proposed tower. We request that you deny the variance for the tower as the applicant has not been proven or quantified any aspects of their assertions. The applicant has been asked repeated repeatedly to explain methodology they used to evaluate the other sites the specific process they use and not just state the takeaway is like it's too close to the name of regularization. They need to provide their detailed

191reports on each of the other sites they present. Again, details, testing, reports and results, not just the overview they gave. The CBA has every right to see these reports and data and the applicant has likely not done it. The fact that the Hampton Inn was presented as hypothetical, but they did not consider it truly viable location sounds like they likely did not choose other sites that would be viable and did not do their due diligence into evaluating them. They also failed to identify last week any other sites that were chosen on a hypothetical basis. The criteria for the variance is not that they shield a dozen sites they know will not work to present the DVA but that they identify other valid patients. It does not appear that we have done that and we don't

192currently have evidence for that. Also wireless has claimed a gap in coverage for one singular carrier AT&T. They have not, as we've talked about tonight, follow quantified this gap in terms of its size, the number of customers affected by this potential gap. The ways this gap was measured to calibrate or prove that to this location would cover the alleged gap. The telecommunications act allows for some dead zones, but small gaps or dead zones aren't enough to warrant a loose cell tower. It is a significant and true gap in coverage that would be demonstrated to necessitate the construction of a child which to date has not been meaningly demonstrated. On December 2nd, 2024, I requested copies of information provided by the applicant to refill to substantiate any gap in coverage including dropped call logs and dropped

193emergency calls area. I recall that David approved that this request be sent to the applicant but it has been email. We don't have the date of that. I brought your email to say okay thank you. I raised this issue again at last week's hearing when the applicant noted to the ZA that they would not provide this information because they considered it proprietary. I will note that other carriers as attorney campaign has data tonight to provide drop logs and data to demonstrate a signific significant gap coverage and there is established legal precedence to that effect. Tonight we are submitting documentation of a legal case regarding the release of drop call logs and Verizon submitted drop ball logs and data that was provided in Ithaca, New York, a municipality for an application approval hearing. The drop call

194logs information is necessary to determine and validate a true gap of service. The ZBA has a well established right to ask for these records and data as a requirement of variance for their residential and ski. The applicant is unwilling to provide information to quantify their position which should make them ineligible for the variance they have requested. As you can see, there is a pattern of the applicant not providing quantifying information to support their apt assertions and claims to meet the criteria for the variance. These claims must be fully supported and demonstrated by fact. We have not been provided with the information necessary to prove the assertion that have been made or to meaningfully make the assessment need. For these reasons and more, we urge you on behalf of the neighborhood and community to grant to

195not grant experience to find another more appropriate place. Yes. Go ahead. Tom power solar quick comment. Um I mean first of all I thank you for all the work you do. I mean not on the board zoning board but on the board of trustees in my neighborhood. that there's like a lot of information. Um, but I wanted to talk about like we were talking about before like how how are you going to evaluate data and evidence like that? And I I'm not attempting to impugn the good name of the applicant, but I think you absolutely can put in like as you're waiting list like they have an interest in putting that up. And I think that's a fair comment and and like the lawyer who's hired, but the people who are from like who are

196going to live next to it really don't. Their interest is preserving in their interest their health and and their sex and those things. So as you're waiting the evidence, I would really urge you to weight it in in appropriately. And I think that the the information that gentlemen just provided express must be asked for and received before you approve um the whatever you have to prove in my opinion. Thank thank you for the way they express and and lastly no this isn't good for me but like look people want 5G that's important to them they can put a cell tower like that their house but I think it's really unfortunate that like people living there don't have control of that and maybe they don't want 5G and why why are the rest of us as

197a community forcing these people have to live under cell phone it is a con well It's it's a judgment, but it's also something like I know you have to use criteria in federal law, but there's always going to be interpretation and you have that political power interpretation. We I can assure you that every member of this board will listen. Any else? I'd like to make a statement on this again. Mention your name again. Thank you. Um, I wanted to add some clarity to some comments that we made last week at the April 9th hearing regarding bill's overall cellular coverage needs. First, as has been discussed on a number of occasions, the purpose of these hearings is decided of the applicant. This project project meets the requirements for the press variance special do not do a

198comprehensive analysis agree those bigger picture cellular capacity needs. public has been asked to stay within this various variant scope and we hope that these proceedings will also stay within this dedicated scope and it seems like you are. We are talking about one cell tower that is not allowed to be built by right in this location. The tower needs a variance special use permit from the city in order to be built near a residential area supposed to escape the inadequate fall zone much smaller than the one necessary to protect residents in our community. We cannot conflate proposed cell tower as the solution for the extra needed coverage to bring to the community. We feel some coverage is not reliant on any one tower or this cell tower. There are issues of coverage around the city. This

199needs to be addressed separately. The city of Greenfield will need to do a deep dive in testing, mitigating, creating a strategic master plan to address any further coverage and capacity needs the city might have. Conversation last week was centered a good deal around the field's overall cellular coverage needs, which doesn't apply to this variance request for a higher 14tory cell tower built in a residential area school in our community. for joining many of the residents both here and on Zoom this evening and asking for your denial of this cell tower for an alternative placement. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. Thank God. For the record, this attorney brought you brought up the as we talked about last week is about taking painting a picture and those facts and the picture people are

200going to be described by Tar's people's I think at the end of the day does not have an enviable job and filtering through everything and trying to figure out distinguish between fact and opinion what's been presented what has been presented. I'll give three examples last week there was a discussion about how we were asked to provide structural data when we start the tower told we never provided it which in fact was incorrect. We actually have provided it and the board actually confirmed that the adviserss were raising the issue that we would not number one example. Number two, tonight what Mr. Chamberlain presented he represented to this board that he would show you AT&T's map and he had a circle that was claiming that that was our map when we presented it. I don't even know

201what's on that map. It's not our map. We didn't present that map. We never have. I want to thank attorney campell because he's the third example. At one point tonight, he said that we were trying to put in a 32 foot foundation and that would support 199 ft tower. However, later in the discussion, he said, "Let me verify that." And he actually went to his records to determine whether or not he accurately read that or not because there was some confusion. While all of you who are facing the audience and having the discussion, attorney, I want to thank you. He he did a a chat on the screen to acknowledge that in fact that wasn't correct. But it's about having the right information. So here's my recommendation. Mr. Chair, you raised a question at the

202last meeting. You commented that when you hired T, you thought they were covering everything. You didn't realize they weren't covering everything. What we'd like to do is we would like to set aside an escrow. Like to provide you with a $5,000 escrow. We'd like you to hire an RF engineer. Somebody who's capable and competent to provide this report. They are independent third party opinion. I think that somebody was talking about earlier. Let's get independent opinions from other people. I believe Mr. Roian mentioned that. Let's get an RF engineer who can help you kind of weed through fact versus opinion. He can tell you what is customary in this industry. He can tell you whether or not the material because you know quite frankly and and Mr. Chair, I thank you. Um we were being accused

203of lie and with all due respect, I've been doing this for a long time. I've done several hundred hearings. No one's ever accused me of lying. I've had plenty of people tell me they don't want the difference in their backyard. So, I think I don't I think I think I was trying to point out that even when you're not accusing somebody of lying directly because maybe that wasn't her intention by saying what she said, it's no different than if she was sitting there and she was about to begin an application for a special permit and somebody in the audience said, "How can we believe anything she said?" You know, it's so so I we we shut it down. It's not going to happen again. Don't we don't need to please let's leave it. But I

204want to fix the problem. Yeah. So what I'd like the board to do is if they could vote on engaging an RF engineer project. I would ask that we work with RF to for you to identify here qualified no conflicts just like T. We will expedite all of the information that we have to get it over to them with a goal that they can have a report back to you by May 8 and possibly even appear at the hearing on the Maya. It's we are so confident that they will confirm to you that what we've done is consistent with industry standard. It's consistent with Massachusetts law. It's consistent with federal courts in Massachusetts of applicants for sale powers. And it will help you sort through the the various paintings of the information that have been

205presented to you by opponents, proponents, applicants, adviserss, and the community to help you short what you're going to need to do on future meetings deliberate on the application. So that would be my my offer to this board and we're happy to cooperate with that um to the extent that that's something the board would be interested in and I think that's an easy way for the board to know that you're getting information that's reliable and having it peer reviewed by independent people. What that suggests is to develop scope of services that's mutually agreed upon by AT&T and the communities expert. So when that when that those findings come out, there's not a debate back and forth as to what those that sound frequency concerns as as a point of conflict. What's the point? Well, the point

206is that I think on the top of your mind is the radio is the health effects, which I totally understand. But in terms of the legal system, which is a it's called like a game of chess, um what he's what what attorney Rosen is saying is that there's been it's been suggested by attorney Campanelli that what they provided us is meaningless and we have no way of knowing because we're not engineers. So they're suggesting that they pay the h they pay for us to choose somebody totally independent from them. So they wouldn't control that choice and that person would come in and help. We haven't even said anything about it yet, but I'm just phrasing what he said. And that expert would come in and be our expert, the board's expert. And we would say,

207well, we have this question, that question, this question, that question, this question, that question, this question. And the expert would be able to answer those questions from the position of someone who's very familiar with how this information gets gathered and then presented to boards like us. So theoretically that person might disagree with attorney campelli and say that their the maps that they sent us do have validity for the following reasons. Or the what attorney Rosen is challenging is that and and maybe it won't work out. The engineer says their maps are all wet. They're meaningless. But we would have an engineer that had no stake in the game except to make sure that we understood what we were doing. So that's third person impartial. Third person would have the ability. That's what he's suggesting. So

208the expert would be somebody that would help us and I guess in essence help you. Yeah, sure. I haven't finished the answer. Am I all set with the answer? I'm Are you done with what you were saying back? I'm not trying to interrupt you. I know. Okay. I didn't want to give her a chance. Um, so all due respect to attorney Rosen in the the generous offer of an RF engineer. I've been at many many cell tower hearings in the area over the last 10 years. Uh, and I've never seen an RF engineer who didn't have um, basically a long history of working with industry one way or another. Um, so the idea of an impartial artifact here that you're just going to magically find is hard to imagine for me and the other thing

209that you know my understanding of of the neighbors concerns is you know obviously there's people concerned about health. There's no argument the RF engineer is not going to can't say anything about health. They're not going to say anything else except that they're going to say this tower is within the SEC guidance which would be absolutely true. What we need, what the abuters need, and I'm speaking on behalf of the at this point because I'm feel is prohibitive evidence as attorney Kemp has called for in other words data. So although I appreciate the generosity of of Attorney Wilson's offer and you know $5,000 but what I what would actually be an interesting offer is to say well Verizon we have examples of Verizon providing drop call data that we can send you this evening. It's not

210an industry secret to them. it seems is just asking for job data and then you know rather than prolonging because your time's running out that would be my sort of meaningless nobody's time is running out please I'm not suggesting that we engage our engineer to dispel any healthy aspect I am suggesting we hire an RF engineer who can analyze the efficient Not not I appreciate what you have to say and he will he will Yes. Would the RF engineer be in place of not getting drop? Uh we haven't decided anything. Yes. The suggestions are made. The board hasn't had a chance to talk about it. So that's a good I I guess if I imagine what the RF engineer would do is we could ask the RF engineer. So compared to what they got us,

211what they sent us is drop call data like 10 times better. I would hope the ARF engineer being our engineer would say yes it is. And then you know so there attorney Rosen seems to be confident that if we ask that question that's not going to be the answer but at least I think because he's seeing where things are moving he wants to give us a chance to feel independently uh educated and and and comfortable that um that we understand the data as it's being given to us. So that's a good point that you made but I want you to know the distinction is that the expert is the one that helps us understand whether the methods were used properly or what we really need to have. Drop call data is something that you all

212have insisted that we get and you've told us that that's the gold standard, but we don't have any expert that's told us that that's the case. We I mean I'm not saying attorney camp is not an expert and maybe he's right, but I'm not going to rely on the attorney for the concerned citizens to be my expert because he couldn't do it anyway because he's having a kind of conflict. So, it looks like there might be a gap in information. So, we're going to now discuss it. So, I'm going to give the you folks, you can wait, you can listen, you can sit and be here. And by the way, Attorney Rosen will be given the privilege of speaking with us even if I shut down the public segment of this. So, I don't want

213anybody to feel the hurt feeling. So, this is your last chance to say something if you need to guess. Just wanted to note that it was actually the experts from UNH that called the drop data the gold standard not the attorney. Okay. Thank you. Um well I would suggest that that you could also save $5,000 and just have Ken Chamberlain who is an expert in be your your but don't you understand he's he's not objective. you think he's objective, but we no longer think he's objective. So, even though he's given an opinion, and I and I'm sure he's the best, and I there's no reason for me not to appreciate and believe what he's saying, you brought. So, we're now we now need somebody for in our camp. So, I appreciate that and thank you.

214Thank you for bringing that up. I I just knew that somebody said it and I feel like I need to know for I need to know from somebody's I could you know independent of all the back and forth about this. Go ahead. Yes. Just I mean but they are the ones. Let me Yeah. But you have a you have a zoning code and you have and there's a federal law that says especially the federal law that says that these are people that we elected to Congress that that that voted in a staff that said we want to sell powers all over the country. So they come to us and they ask us for this information that they asked us to decide yesterday. Yeah. I was so we we didn't initiate this. I I don't think

215I just think what you're saying doesn't make sense as the question. Yes. Is it as simple as if we have a zoning restriction that nothing can be built taller than three stories that that suffice for this to be dated? But there's a federal law that says if they have proven that that they need this above and beyond everything else, then that's considered hardship. So that's a factor for the variance. So that's why that's why we we have to pin down the facts and make sure we feel comfortable with the facts so that when we compare it to the law, we know we can make a decision that is what we consider to be the proper decision. And please don't misunderstand me anything I've said tonight, even if I've shut down some things. We're we are

216your community. Okay, we're not this isn't like you didn't go to Boston for this. We're not and you know we're we're your community. Okay, so we're here to do our job appreciating that we all live in this community, but we have a job to do. So, you're just going to have to trust that we're going to make every effort to do the right thing based on all those variables. And that's all I can say. I know we're committed to it. So that's and I I can't say enough how I appreciate everybody coming out and all the information that you gave us and um now we're going to deliver it. All right. Anything else? Good. Good. Okay. So, um I think we should make a motion. Maybe Eric, do you want to make a motion? Oh,

217wait, wait, hold up. First, there's attorney Rosen's there's attorney Rosen's suggestion. Do we want to integrate it with uh something that we're going to talk about? Some I mean, how are we going to discuss his offer? In the context of Eric's offer, separate together. What do you want to do? Eric's offer. Well, Eric's proposal is that we ask for certain things. Attorney Rosen's is saying we he's going to give us money to hire an engineer, but that engineer will collect all the data that's now available. He has not agreed nor has AT&T agreed that that data will include any of this information. It would be the information that's already in the record. So, I guess here's my question that actually came up with the whole notion of having to make a formal request for the

218data. Is it our job to like excruciatingly pull the evidence of need out of the applicant like or is it the applicant's job to give us the data that they think best makes their case and then we judge based on that the latter? So, why do we have to make formal requests for information? If this is the best information that they can offer to establish need, great. If there's now a sense of we actually think that we could throw some money on the table to help provide stronger evidence of need, great. But I kind of I don't really love the idea of formally asking the applicant to give us information to help make their case. That's their job. So, I'm kind of torn on this. I would like to have a better sense of the

219need. So, in that sense, I you know, I guess if if if they want to throw some money into retain somebody to help establish that, that's fine. But I I chafe a little bit at the notion of having to make a formal request of the applicant for information for them to make their case. That's their job. I we've commented on the map several times, repeatedly, you know, in regards to this seems pretty close. What's, you know, what's the difference between this map and that map? and they've and we dance around the dance around the subject. Yes point I'm prepared to just kind of deliver it based on the evidence that we've got and I don't necessarily I mean if this RF if this RF expert is going to drive around and give us the hard

220data about signal strength and or provide drop call data all that this engineer is not going to provide that and they're just going to say yeah these colored apps look good to me I don't think we need them. You don't need think we need what? I don't think we if all the expert is going to do is just say, "Yep, these these maps are good without anything anything further than we don't need them to spend $5,000. We already have the maps." Okay, let's let's let's dig a little deeper on that. Yeah. Is there let let's just independently do we do you think that we need an expert to help us with this? No, I'm happy with the maps. I can read them. I can understand my concern. I I would like to look at I

221I I personally would like to see data substantiating the maps because I have gone on AT&T's website and their map is different. I've gone to the FCC map. That's different. I've looked at these maps. They're different. Now you go to the AT&T map says if I wanted to be a new customer, come into you got great coverage. They're beautiful. Now there's a disclaimer in there and you go there and it talks about the topography but everyone's website looks like that. So which map is accurate? The one AT&T provides, the one FCC provides are the maps here because they have stated the maps that are here are proposal coverage. They have said themselves that we believe this is the coverage you're going to get with this if we put this tower up. I don't personally see

222a radical difference in the maps in regards to the coverage because the maps do stop at that point 83 or or whatever it it is. I personally watch my own phone roll from 5G to 4G to 3G and I don't lose calls. So I do not believe at this point that they have provided evidence that coverage is needed. I want that data. I'm I'm pretty this is my take as well. If people feel like an external consult like I'm happy to continue to have as many meetings as we need to help. Let's go. I'm gonna hold uh Rosen. I'm one of the board, but that's just that's um Eric. Uh how do you how do you respond to that? I I I agree with what I believe Deb was saying, which is we've got a

223bunch of different what's supposed to be information before us, but we don't know. We don't we don't know which one to believe. It's not clear and we've got conflicting opinions coming of whether it's accurate or not accurate, whether it's incomplete. And even if we got the data, which I believe we should ask for just so we have more information to make a decision, even if we get that data, I think we need somebody to help us interpret it and understand what it means and what it says because if somebody puts drop call data in front of me right now, I go, I don't know what it means. I mean, it's they had he had up in the board at one point um you know, a bunch of drop call what looked like drop call data

224and I'm looking at it going I don't I don't know what that means. I just don't and a lot of the stuff we've been presented I don't know what it means. So I am in favor of having somebody help us to sort this out. Doesn't mean they're going to decide for us. We have to decide and I think given the time constraints that we ought to ask now for this additional data the drop ball data and the um the road test data so that we'll have that data available. If the expert that we hire comes in and says, "Oh, you can disregard all that. You don't need that." Great. Then we know that we don't need it. But without it, if we don't ask for it, we won't have it. You know, I think if

225we had been more experienced with this, we probably would have asked for the um RF engineer earlier on as part of the peer review that's uh we're entitled to the ordinance. So, you know, the question is, do we want to take advantage of that? I I I don't I mean, he's offering Attorney Rosen's offering it, but I think we could have asked for it as well. So, good for him for jumping ahead. But, um, so the question is and then the the second question is what is if we don't make a request for the drop ball data, then why are we hiring the engineer? Because the engineer is not going to be helping us with if we don't have all that data. Good. Go ahead. Suggestion. Yeah, I think we we should get a peer

226consultant, but I would not do that. But we need to define what we have to get both entities to kind of participate. When you say both entities being AT&T, you know, community and yeah, whether it's, you know, this attorney, but have them say, okay, here's what we want that peer peer review to perform. have each side agree that they're they've got the proper credential so we don't keep getting going back and forth they disagree they disagree we need a mutual agreement whoever we hire and then what that drop they what what data do they need bring forward to have that done okay I I we're going to try to select an independent consultant I don't think you have the expertise to do that we need to determine who it is that we want to have

227perform service I I agree with that state the only thing is and and I don't mean to offend anybody, but I think it's our, you know, we should make the determination about what we want. You had made some comment about that. I I I kind of want to get I I I think we're at a point here we need to kind of move away a little bit about tit for tat on both sides of of the issue and find the information we need to go forward. I hear you but you know we heard a lot of information if we're going to do that reflect back and health. So if we're going to put a scope of services together that does answer all the questions. Yes, I I absolutely agree with that. Not saying we need

228to be biased in any way, but I think if we're going to develop a scope, hire someone, we need to take all the things we've heard, say, okay, and we all need to make a list of things that we would like that person to do and say, here's what we want. And that others that get into hiring right and I have said I my apologies. I thought you were saying we would ask each side what they would like to be too and I was like no I don't think I want to go that way. I think we ultimately make the decision but we need them to participate as to what we're trying to accomplish. So that ultimately we've heard everyone make all kinds of comments. We need to decide which ones are important right here

229for us to decide on. That person works for us, not that. I I'm going to give a counterpoint to what you said. I think I want to so I want to take what you're saying. I'm just going to bring it just to the other side. Just say, you know, it's on the same line, but it's a different look. I don't I don't I don't want to get the applicant or the abuters involved in us hiring our own expert. That's for us. We decide how to do it. We now know what we're doing. We're going to talk to that person. If they don't like the expert that we picked, if Kevin doesn't, attorney Capelli doesn't like the expert we picked, they can voice their discomfort. But I I just focus. What I'm saying is listen to

230what they said. That I would happily do. I'm not I'm not asking them to participate. Great. Okay. I'm just saying all the things they've said, we compile it from all the notes that Eric has taken we've heard. Okay. And we use that as the basis part. No, I'm not asking for their participation. Okay. I misunderstood you then that because it sound to me that's what it sounded like. So I was like we've heard all kinds of stuff. I'm in full agreement. Yeah. Multiple people think we should take all the equipment sift through it and pick the things that we think are pretty. you know, I'm really the the idea that it's the applicant's responsibility to do stuff resonates with me a lot. But the other hand is, you know, who's controlling this process, us. So,

231you know, I want to make the best decision that we can make so that I know at the end that was the best decision. I want all the GD information that I could get at my disposal so at the end of the day I could look everybody in the eye and say we made the right decision here because we had all the information that we really needed to do it and and so so it's hard for me to go that what I just said and also believe in that and and I think there's a message that we're giving to the applicant and it's a it's loud and clear. Uh I think we should ask for the information that we want and then it's on them if they don't want to give it to us and

232that that speaks for what it speaks for. Um and I think we should take advantage of the engineer uh and um have somebody that we can ask you know we've asked proative questions of everybody else's experts like somebody that we know is our expert and then at the end of the day when we make our decision we'll have an expert that we could cite in our opinion who was set to us so we relied on it which is good. So again, I think attorney Rosen obviously either he's I mean I I don't want to he's here so he could tell me what you're doing but it's a wise move to to jump in and to do that because he could see where things are headed. So uh I think we should vote to take the

233offer and uh Eric, if you feel firmly about the request, I think we should vote and make the request. If this is what we want, we're going to ask for it. We're going to get it. We're not going to get it. We're going to ask for it and then we will weigh all that stuff later and and make it a totally full boat of information. Good. Okay. So, uh I'd like to make a motion. I I don't know about the timelines, Michael, um because sounds like it's going to fall on me to figure out how to organize everything. But in general, I'd like to make a motion to um accept Attorney Rosen's offer for $5,000 to be available for us to hire an independent RF engineer uh uh that's suitable to us. I'll second that.

234Um, yeah. And we'll provide a scope of We'll decide and provide a scope of work for the for the engineer. Yes. Yes. Well, we decide what Yeah. If you want to add that. Yeah. What if the engineer's fee is more than $5,000? I thought about that. Then I'll go back to attorney Rosen and say, "What do you think?" Because we're back to the we don't we're telling them that we need this information. If they're not going to help us, then the message is clear, right? So, it could help us make our decision. Yeah. So, uh any any other discussion? Yeah. Are we trying to get this done by May 8th? I'm not going to commit to May 8th, but I will commit to doing we I think we have an obligation to move as reasonably

235quickly as we can, but yeah. Well, if you give me authority, I can talk to attorneys and we'll figure it out. Um, I think I think at the end of the day, we want to get through this, but they also want to make sure that they he doesn't want to feel like he left something on the table. So, okay. Uh, any more discussion? All right. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Any extensions? Voting yes. I don't think that's okay. Why don't you try? I let the record show that everybody, including the alternates, voted yes. Okay. Now the more difficult. Uh, go ahead. Make a motion. Eric, I make a motion that make it speak a little louder just like make a motion that we request the information regarding drop request. formally request the

236drop call data and uh drive test data signal strength. So that point what for the areas in question? Yes. Uh that sufficient for everybody to be used by our Yeah. To be used by Yes. views by us in in making our determination. I can add that. Eric, you got that right. Yeah, that that would actually be helpful if we ever come to a place where we burn it down because they have improved. Do I hear a second? I'll second it. Any further? Okay, now go Eric. Any further discussion? You want to answer that? Any further? Everybody good? Ready. All right. All in favor say I. I. Thank you, Chuck. Any opposed? Any extensions? Let the record show unanimous. Seven all the members. He's not he's any you need any clarification. No guarantees on the eight,

237but I will work with you to see. Anything to help? Okay. Um All right. Anything else about these two hearings? All right. Let's let's take a vote to continue both matters May 8th 2025. I'll make the vote. I hear a second. Second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Let the record show all seven of us. Um Okay. So that's what we Well, we have minutes. We have minutes that we need to approve. Did you give us minutes or? Yes. Minutes of April 9th. Motion. Make a motion to approve your second five minutes here. Uh second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I post. Let the record show everybody said yes. I'll take a motion to ensure any other business. I know you God I can't I didn't even

238breathe out. Uh any other business. Okay. Go ahead. Make a motion to meet and be adjourned. Second. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Let the record show. We are adjourned. [Music]