[Tim McGivern]: Welcome everybody, it is 7.03 p.m. and the committee is here. This is the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee, April 14th, 2021, 7 p.m. This meeting is a continuation of the meeting originally began on March 31st, 2021 at 6 p.m. and it was further continued on April 8th, 2021 at 6.30 p.m. and then continued until tonight. I'll call the meeting to order. We'll hold a hearing for Verizon applications for 20 proposed small cell infrastructure in the city of Medford. And this is obviously over Zoom, so I'll read the governor's preamble. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, Chapter 30A, Section 18, and the Governor's subsequent order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting of the Medford Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and or parties with a right and or requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the city of Medford website at www.medfordma.org. For this meeting, members of the public who wish to listen or watch the meeting may do so by viewing the meeting on cable access or online through Medford Community Media's YouTube channel. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we will post on the City of Medford or Medford Community Media website, an audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. The meeting ID for Zoom is 941-4275-7380, passcode 417983. Call-in information is 1-929-205-6099. The meeting ID, again, is 941-4275-7380. And this meeting is being recorded. All right, so first we'll do a recap. Welcome, everybody. I will do a recap of the April 8th meeting. A couple of reminders too.
[Robin Stein]: Sorry, go ahead. Sorry, before you get to the recap, while you're open, do you want to just introduce the other committee members?
[Tim McGivern]: Sure.
[Robin Stein]: Just so anyone knows who they are. Thanks. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, that's okay. Yep. All right. I kind of got ahead of myself there too, Robin. I'm not, I'm not following my script the way I wrote it. So, um, I'll just go through my script. I have that before that. So, um, just a reminder to everybody we're operating under the interim policy for small cell wireless installation, which is a result of an FCC declaratory ruling and order. I'm going to re, uh, I'm going to introduce the committee, uh, Paul Moki, the building commissioner. Maryann O'Connor, Director of Public Health, Alicia Hunt, Director of Office of Community Development, and myself, Tim McGivern, City Engineer. At the continued hearing on the 8th, the committee reviewed and moved on 24 of the 44 locations. 101 Sheridan was taken out of order due to significant public interest in that specific location. and the general conditions that we created and voted on will be listed before going into the next location. Reminder of the rules of the hearing. Please use the raise hand function if you'd like to comment during the public participation period. We'll have staff make sure that We're keeping track of who would like to speak during the specific locations. Please direct comments and questions to the chair, me. No profanity, name calling or other rude or disruptive behavior. I reserve the right to mute participants who become disruptive to the proceedings. Each speaker during public participation will receive two minutes. We did have a general comment period of significant length at the first hearing when we started, and tonight the public commentary will be focused on the site-specific. And then the site-specific comment should be relative to the site under consideration. All right, the next thing is an overview of the standard conditions as established by the committee on March 31st, 2021. And then also on, we added a couple on the 8th, April 8th. So Robin, if you are prepared to list those out for us, that would be helpful.
[Robin Stein]: I can just give you a summary. The first eight from the first meeting were that prior to installation of any equipment, Verizon is going to comply with section 2F of the policy, which is to provide certifications by a registered professional engineer that the home location will safely support the proposed equipment. The second one was a prior installation of equipment. Verizon will comply with section 2H, which has to do with the affidavit of the radio frequency engineer. I'm not gonna read the whole thing, but it's section 2H of the policy. Again, With reference to the policy prior to installation, Verizon is going to provide updated insurance certificates as required in the policy. Verizon will cover the cost of any so-called make-ready work for any installations related to moving or relocating any city-owned lights or infrastructure on any existing poles or anywhere. Verizon will not install any equipment on double poles. If a new pole is being installed in the future, that'll cause removal of the double pole before installing. their equipment on the new pole. Verizon will confirm prior to installation that all ADA requirements are met. There will be no noise detectable to human ear at the pole location on the ground and at the nearest residence. With reference to section 2L of the policy, Verizon is going to provide an affidavit which certifies that it will maintain the installations in repair and according to FCC standards, that they'll remove any installation that is not in good repair or not in use in 30 days of no longer being in use or not being in good repair, and that they will in fact keep the equipment in good repair. Let me see, was that eight, one, two, three, four, five. six, seven, eight. So that was the first eight. And then at the meeting on the eighth, there were four additional adopted for a total of 12. The four additional were just clarifying that Verizon is still gonna need to comply with any other state, local, and federal requirements, including, for example, obtaining electrical permits to the extent necessary. The concrete base of the utility, Paul, shall be installed or repaired to city sidewalk standards. And that is in conjunction with the installation before use of the facility, I believe. And the next one was that any grant of location for once the installation is not complete within one year of the decision or the vote tonight shall the grant of location shall expire and a new application shall be required, provided that the applicant may seek a six month extension for the time to install the equipment. And the Verizon will provide written notification to residents within a hundred feet of installation, explaining the nature of the equipment, the description of the physical standards, and they will do so 30 days before any anticipated installation. And that information will also include where residents can contact Verizon if there are any issues or problems with the equipment. Those are essentially the conditions the board voted and adopted to apply to each application.
[Unidentified]: Thank you very much.
[Robin Stein]: In addition, I'll just note that there were some individual votes where the board also voted additional conditions that were site-specific.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. Before we move on, I noticed there are some councilors here, city councilors. Would city councilors like to speak before we get into the site-specific? Councilor Marks? you can keep it to a couple minutes, that would be appreciated. Thank you very much. You can go ahead and unmute Council Member.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question and I'll be very brief. If Verizon can explain how many of the polls that they plan on putting the 5G on were poll extensions.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, thank you very much. Verizon, could you address that question? I think, actually, I wanna just clarify, when you say poll extensions, you mean replace the poll with a longer poll, or do you mean like putting more poll on top of an existing poll?
[Michael Marks]: Whatever the city would consider being an extension to a poll, that would be an answer that, or a question that should be answered by the city. So whatever the city deems as a poll extension,
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: I would say that if you're increasing the length of a poll or the height of a poll, you're taking a poll and you're extending the length of it. So if I'm interpreting the question correctly, I think Verizon can address it. How many poles are being lengthened or extended in order to reach the height you need to reach?
[SPEAKER_19]: Thank you. Go ahead, Sean.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sean, you're muted.
[SPEAKER_21]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Okay, so for polls that are being extended, we don't have any that are being extended per se, but for polls that are being replaced, I can get that number for you. We're just trying to pull it together right here real quick.
[Tim McGivern]: Maybe what we can do, Sean, is once you have the answer to that question, if you want to let me know and we'll let you speak on it. Absolutely. Yep, thank you. All right, thank you very much.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. Chair, just if I could. Yep. Just so we're on the same page, and Sean may know this, or maybe the Superintendent of Wye is for the city, is that the only type of extension when a poll is actually extended beyond its existing height?
[Tim McGivern]: On the applications, I believe, yeah. Some of the applications include replacing the pole with a taller pole. So that would be what I would consider extension. There are no applications that I recall at all that had attaching more pole onto the top of an existing pole.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. So the actual device, Mr. Chair, wouldn't be considered an extension. The actual antenna itself, the 5G antenna.
[Tim McGivern]: No, not at the pole itself. No, the pole would be the wooden pole.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So the actual 5G antenna wouldn't be considered an extension of a pole.
[Alicia Hunt]: It'll sit on top of the pole. Right.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So that's my question. Would that be considered an extension of the pole?
[Tim McGivern]: I don't think so. I don't think so. The pole itself is the pole and then the antenna is mounted on the pole. So anything attached to the pole wouldn't be considered the pole. So Sean, what's your last name, Sean? Sorry, it's not written. You're muted, sorry.
[Unidentified]: It's Conway.
[Tim McGivern]: Conway, okay. I was going to call you Mr. Conway, but I didn't want to call you Mr. C. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So when you have that number, just let me know and you can speak to that. I will. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. So we left off last time talking about one-on-one shared nav. It was taken out of order. So the first thing I would like to do is see if there's a motion from the committee to take the agenda out of order to continue the conversation on 101 Sheridan Avenue, if that suits the committee.
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to remove 101 Sheridan Avenue out of order. Second.
[Tim McGivern]: Second, Alicia. All right. Take a vote, Alicia Hunt.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Ann O'Connor.
[SPEAKER_18]: And she's muted. Sorry, yes. Paul Moki? Yes. And me? Yep.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. Okay. So since the last meeting, I've received additional comments regarding 101 Sheridan Ave from Ms. Barbara Kendall. I've spoken with her a couple of times. And just so the committee knows, there is a petition that approximately 20 20 residents that live on Sheridan Avenue. I mapped the petitions today. It's all but three homes within 200 feet on Sheridan Avenue of the poll location. Let me just read the language of what they signed onto. Resident petition to city council and small cell committee of the city of Medford Mass opposing 5G cell tower at 101 Sheridan Avenue, Medford Mass, application number 29. So those are the signatures. And like I said, if the committee wants, I can bring the map up and show you, but basically within 200 feet along Sheridan Avenue, both directions, except for three houses, basically. There's that, and then also Ms. Kendall provided a map, and I sent it to the committee members today as well, with a number of poles in the vicinity that appear to meet the criteria for Verizon. Three of them are in Farragut Avenue, one's on Hooker Street. So, When I look at this information and I look at our policy, well, before I go there, last time I did ask Verizon to take a closer look, even though they did state they did the due diligence, but I did ask them to take a look at alternate poll locations for 101 Sheridan Avenue. I know they looked at a few on Sheridan Avenue, and I know they've made the statement in their application that it's a superior location. But it would be up to the applicant to demonstrate that. So what I'd like to ask is if Verizon did take a look at that and to update the committee, please.
[SPEAKER_15]: Hi, Tim. It's Sean again. And I can take that. Thank you, Tim and small cell committee for having us again tonight. Um, we did, you know, as, as mentioned before, we do substantial due diligence upfront to make sure we're picking a good poll. And that as explained in our original, um, presentation, many locations, we can't use per the utilities guidelines that are set forth for us. So we went back out and we did do further due diligence. Um, we looked at Sheridan Ave. There's pretty much zero polls on Sharon Ave. They're usable. We too did come up with three poll locations on Farragut Avenue that we thought would work as well. We can kind of go through those locations if you'd like to go through them. I have a map that I can kind of show you based off of what we've done. If you'd like me to share that, I can do that as well. Yeah, let's do that, Sean. Thank you very much. Okay. So can you see the map here? Not yet. OK. Now can we see it? Yes. OK. So to the right here, where you see all the yellow pushpins, that's Sheridan Avenue. you'll see several dots that are on this map. The dots that are in blue are other small cell locations that were filed within these 44 applications. There's also a couple green dots on the map that you'll see that are locations that we had planned to file further to complete the 5G network in this neighborhood. So as mentioned, the blue dot right here in the middle is 101 Sheridan Ave, the location that we selected. All the poles on Sharon Ave have either reclosers, a transformer, or something else in the pole that don't allow us to use them. We looked at a lot of those poles last week in the meeting. We go up to that one pole that's on Hooker Ave, that had a telco box on it, and we get to that next pole on the corner of Grant Ave, you can see there's another node just to the north of it there. So the nodes would just be too overlapping at that point, and doesn't help to have the contiguous network that we need in the neighborhood to cover the neighborhood as well as RF would like it. We did go down and look at Farragut. We'd look at Farragut Ave as well. On the southern end of Farragut Ave, both the poles there have a transformer or reclosers. They're also close to a location that we're using across from the old Franklin School. Now you get into the locations that we thought we could use. These locations are not much different than the location on 101 Sheridan Ave. A couple of them are even closer to homes, but I can go ahead and kind of show you here on the map. So the first location here was pole 15, 17. It's in front of 21 Farragut. And as you can see, this house here is a three story house. So the third story there is right at about pole level. So probably not the best location for us to make a move, but it was something that we would consider. As we move further up the street, we come up to 33 Farragut and that's pole number 15, 16. This is a smaller pole, and the pole is more directly in front of the residence. When we can, we try to select a pole that's in between the residence. So this pole here, it may need replacing. It may be usable. That would be up to the utility company to decide. But if this pole was usable, you'd see the antenna would be pretty much at height of the windows here on the second or third story, wherever that is. The next poll up is at 41 Farragut, and that's poll 1913. And as you can see here, here's our poll right here. And the poll gets heavily blocked by a tree going to the south. And it's all the same, 24 feet or so from the home. It's a good poll, but again, we're losing signal there to that tree. And it's not much different, the distance from the home as the one on Sheridan Ave.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Would that one be higher than the home or higher than the tree blockage if you put the antenna 33 feet or 34 feet up?
[SPEAKER_15]: The decision to trade the change of pole is going to be on the utility. We usually don't request pole replacements. And regardless, even if it goes up further here, that tree is definitely going to provide, it's going to have some blockage of the signal. It'll get better as the poll got higher, yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much, Sean. Sure. So Ms. Kendall is here and she has her hand up. I'd like to hear from her and then we'll discuss as a committee. So Amanda, if we could unmute Ms. Kendall. Thank you very much, Ms. Kendall. If you could limit yourself to two minutes. You have the floor.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, I know I my sister is trying to get into she's Marilyn Jordan so she'd like to talk after me if that's possible. Now we look at the one that this one on hookah street which is 23 hookah street is between hookah and grant grant and spring and my on the pictures that I gave you it's 001 is called 23 hookah street. That's on the sidewalk, there's a tremendous setback there. That would be an appropriate poll. There's one on 77 Sheridan Ave, that's down towards the end of the street. And the one on 71 Central Ave overlap. I can see it from my punch on porch. I don't see why we have to have the one on 71 Central, which is right there where 101 Sheridan is. And I think the ones on Farragut, They replaced my pole, but they also destroyed my tree. So, I don't see that that would be a problem on the one on Farragut with cutting some of that tree back. It seems to me that I gave you 18, I gave you 18 sites, 98 Central Ave, Connor, 185 Sheridan and 24 Lambert, 197 Spring, which is 500 feet. 197 spring, which is 500 feet. There are three on yeoman's app and on one on spring there by those citizens bank. There's one at 417 sound street 139 grant. There's a one between 123 125 grant the I've got all the poll numbers listed on the thing that I gave you, there's one at 77. which is 380 feet from my house. There's another one 8789 grant which is 311 feet from my house. So there seems to me that there could be a little more due diligence and the thing that's the big problem for the Sheridan neighborhood. is that the pole is just sitting there. There's no coverage whatsoever. There's not a leaf around it. There's nothing so that you don't see this pole from the top of Sheridan Ave to the bottom of Sheridan Ave. There needs to be some kind of camouflage so that you're not looking at this eye sore all the time. And the problem is, according to the tax records, my house is worth $600,000 right now. With that pole in front of it, with no camouflage whatsoever, I'll be lucky if I can get $300,000 for that house. So it's deflating the property values in that particular area. There seems to me to be a reason they could put them at the top of the street. There's one at the top is Sheridan Ave. It's the top of Sheridan and Spring Street and it's 001. It's there with absolutely nothing on it. I'm sorry, 001 is the 23 Hooker Street one. There's nothing on that. And then the one on the top of Salem Street, there's a tree near it, but it's right at the top of the corner of Salem and Sheridan. It's pole number 4332.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Yes, thank you very much, Miss Kendall. So I do have your list and I sent it to all the committee members. I appreciate it. And I would like to just say a couple of things. We're going to have Verizon, I'm going to ask Verizon about the one at 23 Herker Street, I believe, on Mr. Conway's map, that was one of them that they looked at. wasn't able to, but we'll go and confirm that with them. And also too, the other thing I want to just remind you, and I believe Mr. Conaway should be able to speak to this too, is how the coverage works and what sort of the zone that they're looking at would be for coverage. So we can speak to that as well. But before that, the house value, and it's not really the purview of this committee, the value of homes and all, but I do know that there are, I'm not trying to rebut you or anything, but there are many, many, many people on the other side of this issue who believe that having an antenna near their home would actually increase the value of the home. So I think it depends on how you look at it. I have neighbors here where I live that want, they say, when's an antenna coming to my house? So I think that there's a lot of different opinions on that. I'm not sure it's a huge concern. With that said, I believe you said your sister, your cousin would like to speak.
[SPEAKER_16]: Mr. Marilyn Jordan, she doesn't seem to be able to get in. Can you unmute her in some way?
[Tim McGivern]: We can unmute her, yes. If she is in the room, we can certainly unmute her.
[SPEAKER_16]: I think if you look at the participants, it's Jordan, she was further down. Let me just look again.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, we'll have Amanda look it up and see if we can find her. She's doing that right now, so.
[Amanda Centrella]: I do see a Marilyn.
[SPEAKER_17]: Yeah. Marilyn, can you hear us? I can, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. All right, first, I just would like to say that I was the one who took all these photos. And this picture, and this happens to be poll number 1517 at 21 Farragut Ave, is way above the house. So there it is. I took these pictures and that's way above the house. I don't know what angle he took his at, but I took mine dead on. The same thing with pole number 1913, which is on Farragut Ave. It's quite a bit of ways from the tree. And if you wanna take a look at mine, 101 Sheridan Ave, I'm right next to a tree too, even though they chopped it and they cut down my other tree. When it is in foliage, that's what it looks like right next to the tree. The pole is there, tree is there. So some of these excuses, And I'm calling them excuses is because I don't think Verizon, they've already counted their chickens before they hatch. They've already got the wire wrapped around my pole at 101 Sheridan Avenue ready to go. They just don't wanna move them. This is the other one on Farragut Ave. I don't know if you can see it in there, but there's my pole right there, right in his backyard. So this is only 230 feet away. So it's not gonna change any of his configuration. There's no, it's further away from their house than it is from mine. As I stated before- What number Farragut is that? I'm sorry, what number? I'm sorry, that's poll number 1516, 33 to 35 Farragut Ave, it's two family house. And as you can see, the poll is way, already way above that. Now, yes, maybe these polls will have to be replaced, they're not new ones. In the packets I gave everybody, my sister gave everybody, I marked out what were the new ones. But the leaf cover is a diversion. I spoke to several people from Verizon and several electricians who said that that 5G years ago, or maybe even less than a year ago, the technology has improved so much that you know, it's going through a tree.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. We have your point, Ms. Jordan. Thank you very much. It was well-made. Okay. Thank you very much for that insightful commentary. Appreciate it, Ms. Kendall and Ms. Jordan. So, and I will say, I would like to thank Verizon. I appreciate you taking a second look at that. Just a couple of questions that came up there that I'd like addressed, please, is if you could go back to that graphic, I believe, One of the ones was Hooker Street, on Hooker Street, it was near 23 Hooker Street. You guys look at that one.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, can I say, do you have the photos that were just referenced? Do you have sets of those for the official file?
[Tim McGivern]: I don't have photos of them. The ones that, oh, I'm sorry. I don't have what Verizon showed me just now. I have what Ms. Kendall and Ms. Jordan sent me. I do, yeah.
[Robin Stein]: If we can also get Verizon's, if someone could just submit those so we have them for the record, that'd be great. It's a little harder over Zoom, so I didn't want to forget.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep. You guys can email those to me or the 5G comment email address and we'll get them. If you could please do that.
[SPEAKER_15]: Sure. Thank you. So we got to speak about the other poll that's on Hooker. It's kind of close to the corner here of Grant Ave. And as mentioned, about three polls up, we have another node that's going there on Grand Dab, a plan to go there on Grand Dab. So those two poles would be very close to one another.
[Tim McGivern]: And could you speak a little bit about the coverage area? Because one of Ms. Kendall's points was that if you expand this area, there are obviously more poles and more options. Can you just maybe speak just a little bit more? And I know you did already, but a little bit more about the coverage area and how you sort of land on this area?
[SPEAKER_15]: Certainly, and that not being my expertise, I'm going to hand it off to our RF engineer, Jason Flanagan. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, as you can see from the surrounding poles, we do not have a long distance of coverage area. We have two poles. We have a pole proposed on Otis Street and a pole proposed on Grand Ave. Farragut Street and Sheridan Ave are both right in the middle. We can't go down to Central and we can't go up to Salem Street because those are just too far out of the way with the, do you have the deep cover? Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. We'll go to discussion by the committee.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, Tim, I have a question for Verizon. I'm looking at that map and I looked at the pictures that as Kendall sent in to us, that pull at 23 Hooker Street seems to have a lot of clearance from any surrounding houses, much more than a 101 Sheridan. And it doesn't seem to be that it's moving too far for 101 Sheridan, so I don't really understand why you couldn't put it there and how it's gonna affect this coverage that you're talking about. Can you explain that a little bit better? It seems to me it's not moving that far away, so what's the difference if it's on you? I don't want Sheridan or 23 Hooker.
[SPEAKER_15]: I can do my best to cover that. I showed the map, and if we go over to Grand Ave, we have another location we plan to use on Grand Ave. So that location at 23 Hooker Street or Hooker Ave is now about three poles away from another pole we're planning on using for a small cell. So the coverage now just overlapped and it's, you know, we miss a lot of the coverage that we wanna get back to Sheridan and Farragut.
[Paul Mochi]: So what's the closest, if you were put on hooker, Sean, what's the closest it would be? What's the address of the closest poll there you were just mentioning? I think it was 23 Hooker. Correct. How close is your other proposed location to 23 Hooker?
[SPEAKER_15]: How close is it? maybe 200 feet, I'd have to pull up a different app so I can get the exact distance.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay. Well, the reason I'm asking is, and I don't, this certainly isn't our expertise, but why would you need one at all? And if you have to pull that close together, are you saying it's that sensitive that you have to have one, one-on-one Sheridan in that other location adjacent to 23 Hookah for your coverage?
[SPEAKER_21]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Go ahead, Jason.
[SPEAKER_21]: Yeah. These frequencies are much different than the previous frequencies we used on a rooftop site and a larger scale site. These are about 10 times higher in frequency, which means basically the wavelength is 10 times smaller. Basically, if you think about it in terms of listening to a car drive by, you hear the bass notes first, And then you'll hear the singer later on as the car gets closer to you. So that's kind of the same thing here. The big sites that we have on the rooftops are the base notes. These are the singers. So you only hear them if they're very close. And any small object like a tree or a building or anything will stop the signal on its tracks and it won't go any further. So we've used these sites specifically to be very close to where the user is, very close to anywhere that's going to receive signal to provide that signal.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay, thanks.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: What about the 41 to 43 Farragut? Is that the same issue?
[SPEAKER_15]: We had identified the three poles on Farragut as being usable poles as well, just that the conditions of the poles weren't much different than the one at Sheridan Ave. As to distance to residences,
[Alicia Hunt]: I have a question, and I'm wondering if this might be, because I realize there's some difficulties here, right? Like they can't just propose something on the fly tonight, a different poll, and we accept it because it would have to be properly noticed. I am wondering if Verizon would be amenable withdraw the 101 Sheridan tonight, rather than us voting on it and denying it, which I feel may be a high likelihood. Although I don't know, I know only how I would vote. And then it sounds that it might not be off. And then resubmitting proposal for a different location. And we would then hear the new location, it would be properly noticed. one of the other acceptable polls. That would not make it impossible for them to then come back with one-to-one Sheridan if, in fact, there was similar problems. I think what I'm trying to do is to leave the doors open for them in a way that everybody could be amenable. It sounds like they may be willing to do Farragut. I obviously would never vote for one of those without having it properly noticed to the public. I think there might be a way here where you could, we could be working with each other on this location.
[Tim McGivern]: I tend to agree with Alicia on this, and that's similar to what I was gonna propose. I mean, the exact same thing, basically, to try to resolve this particular issue.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yeah, we certainly couldn't move it anywhere else without public notice, so we wouldn't even consider that.
[Tim McGivern]: Right. It would, it would be a withdraw. It would be a, we would, you know, see if Verizon, um, would be open to withdrawing and resubmitting one of those other poll locations and, uh, moving forward like that. So, uh, Paul, um, do you have any, uh, strong feelings on this matter?
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah. Other than what I already stated, I, um, I think that's the right way to go. We have to, uh, given an opportunity to withdraw this, because we certainly couldn't vote on a new location right now without going through the proper process.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Stan has his hand up.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, just so that I'm clear, if we, you know, withdraw, of course, and then look at the three on Farragut. And those are deemed either by the power company or our engineers as being non-status. We would still be able to come back with what we've proposed tonight, correct?
[Tim McGivern]: We wouldn't have control over that. I think, yeah, I mean, we would have to accept an application under the policy.
[SPEAKER_04]: But I think to Ms. Hunt's point, it would give us the opportunity to explore more deeply the Farragut sites. And if those sites are, you know, for whatever reason, non-starters, we will come back with the application that we've presented to you tonight.
[Tim McGivern]: That sounds like what I would expect, Stan. And I think, I think, too, it gives Verizon an opportunity to take a closer look, even at that Hooker Street pole, because if the reason is proximity to another proposed location, then there's an opportunity to potentially adjust the other potential location on Grant, whether it move it closer towards Salem Street or what have you. So I think that opportunity then might exist as well for Verizon. With that said, I'd like to ask Verizon if, if they would like to take this opportunity to withdraw one on one Sheridan Avenue.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Mr. Chairman, Tim Trudowski from Robinson and Cole, filling in for my colleague, Mike Jima, who due to a scheduling conflict was unable to be here this evening. Just to clarify a question for the chair, when you say Verizon would withdraw, I'm assuming what you mean withdraw without prejudice, such that if upon further analysis, it's determined that there are in fact no other viable alternatives, then we would be allowed to refile at the same location, one-on-one chair. Is that correct?
[Tim McGivern]: That is my understanding and expectation.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. I feel that because this process may be new to some of the residents, Tim and I deal with a lot of boards that have proposals that get withdrawn and approved and et cetera. If this poll was refiled, then there would be a full public notice for that location. And so Ms. Kendall and Ms. Jordan would absolutely be aware of that situation and that there was a new hearing. And I just wonder if anybody knows well enough to eyeball the distances that we're using on this. If one of those addresses on Farragut Street was filed, I think they would be within the notice radius, so they would actually be aware that that had been filed, is that correct? I know it's hard to say for sure. They'd be close.
[Tim McGivern]: On Farragut Avenue, Alicia, I did eyeball it. I think at least 101 Sheridan would get a notification, yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: So they would be fully aware whether one of those locations are being filed or 101 Sheridan was being filed.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I'll do a little bit better than an eyeball. I'll get this open here.
[Alicia Hunt]: I just don't want anybody to think that we would be trying to do this without a full awareness of all the affected parties here.
[Tim McGivern]: Right, so the even side of Sheridan Avenue is approximately 200 feet away from Farragut Avenue. So add another 100 feet to that, and that's what the radius is for the notification. So.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Kim, are you, have you, are you able to share Ms. Jordan and Ms. Kendall's proposals with Verizon, all the locations that they have shared with us for investigation?
[Tim McGivern]: I think I can. I would just double check that, but I, you know, I think so. Yeah, I think so. We received it today. So yes. All right. So Verizon, would you like us to move on this or would you like to withdraw?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Chairman Tim Trudovsky again from Robinson and call in consulting with my clients. I think our position at this point is given the length of time that we've had these applications in with with the city. And we've shown extensive good faith in allowing the shot clock to be extended. Time and time again, we've done our due diligence prior to submitting the applications prior to this meeting again this evening, and we've explained to the board the reasons why this is the correct site for this particular location and why, despite, you know, other sites being pointed to us, pointed out to us as possible alternatives, we need to rely on our engineers and the RF specialists in making determination that this is in fact the only candidate that works for this particular site design. So at this point, we are not inclined to withdraw the application, but would ask that the board to go on the application.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. All right, at this point, if there's no further discussion, then- I believe the policy states that we can deny based on aesthetics and neighbors' concerns.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So I'm just putting that out there.
[Tim McGivern]: Sure, yep. Residential concerns based off of the petition. And also there in the policy, part of that is a demonstration by the applicant that this location is superior from a community perspective to the other poles in the area. Based off the information that Ms. Kendall shared with me, I'm not confident that It is the superior location or it is superior from a community perspective. All but three dwellings basically signed that petition. That means a lot. They oppose the installation. The resident at 101 Sheridan Ave has given this committee information on similar poles in the area that may be superior. So with that said, I await a motion from the committee.
[Paul Mochi]: I make a motion.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'd actually like to just comment first that I also heard Verizon say that there were other polls that may be appropriate.
[Tim McGivern]: Correct, same reason I'm not confident.
[Alicia Hunt]: All right, Paul.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Mr. Chairman, for the record, you've cited two concerns raised by your butters with regard to this location. Can you specify what exactly those concerns are?
[Tim McGivern]: The concerns are aesthetic concerns as well as proximity to their home.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Okay. And specifically from an aesthetic standpoint, to the extent that this design is essentially the same as every other design before the committee previously in this evening. And from a distance separation standpoint, it's similar to many of the sites that have already been approved and to virtually all of the other locations that we looked at and discussed this evening. I guess I'm looking for some differentiation between this particular site and the other sites that members of the public and members of this committee seem to have a, be of a thinking that are superior to the site.
[Tim McGivern]: That's reflected by the record. Thank you for your comments. So my understanding, the community is the Sheridan Ave community, and they're concerned with the, with the location, the aesthetics, and they have a petition that says they don't want the antenna there. And the policy does state that the applicant must demonstrate that it's the superior location. So the differentiation is the residential concerns of the community.
[Paul Mochi]: And I think also the differentiation in this particular site is they gave us some specific alternative locations that were discussed earlier tonight. And some of those alternative locations and what I've done my research on seem to be much more open spaces and there's further setbacks from the dwellings. So I think that's in my mind, a big different orientation that what this neighborhood is doing with their particular site.
[Alicia Hunt]: Of the ones that we approved, I would have to go back and be 100% certain, but this is the only one that I saw that was about eight to 10 feet from an open sitting front porch, that the others were a little further from the houses and were not or didn't have seating locations right in the front yard of the house like that.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I would also agree with that, with Paul's opinion that other locations have been put forth by not only the residents, but actually Verizon has also said that there are potentially other locations that would be suitable.
[SPEAKER_11]: So this does not fit the definition of a superior location.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, thank you everybody. I'd like to entertain a motion and continue with the agenda.
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to deny the application for 101 Sheridan Avenue. Do we have a second?
[Robin Stein]: Second. Tim, can I just suggest, because there's been a lot of comment from board members that you just summarized as part of the motion for the written record, the reasons for the denial so that it's a board, decision and not individual comments.
[SPEAKER_18]: Sure.
[Robin Stein]: Um, so the motion would be to deny based on the following and just to make sure that everything's captured for purposes of writing up a decision.
[Robin Stein]: If you want, I can, I can say what I have in my notes and then if I'm missing anything, you guys can add to it.
[Tim McGivern]: So item 2J in the policy, description as to why the desired location is superior to other similar locations from a community perspective, including visual aspects and proximity to residential dwellings, schools, parks or playgrounds. And then I believe if we need to repeat, we can Robin, but if you didn't catch the reasons from the committee members.
[Robin Stein]: So I would include in the mode. This is what I've heard. And if I'm missing anything, you can let me know, but I would include in the motions for the reasons for the denial. And what I heard was that in addition to failing to meet to Jay, which requires that you demonstrate superior proximity for the reasons set forth there in the policy allows you to deny off residential and aesthetic concerns. This pole is very close to an open front porch. The neighbors have suggested other suitable locations. Verizon has indicated those locations may be suitable, at least three other poles on, I believe, Farragut Avenue. All of those three locations are more open up greater setbacks from the houses than this particular location. And that's what I have. If I'm missing anything, please add to it.
[Tim McGivern]: I think the only other one was the, did you catch the petition? They all basically all but three houses in within 200 feet of the pole signed the petition to oppose it. So that demonstrates the residential concerns aspect of this.
[Alicia Hunt]: Robin, is it appropriate for the, to also let the record reflect that we've offered them the opportunity to withdraw without prejudice rather than being denied? You certainly could add that. Such that they could refile upon further research. They could resubmit this one that we've offered that.
[Robin Stein]: You can also add that you offer rising the opportunity to study the other three locations that they indicated might be suitable alternatives and that they declined the opportunity.
[Tim McGivern]: I agree. We can wrap that all in motion.
[Robin Stein]: or you can say you can just deny it for those stated reasons would be the motion.
[Tim McGivern]: And it was Paul's motion. So Paul, if you want to comment on whether that is a good summary of your motion.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, I think it is. I think that captures everything that we had discussed in relation to this site.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Who is the second on that again? Alicia, is that you?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think so.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, we'll do the roll call. I'm just gonna mix up the order. I did the same order of you guys last meeting. I'm gonna switch it up this time just to keep it fresh. Marian O'Connor.
[Alicia Hunt]: So a yes vote. A yes to deny or a no to deny.
[Tim McGivern]: Correct, yes, a yes, a yes.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: A yes to deny, a yes on the motion, yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Exactly, the motion is. Got it. So is it a yes?
[Dave Rodrigues]: May I make a comment? I'm sorry to interrupt.
[Tim McGivern]: You may make a comment, yeah.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Thank you, and I apologize for interrupting. I just want to state for the record, I believe one of the committee members indicated that this particular pole is within about 18 feet from a front porch. Our measurements indicate that this particular pole is located 28 feet from that house, which is more distant than at least one other poll that was approved by this committee last week. I'm told Medford number one or 001 is closer to the house. And also for the record, I do want to reiterate that Mr. Conway did address the three polls on Farragut and concluded that they were not superior to this particular location by way of addressing the other application that was approved that's closer than this particular one, I mentioned application number 0001, the street address is 50 George.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Thank you. Marianne, I didn't catch your yes or no.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: On the motion to deny, yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Alicia Hunt?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Mulkey? Yes. Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: Robin 50 George does not have an open front porch, which is what I was saying.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Next on the agenda, back to, do we need a vote to go back to regular order? Robin?
[Robin Stein]: No, I think you can just proceed.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, all right. So next is application 14-281 Boston Avenue. Amanda, if you could pull that up on the map.
[Alicia Hunt]: Amanda, are you good with the map or did you want me to do it?
[Tim McGivern]: We've got to back up with Alicia, if we need it. So while she's pulling it up, my measurements on this was a while ago, but it's poll number 2677. There is a double poll there right now. And when we get to it, I'll ask to confirm that the double poll is in transition. It's within 70 feet of a three-story dwelling, one-story strip mall building below. Dave, could you see if there are any specific comments on this one? And if folks have site-specific comments on this, please put their hand up. It's 281 Boston Ave, application 14, home number 2677.
[Dave Rodrigues]: No emails have been received for 281 Boston Avenue Street.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you.
[Amanda Centrella]: All right, I feel like typically when you can, can you look up individual poll numbers on this map?
[Tim McGivern]: I think that was some trouble that Alicia was having last time, too.
[Alicia Hunt]: On this map, I was able to click, I think, where you're clicking, and so I have a search thing next to it, right next to where it says proposal. Between that and the X, I have a magnifying glass, and I was able to search.
[Tim McGivern]: Try clicking on open in my maps, too. I find that might be helpful.
[Alicia Hunt]: There you go. Now you can type in either the full number or the street address.
[Tim McGivern]: There it is right there, Amanda. The third one down.
[Amanda Centrella]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: You're welcome. Thank you. I appreciate your patience too. That can be nerve wracking. Maybe on the inside you weren't so patient. I don't know. That anxiety can build up there. All right. So if you're able to just zoom in a little bit closer to that, So there's a, I know I'm familiar with this corner. I'm not sure what the other committee members are. So any, so what I'll, I don't see any hands up. Amanda or Dave, do you guys see any hands up? Okay. All right. Committee members, do we have any discussion on this one? Before I ask about the double pool.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll just comment that it appears to me they're putting in a new poll. The application indicates that a new poll is necessary to go higher. Yep. And I think that's what I see in this photo.
[Tim McGivern]: And if I could have Verizon confirm that this poll is in transition and that it's not meant to be a double poll there.
[SPEAKER_15]: Okay, yep. in the progress and the double wall will be removed.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. All right, there's any further discussion or a way to motion?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: The residential apartments on top of the others all commercial.
[Tim McGivern]: One story.
[Paul Mochi]: One story building Marion.
[Tim McGivern]: All commercial then. Yeah. And the tennis, it's significantly higher than the building.
[Adam Hurtubise]: month to approve.
[SPEAKER_18]: Do we hear a second? Second. All right, Alicia Hunt.
[Robin Stein]: Excuse me, Tim, that's just subject to the 12 standard conditions?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes.
[Robin Stein]: Thank you, Robin.
[Tim McGivern]: And moving forward, any motion to grant with conditions? And please, committee members, say grant with conditions, and then it'll be our general conditions.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, you can just say with the 12 standard conditions, but we should do it for each.
[Tim McGivern]: Each one, yeah. Thank you. So that is confirmed. That's the motion, Paul? That was Alicia's motion, Tim. Oh, I'm sorry. Alicia, can you confirm that's the motion?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, motion to approve with our 12 standard conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: OK, second by Paul. Second. OK. Mary Ann O'Connor, vote? Yes. Alicia Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Mulkey? Yes. Tim McGibbon, yes. All right, next one is application number 17, 204 Winthrop Street, poll number 4182. This one's also a double poll. So again, I'll just ask to confirm that it's in transition. This one, however, it does not meet ADA clearance. The measurement from the pole to the back of the sidewalk is only 29 inches. So that's a problem that doesn't meet ADA requirements for passing. And the third story of a three-story dwelling is within 30 feet of the antenna, as you can see in the image here. So in my mind, the biggest issue on this one is the ADA clearance. So our policy is pretty clear that they have to meet ADA clearance requirements. And again, 36 inches is what you're looking for for a passage. on any stationary objects such as a mailbox pole, anything like that. The minimum is 36 inches for pedestrians.
[Alicia Hunt]: Amanda, are you able to show the street view easily? Because I just pulled that up. And when I look at the street view, it's like a foot and a half. It's so narrow.
[Tim McGivern]: Well, there is debris on the ground. So there are leaves and bushes. My measurement was from the back of the sidewalk. to the pole, so I had to move debris.
[Adam Hurtubise]: How many inches did you measure?
[Tim McGivern]: I measured 29 inches. From the end of the sidewalk to the pole. Back of sidewalk to the pole, correct.
[Alicia Hunt]: I have a lot of concern about it. where institutionalizing, they add another system, a pole that does not allow clearance. And this is not just any pole, but this sidewalk is leading right across the bridge to our parks and stuff. And this is very dangerous.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I put motion to deny based that it doesn't meet ADA clearance.
[Robin Stein]: Do you want to, excuse me, maybe just comment. I don't know if perhaps they have a plan for addressing that.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I think before we motion here, Marianne, what I'd like to do is just read item 4C in our policy. Prohibitions, no small cell wireless installation shall be installed on poles that do not meet sidewalk clearance requirements and standards. This includes horizontal and vertical clearances for pedestrian passage. Applicable requirements and standards may include but are not limited to ADA and MUTCD. And the sidewalk is pretty narrow in this location. I'm not sure how it can be addressed without changing the location of the poles. Anyway, I will allow Verizon to comment on this.
[SPEAKER_19]: So Verizon can, go ahead.
[Tim McGivern]: Anyone from Verizon?
[SPEAKER_04]: Tim, if I could.
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes, please.
[SPEAKER_04]: Is there any way of gaining additional sidewalk on the other side without moving the pole and increasing the sidewalk with itself physically, still being in the right of way?
[Tim McGivern]: If you go back a sidewalk, you end up on private property. And if you go into street, then you end up in travel way and shoulder. So not really.
[SPEAKER_04]: So the sidewalk limitation marks the edge in the total public way there? Are we certain of that?
[Paul Mochi]: Usually, yeah, excuse me, most properties in Medford, that's the transition, the edge of the sidewalk is the transition from going to private property to the public right away. So I would say that's probably the same case here.
[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, it's pretty typical citywide.
[SPEAKER_04]: Okay, thank you, just asking.
[SPEAKER_19]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. So Marianne, for the purposes of your motion, the specific item in the policy is 4B, the one that I read.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Do you need me to restate the motion?
[Tim McGivern]: You can just confirm, clarify that that's- In accordance with 4B of our policy, yes. Motion to deny based on- Robin, is that clear enough for the motion?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: not compliance with ADA.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep.
[SPEAKER_18]: All right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[SPEAKER_18]: Alicia?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: Second, okay. And I'll take a roll call vote. Paul Mulkey? Yes. And just to be clear, everybody, yes would be to deny. So Mary Ann O'Connor?
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGivern, yes. Moving on. 24 Tesla Avenue, application number 50, poll number 3787. So there it is. So this one, those two buildings are 20 feet, give or take a few feet from this poll location. Dave, any emails?
[Dave Rodrigues]: No emails on 24 Tesla Avenue.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, is there anybody in the public who would like to speak on 24 Tesla Avenue? Amanda, if you see anybody, let me know or Dave.
[Amanda Centrella]: I do not see anyone.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Open it up to committee discussion and questions.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: The height of that pole, Tim, for the height of the antenna going on top of the pole, from the ground? Yeah, let me pull the end.
[Alicia Hunt]: From the plans, the top of the existing utility pole is 34 feet, six inches, and existing primary power, here is at 35 feet, six inches, That is the beginning of the antenna.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm going to close that application. If there's no public comment.
[Tim McGivern]: No public comment, no email. We can open it for a motion, whatever.
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with our 12 standard comments, conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. I know it feels like it's getting late already. Do I hear a second?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: I'll take it for a roll call vote. I said I was gonna try to mix it up, but I'm too tired to do that. I'm just gonna go by the order of your faces on the screen. Maryann O'Connor.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Alicia Hunt.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Mulkey. Yes. Tim McGibbon is a yes. Thank you. Next application is 42 Martin Street, application number 53, poll number 1132. So Dave, when you're ready, emails, and then if folks In the public wanting to comment, please raise your hand. My measurements are thus 25 feet from a two-story residential dwelling, 45 feet from the closest three-story dwelling, all in the horizontal plane.
[Dave Rodrigues]: No emails on 42 Martin Street, Mr. Chair.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. And do we see any hands up from the public?
[Amanda Centrella]: I see no hands.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. Discussion from the committee. If no discussion, motion.
[Alicia Hunt]: It appears this is a location that is getting a new pole where the proposed top of the utility pole will be 38 feet, six inches.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with our 12 standard conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: Do we have a second? Second. Put it to a vote. The order's changing on my screen. Now Amanda's at the top. Alicia Hunt? Yes. Paul Moki? Yes. Marian O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm yes as well. Next application is number, sorry?
[Robin Stein]: Sorry to interrupt. I had a little technical glitch there. Did you say that was with the conditions? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I just missed it. I apologize.
[Tim McGivern]: Not a problem, not a problem. One of the reasons I'm at home is because the internet connection at City Hall glitches out every 15 minutes. So I'm wondering if Alicia, that's happening to Alicia, but anyway.
[Alicia Hunt]: Again, it's working tonight.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, good. Maybe they put boosters in. All right, the next application is number 5290 North Street. Poll number 2036. Any emails?
[Dave Rodrigues]: There are no emails from 90 North Street.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, and anyone from the public here to comment?
[Amanda Centrella]: I see no hands.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, discussion from the committee. My measurements 20 feet away to residential third story buildings, as you can see, that's about 20 feet.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: The antenna seems to be going way above the roof line.
[Alicia Hunt]: It's the proposed, it's a new power, a new utility pole looks like from street view that that's what's in now at 38 feet, six inches. Way above the roof line on street view.
[Paul Mochi]: make a motion to approve 90 North Street with standard conditions. I'll second.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: All right, thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Ann O'Connor, vote?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Alicia Hunt, vote?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Mulkey? Yes. We give her a yes. 104 College Avenue. 104 College Avenue. Application number 10. Poll number
[Dave Rodrigues]: 1598. We do have a number of emails on this, Mr. Chairman.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Do you want to read them if they're short or summarize them?
[Alicia Hunt]: I want to make sure that I'm looking at the right poll.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_18]: I think that's right.
[Alicia Hunt]: I have it on street view. Do you want me to show it on street view for the... Yes, please.
[Tim McGivern]: I have some notes on this too from some residents.
[Alicia Hunt]: I believe based on the no heavy trucking sign that this is the same one as in our packet.
[SPEAKER_18]: That looks, that looks right.
[Alicia Hunt]: So maybe, maybe now you want to read the read the comments now.
[Tim McGivern]: Dave, you wanna go through the emails?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Yeah, so we received an email from John with no last name. His biggest concern is he lives at 94 College within the 300 feet of the proposed site. He has safety concerns. He is curious as to whether putting this tower at 100 College could in any way impact his health or property values. And if it needs to be disclosed before he sells this house. Received another email from Ryan C, which I believe was sent to several members of the committee, that they live directly across the street from the proposed site at 104, and they state that they do not consent to the installation of 5G equipment, strongly oppose this type of encroachment, eyesore safety and health risk, may request if necessary in order to be created to stop this from moving forward. They do outline a number of questions, thoughts, facts, and concerns. Regarding 5G, namely that it's faster, but with less battery life. It doesn't work on all phones. Phones operating and receiving the 5G signal are known to overheat. The device designed to specifically work with phones sent a signal that could basically quote unquote cook the phone until it malfunctions and ask the question why they would want to carry that phone in their pocket or hold it near his head. What can that do to us, an infant, wildlife, or children close by at the L.A. Pearson Daycare Center? The 5G antenna will be broadcasting extremely high frequency microwave signals 24 hours a day, every day. Long-term exposure to radiation can affect the skin, eyes, internal organs, and cause unusual brain and heart tumors. Asked the question, wouldn't more antennas eventually be needed and added for each 5G company, Sprint, Comcast, et cetera, which will turn to increased exposure levels? Many doctors and scientists know that 5G is unsafe and have formally cited the FCC to post more torium on 5G use. Why have some countries banned 5G? How could this be weaponized and used in a hostile way for data collection, information control, warfare, hackers, et cetera? It states that the US Department of Defense already has a weapon called the active denial system, which uses the same technology to make people's skin feel like it's stinging or burning. Turn up a notch, this weapon could microwave people to death. Ask the question, who is guaranteeing the safety of this? What is that guarantee? and asked the question, what plan of action will you take if this were to move forward? And if there are any adverse reaction to arrestment. States again that they are greatly concerned about the health issues and unforeseen complications that may arise from 5G. And again, reiterates their lack, they're stating that they do not consent to the equipment installation. That was signed by Christopher of 96 Stanley F. Said also on behalf of Christopher, the property owner of 94 Stanley F.
[Tim McGivern]: And I will say that I received residents at 94 and 96 Stanley out of the Christopher's the same, the same folks object to the placement. So that sounds pretty clear that they object to it and they request a location further away. So it's all noted and take it into the record. And the other, it is across the street from the Elliott Pearson School. And Paul, I don't know if you know the answer to this question, but Paul Mulkey, did that use of that building change? Are you aware of, I believe it did, but I'm not quite sure.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, I believe it did. And because of the restrictions we've had on COVID this past year, we were not able to go in there, do our annual inspections because it was a, was a school facility at the time, so I don't know exactly what's the latest classification of that building, but I'll find that out.
[Tim McGivern]: The poll, and just a couple of notes for me. So the poll is in the Stanley Avenue right away, as opposed to the College Avenue right away. I think you can see that here in the photo here on the screen. And it's, within 18 feet of that house that you can see in the photo here as well. But as you can see, the pole is significantly higher than the home.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Is that a double pole? I mean, according to that photo, but according to the plans, that other pole isn't there.
[Tim McGivern]: I don't have it in my notes that it's a double pole, Marianne, which leads me to believe it may already be back to a single pole, but that doesn't mean I, You may have missed it, but this would be another one that we do have one of our standard conditions. It says, our policy says it, and our condition says it, that you can't put it on the double pole. You have to wait until the pole is a single pole before it can be placed on it, per the plan to as well.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And I know, again, in this photo, it doesn't look as direct, but in the application photo, it looks to me like the pole is leaning. I don't know if that's, just the photo that was taken for the application, but the pole seems to be a little bit.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, that's an angle to Miriam. So it does look like it's got a lead to it.
[Alicia Hunt]: My impression is that that's photo is of the old pole. That is the one that in the street view we see being removed because the new pole is 38 feet, six inches, which is what I feel like I'm seeing here is a very tall pole that's in the process of being installed. I guess my concern is while I do not understand why our policies say they should not be near schools, our policy says it should not be near school. And so just to make sure we have this clarification, is this directly across the street from a school or is it not? because I think the question is whether or not that building is currently a school. And I would think that it would be, regardless of COVID, any school that is closed because of COVID, I would anticipate will reopen. If it's closed because they're changing their use of their building, that's a permanent change.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: The Elliot Pearson is still operating during COVID, I can tell you that much.
[Paul Mochi]: And that's pretty much right across from it.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm aware of it, but I've never visited. I didn't know where it was. Is that the Elliott Pearson School right there? Did we refer back to our policies? Again, I'm not clear why that's in our policies, but I don't write the policy.
[Tim McGivern]: Well, there's also no setback number Yeah, right.
[Alicia Hunt]: So what does that mean?
[Tim McGivern]: There's no like it doesn't say like must be, you know, 100 feet away from a school. It doesn't say that.
[Alicia Hunt]: Where does it say that it can't be near a school? For some reason, I thought that was like maybe in the FCC policy or something.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm trying to find it. It does mention it, it doesn't.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, I'm looking for it too.
[Alicia Hunt]: The other day during our meeting, I looked a few times to try to figure out where it said about not being near parks or schools and because people kept mentioning it, but I couldn't find it in the document.
[Robin Stein]: Um, if at least I don't want to jump in, but if it's helpful, I know J of the policy, I think it's one J talks about, um, talks about areas that the city might regulate, which include setbacks on dwellings, parks, playgrounds, or recreational areas. But as I think it was previously discussed, those have not been put into place. So I don't know if that's what folks are talking about.
[Alicia Hunt]: So do you think that's the only, I see that. Description as to why the desired location is superior to other similar locations from a community perspective, including visual aspects and proximity to residential dwellings, schools, parks, or playgrounds. So I guess the question for Verizon is to be explicit, did they consider that this is right across the street from a school as part of it? I feel like that's what this is requiring, that they've taken that into count in their placement. But you're right. If I was to rewrite this, I might add a specific... Might be more specific here. Could Verizon speak to this specific location and why this spot on this pole and not further, some other, further up or down the street?
[Tim McGivern]: So Verizon, you can address that. I'm just trying to find any reference in the policy.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Mr. Chairman, Tim Trudowski from Robinson and Cole. I'll ask Sean perhaps to weigh in a little bit as well. But I think in reading the policy as a committee member just did that, It doesn't prohibit location in proximity to schools, but asks that we explain why it's a superior location from the community's perspective, including proximity to residential dwelling schools, parks and playgrounds. So in that respect, it's not giving schools higher priority than residential dwellings. And in this case, it's obviously considerably closer to residential dwellings than it is from the school. It's far more distant from and across the street from the school. It also is located at an intersection, which, again, I'll defer to the RF and network experts on the call to pick up on this, but I think from an RF perspective, it is superior to one that's not located at an intersection.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: I can speak a little bit further as to the location. As Tim had suggested there, the location is at the T intersection of the two streets. uh, Stanley and college. So the signal from the, the, the site can go up and down both streets equally. Um, and then as we get down on the ground level, um, you know, the next poll that you can see right there is, um, is a three-way junction pole. That's very close to the, uh, to the Stanley ab corner there. There's probably about 15, 20 feet to the next ball. Yeah. So that poll there, there's, primary power running from the top of this pole to the Stanley Ave pole, and then primary power running up and down College Ave. So it's called a three-way junction pole. Those poles are not allowed to attach to. If you had, I guess the way we're looking to the next pole up on College Ave, the next pole up is 1560 slash one, and that pole has a transformer on it. So we're unable to use that poll. And again, the target here was that intersection of Stanley and College so that the signal could travel up and down Stanley and College. I think we're looking the other way. Oh.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I shot past it. Sorry, I overshot.
[Tim McGivern]: And Alicia, Mr. Twardowski, his reference to item 2J was the other reference to parks and schools based off of the superior location. So those are the two references, but neither one of them indicates setbacks. So the actual numbers. Sorry, go ahead. Good. I was gonna see if there's anyone from the public here to speak on this one. Amanda, did we look at that already?
[Amanda Centrella]: I have no hands up.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you.
[Paul Mochi]: Tim, just to, if I could take a second, address one of the comments that was read from the email about writing an ordinance to address setbacks and alleviate some of the other concerns that the neighbors have. And maybe Robin can weigh in on this, but this committee does not have any authority to write either policy or ordinance. And anything that would be written in the future does not apply to these applications because we have to do what we've been doing, which is go by the policy that's in place when these applications were submitted. And Robin, did I misspeak on anything on that? Or can you comment on that?
[Robin Stein]: No, no, Paul, I think that was accurate. I agree this committee just applies the policy that it has within the scope of the policy. And yet again, changes in the future would not apply in my opinion to these applications. At least to the consideration of granting the locations.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay, thanks.
[Alicia Hunt]: One of the questions that was in the comments, Paul, I'm wondering if you have the ability to answer is it says that I wonder, does this need to be disclosed should I sell my house? This is not, I mean, my feeling is that no, but I don't know if there are things that need to be disclosed when one sells a house, if you would be aware of that as the building commissioner.
[Paul Mochi]: Well, from the city audience aspect of that, codes or regulations, excuse me, there's no requirement to do that, that would be covered under real estate law, but I think just to go back up a second, I think Tim phrased it really well earlier when he made a comment on that, there's a lot of experience on that, some people feel it's gonna devalue the cost of the house, other people think it's gonna enhance it, but as far as the city audits regulations, we don't have any requirements for that.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, any more discussion or floor is open for discussion or motion?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I feel the height of the antenna is way above the roof lines again.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I don't see that we have any real reason to deny it. I understand that the abutters are opposed to this location, but the reasons that they've given are not ones that are within our jurisdiction to deny. At least, I don't know if anybody feels differently, but.
[Tim McGivern]: I feel the same. Yeah, I think you're right, Alicia.
[Alicia Hunt]: All right, motion to approve with our standard 12 conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: Do we have a second? I second it. All right, going down my images here. Paul Moki, vote? Yes. Alicia Hunt?
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Ann O'Connor?
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And McGibbon, yes. Next application, 21 Fairmont Street, application number 13, poll number 1067.
[Dave Rodrigues]: There are no emails on 21 Fairmont, Mr. Chair.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Dave, and stop reading my mind. I appreciate the quick response on that too. Let's see, my notes on this one, three-story building within 18 feet, 118 feet away from Wren Hall on Tufts campus. Same plane and tenant is low relative to the building. And just due to the sloping nature of Tufts campus. So you could see what I'm talking about if you spin around, you can see the Wren Hall, which I believe is a residential hall. That's Wren Hall right there.
[Alicia Hunt]: This location is one of Tufts newly renovated upper class dorm buildings, the house. It's my belief, I don't know that for a fact.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, it is Alicia.
[Tim McGivern]: And then do we have anyone from the public here for this one, Amanda?
[Amanda Centrella]: I'm not seeing any raised hands. Just a reminder, I'm sure this has been said already, but for anyone who wants to make a comment, you can go down to the bottom right hand of your screen and click reactions, and then to raise your hand is one of the reaction options, but I do not see anyone.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. All right, open for discussion or motion. Discussion first, obviously.
[Alicia Hunt]: I just thought I'd like to just ask, We don't have any comments from Tufts at all on any of this, is that correct?
[Tim McGivern]: I haven't received anything. Okay. Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: I am aware that they are aware of this petition in general. I actually had a brief conversation with Rocco DiRico from Tufts. We happened to discuss that these 5Gs were in front of the city. I did not ask, I actually didn't, at the time I hadn't looked at the map, and I was not aware that any were in front of their properties. So I didn't discuss that with him specifically, but he was aware that this hearing was happening.
[Tim McGivern]: Good to know, thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with our 12 standard conditions.
[SPEAKER_18]: Do we hear a second? I'll second. Alicia Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki? Yes. Marianne O'Connor?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGivern? Yes. Next one is 32 Brookings Street, application number 185554. Dave, any emails?
[Dave Rodrigues]: We do, Mr. Chairman.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. You can go ahead and read those.
[Dave Rodrigues]: It's an email from, again, I apologize if I mispronounce the name, Slavica Kristic. I am writing in reference to 32 Broken Streets application 18. I would like to know if accepted when exactly 5G will be installed. Also, what are the next cities around that Verizon is concentrating on next and within what time frame? would also like to urge the reconsideration of the specific location as it is too close to Barrie Park, which is always busy with small children playing, and not to mention that many neighbors around the street are strongly opposed to it. We would already receive sufficient 5G service from the other proposed sites in the vicinity. Signed, Slivica. There are no other regards on that location.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, thank you very much. And it looks like we have a Delphine Picard. I apologize if I said that incorrectly. So we can unmute Delphine Picard. And if you could please keep your comments brief, that would be appreciated. Two minutes, please.
[SPEAKER_10]: Um, sure. Can you hear me?
[Tim McGivern]: I can. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_10]: Okay, great. I just want to echo what was in the email, basically, that it's, um, a very close location to bury playground in the nearby peaceful fields. Um, so I also echo what was said to about the elderly at Pearson School that is really close to a place where lots of people come, especially young Children. Thank you. Thank you.
[Amanda Centrella]: could you state your address for the record?
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Amanda.
[Dave Rodrigues]: And Mr. Chairman, we did receive another email a little later on in the evening about 823 from Jared Johnson in regards to 32 Brookings. The objection to the approval of this application based on the following grounds. Verizon has indicated the location where chosen to service existing coverage gaps. However, Verizon's own coverage map on their website indicates no such gaps exist and indicate adequate coverage for all Mefford Hillside. The small cell policy clearly indicates that one of the requirements for application is to include a coverage map. The application includes no such coverage map. Additionally, there is a map with a 500-foot radius map with a red circle centered upon poll number 5554. This circle is actually a 250-foot radius and blatantly misleads residents to think they are further away from the cell tower than they actually are. This closes by saying why approve applications that don't meet the committee's policy for something that is not needed for Verizon's own website. Again, it's from Jarrett Thompson.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much.
[Amanda Centrella]: And Delphine, if you want to just state your address.
[SPEAKER_10]: Sure, it's 10 Brookings Street.
[Amanda Centrella]: Great, thank you. Next in the queue is Joseph Nazaro. If you could also give your address for the record.
[SPEAKER_18]: Hello, Joseph. Joseph, we got you?
[SPEAKER_01]: Sorry, sorry. It's 98 Princeton Street.
[Tim McGivern]: The question is- Joseph Nazaro, correct is your name?
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes. Okay, thank you. Why are new polls not being installed as new polls were installed in Boston so that sensitive areas such as the ones that were discussed can be avoided? Why are they just using existing polls? Is it just to save money?
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. I can't address that one. The policy does prefer a co-location, so an existing poll.
[SPEAKER_01]: But if there are objections from the neighbors, why can we not use a new poll, install a new poll? Other cities are doing it. Why is Medford not doing it?
[Tim McGivern]: I don't think it's off the table. So we have discussed it on other locations in the past. The policy does indicate co-location efforts. Thank you very much. And then as far as some of the other questions, when installed, Verizon did address that before, but we can have them address it quickly again. And as far as next cities, Verizon can answer that or not. It's not relevant to Medfair, but they can if they want.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Mr. Chairman, we did receive an email from Ms. Picard as well, reiterating the comments that she made earlier.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. All right, so I'll ask Verizon just to address the question when installed and if they desire to address the next city's question. Thank you, that's the time.
[SPEAKER_15]: Sure, I can grab that one. The plan would be, you know, within within, I guess, the 30 days of getting approval and us getting the letter out, we'd want to get out there and get the site built. And we talked about in the first presentation, we do have 5G going on in Boston. And just to add to Mr. Nazaro's question, we've not replaced a utility pole. We're not placed a new utility pole anywhere where we're doing 5G in the city of Boston. We've used all existing or replaced existing light poles there. Thank you.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Tim, could we ask that they speak to the coverage on the website, what they have on their website, the comment that was brought up?
[SPEAKER_18]: Sure. Mr. Conway?
[SPEAKER_15]: I'm going to defer to Jason Flanagan, the RF engineer on that one.
[SPEAKER_21]: I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
[Tim McGivern]: I can summarize it. It was a question about there's a map on Verizon's website that shows full coverage in this area. And the purpose of the antenna would be to expand coverage with this person's understanding. So it would be a question as to why these would be needed if you already have coverage in the area.
[SPEAKER_21]: Ah, yes. The websites on the map, I assume, are referring to the 4G coverage maps. I don't believe we have any 5G coverage maps up on the website. But those would be for our 4G technology, while these ones are for our 5G technology.
[SPEAKER_19]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: OK. OK, so we've heard the emails. We've heard public comment. We've heard some responses from Verizon, so we can discuss it as a committee. So it's open to discussion. I read my measurements already.
[Alicia Hunt]: It's up above. It's that this one is proposed to be starting at, well, the top of the utility pole, this says it's 32 feet, three inches, and the equipment will start above that. It looks like it's above the top of these properties, so I'm gonna try and get that. I don't see that we have grounds to deny this. It's clearly going to go above the roof lines.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And these have all been, you've checked all these for the ADA, right, that the last one on this one, they look like, I mean, it's hard to see from the applications and from the photos, but this looks like a pretty wide sidewalk. I meant to ask that about the last one.
[Tim McGivern]: Sure, yeah, just in general, just so the committee understands, I did go out and look at everyone. I only measured if it was obvious that, you know, it was close or didn't make it, you know, and it's like this one, this is pretty typical in the city of Medford, where within a foot or so of the curb, you have a pole. Our sidewalks are all six or six and a half feet, if you include the curb, citywide, basically, unless you're in a downtown area where obviously they're wider. business area, but the vast majority of our sidewalks are six or six and a half feet. So, do the math, you know, you got usually about four and a half to five feet of clearance, typically, between a pole and a property line. So, you know, most of the time you can tell just by looking at it, if the clearance is there. And there's vertical clearances as well, eight feet. So, you know.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I know the last one looked tight and I meant to ask, but this one looks fine. Okay, thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I looked at all of them.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Thanks.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, this location here, the height of this looks pretty high, especially in relation to the two closest structures there. And like Alicia, you were saying, based on the criteria in our policy, I don't think there's any reason not to approve this. So I'll make a motion to approve this location with the standard conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: We have a second?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: A second.
[Tim McGivern]: I'll do a roll call vote. Paul Mulkey? Yes. Alicia Hunt?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Ann O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGibbon? Yes. Thank you. Lost my place here. Next one is 42 Quincy Street, application number 51, poll number 798. And let's see, any emails on this one, Dave?
[Dave Rodrigues]: No emails on 42 Quincy Street, Mr. Chairman.
[Tim McGivern]: OK, I see Mr. Nazaro's hand up, but we're doing site-specific comments, unless you have a site-specific comment. So anybody has a site-specific comment, please put your hand up. Mr. Nazaro, if it's not site-specific, could you please take your hand down? Thank you. Okay, my measurement for this one was 30 feet closest. I'm sorry, 30 feet to the closest three-story dwelling. All right, discussion from the committee.
[Alicia Hunt]: They appear to be putting in a new pole. The top of the proposed utility pole here says 34 feet. It appears to be above the roof lines. It's a little harder to tell.
[Unidentified]: It's, yep.
[Paul Mochi]: Tim, did you say, did you do any measurements from the closest house on this one? I didn't know if you mentioned that earlier.
[Tim McGivern]: I did. It was an approximate measurement, 30 feet to the closest three-story dwelling. To the three-story dwelling. For some reason, I only have one line on this. Some of these, Paul, I did. Okay. 10 months ago or whatever it was. So, um, I confirmed a lot of it, but that was the measurement on that one.
[Paul Mochi]: Well, that looks like you're in the ballpark. Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, I lost it. Um, yeah, it seems to, it's all right. Motion to approve with our standard conditions.
[SPEAKER_18]: Do we have a second? Second. We'll call vote. Paul Mulkey? Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Alicia Hunt?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Marian O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGibbon? Yes. Next one, 25 Brooks Park. Application number two, poll 700. Any emails?
[Dave Rodrigues]: There are no emails on 25 Brooks Park.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. I don't see any hands up, but Amanda, let me know if a hand comes up. Or anyone for that matter? Anyone on the committee or staff?
[Amanda Centrella]: No hands at the moment, but I'll let you know.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. My measurements for this one, 37 feet away from a two-story apartment building and 90 feet away from a three-story apartment building. It's at the very end of Brooks Park. Brooks Park is a boulevard-style road with a very large island in the middle. similar to Governor's Avenue, but it's very short and the pole is in the back.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There it is.
[Tim McGivern]: That's the one, yeah.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, that's it.
[Alicia Hunt]: I knew that was a park. I didn't know that was the name of the street. It looks fine, relatively speaking. It says it's going in at 34 feet, the top of the proposed utility poles, 34 feet.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: We'll explain the rooftops, yeah.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, that's a pretty high roof there, but there's no usable space and it's got some pretty good clearances from the closest building, so. Okay, motion?
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with our standard conditions.
[SPEAKER_18]: Second.
[Alicia Hunt]: Second. This one says there's a street sign to be relocated if necessary. This looks like it's the new pole. What is the street sign? It seems to face the house. Do you see the street sign there?
[Paul Mochi]: They're not talking about that sign on the pole, right, Alicia?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, they are. Yeah.
[Paul Mochi]: Maybe that's it there.
[Alicia Hunt]: Do we have any idea what sign could possibly be facing the apartment building? We have no way to get a view of that from here.
[Tim McGivern]: I do not know what it is, but I think if they put it back where it is, it's fine.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, could I add the requirement that if they can't relocate it on the pole, then they should consult with our traffic director about relocating it, and that way he can make a decision as to what it actually says and what would be appropriate.
[Tim McGivern]: I would just ask you to withdraw your first motion and just do it again.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, yeah. Withdraw that motion. I would like to make a motion to approve with our 12 standard conditions and a condition that they consult our traffic director on relocating the sign on the pole if they need to move it.
[SPEAKER_18]: Robin, did you catch that?
[Robin Stein]: Yes, I did. But you guys are keeping track of these as well, Kerr.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you.
[Robin Stein]: Tim?
[Tim McGivern]: I mean, I'm making some notes. Yes. The other one that was like this was the one in front 200 Boston Avenue, similar, but that was a little bit different. Okay, so do we get a second on that?
[Paul Mochi]: I'll second.
[Tim McGivern]: We'll call vote. Paul Mulkey? Yes. Marianne O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Alicia Hunt?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Kim McGibbon? Yes. So that takes care of that area. So I'd like to take a five minute break. Is that okay with everybody on the committee? It is.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Sounds good, thank you. Yes, please.
[Tim McGivern]: So just before we go, it's 8.55 right now. So we'll be back at nine o'clock.
[SPEAKER_01]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, thank you.
[Unidentified]: You're moving your arms down. Well, I said, I said I'm critical about all of the faculty. Well, that's me. So it's Friday. Well, do you want to work with us, do you? And he said, no, but we're going to have some fun.
[SPEAKER_18]: All right, I see Paul, Marianne, and Alicia.
[Tim McGivern]: Just waiting for Alicia. As soon as she sits down, take a roll call attendance. There she is.
[SPEAKER_18]: Let's do a quick roll call attendance. Paul, are you here? Paul's here, but he's muted. Sorry, Tim, here. Okay, Marianne, you're here?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'm here.
[Tim McGivern]: And Alicia?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Here.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, and the rest of our team, I see Amanda. And I don't see Dave yet. Dave, if you're here, let me know.
[SPEAKER_18]: There he is. And Robin, we got you too? And we got Robin, okay.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. Okay, we're moving on to the next portion of the agenda, portion four, applications in Medford Square in the Glenwood vicinity. All right, next one is 13 Bradley Road, application number 22, poll number 5515. Dave, do we have any emails on this one?
[Dave Rodrigues]: We do not have any emails for this one or any of the remaining applications. I can update if we receive any during the meeting.
[Tim McGivern]: OK, thank you very much. Amanda, if you see anybody with their hand up or Dave or anybody on the committee, let me know. And we'll go there. And folks, we'll just remind folks again, too, if you can use that raise hand function, then that's helpful because it bumps it to the top of my screen so I can see easily. Okay, my notes on this one, the antenna is within 60 feet of a four-story residential building. That's all I had for that one. So committee discussion, questions.
[Paul Mochi]: That looks pretty wide open at that site, Tim. The pole height is almost 35 feet, 3411. So that looks like it's got some pretty good clearances. I don't see any issues with that one. Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Any other comments or questions from the committee?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't have anything. Motion to approve with our standard conditions.
[SPEAKER_18]: Okay. I'll second. Second from Paul.
[Tim McGivern]: And we'll take a roll call vote. Paul Mulkey?
[Paul Mochi]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Ann O'Connor? Mary Ann?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Sorry, I just didn't hear you. Didn't come through. Alicia Hunt?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. And I'm of a yes as well. So that one passes with 12 conditions. Next application is 87 4th Street. Application number 23, poll number 973. And similar comment on this one, 60 feet to a three-story residential building. So it was at 4th Street there. And if you have a comment from the public, please raise your hand. Otherwise we will have a discussion, questions, comments from the committee.
[Paul Mochi]: This one too, I think it's probably got the most clearance of any poll on our list. It's well away from the closest residential structures.
[Alicia Hunt]: This one going in front of the, a lot that I was inquiring about. Oh no, I'm off by a block. I was asking about the one that was up by Webster Street. This is down by Forest Street or Water Street.
[Tim McGivern]: It's a little bit closer to the square. I didn't have any issues with this one.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was going to approve with our standard 12 conditions. I'll second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, Paul, you can have the next one if you want. No, I'll wait. Let me know, Harry. All right, we'll do roll call vote. Paul Moki? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Jason Hunt?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGibbon, also yes. Next is 10 Cherry Street, application 28. Poll number 1350, 1,350. My notes on this, partial double poll. I observed it's on a partial double poll. So again, it's our standard condition about the poll, not being on a double poll would apply to that. The antenna is within 40 feet of a three-story residential building.
[SPEAKER_19]: Should we get the right poll here?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doesn't look like the right one.
[Tim McGivern]: No, it does not.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There we go.
[Tim McGivern]: And since the application happened, oh, we can actually see the installation happening. Look at that. No one knows. Hopefully they got their permit, Paul.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah. Is there a cutoff second pole that's attached to the main pole there? I don't know if you can change that angle at all, Alicia.
[Tim McGivern]: That was my comment. Yeah, there's a partial pole up there. Yeah. So I would want Verizon to address that. Yeah, I wrote partial poll, I was thinking double poll, but no, this is a weird partial poll up there. Just looks so crowded up there. So I wanna know a little bit more about what the plan is for that and that should be cleaned up.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: You have to replace that, Tim? Is that what you're saying?
[Tim McGivern]: It's a matter of, is that partial? It looks like they cut the poll out and left a chunk. They left a chunk and they probably left a chunk for a reason, probably because Elisey's equipment was on there and they couldn't remove that chunk of pole without damaging Elisey's equipment. I'm guessing I, you know, educated guests, but we can have Verizon address that. Uh, but before we do that, before, before Stan or Sean speaks, just want to see if there are, uh, any individuals from the public want to speak on this one? Any hands or anything? doesn't look like there is. Stan or someone from Verizon, Sean, do you want to address the partial poll up there?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, sure. Sean, do you want to jump on this? But I will tell you that typically, when we're waiting for transfers to take place, there will be chunks of the old pole left until the transfers are made, and then that comes off the pole. But Sean, if you could clarify further, please go ahead. I think that's our answer then, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: That looks like there's a lot going on.
[Tim McGivern]: Marianne, one second. Just let Verizon finish.
[SPEAKER_15]: Don't forget your thought. I'm sorry. I was double muted. I can just echo what Stan said. We will have that portion of the pole removed before the small cell will be built.
[Tim McGivern]: OK. Yeah, and both of those statements are consistent with my understanding of how this happens. So Marianne, go ahead.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: No, it just, it looks like there's a lot going on there. So I'm not sure how that's gonna get addressed. So they'll have to remove.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, so you can see there's pieces of timber that is sort of holding up the partial pole, right? Like almost like wood dunnage holding up the partial pole. And then you got, uh, you know, communication services, basically all those lower wires. Um, It looks like a bit of a bird's nest there. So I'm going to suggest on the motion that in addition to the 12 conditions, and this is just clarification, because it's not really a double pole. It's more like some chunks of an old pole are still left up there because it's in process of transfer. So I would suggest the special condition that the partial pole be completely removed, just like Mr. Conway stated is the intent, but just to solidify that.
[Paul Mochi]: So you want to add that as an additional condition to a regular conditions, Tim, is that what you're saying?
[Tim McGivern]: If the committee so desires and the individual who moves so desires.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, I would like to have that added.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Any more discussion from the committee or any other questions?
[Alicia Hunt]: No, I just want to note that the application says existing street sign to be relocated if necessary. But I don't see any street sign on the pole. I would hope that if in changing out the pole, there was a street sign, they dealt with it appropriately. But I've also been looking at it from different angles and I don't see a street sign.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I see the note. Yeah. Yeah, you're right, Alicia. Good catch. I don't see any sign either. And I also don't see a sign in the in the application.
[Alicia Hunt]: In the image?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Maybe, kind of?
[Tim McGivern]: Like a shadow, maybe.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah. All right.
[Tim McGivern]: So there could be a condition to confirm, a confirmatory type condition if they're supposed to be assigned there. I'm not sure how we would do that though, looking at past images or we don't have a...
[Robin Stein]: Perhaps the condition could just be that they consult with the city's traffic director to ensure that any sign that's supposed to be on the pole is replaced once the new poles finish being installed.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I think that covers it, Robin. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: That does have a pretty good handle on all the street signs in Medford somehow.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. We don't have a formal inventory. We're working on it, but we don't have one yet. So it's, um, you know, don't let that out.
[Alicia Hunt]: I guess I just did, but he gives me the impression he has an inventory. Okay. Wait, so move to approve with our 12 conditions and that the piece of a pole is fully removed before the, uh, put it on site and the director of transportation is conferred with about the sign that is mentioned in the application to confirm that it's replaced if appropriate, or if he deems necessary. Okay.
[SPEAKER_19]: Do we have a second?
[Paul Mochi]: I'll second.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm just taking a note. All these ones is one of the stranger ones. It's like, so some of them are so mundane. This one is interesting because we don't know if they should be assigned there. Boy, it's interesting. Okay. Paul Moki? Yes. Marian O'Connor? Marian, you may have voted and we didn't hear you again, potentially.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's frozen.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, we'll go back to Alicia Hunt.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, okay. Marianne is frozen. So we might need to wait a second here. Dave, I don't have Marianne's number. Do you think you could?
[Alicia Hunt]: I do. I just texted her.
[Tim McGivern]: We did. OK. OK. We'll see what she says. We'll just hang tight for a minute.
[Unidentified]: I have a few guys.
[Dave Rodrigues]: It looks like Marianne dropped from the meeting. She just wanted to give her a minute.
[Tim McGivern]: Back to you on text?
[Alicia Hunt]: No.
[Alicia Hunt]: And she did text me earlier in the evening. Confirmed. Oh, she says lost connection.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, lost connection. Okay. I got all kinds of jokes running through my head, but most of them. I know, I'll share with him later.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, we'll talk later.
[Tim McGivern]: It's stupid, you know, it's stupid. Most of my jokes are pretty stupid.
[Paul Mochi]: Well, you're an engineer, you're supposed to have stupid jokes.
[Tim McGivern]: I know, I got a million of them.
[Unidentified]: Sorry, that is funny.
[Tim McGivern]: How long do we wait, you guys?
[Alicia Hunt]: Robin, can we actually consult you about if there are three of us, should we keep vote on this?
[Robin Stein]: Give her a minute and see if she can get back in.
[Tim McGivern]: Let's just take a short break then instead of just sitting around. I'm sure folks might need to use the restroom or get a drink or something. So let's just do just three minutes and we'll see where we're at.
[Robin Stein]: Maybe someone can give her a call and see if she can get back in.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah.
[Dave Rodrigues]: I'll give her a call now, see if we can get a hold of her. Yeah, I did talk to her. She's trying to hop in now. If she can't use her computer, she's going to jump on her phone. It's going to take a few moments.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. Well, let's do the three minutes. It's 920. We'll come back at 923, please. If folks need to do that. So 923.
[Alicia Hunt]: Dave, I just admitted her, you'll have to make her. Marianne, we decided to take three minutes while we waited for you to get hooked up.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Can they see me now? Can they hear me now?
[Tim McGivern]: Roger that.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: You got your name changed. I don't know, my internet just disappeared somehow. It happens.
[Robin Stein]: I'm on the phone. I'm here too. Did I hear you call my name?
[Tim McGivern]: No, no, I was just confirming that Marianne was there.
[Robin Stein]: You said Roger, I thought you said Robin. I thought I heard it.
[Tim McGivern]: I suppose someone named Roger could have piped up too.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Do I need like three more hours on my phone battery here to make sure we get this done? I'm kidding.
[Tim McGivern]: If you drop off again or... Let's just have to end the meeting, that's it. We would still have a quorum.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: That's true. So that's true. I don't know what happened. Dear Lord.
[Tim McGivern]: You gotta stop tempting me with jokes. I mean, we're at... We're in a 5G coverage.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: That's why you need jokes, Tim.
[Tim McGivern]: I know, but I feel like it's inappropriate, so I'm not going to do it.
[Robin Stein]: So you guys were in the middle of voting 10 Cherry Street? Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: OK. So just got to wait two more minutes and then. OK.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: All right. Let me see what I can do with this thing while we're waiting.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Find yourself a charger. Make sure you make sure you're in good shape. Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Over here, it's actually getting cold outside.
[SPEAKER_19]: Thank you for everybody's patience.
[Tim McGivern]: Hi, Marianne, you're in good shape, you think?
[SPEAKER_19]: Couple more seconds.
[Alicia Hunt]: put that one back up.
[Tim McGivern]: The next thing that's going to happen is Marianne is going to cast your vote and that would be all of us. Well, then me. I'm sorry. Marianne, then me.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. That was a yes on the motion to approve with the conditions as stated. And my vote is yes as well. All right. Next one, 101 Sheridan Avenue. Oh, I'm sorry, sorry, sorry, we already did that one. It's next on the list. Next one is 148 Washington Street, application 32, poll number 1317, 1,317. The poll is actually in the Otis Street right of way, close to the intersection.
[Amanda Centrella]: You have a hand raised.
[SPEAKER_18]: Thank you.
[Amanda Centrella]: Bryce, and I apologize if I mispronounce, Shinsius, you're welcome to speak, and if you could state your address for the record.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. It's Bryce Shinsius. I'm the director of Kurukula Center for Tibetan Buddhist Studies. I'm appearing tonight in that capacity, and we are located at 68 Mojiko Avenue. So I have a site-specific comment with respect to application 32. This site is in the immediate vicinity of our backyard. In view of all the information presented during this meeting, our intention here is to recommend against the approval of application 32 strictly on cybersecurity grounds, which by Verizon's own admission is a substantial concern. It is a well-settled point that Tibetan people, including members of the Tibetan diaspora within the U.S., are known targets of espionage efforts by the Chinese state. As such, our temple community is uniquely sensitive to concerns about cybersecurity. I want to make clear that our organization's objection to this specific application is made wholly based on cybersecurity concerns and is unrelated to other considerations such as health, safety, or environmental impact. It would be useful to know how the introduction of this 5G equipment would differ from existing equipment with respect to security and privacy vulnerabilities for users whose data transits the equipment, both as a function of the equipment design and the sourcing of its components.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much, Bryce. I will ask Verizon to address that question. And Bryce, if you could hang on. I heard the question, but I want to make sure if there's any questions on the question that Verizon is able to get a response from you. There was some detail in there that I think was important. So if I could ask Verizon to address that question, it is, I would say, I believe it sounds outside of our purview here today. However, that doesn't mean that we can't ask Verizon to address it.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Tim Trudovsky, Robinson and Cole. I would agree with the chair's most recent comment that this, you know, that aspect of the concerns raised by the abutter here are beyond the purview of this committee. It's not within the interim policy. Also, you know, this facility and all the proposed facilities on the agenda this evening are in compliance with applicable FCC and other federal regulations. So for those reasons, we would object to a denial on those grounds.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. And we have a site-specific question from Mr. Nazaro.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes. Is it against the FCC regulations to consider the security and the privacy of the people of Medford as it is to not consider their health concerns? Is this something that's prohibited? If it isn't prohibited, why can't it be considered?
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much, Mr. Nazaro. And Mr. Podolsky, if maybe you can address that one as well.
[Dave Rodrigues]: The cybersecurity concern is not one that is explicitly addressed in the FCC regulations on the same level that the health effects considerations are directly addressed. But again, this is not, you know, part of the, the interim policy adopted by the city. And also I would comment that that is not a site specific question, but a question or a concern that could be raised with any location anywhere in the city of Medford, not just this location.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. And I would agree, I believe that this is outside of our purview. So thank you very much. Bryce, did you have addition? Okay, thank you, Bryce. I appreciate it. So we have, I believe we have the correct We have the correct poll up there. I was in the middle of checking that. I just wanted to make sure we have the correct poll up there.
[Paul Mochi]: Tim, you got a poll number for this one?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes. Is this the correct one on the screen? And I believe Bryce raised his hand again. OK.
[Tim McGivern]: It's poll number 1317. OK, thanks. Bryce, you did have some time left there. If you could be brief, go ahead and unmute Bryce. I would call you Mr. Shin. I just- No, no.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bryce is more than sufficient. As I've said before, I've been called worse. Just briefly, contrary to council's assertion, my comment was unique to this site because we are the only Tibetan temple in the city of Medford, and hence the concerns about cybersecurity as they relate to members of the Tibetan diaspora are indeed unique to this site.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Thank you very much. My understanding of Mr. Twardowski's comments were more pertaining to Mr. Navarre's comments, this person after you, which was more general for the city. But anyway, thank you. We have one more person. Mr. Swanson. Hello, Mr. Swanson.
[SPEAKER_12]: Hi, sorry, this is Eric Swanson. I'm a consultant for CTI. I just wanted to give you a point of information that the security associated with 5G infrastructures is just as secure as 4G, which is just as secure as 3G. There's really nothing different. It's kind of a rumor out there that 5G is less secure.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Mr. Swanson. OK. All right, and Alicia, did you say you believe this was the correct wall?
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just asking if somebody else wanted to verify. I didn't look it on the, I mean, if you have the overhead view of it.
[Tim McGivern]: 1317 to answer your question.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think that's actually the backyard of the temple as was mentioned there. I thought that their yard actually came right up.
[Tim McGivern]: I mean, if you want to go, um, okay, this is, this is helpful.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. If you go from Washington to Otis street, it's on the right. That looks correct. And that looks like the right number. That looks like the right ball there. There we go.
[Alicia Hunt]: And it otherwise looks like it's in a fine location. I do understand the concerns of uh, Bryce about this. Um, we have a very active, um, Buddhist temple there. Um, but it seems that it's not something that we really have any purview over under our policy. And unless somebody has any information to disprove what the consultant is saying that it's the same technology as 3G and 4G, I don't think that there's anything.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I think the opposition is noted. And Bryce was very eloquent in his description of his concern. So definitely noted. But I do believe it's outside of our purview in the policy as written. So we have it all on record. That's about as we can do at this point. Discussion from the committee? There's no discussion.
[Alicia Hunt]: I motion to approve with our standard conditions.
[SPEAKER_18]: Do we hear a second? I'll second. All right, Alicia Hunt?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_18]: Paul Mulkey?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. Marion O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGivern, also yes. All right, next up we have 4 Central Avenue, applicant number 33, poll number 6063, 6063. And my measurement was 65 feet away from four three-story residential buildings.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sorry, how many feet? 65 feet. Not that pole, obviously, right?
[Tim McGivern]: It's on the north side of the street between Dudley and Park.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Was I just showing it? Sorry.
[Paul Mochi]: I think you just had a second ago, Alicia. Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: So this one on the left here. Pretty far from those houses. Looks like it's the new pole. I don't know if that's the new one, actually. It looks pretty dark. This says there is going to be a new pole. that would be the top of the pole would be 34 feet. Existing street signs we relocated three feet minimum from pole space. Sorry, I was going to the other side to see the street sign and I ran away. There we go. Snow emergency route is the sign on it. Let me see if I can get that back to you.
[Unidentified]: Lost.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Here, I'm getting expert at this. There we go.
[Tim McGivern]: We used to do without Street View.
[Alicia Hunt]: We used to do a lot more. It'd take a lot more staff to be able to look at all these things. So it's this indicates that it's going to be that the sign would stay. I think they were suggesting up or down maybe. Can we just include a condition that the street sign has to be relocated appropriately with consultation of our traffic?
[Tim McGivern]: Is that a motion or a suggestion?
[Alicia Hunt]: Does anybody think differently? Do we know what the sign says?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yeah, it's a snow emergency route.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No emergency route tow zone sign.
[Alicia Hunt]: All right, motion to approve with our standard conditions and that the sign relocation has to be done with consultation of our traffic director.
[SPEAKER_19]: All right, do I hear a second?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, we'll call vote. Yes. Alicia Hunt?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Marion O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGibbon? Yes. All right, 72 Salem Street, number 21, the application number 21. Poll number 5,645, 5645. The poll is actually in the Oakland Street right of way. The closest residential space is 100 plus feet away, but pure hockey? is a place of business and it's directly blocked. That one? That looks correct, yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right across from us here at City Hall.
[Tim McGivern]: So we're not that far away.
[Alicia Hunt]: Does that mean we'll get 5G service here in City Hall?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Anything would be better than the internet service we haven't seen.
[Tim McGivern]: After this, you may just want to do a hotspot with your phone or something. Yeah. Anyway.
[Alicia Hunt]: I've been known to do it. Existing street sign to be relocated if necessary. It's a no parking sign. The top of the pole is 38 feet.
[Paul Mochi]: So that's going to be well above that one story commercial building and it's nowhere near any residences.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. Nice coverage right there into our DPW office. Motion to approve with our standard condition.
[Tim McGivern]: Did you want to add the sign one?
[Alicia Hunt]: With the sign relocation if necessary to be, if it's necessary to relocate the sign in consultation with our traffic director.
[SPEAKER_19]: Okay, do I hear a second?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Second.
[SPEAKER_19]: All right, one second.
[Tim McGivern]: Roll call vote. Paul Mulkey? Yes. Alicia Hunt?
[Tim McGivern]: And to me given is yes. Right next 117 Court Street application number 26 pole 4612 4612. We already voted for it, but Amanda, you didn't see any hands up for 72 C on the street, did you? I didn't, nothing came up with the indicator. So I just didn't ask that. So anyway.
[Amanda Centrella]: Sorry, I couldn't find my unmute button for a second. Um, no, no hands came up.
[Tim McGivern]: That's what I thought. I just wanted to double check, double check. All right. Uh, this one, 17 court street. Um, uh, we haven't heard from Dave. So, uh, Dave, just if you want to just confirm you're still here and you haven't seen any emails for the ones that we're talking about, like you stated.
[Dave Rodrigues]: I am still here. There have been no more emails received. Last email was received at 820. OK, thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I'm in the wrong place.
[Tim McGivern]: While you're doing that, I'll read my measurements. 20 feet away from a three story dwelling, 75 feet away from the Roberts School.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, I'm on Park Street, sorry.
[Tim McGivern]: I think you just had it.
[Alicia Hunt]: No, I was on Park Street and there was a big old transformer, so I knew it couldn't possibly be right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: One of these two here.
[Alicia Hunt]: One by the house as opposed to the one right by the school.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Right in front of a house, it looks like.
[Alicia Hunt]: That one.
[SPEAKER_15]: It's at the other end of the school.
[Alicia Hunt]: Is it this one, or am I at the wrong end?
[Tim McGivern]: You're at the wrong end. It's at the entrance to the bus driveway, Court Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. This one.
[Tim McGivern]: That's the one, Alicia, right there.
[Alicia Hunt]: All right. This one is this. says the proposed utility pole will be 34 feet. The top of the existing pole is 29 feet. I wonder if this is the existing or the new.
[Tim McGivern]: That looks to be like the existing one based off of the photo and the equipment on it compared to the picture with the application.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So there'll be a new pole put here that's 34 feet.
[Tim McGivern]: Correct? Top of the pole, 34 feet, just like Lisa said, you got it with the antenna on top of that.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Does the existing street sign to be relocated?
[Alicia Hunt]: And I'd be more than happy for that if it becomes necessary to put it on a separate pole or this is a slower children, this is an elementary school. It does have a lot of traffic from little children.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: There's plenty of clearance on that sidewalk. The pole does seem to be set back a little.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, that's more than four feet right there.
[Tim McGivern]: And so I measured 75 feet to the Robert school. And obviously that's a four story building. So my kids go to Robert school. I mean, I have no objections though.
[Alicia Hunt]: Um, is there any thought that we might ask them to upgrade this, this slow children's sign better? That is such a butt of jokes.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I know. Yeah, it is the, I mean, if there's a new standard or anything like that, I think that would be reasonable to say, you know, replace the sign if there's a new standard. I'm not sure if there is or not. They do change the graphics. It does look like one of the older ones. but that could be something similar that we did at 200 Boston Avenue where we said, upgrade the sign to current standards.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I feel like it's such a minimal thing and it's the least we can request.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Like I said, I don't know for sure, but it looks like one of the older.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: That's fine, let's move on that, that's good.
[Alicia Hunt]: Anybody else want to say this?
[Paul Mochi]: So Alicia just said you want to make that as a condition of the sign. Okay. So I'll make a motion to approve this site with our standing conditions and an additional condition to upgrade the sign to cover standards.
[Alicia Hunt]: And place them with the, any relocation occurs with the consultation of our traffic director.
[Paul Mochi]: And I'd like to also add that any additional placement is approved by the traffic engineer consultant.
[SPEAKER_19]: OK. Upgrade to new standard. Location confirmed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, second. Do roll call vote. Paul Moki? Yes. Alicia Hunt?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Anne O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGibbon, yes. Okay, 45 Brogan Road, application 27, and it's 6734, full number. It's an easy one to find, it's right at 45 Brogan Road, which is right in front of that house. So this one also does not meet 88 clearance. The resident did speak on this application during the general comment period, and I believe, I think it is Mr. Silvestro, Mr. Silvestro will give you an opportunity to speak in a moment. So that measures 35 inches. That's not it, but when we get there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That one? This one here?
[Tim McGivern]: Nope.
[Adam Hurtubise]: not the slow children one. I'm sorry.
[Tim McGivern]: It's okay. We'll find it. The president had said he had measured 30 inches. I measured 35. Oh, is it this one?
[Alicia Hunt]: It's right in the middle of the sidewalk?
[Tim McGivern]: That is the one. That's the pole.
[Alicia Hunt]: You would think when they put in the new one, which it looks like they did, they would have put it closer to the edge.
[Tim McGivern]: Well, anyway, obviously there's a single story building right there, 12 feet away. Other dwellings approximately 95 plus feet away. And I'd like Mr. Silvestro to speak. Hello, George.
[SPEAKER_22]: Hi, thank you. Yes, I just wanted to say that, you know, it doesn't meet the standard of the 36 inches. Yes. The pole is in the middle of the sidewalk. It just, it's, it doesn't work. There's other poles in the neighborhood. The one that they rejected on, they have it down as 303 Park street, heavily treed. It's a double pole. There is a tree near it, but it's not that heavily. And the 294 Park Street is actually 53 Brogan Road, that pole, 5485, that's at 53 Brogan Road. And on Park Street 214, 2214, the pole at 295, they have indicated as, it's actually 297. 287 actually has a 2214 pole. They all look like to me that they could put it over there, to be honest. It's just, you know, the pole, there are double poles, not double poles, there's two poles with the same number on the same street. So there's a lot of confusion on the poles. There is another pole right across the street on the corner of Brogan.
[Amanda Centrella]: I mean, Brogan and Court.
[SPEAKER_22]: Right by the park. That's clearly visible out in the open. And there's another pole right there.
[Unidentified]: That one there.
[SPEAKER_22]: Looks like a perfect pole to me, but I'm not qualified to make that decision. And at 84 Court Street, There's another perfect looking pole.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much, Mr. and I'm assuming Mrs. Silvestro.
[Unidentified]: Yes, thank you very much.
[Tim McGivern]: You're welcome. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. So I will ask Verizon to address some of those comments that the Silvestro had. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: This is Sean. If I could just speak to the poll that we selected, that's obviously was dropped in the middle of the sidewalk there. I would ask that if we could have a continuance and go back to the utility and talk to them about moving that poll into ADA compliance and outside, you know, out to the edge of the sidewalk.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. I mean, that's what our biggest That's our grounds for a problem here with it. It wouldn't be easier for you to use one of the other poles. And I guess the other question is, Tim, parts of this sidewalk look really narrow. Do we think they could move it, the pole? Is the sidewalk wide enough that if it was placed properly at the edge?
[Tim McGivern]: Sure. So when something like this happens, and I don't know, I'm speculating here, just based off my experience, it may be that they encountered some sort of obstruction or utility or weren't able to put the pole in the proper location. I don't know why it was done this way, but those are some potential reasons which happen now and then. I'm surprised that, They didn't measure it afterwards and say, oh, we can't do that, you know, and then put it back in, put it in the right place. Regardless, if it's a new pole and we don't have the clearances, it's not in the right spot anyway. So unlike that other, the other one on Winthrop Street, which didn't really have much wiggle room, this one may have some wiggle room, but it's hard to know. Like I, like I stated, why, you know, the reason why it landed where it landed. So I don't know if that's helpful.
[Alicia Hunt]: In my opinion, it's in the best interest of the city to get it moved, because that would be the most benefit to the most people. Although that doesn't help the disastrous who don't want it there. I think they may wanna speak again. I feel like their hand went back up, but also Stan's hand is up.
[Tim McGivern]: Ms. Nazarro, I will let you speak. I just wanna make sure it's site-specific. Go ahead, Ms. Nazar.
[SPEAKER_01]: I thought we were trying to stay away from playgrounds where children play. Is this not across the street from a playground?
[Tim McGivern]: The policy doesn't define any setbacks.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, correct. But that was the discussion previously.
[Alicia Hunt]: The policy states that they have to say why it's near a house or a playground. It doesn't actually say they have to stay away from playgrounds.
[Tim McGivern]: Let's continue, and let's, Mrs. Syl, let the Sylvestros have something else to say. I'd like to hear it.
[SPEAKER_22]: Hi, thank you. The pole, that's, like I said, the pole was hit by lightning 20 years ago. It took them 20 years to get out there and change it. The pole was actually- Half of a pole. Two feet over, away from the house. This one is closer. with, you know, my property line is only 10 feet from the sidewalk. And my picture window, it just, I can't physically live in a house and look at that every day. It's just, it's not good for my health. It just really isn't. You've whether they move the pole or not and make compliance. The sidewalk still does not meet one sixth of the street's dimension. It does not fit. The sidewalk is too small. The street used to be my family street, Brogan Road is my wife's maiden name. They owned the park, they gave it to the city. Years ago, they had the choice of taking the park name or the street name. They elected to take the street. It's just, they donated it to the city. That's the least they can do is put it somewhere else. That's all I'm asking for. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you very much.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. We don't have a lot of control as you may have discovered as you have been watching this here.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Tim, we're saying it's not ADA compliant though, correct? As it sits.
[Alicia Hunt]: Could we ask, if they're asking to continue this, to go back to the utility and see about changing it, could we ask that they consider moving the pole a few feet further down and away? Although the sidewalk seems to get narrower as it gets closer to us. And if they're going to move it, move it diagonally and not just towards the road. I'm looking at the wires that are on this. They seem to have a lot of flexibility with this.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. And if we could unmute Mrs. Silvestro for a question from me here. Mr. Silvestro and Mrs. Silvestro, the existing pole that was there prior before this new pole, as you look at this screen, was it closer to us?
[SPEAKER_22]: It was more west of my house. It was going west.
[Unidentified]: It was closer to Court Street. Okay.
[SPEAKER_22]: And my Verizon, that's my Verizon cable coming from Court Street. My utilities come from Court Street. The only thing that comes from Brogan Road is my electricity.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You clarify that for me. Thank you. I was trying to understand. The pole location, this pole.
[SPEAKER_22]: It was west, it goes west on Brogan. The existing pole before it got hit by lightning was west. It was being held up by the tree on the corner of Court Street.
[Tim McGivern]: Got it.
[SPEAKER_22]: They never put a brace on that side, that's why the pole lists to the east.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm with you, I follow, I follow.
[SPEAKER_22]: That's where it was, over there, yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, the sidewalk looks narrow Alicia.
[SPEAKER_22]: It's very narrow it's not one sixth of the street.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, the, it doesn't have to be one sixth of the street so the sidewalk. is supposed to be five feet wide at a minimum, mostly in Medford they're six feet. I'm not exactly sure what this is, but they can be as narrow as four feet and street furniture needs a clearance of three feet, 36 inches. So those are a summary of those rules, but I'm wondering to the committee for discussion here, I'm wondering if you know, when they're looking at that pole location and moving it to an appropriate offset, they only need an inch basically, can it be moved west to the original pole location that was there before? If there was a pole there before and it was serving the same functions, you know, there's obviously distance, distance criteria and parameters when they put these poles in. I don't know the reason why it was moved closer in the easterly direction, and I don't think any of us do, really.
[Alicia Hunt]: And Tim, are you suggesting a few feet, right? You're not suggesting 50 feet, right? No.
[Tim McGivern]: Stan, I'll let you speak in a minute. No, I'm talking about where the existing pole was prior to this pole. So the previous pole when they replaced this one, which if I understand Mrs. Sylvester correctly, it'll be a few feet to the west, just out of the visual frame of his house and his picture window. So, Let's think about that as a committee. And Stan did have his hand up. Stan, we can hear from you. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, clearly we would be interested in moving within the grant of location that we have, and that's usually a few feet either way. This can be easily cured. And I think approving it with that condition and having a site visit with yourself, Mr. Chairman, and the resident, we can come to an appropriate accommodation.
[Tim McGivern]: That aligns with conceptually what I was thinking, Stan. The utility pole locations do have some flexibility as far as where they get put based off the utilities, what's underground, obstructions, limitations, distances from other poles, what they're holding up, all of these variables. So it would be the pole's owner's responsibility to confirm that. I am inclined to try to craft a condition on this one that allows that. And if it can't be done, then obviously you can't meet the conditions. So it sounds like Verizon is open to something like that. So I'll leave it to the committee here for discussion.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Tim, I'm assuming you need the approval from the utilities company as well.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, that's what Stan was referencing, and that's what I was referencing as well. So the owner of the pole, so these are jointly owned poles, most of them. I'm not sure what this one is, but most poles are jointly owned. We can look at the application to see who owns it, but it doesn't matter. Whoever is that owner or owners would need to be involved and would be the entity that actually pulls this pole and puts the other one in. that they would be a critical piece to that equation.
[Paul Mochi]: So Tim, would the process be to, would they withdraw their application for this? Would we take a vote to just request more information on possible relocation? What do you think is the best procedural way to go about that?
[Tim McGivern]: Well, I think what Stan just floated, it aligned with what I was thinking, which was to try to condition this. So to get the pole moved westerly a few feet, potentially in the old pole location, which seems much more acceptable. And then at the same time, making sure that it meets the ADA 36-inch clearance.
[Alicia Hunt]: to approve with the condition that the pole is moved to meet ADA clearance and a few feet westerly to its original location with consultation with our city engineer and the direct abutters.
[Tim McGivern]: I think that sums it up.
[Paul Mochi]: Well, what if they, um, I'd like to add something to that, Tim. If they do, you know, it's like you mentioned earlier, it's, it's gotta be some reason. Nobody puts a pole in the middle of the sidewalk. If they do try to locate it and there's something on the ground that we don't know about, uh, can we have them give us, uh, a, um, an option of what other poles in the area may work for them?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, well, if that was the case, they wouldn't meet the condition and potentially wouldn't even meet, they wouldn't be able to meet the ADA clearance, so.
[Paul Mochi]: I'm thinking, you know, if they have some other, if they can, in the meantime, if that's not gonna work, have some other locations that are gonna, in the vicinity that would work, so we could, you know, maybe just save another application for coming in on that.
[Robin Stein]: Well, I think they would have to come back, Paul.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, okay, but a separate application, well, but that's what you're saying.
[Robin Stein]: or to modify the approval, but I think that what I'm hearing is that there'd be the condition Alisa suggested, which is that the poll be moved both to accomplish ADA compliance and westerly towards its original location and consultation with the poll owner, the city engineer, and the director Butters. And if that can't be satisfactorily accomplished, they'll have to return to the committee to amend the approval.
[SPEAKER_18]: Yeah, yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Mr. Sylvester, is that a new hand raised? If it is, you may speak.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yes, it is. Thank you. There's a poll number five right on Brogan Road across the street. Why can't they use that poll? I do not, I am objecting. I am getting a petition and I will be in city hall tomorrow morning with the petition. We do not want that poll in front of my house with the 5G. And I will call ADA tomorrow and get the poll moved immediately. Please, you guys are not listening to me. You're not even looking at the polls on Park Street that you asked to look at, that you wanted to put it on. Okay, that one on 303 Park Street is sufficient. It's a brand new pole. Get Verizon to take their wires off it. They're the only wires on the old pole.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Mr. Silvestro. Thank you very much. We do hear you.
[SPEAKER_22]: And that pole there, what's wrong with that pole?
[Tim McGivern]: There may be nothing wrong with that pole. Mr. Silvestro, there may be nothing wrong with it. The application on the table right now is for that pole in front of your house. But the application was for the one across the street, Tim.
[SPEAKER_22]: And they did number that one there that they denied. They said they couldn't put it on. This one here is perfectly fine for it. The transformers on the next one in front of 53, that building is 53.
[SPEAKER_17]: That pole.
[SPEAKER_22]: This is 294 Park Street. This pole is on Brogan Road. The next pole with the transformer is the transformer to my house. So every time there's lightning, that transformer goes out because they had to put that pole in when they built my house so I can have electricity. That pole's sufficient. The one on the other side is sufficient. The one on Park Street is sufficient. There's more poles on Park Street. I'm the only house on that section of Brogan Road. And that's the location they wanna put. The poll? The one right there is perfectly fine.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm gonna have them address your comment and talk about the selection of the poll.
[SPEAKER_22]: It has to be denied tonight because it's not ADA compliance. That is what the ruling is. That's what it says. That's what you already sent presidents with. So that's what the vote has to be. The difference is- I don't usually do my own advocating. I should have just had my lawyer do this for me.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Mr. Sylvester. The difference between this one and the one on Winthrop Street is there wasn't a wiggle room.
[SPEAKER_22]: There's no difference between this and the difference, because aesthetically, I don't like it either. Sheridan Ave, I don't like it. Just like they got theirs denied. You rejected that one. It's no different. You can't continue this. This is not right. And to put me on the last one on the list tonight is not correct. I've been on here since you guys, and the first notice I got was on March 13th. I called the mayor's office for the first meeting. That was the first notice I got on five properties. And when they were showing the map on Sharon Street, they're putting another one right in front of my other house on Grand Ave. And I will be back for that one too. It's just, it's not right that you're not noticing, notifying people properly. And if you're gonna make rules for certain polls, they have to be the same for all. You can't deny on the same basis. Verizon's attorney asked this question, why are you denying this one? You approved another one, the same way.
[Tim McGivern]: We were clear on our reasoning. We were clear on the reasoning on the ADA one on Winthrop Street. There may be some opportunity to- Why isn't it clear on this one?
[SPEAKER_22]: This is an ADA.
[Tim McGivern]: Listen, thank you very much. So the one on Winthrop Street, the ADA, there was almost no flexibility to move that poll where it was.
[SPEAKER_22]: It's not about flexibility to move the poll. There's other polls to pick from. You're picking on me now. That's what you're doing. Yes, you are. You're picking on me. And you put me on the last of the list, okay? Mr. Marks asked you the last meeting that I was on hold for three hours with my hand up. You took the other two people that were on there, you didn't answer me. And then you adjourned the meeting, okay? It's not right. I apologize.
[Tim McGivern]: I didn't realize that happened, but you did speak to the public comment period and the agenda was published. It's been published. I, you know, I didn't to put you on last. I didn't do it to spite you or anything like that. We did hear you and we're going to, we're going to continue the discussion about this poll. So thank you very much.
[SPEAKER_22]: It has to be denied tonight.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Hi, hello, Tim. I don't think it's up to us to find solutions for Verizon. I think we are charged with on our policy on, you know, to approve or deny, and it's not ADA compliant. So it's not up to us to find a solution for Verizon, that's up to them. So I motion to deny on the fact that it's not ADA compliant. Okay?
[SPEAKER_19]: Do we hear a second?
[Robin Stein]: Second. Can I, Tim, I don't want to interrupt, but can I? Yes, please do. That you at least let Verizon address the questions about all our polls? Oh, yeah.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I think, I know, I think going by our policy, it doesn't meet the policy. It's not ADA compliant. It's up to them to figure it out. They can do that when they want to do that. But I vote to deny based on that's not ADA compliant.
[Tim McGivern]: We have a motion on the floor from someone on the committee. And so I will wait for a second. I'll second. We have a second on the motion to deny based off of not ADA compliant clearances. So I'll take a roll call vote. Alicia Hunt.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Ann O'Connor.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, she can't unmute because she needs to be made co-host again. Sorry, Marianne. Yes.
[SPEAKER_18]: Paul Moki?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. And I agree. I don't believe this meets ADA compliance. And I agree, Marianne. It is up to Verizon to do this homework and the due diligence prior to the application. So I agree. So I'll vote yes as well. All right. That is the last one. That was quite the marathon. I would like to thank everybody for their patience. I would like to thank everybody for the respectful tone. And I would like to, you know, just acknowledge the fact that that was quite the marathon and we made the agenda. So.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Mr. Chairman.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, Mr. Trotsky.
[Dave Rodrigues]: I think we might've skipped over 71 central app.
[Alicia Hunt]: You're right. You're right. I was just looking at that. Yes, I think we did skip 71.
[Tim McGivern]: My apologies. Well, I haven't closed out the hearing yet. We haven't adjourned. So I appreciate it, Mr. Twardowski. So 71 Central Ave, it is out of order, I suppose. Robin, does this present a problem that it was out of order going back?
[Robin Stein]: No, you haven't. I mean, I think it's fine. You haven't closed the hearing.
[Tim McGivern]: Right. Right, okay, just wanted to double check. I think that makes sense. Pretty reasonable stuff here. All right, so let's go back to 71. Hang tight a little bit longer. So 71 Central Avenue. So if we can go to that one. Funny, I wrote, I have a note next to it. I guess that note was... So if we can... Leishon, are you doing the map or should we have Amanda do it?
[SPEAKER_10]: I apologize.
[SPEAKER_19]: It's okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm dealing with something. It looks like there are no lights out back, but it may just be that our lights are, and somebody came to check them and said they're on, and I said they're off. Yeah. It's too high.
[Tim McGivern]: 71 Central Avenue, so if there are folks here to speak on that one, raise your hand. My measurements for this one, three-story dwelling, 25 feet away, five-story apartment building, 95 feet away.
[Paul Mochi]: Is that it there, Alicia? when you're zooming in on it.
[Alicia Hunt]: It says existing street sign will be located three feet minimum from pole face.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That would be the snow emergency route sign.
[Alicia Hunt]: The pole is 38 feet, six inches.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep, that's the one, confirmed.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Way above rooftop, it looks good, just the sign, but.
[Paul Mochi]: Well, that's one of the highest polls we've had too in our review, so that's up there pretty good.
[Tim McGivern]: We're considering the special condition of the sign relocation confirmed by the director of traffic.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, that's similar to a lot of what we've done tonight, Tim.
[Tim McGivern]: Right, it's almost like a general one, but there's not all the signs on them, so. All right, so sign relocation. Director of Traffic. All right. I don't see any hands, Amanda, any hands on this one?
[Amanda Centrella]: No hands.
[Tim McGivern]: Sorry, I didn't catch that first word. Was it a no already?
[Amanda Centrella]: Oh, sorry. No hands.
[Tim McGivern]: It's OK. And we didn't hear from Dave, so I'm assuming no emails there.
[Dave Rodrigues]: No emails, Tim.
[Tim McGivern]: OK. So discussion and or motion?
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to approve with our standard conditions and the additional condition that the relocation of the sign be approved by the director of traffic.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, do we have a second? Second. And we'll call the vote. Paul Moki? Yes. Marion O'Connor? Yes. Alicia Hunt?
[Amanda Centrella]: No.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. That does that one. So, all right. Do we get them all? I think we got them all. Thank you, everybody. Now, all those things I said before still apply. Thank you very much for your patience. Thank you to the committee members for reviewing all the applications and coming prepared. This was a lot of work for us, so definitely appreciate it. And thanks to Verizon for being patient. And thanks for the public for your comments and for being patient with us as well. and everybody have a good night.
[Paul Mochi]: Tim, thank you for all your hard work too. Thank you. Thank you, Tim.
[Robin Stein]: Thank you, Tim. Tim, are you gonna do a motion to adjourn?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, motion to adjourn. Thank you for reminding me, Robin. Motion to adjourn. Second. Somebody? It was second. Second. Who made the motion? I didn't hear it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We thought you did.
[Tim McGivern]: You can't use the chair.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I make a motion to adjourn.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, do we have a second? Second. Paul, all right, roll call vote. Paul, Mogi? Yes. Alicia Hunt?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Miriam?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And I'm, yes too. I don't know, why would anybody vote no on that? Okay, all right, thank you very much. We are adjourned.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Bye everybody, good night.
|
total time: 1.02 minutes total words: 102 |
|||