[Tim McGivern]: So again, this is a continuation of the meeting originally began on March 31st, 2021 at 6 p.m. Continued public hearing for Verizon wireless applications for 43 proposed small cell infrastructures in the city of Medford. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, general law chapter 38 and 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 possible. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and or parties with the right and or requirements to attend this meeting can be found on the city of Medford website at www.medford.org. 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 is being held on Zoom. The meeting ID is 933-7697-5064, passcode 035999 for dial-in audio. The number is 1-929-205-6099, ID number 933-7697-5064. All right, I'd like to welcome committee and Verizon and everybody back to continuation of the public hearing. So the thing I'd like to do is introduce myself and the committee. So my name is Tim McGibbon. I'm the city engineer and the chair of the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee. We also have Paul Moki, who is the building commissioner, Mary Ann O'Connor, who is the director of public health, and Alicia Hunt, director of Office of Community Development. So that is the committee. A reminder, We are operating under the interim policy for small cell wireless installation. This interim policy was a result of an FCC declaratory ruling and order. So federal order. A reminder to everybody that this meeting is being recorded. And I'll just give a summary of the last meeting here. At the last meeting, we had a presentation. It was made by Verizon. There was a follow-up period with questions by the committee. The committee introduced the map location as a tool we're using for discussion. That was followed by a substantial non-site specific or general comment period from the public. And many questions were directed to Verizon through that process. We also received a briefing from the city's legal counsel regarding understanding the legal framework, before we got into the specifics of locations and applications. And we voted to grant with conditions application number three, which is at 287 Main Street. And the general conditions that we established the last meeting when that one was under discussion will be listed before we go into the next location on the agenda. Okay. Before we continue, I'm gonna take some liberties here because I know in the last week, The buzz has been high regarding this. I just would like to make a statement before we move forward. It's similar to the statement I made before. That's just to get it off the table and make sure that folks know where I stand as the chair here and how we're moving this forward. So anyway, here I go. Before we continue, I'd like to make a statement similar to the one I made last week for the benefit of folks who did not hear it. I know there are a lot of folks here who'd like an opportunity to speak. I also know that there are a lot of strong feelings in the room. I'd like to acknowledge that. I'd like to make sure folks understand that my job tonight is to go through this agenda, picking up where we left off on March 31st. On the 31st, there was a significant portion of the meeting dedicated to public comment, and we heard quite a lot of opinions and views. We heard many passionate voices on a variety of topics. As we move into more specific locations, there is a time set aside for site-specific public comment, I'll ask during those periods that folks limit their comments to the specific site that is under discussion. I'd also like to remind folks that this committee has a narrow purview regarding the overall approval process of these systems. The nationwide approvals of this system take the form of the federal order that I mentioned. The city was under legal obligation to create an interim policy for processing application proposals from companies such as Verizon. The set of application was received after the policy was adopted. All of this took place over a year ago. I personally do not believe wireless antennas should be on wire support utility poles. I am generally a proponent of putting overhead wires underground and removing poles out of the city streetscape in general. Overhead equipment and wires in the streetscape does not positively contribute to the visual or audible streetscape. It just doesn't. I also do not agree with the idea of the federal government agency telling municipalities what is and isn't good for their community. I also do not agree with the idea that the science and technology is complete. Today we have radio signals all around us from the wireless service in our homes or offices to the cell phones in our pockets, to the microwave in our kitchen. and the radiation coming at us from outer space. It's coming from everywhere. To definitively say that we know the long-term impacts on people from serving ourselves with different man-made radio frequencies emissions is laughable. I also personally would not want an antenna outside of my home. For one thing, more equipment and wires above the street level is not a positive contribution to my neighborhood. Second, my understanding of the law in Massachusetts is that my local representatives that we the people elect hold the keys to the installation of utility systems in the public ways. With that said, we are reviewing these applications with the best interests, with the interests of Medford residents in mind, not our own personal interests. The circumstances we are presented with are such that denials with this committee would not be in the best interest of the public as it may risk the city losing what little control we do have. As I have done since the beginning, I am recommending that folks contact their federal, state, and local elected officials to make sure they know what your objections are as well. Same thing I've been telling folks that I've been talking to. And a strong reminder here too, it was covered last meeting, but this committee doesn't have any purview over health impacts in general. And I know a lot of comments is about health impacts or about health impacts. We don't have any purview there, and that's been pretty, it's been explored quite a bit. So like I said, very limited purview. I'd like to remind everybody the rules of this hearing. If you have a site-specific comment, please send it in the chat to me or let me know that you'd like to make a site-specific comment, and I will cue you up when the site comes along. You can direct your speech, comments, questions, and things like that directly to the chair, and I can pass them to Verizon. No profanity in calling, no other rude or disruptive behavior is going to be allowed. The chair may reserve the right to mute participants who become disruptive to the proceedings. And each speaker during the public participation will receive two minutes. General comment period is over. That was that last meeting, the start of this hearing. So site-specific comments must be relevant to the specific site under consideration. Before we move further, we have Robin on the line. Robin, I was wondering if you could just give an overview of the standard conditions that we established last time.
[Robin Stein]: Sorry, I don't think I have them word for word. I think they were recorded in the record, but I can give a summary of what they were.
[Tim McGivern]: That would be great, thank you.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, so let me just run those for you. So generally they were conditions requiring compliance with section F, of the application process, which requires that prior to installation, there'll be the engineering certification as to pole structural safety. And that is in section, it's 1F of the policy, with reference to section 1H of the policy, prior to installation of any units, there'll be, I'm sorry, not 1H, it's, I apologize. I didn't know you were going to put me on the spot like that, Tim. I apologize.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_18]: That's OK.
[Robin Stein]: I'm sorry. Let me go back. I'm sorry. It's 2F, which requires certification by a registered professional engineer that the pole or location will safely support the proposed equipment. There was also a condition that prior to installation, there'll be compliance with 2H related to the affidavit of a radio frequency engineer. Prior to installation, we'll have updated insurance certificates. There was a condition. that Verizon will cover the cost of any of the so-called make ready work related to moving or relocating any city lights or infrastructure on any of the poles. There'll be no installations on double poles. And if a new pole is installed in the future, Verizon will cause removal of the double pole before installing the equipment on the new pole. There'll be a confirmation that all of the poles and installations are ADA compliant. the condition that there be no noise detectable to a human ear at the poll location on the ground and at the nearest residence. There'll be an affidavit submitted consistent with section 2L of the policy, which is that the applicant will certify that the equipment will be maintained in good repair and according to SEC standards, and that it will in fact be kept in good repair. And I believe those are one, two, three, four, five, six. seven, eight, and I had eight conditions from the last meeting. There was one other item I thought it was worth clarifying that it was not voted as a condition, but just that granting the location, the right to be in the public way, but that the applicants still gonna need to apply for any of their local permits or electrical permits. And I don't know if you wanna vote that as a ninth condition, if it needs to be clarified or if you're comfortable based on the applications that that's clear. But I figured I'd mention it while we were talking about conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: I think it's worth clarifying. And there's another condition I would like to bring to the table. Actually two, and one of them actually has to do with the double pole situation. And eventually, should we do this now or should we move to location and do it during a location or?
[Robin Stein]: I think it would make sense to general discussion of them because then you're each motion for the locations, you can just say that you're incorporating the prior conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_18]: Yeah.
[Robin Stein]: It looks like Verizon has a question, Tim.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, just a matter of housekeeping. If we have Kathleen Finn as co-host so that if questions come up, we get the right people on, you know, that's all I'm asking.
[Tim McGivern]: Sure. Okay. Dave, can you be ready in case we need to unmute those people for responses? All right, so committee members, what I wanted to discuss with you about adding to the list of conditions, I did notice that some of the poles don't have the concrete repaired at the base. And also some of the poles seem to be in process. So they are double poles right now. It looks like new ones were put in and the old ones are still attached to the new one. So one of the things, maybe we can amend the condition about double poles. I also think that the concrete at the base of the poles needs to be repaired as well before the antennas go up. So that's one.
[Robin Stein]: Do you have a list of which ones have the concrete issue?
[Tim McGivern]: I don't have a list. No, but many of them do. In general, many of them do, whether it's from a double pole installation or it's just never was done or needs to be done. So there's that one. So does anybody else in the committee have anything to say about that? We'll move on it.
[Paul Mochi]: Paul. Yeah, Tim, is that already one of the requirements in our interim policy that the poles are certified that they are safe for any further installation, or do you feel like something we need to add?
[Tim McGivern]: Well, I think the condition should be such that the pole can't be a double pole when they put the antenna on, and it can't be incomplete. It needs to be completed. So in other words, the concrete needs to be put back where it was. around the base of the pole, basically.
[Paul Mochi]: So are you talking about existing poles that you're concerned with also, Tim, and there may not be double poles?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, exactly, exactly. I mean, just that's why in general, the concrete should be complete down the bottom, not in disrepair. It should be in good condition.
[Paul Mochi]: Right.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah.
[Paul Mochi]: Well, I agree. We should get some type of report or certification that it's structurally sound to anchor these poles and any additional height added to the poles by the dis-equivalent on top of the poles isn't going to create any more of a moment type of situation where we may get some unsafe poles.
[Tim McGivern]: We are, they submitted structural calculations but we've requested those to be certified. Right. by professional structural engineer per the policy.
[Robin Stein]: So one of the conditions you've already adopted is that prior to installation of any equipment, you'll receive a certification by a registered professional engineer that the pole under location will safely support the proposed equipment. So that's already a condition.
[Tim McGivern]: This would just be, I'd like to add, either add a whole new condition or add it to the, I guess it shouldn't be added to the double poles one, but just in general, the concrete should be in good condition at the base of the pole and shouldn't be missing.
[Robin Stein]: When you, Tim, just because I'm not familiar with, when you say the base of the pole, do you mean on the sidewalk itself?
[Tim McGivern]: Right around the pole. So usually when they take poles out and put them in, there's a square of concrete about two by two, 18 inches by 18 inches. So that's the concrete I'm talking about, the concrete at the base of the utility pole.
[Robin Stein]: Okay.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Can I interject for one second? I'd like to direct this to Robin. I've had several calls. from concerned residents stating they wanna know why Medford has decided not to include health effects as a condition for denial. And I am asking you to clarify that this is not a Medford decision, that we have no control over the fact that we cannot include health effects And for those on this call that want to make comments regarding their concerns about health effects, I want them to know before they basically waste their breath, that this is not a decision in our control. And I would like you to make it perfectly clear that this is not a Medford decision, this is not our committee's decision, that our hands are tied on this.
[Robin Stein]: No, that's consistent with federal law.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Could you please explain to the residents a little bit more clearly that this is?
[Robin Stein]: It's not a decision of the city of Medford. The federal law regulating the installation of personal wireless services facilities prevents you from denying an application based on concerns over health. I mean, it's that simple. I know folks don't like it. I totally understand, but those are the parameters in which you have to evaluate this.
[Tim McGivern]: Do I hear any motion for the concrete base?
[Robin Stein]: Can I just ask before you have the actual motion, so would it be, and you may want to get Verizon's input, I don't know, before you move on that, but would it be that to the extent necessary, concrete at the base of the pole shall be installed or repaired to what, is it to your satisfaction as a city engineer, to what?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, to city sidewalk standards, yeah.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, that's perfect. Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: Before we vote on that, I was just looking for clarification in our policies. I apologize they're eight pages long. I sometimes can't remember what's in them. Do they have a length of time that they have to put that they have in which to put the equipment up after we grant the permit. I'm just, I was a little, I know we sort of discussed that last week because getting the certified things, getting the right pole in place, getting the other pole removed, getting the concrete on. I don't want us to be in a situation where five years from now, they're installing something that we permitted today, right? I feel like these permits should have a window in which that they're good. Like 10 years from now, they shouldn't be then executing on a permit that we issued tonight. I see there's an annual recertification that's required. And then if it's no longer in use, it has to come down within 30 days. Because if that's not in here, then I think that we should put some time limit on these permits to do the installation.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah. And again, I don't, I'm not, I don't see anything in here about that. Most of it is tied to the annual certifications and removing equipment, which is no longer. Right.
[Alicia Hunt]: And is there anything that if we didn't put a date that, because it's a permit issued by the city that, you know, they have, I know the conservation commission, which is the board I've been staffing for a long time. You have three years. Yep.
[Robin Stein]: So it's not in the policy. Again, that might be something to talk with Verizon about. I don't know what their timeframe is for being able to install 43 or 44 of these.
[Alicia Hunt]: And obviously, I know this is going to take time. I'm just thinking five years, 10 years becomes unreasonable.
[Robin Stein]: Again, I think it's a point to discuss.
[Alicia Hunt]: The other members, I mean, Paul and Tim, you do a lot of more construction work than I do.
[Paul Mochi]: Well, we have, in building permit-wise, once the permit is issued, there's a six month period they have to start that work. If it's a special permit, usually by a zoning board, they usually have a year to submit for the permit. The language of the building code, once you start the permit within six months, you have to work as expeditiously as possible to complete it, so they don't really put an end date on it. But the other criteria in the building code is if the work is abandoned for six months, then the permit is revoked. So six months to start is what we go by. Do you have anything, Tim, on your end about your permit?
[Tim McGivern]: We usually require work to be done within 30 days under a permit. For this situation, I'm not sure. Obviously, the policy is written as if it's abandoned or if it's not being used to take it down. I'm not sure if after a year they haven't installed these, if that means anything. I'm not quite sure about that. I think as a committee, we could probably condition if we want them to be up within a certain amount of time, I don't know how that would work.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'd like to hear from Verizon as to what their time frame is.
[Tim McGivern]: We can, yeah. We can. I want to ask them about the concrete collars around the bottom of the pole suits. We can ask them about those two things now. Stan, do you have... Any comments regarding the concrete collar around the base of the pole that I was wishing to condition or the timeframe for implementation after?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: I think Mike might have both of those, but I can tell you that, you know, placement of concrete or like materials, depending on where they are on the sidewalks. You're not gonna put concrete in an asphalt sidewalk and vice versa. So we would make sure that takes place and that the slab matches and is in conformity with the standards of the city. In terms of timeframe, perhaps Michael or Sean would be best to answer that.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, I think from a practical Sean would be, I don't think there's any justification for making too short a timeframe on these, but Sean may know what the timing plans are. If he's unmuted. Thank you, Mike. There you go.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Can you guys hear me?
[SPEAKER_22]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I mean, as Mike said, I think, I mean, our intention would be to get out and build these sites as quickly as possible. I would think that a year timeframe on them would be acceptable to us in this occasion with possibly the ability to renew if we're not able to build within that year or you know one renewal for a year maybe.
[Alicia Hunt]: I mean, it seems to me that's reasonable. I'd rather have a deadline and not have these suddenly appearing five years from now and the staff who are then in staff have no idea what's going on, have no history on it.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. I mean, I'm open to that. I'm open to that. I mean, 12 months.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay. So if there is some locations that require a renewal, How long are we gonna, is that a renewal for an additional year or do we wanna make the renewal for a lesser period of time, like maybe a six month period?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I would ask Robin if that's reasonable and acceptable and allowable.
[Robin Stein]: I mean, I think if it works for folks, you could have a condition that any grant of location for which the installation is not complete within one year shall expire. New application shall be required provided, however, that the applicant can apply for up to one year extension.
[Tim McGivern]: I'd say up to six months. Because if they haven't done it in a year, I mean, they should be able to do it within six months.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, I agree too.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah. I mean, again, as long as that work, you know, they know what their time schedule is. I think Alicia's point as well, take it needs to be something that makes sense for folks.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. And they said a year and then a year makes sense based off of the recertification timeframe that we have in policy. So as far as the annual recertification goes, so it makes sense to have, have it within 12 months. And then if they need to apply for extension, then, They have six months. And that makes a lot of sense. And we're back on the concrete collar. Any objections to those timeframes?
[SPEAKER_22]: I think that's fine. That should be workable.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. So let's vote on, if there's a motion, vote on these.
[Robin Stein]: Do you want me to summarize the three of them for you?
[Tim McGivern]: If you could, yeah. Actually, before we move to a procedural question, if I present another potential condition here, can we vote on all of them at once, or do we need to do one at a time?
[Robin Stein]: No, I think it probably makes sense to just take one vote adding in the additional conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, then let's just pause for a moment. Let me read this one.
[Robin Stein]: OK.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm hearing all kinds of information from the public, and I have been thinking of a way to try to address some of this. And this is what I came up with, and I'm speaking to the other committee members here. A letter to homes within 100 feet of any poll location. I know we did the voter notifications 300 feet, but I'm saying for this particular letter, 100 feet, reduce the amount of houses and get the ones that are within 100 feet, explaining what the equipment is, a list of the FCC standards it complies with and the legal references to those standards, a short description of the federal order, a couple of sentences explaining what the federal order is and what it's doing here, contact information for Verizon Wireless, and a process to follow if the residents would like to request that the antenna be relocated. So that letter would give folks who have these near their houses, who don't want them there, some information to use to try to help them out. This is one of the reasons why I thought conditions is a good idea here.
[Robin Stein]: When would folks be getting that letter?
[Tim McGivern]: We could say, you know, two weeks prior to installation or something like that, or, you know, some timeframe so folks know that it's going up and have the information who to contact, you know, and sort of the framework that gives a little bit of explanation about why it's there.
[Paul Mochi]: Tim, you think as far as the delivery net letter, certified mail or regular first class mail,
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, certified mail, certified mail for something like this, yeah. And, you know, demonstration to the city that it was done as a condition of the approval. Any of the committee members have any thoughts on that?
[Alicia Hunt]: I wanted us to be very explicit in understanding because everybody got a butters notifications and I believe that was in writing about this. I assume that was a radius that was dictated in here. Are you indicating that same radius or you're talking like the most immediate residential structure?
[Tim McGivern]: The most immediate residential structure. So within a hundred feet basically. That's a number I'm using because a lot of resident structures are within, you know, sometimes as close as 20 feet, sometimes a couple that are closer. And then, you know, 300 feet was the water notification. So 100 was just a number I used because there, you know, there's a lot of homes that are 90 feet away, for example. So it's just the sort of line I drew in the sand to, in my mind, that seems like an appropriate distance as opposed to the full 300 feet. I know the full 300 feet was the notification that folks received for the hearing. So.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I would, if we do this, accept this condition, I would say a month's notification would be, better in that if they do have to reach back out to Verizon and have their reasons for wanting these not to be built in front of their homes or to be moved, I think a month notice is fair to the resident and fair to Verizon.
[SPEAKER_00]: Any other thoughts from the committee?
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, 30 days is, I think, a good time period, Mary Ann. I would think that's a good condition to implement. Tim, if you could just take a second. When you're part of this condition, a letter of requesting maybe a relocation of the pool, I'm wondering, I don't know if you've thought that through yet, but what kind of time periods would that involve and how do we act on that?
[Tim McGivern]: I don't know. I mean, I think that it would be a process through Verizon Wireless because we don't have control over where the proposed locations are. We can suggest other locations, but that's, from my understanding, that's about all we can do is suggest other locations.
[Alicia Hunt]: Wait, I'm confused because people can't just request that polls be moved. And this is the process to determine which poll is being used for it. If they have an objection to the poll that's being used, it has to go through the certification policy, the process with this committee, right? I can see wanting to give them notice so that they're aware that there's one going up on their, near their house. I'm not really sure why they fully need, I think a lot of it has to do with different people's opinions on these.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I was thinking more like the narrows, that we don't have a lot of, like if a person objects because of health reasons, for example, and this committee doesn't have purview on that. So it was more along those matters. Like, is the, you know, what is their process? I mean, I would imagine that there is, as Verizon stated in the last meeting, there is a way to contact Verizon, file complaints, try to get issues remedied. So I know that there are protocols and procedures that Verizon already has set up for this type of thing. So if the resident has a complaint on the antenna, how do they get that complaint resolved? And if the complaint is that the antenna is there, then the owner of that antenna should be the one responding to that complaint.
[Alicia Hunt]: An interesting thing is that we have in our rules that there can't be any signage, logos, decals on these. which is a little bit perplexing because I would think that we would want it labeled as what company it belongs to so that people have an awareness of whose antenna it is.
[Tim McGivern]: There are some requirements for that, yeah.
[Miranda Briseno]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: So they have to post the name, location, identifying information, emergency telephone number, in an area on the cabinet of the small wireless facility that is visible to the public. So that I know, and it's on a specific sign. My idea was just to sort of have that information sent in a letter, content information, and if there's any complaint with the pole, the location of the antenna. to sort of give some advice. Sorry. But anyway, I'd like to move on if folks on the committee.
[Robin Stein]: Oh, excuse me, sir.
[Tim McGivern]: No, go ahead, please, Robin.
[Robin Stein]: I think you should get some input probably from Verizon on that last one. I'm not real sure on the wording. Maybe Verizon wants to comment on it first.
[Tim McGivern]: Sure.
[Robin Stein]: I'm not even sure if the committee is on board with it, but I didn't mean to, I didn't mean to advance it prematurely.
[Tim McGivern]: That's okay. I just, I do want to move on, but I also want to make sure that the committee understands what I'm trying to do here. I'm trying to be sensitive to the situation that we're in as a committee, and I'm trying to see if there's an opportunity here to have a condition that gives information to the resident about the poll and who to contact if there are issues and a short description of what it complies with as far as the FCC standards go. That's what I'm trying to get at here. So if no one else in the committee has anything to say, I'll see if Verizon has something to say about it. Stan, Mike, you guys.
[SPEAKER_22]: Sure, I'm happy to comment. If it's a question of informing people of what the work is that's being done, I don't know that there's an objection to informing. I think a certified letter is overkill. This is not a notice situation. You don't need a certification. This hearing process is really the process to discuss what polls these are on. As one of your committee members just pointed out, I don't think There needs to be a follow on process for this, but in terms of providing contact information and some background information, I think Verizon would be able to do that, even if it was something like a notice that went on the city's website or something too. I mean, you have lots of information out there about this process and we're happy to make reasonable, have a reasonable efforts here, but I don't know that a certified notice to all the people in a certain radius is necessary or reasonable.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. I would like to have some notice called because there is a lot of information out there. But the thing is that we're still getting inundated with comments on this. So there's a lot of concerns out there. A lot of it doesn't have much to do about our purview. but it is out there, so I would like to have something sent out. And I'd like to get the other committee's feeling, committee's member feelings on this so we can move on these, continue to get going here.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Well, I think timeframes are essential and I'm not sure, you know, unless we have direct and constant communication with Verizon to post anything on our website, when we will know what's happening. and in a reasonable timeframe to give residents notice. So I would put the onus back on Verizon to notify, like you said, the about us within 100 feet as to when this is happening and give them an opportunity to give feedback.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, and that's what I wanna try to do here.
[Robin Stein]: Can I perhaps make a suggestion? Yeah. And to see if that works for Verizon, because I think it will be helpful if we can be on agreement as to the conditions. And perhaps it's just that a week or 10 days, perhaps, written notice before Verizon intends to install will be provided to residents within a specified distance. And the notice can include Verizon's contact information to the extent that there are concerns or problems with the installation in the future and they need to reach somebody. I don't know, Mike, how you feel about that? You're on mute. Mike, you're on mute.
[SPEAKER_22]: I think that's more consistent with what we have done other places, which is notify an area that there's going to be work done on the poles in their neighborhoods, that there's going to be an installation of what it is, some contact information. I don't think that would be objectionable.
[Robin Stein]: So if you did written notification to residents within 100 feet within 10 days of the anticipated installation, that the installation's coming and provided Verizon's contact information for any problems or concerns, would that work, Tim? Does that avail your concerns?
[Tim McGivern]: That does work in a sense. I want it to be a little bit more. I liked the idea of a month, 30 days. to give folks plenty of time to react if they need to?
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, 30 days before their installation or 30 days after they received this permit?
[Tim McGivern]: 30 days before installation.
[Robin Stein]: Again, I would defer. I don't know if Mike has a comment on that. I don't know how this works.
[Alicia Hunt]: I don't understand what action they take. They're not gonna stop Verizon from changing where it is. They're not gonna stop from the pole. If like suddenly they feel like it's mounted in securely or it starts making noise unnecessarily that it's not supposed to make, that they should know how to contact Verizon, that's great. But I don't wanna mislead people about what power they're gonna have over this.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I don't want to mislead people at all either. If there is an issue with the antenna, they need someone to be able to contact. And I want that to be in a letter that they receive from Verizon. And if they want to try to take further action, to have someone at Verizon they can talk to and name a number. I know it's on the poll itself, but I want folks to have that information. So I'm okay with the way it was 30 days before installation that homes within 100 feet receive a letter explaining what the equipment is, a description of the standards that it complies with. And contact, these are basically the minimums that I want to see and contact information for Verizon Wireless. Before I said a short description of the federal order, but I mean, the bare minimum is what I want to see is the list of the standards and a contact person and a short description of why it's there. And yeah, and, you know, I did say a process to if, you know, they want the intent of relocated, but it's the intent would be more of having a person or a contact at Verizon that they can resolve issues with. That's the idea. So I think from what I, I think Verizon is okay with that. So I want to add that as a condition. So. So we have four of them now, right, Robin?
[Robin Stein]: Yep. So just, I guess the question is, I don't know if anyone Verizon wants to weigh in, you know, I think Mike said certainly written notification to residents within a hundred feet was fine. Providing Verizon contact information is fine. Um, is there any issue with just having that have a brief description explaining the equipment that it meets? You know, the physical standards, certainly you folks will have the affidavit, you know, on file at the city. Um, so I guess the only question, you know, is that something that's reasonable for Verizon to do? 30 days before an installation?
[Tim McGivern]: Yep. Oh, if not 30 days, what would be a reasonable timeframe that, you know, three weeks, two weeks?
[Robin Stein]: I mean, I think it's all of it's operational for Verizon. So perhaps they want to comment on that.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. Verizon, Stan, Mike?
[SPEAKER_22]: I think if it said at least 30 days, that would not be a problem.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. I'd like to make it 30 days. Okay. Okay. All right. Do I hear a motion to, um, improve those as general conditions?
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to him to, uh, close those conditions. Okay. We hear a second.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. Do roll call vote. Um, Alicia hunt.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki. Yes. Mary Anne O'Connor.
[Robin Stein]: I can't hear Mary. Is Mary Anne present? Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Can you hear me? And then me, Tim McGibbon, the chair, yes. Okay.
[Robin Stein]: So we'll have a total of 12 conditions now, the eight from last week and the additional four from now.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. All right, thank you very much.
[Robin Stein]: Certainly, Tim, if members of the public have comments on the specific conditions, as you get to the specific applications, you could always add or vary something. Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Robin. All right, so that was the overview of standard conditions as established by the committee on March 31st, 2021. We're gonna move on to applications in South Medford. If I could have, The map brought up and we'll go to 24 Wareham Street, application 36. And my comments on my review of this one was that it's 55 feet away from two, three-story residential buildings. I didn't have any additional comments about clearances, et cetera. Anybody on the committee have any comments on this one?
[Robin Stein]: Tim, what application number did you say this was?
[Tim McGivern]: This is application 36, 036. Thank you. Yeah. And one thing that I added to the information here too, is the utility pole ID is 664. So the metal tag on the pole, 664. And I'll see if there's anyone in the chat about that one.
[Alicia Hunt]: Tim, just because I think we had asked Dave to help with the, the email information and he's no longer a co-host so can no longer unmute himself. And you are the only one with the power to make somebody a co-host.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_18]: Oh.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: You don't mind taking a minute?
[Tim McGivern]: No, what do I need to do?
[Alicia Hunt]: I need to make the- If you type in the participants list his name, it'll show just that one. And then under more, you can choose to make him a co-host.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. All right. He's a co host.
[Alicia Hunt]: I've been monitoring the chat for people to say if they have specific questions for any address and now Miranda is also on to do that. We have people who have raised their hands. during the earlier portion of this. There are no new hands that have raised. It's just the ones that have been up. I don't know how we wanna handle that. And there were a number of general comments, the comments that are about a specific address. I've made a note of the name of that person and the address they were looking for.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, do we have anybody for 24 Wareham Street? Comments on that?
[Alicia Hunt]: Not that I have seen myself.
[Tim McGivern]: Do we have any emails regarding 24 Wareham Street?
[Dave Rodrigues]: There were no emails submitted.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Do we have a motion? Just to remind the committee, we can either grant grant with conditions or deny. That's what we can do. And I would say that, obviously, we have general conditions. So we would use, apply those. Do we hear a motion?
[Paul Mochi]: Tim, a question on the motion? Yeah. We'll make the motion. Grant, what conditions? That would include the four additional conditions we adopted tonight. Is that correct? That is my understanding correct, yeah. Did I make a motion to approve 24 Wareham Street installation?
[Robin Stein]: With or without addition? Yeah, if the clarity of the record, if we're gonna do the motions, can you do them to grant with the 12 standard conditions voted by the board?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, please, Paul, if you can revise your language.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay. Thank you. Did I make a motion to approve the 24 Wareham Street with the 12 conditions that were adopted by the committee?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Can I like all these hands that are raised we are holding off before. or if they're not specific to Wayham Street, we're not addressing or?
[Tim McGivern]: That's correct, that's correct. There's a lot to get through and we had a substantial public comment period prior. So we're on site-specific. I'll remind everybody, this is a continuation of last week's hearing and we're going into the site-specific portion of the agenda.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So do we know that all these hands raised are not site-specific?
[Tim McGivern]: I will remind everybody, so if you have a site-specific comment, let us know in the chat so we know.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: It looks like Councilor Marks is saying thumbs up that he has a site-specific comment. Is that correct, Councilor Marks? Yes, he has a thumbs up.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm just looking through the chat and make sure that I didn't get any direct messages.
[Alicia Hunt]: We can unmute Councilor Marks because he said he had a site-specific comment.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, yeah, we can unmute Councilor Marks and site-specific comment. Hello, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you very much. And I just want to start my comment by saying I've never been so disrespected in my 26 years as an elected official in this community. To allow Verizon, an outside company, to speak and not allow an elected official to speak that represents this community for the past 26 years is a complete disgrace, a complete disgrace. I do have comments to make, and they're site-specific, 43 sites that are on your agenda tonight. And I totally disagree with the way you're handling public comments tonight. This was a continuation meeting. Nowhere does it say that additional comments and public input cannot be stated in an additional continuation meeting. Nowhere in my 26 years as an elected official. If you would, Mr. Chair, I would appreciate the fact, if you would indulge me, because over the past two years, I've received hundreds of emails, phone calls, people stopping me at stop and shop and around the community asking, Mr. President, and as their elected representative, I should have the ability to speak on their behalf. Thank you. Comments of April 6th council meeting. These were my comments and I'd like to read them into the record. And it applies to all 44 applications, not just the 43 that are on tonight, but 44 and any other future applications, which we all know we will see from not only Verizon, but other providers as well. After attending the March 31st Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee public hearing, I am concerned that corporate greed and commercial benefits of 5G will outweigh the potential long-term health effects of 5G on our residents, home values, and environment. MEFID must delay any wireless build-out until the law and public policy catch up to the science. The Federal Communication Commission declaratory ruling effectively tied the hands of local municipalities to make decisions best for their community. The city is prohibited from taking any action that is seen as prohibiting Verizon's 5G rollout. Verizon representatives at one point during the last hearing told Methodist residents unequivocally that the FCC regulations would not allow for health concerns to be discussed as a reason for not approving their applications. This comment, true or not, is outrageous. and requires a formal complaint be filed with the FCC and our congressional representatives on behalf of our community. The city, in my opinion, was ill-prepared for the much-anticipated 5G hearing, not presenting one subject matter expert to represent our city's interest and its residents, and only relied on one-sided Verizon paid expert witnesses in which there were many. The city has not requested any potential mitigation from Verizon to address further disenfranchisement of the communities in Medford who can least afford Verizon's new 5G. At the very least, Medford should request Verizon provide free Wi-Fi to our communities of need, as well as schools, senior housing, and low-income housing. 5G will substantially increase residential exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. This has been proven to be harmful to humans and the environment. We need to engage the US government to require the FCC to do an independent study of radio frequency standards and health risk. We should support the recommendations of the 400 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand our government officials fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect the health and safety of our residents and the environment. Human exposure guidelines for radio frequency used by the FCC are more than 20 years old and address only thermal, not biological impact of exposure. Over the past 20 years, a robust body of independent science has emerged showing significant biological impacts from exposure to radio frequency microwave radiation, including clear evidence of cancer, neurological and cognitive harm, heart abnormalities, and reproductive effects. Populations especially at risk include pregnant women, children, the elderly, individuals with implanted medical devices, or cardiac or neurological problems. At the April 6th This past Tuesday, City Council meeting, I along with Councilor Scarpelli, co-sponsored docket number 21310, asking the city's 5G small cell interim policy be discussed. After considerable input and discussion between the council and residents, 10 amendments with six questions were offered, approved, and unanimously voted on by the Medford City Council 7-0, of which all four members of the small cell committee should have a copy in their hands right now, according to the city clerk. The vote requested a response from the city solicitor, the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee, the Federal Communications Commission, our federal delegation, the city administration, along with the Biden administration. The one amendment that requires immediate action prior to any action of this committee tonight is the following. motion requesting the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee not approve any more 5G applications until the city has ample time to review questions and policy comments submitted. Be it further requested, the city consult with its own 5G subject matter experts regarding issues of concern raised by residents regarding health and safety, setbacks, FCC 5G regulations, potential mitigation, and other issues of concern. I want to also recognize Council President Caraviello, who is on the call, Councilor Scarpelli, and Councilor Morell that are also on the call tonight. and all my other colleagues that voted for this this past Tuesday. I respectfully ask that this committee for request the continuation of the meeting originally begun on March 31st to a date certain to allow for additional community comment and input before any vote is taken. I thank you for allowing me to speak I thank you for allowing me to represent the 58,000 people in the community that elect me to represent them. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Council Member Marks.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I would ask Robin to respond to those, if that's even. if that's possible. Could I ask Robin's input for that, please?
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Thank you, Mary. And I would also like to ask Robin to comment on that, but just a couple of things. So these applications have been pending for over a year. There are shot clocks associated with this and the shot clocks are long run out. So the risks that I described earlier in my opinions on the matter, I don't disagree with Councilor Marks in a lot of, A lot of respects.
[Michael Marks]: This goes to the situation that our hands are tied and trying to do- Mr. Chair, with all due respect, with all due respect, we've been in a pandemic for close to 14 months. There were several meetings held with over a hundred residents that appeared at city hall that were canceled. So I realize there's a shock clock. I realize Verizon would like to see this happen yesterday. However, I believe we have to proceed with caution on this matter and there's no rush to judgment.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm trying to proceed to caution. If they're denied tonight or if it's further, but if it's continued further, we'll well be on the shot clocks. And I'd like Robin to respond to this. It's not that simple. And I'm trying to, I had a substantial period last meeting for public comment. So I would ask Robin to address some of those comments if she can regarding the legal framework of this.
[Robin Stein]: I'm going to be honest, I'm not sure what parts of it.
[Tim McGivern]: I guess the continuing to delay the process as well as, you know, health impacts were brought up again and how outrageous that is. And I agree, but sort of the limited purview of this committee and, you know, the shock clocks maybe are, maybe the shock clocks and what the sort of the, how the delay since they first applied it with the policy and how that leads to where we are today, as far as the shock clocks go and what that legal framework is?
[Robin Stein]: So, I mean, again, the, there are presumptive shot clocks for what is a reasonable time to act on these applications. Um, you are well, well beyond those shot clocks. And certainly I understand that we've been living in, um, you know, limited circumstances and what have you. I can't say what Verizon will or won't do if you either, um, you know, deny these or continue them in a way where they feel as though they're being denied or prohibited. I can't speak for what Verizon will do, but certainly they will have recourse to the courts. I've already addressed the health issue. I don't know what else I guess I can say on this. You have a policy. You have applications before you that this policy will lie to. You know, certainly any changes in aesthetic requirements or not published in advance are not going to apply to these applications. So, um, it really, it wouldn't change anything for purposes of these applications, in my opinion, if something different, you know, regulating the form of them was enacted tomorrow. And to the extent that you were to deny any of these applications, you would need to have a substantial reason in your written record based on this policy to do so. So I understand that folks are in a tough spot here. I'm not unsympathetic. I just, I'm sorry, but I don't know what more there is that I can say.
[Tim McGivern]: No, you've said it all Robin. I thank you. And I addressed some of that myself.
[Robin Stein]: I can't predict the future and I can't speak for Verizon.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Right. I think some of the issues though, Robin, you can speak to is what Councilor Marks brought up about, you know, concerning like going to the FCC and the federal government. And please give us some more guidance, Robin. I think you have more to offer us right now.
[Robin Stein]: I can't speak to how effective those efforts may or may not be. And I can't say what Verizon will do should the city put these off. I mean, I think that's a question maybe for Verizon. I'm sorry, but that's not... You know, again, you have applications before you and you have timelines by which you were supposed to have acted on those applications that you are well beyond. Certainly, Verizon would have recourse to the courts. What do I can't say? These are tremendously difficult to deny, to defend when it's a denial. I don't know. I'm sorry. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. I don't know what else to say that I haven't already said. There are deadlines. You can't. Well, I mean, I don't think that you can ultimately be successful in just refusing to hear them or refusing to act. That's my opinion.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, no one's refusing to hear them. We're asking for a continuation so we can have the concerns that are out in the public, which are clear, addressed, and discussed, and don't have people feel that they don't have a say and they don't have the ability to have input with this. And that's currently how people feel. And I understand Verizon has their job to do. But we also as a community have our job to do. And that's all I'm asking is for some additional time, not to kill this, but to allow for more public input, more comment. Clearly, our policy is ineffective. if we have to put 10 conditions on it. So it speaks volumes regarding our policy. And if you look at the council's recommendations the other day, we have a number of recommendations to create a stronger policy that we're requesting. And I appreciate your time. I know this is difficult, believe me.
[Tim McGivern]: This is incredibly difficult. And I must say that it's been a year. I mean, it's been over a year, all right? And I would like to just really have everybody acknowledge that it's been over a year, okay? So I would like to get Verizon's take on even another extension, another extension to allow more time for the community to discuss this.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay, before you ask that question, I have a question for you and the other community members. I did not receive any of those council recommendations today. Did any other committee members get them? No, I did not.
[Michael Marks]: I was told by the city clerk they would deliver it sometime at around noontime, or maybe shortly after.
[Paul Mochi]: Well, council, I checked my email in both my mail in my box today. I didn't get a notification either way. That's why I wanted to make sure the other committee members didn't get them either.
[Tim McGivern]: I did. I received, I received them. I did not. I did not get them either. Dave, were those sent to other committee members?
[Dave Rodrigues]: I received the email from the clerk with the unapproved report and I forwarded that over to you, Tim. I did not forward it to the direct committee. I sent it to UN Council.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Well, I received it at the end of the day. I read it. I didn't forward it to the other committee members.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And again, I just want to reiterate that the federal government is prohibiting us from acting on health effects. And I know that was a lot of what Councilor Marks had to say, but again, our hands are tied.
[Tim McGivern]: So we have, again, a limited purview. I still believe that robust conditions seem like the best way to go here on these. I believe if we deny or delay, we're risking them going up as applied for, because the courts rule in Verizon's favor. So I'm trying to maintain a little control we have here. So I would like to get Verizon's input on an additional time. How much, you know, are we talking one more month?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: Tim, if I could.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Yes, please, Dan.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I think that, you know, the amount of public information that we've exchanged over the course of more than a year, as you pointed out, and when you juxtapose what we've done in Medford to any other community, it's been an extraordinary effort to do outreach. We've done a community meeting. We've established a website where there can be exchange of information. And we participated in a public hearing as you have shared just last week and listened quite carefully to the comments that were made. There is no benefit from continuing this meeting. beyond the timeframe and to take up the issues that are in front of the committee at this point.
[Michael Marks]: Benefit to who?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: To all concerned.
[Michael Marks]: I would disagree with that.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. All right. We have to move on. I don't With that said, if we continue this further, I don't think that is in the best interest of the city. I just don't. I live in the city. It is not in the best interest. I think in the best interest is to condition these, condition the applications to the best of our ability. So with that said, I'm going to move on. I have to move on. There's a lot of applications to get to, okay? So we had a, again, I didn't see any site-specific, additional site-specific come in for 24 Wareham Street. And we have a motion for, Paul, was it a grant with conditions?
[Paul Mochi]: Yes, it was.
[Tim McGivern]: Do we have a second?
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll second it.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, we'll take a, that's Alicia Hunt, second. So let's see, Alicia Hunt?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Marianne O'Connor? Marianne O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Mulkey?
[Paul Mochi]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And I am a yes as well with the conditions. 13 Higgins Avenue, application 41, poll ID 587. If you could bring that up on the map, please. All right. So the points from my review, there's a three-story residential building within about 13 feet. I think you can see that. Other buildings located within 60 feet, dense residential area with many three-story buildings. Now, Dave, do we have any emails regarding 13 Higgins Avenue? Okay, I'm gonna check the chat to see if we have anything.
[Alicia Hunt]: Miranda and I have been watching the chat for people to say if it's about a specific location or something that we are being, some people want us to recognize them, but they haven't indicated what it is they wanna talk about, what their topic is.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim? Hold on, I'm trying to complete the task that I said.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And people are concerned about health issues. And again, we have to reiterate that this is not, we cannot, cannot deny.
[Tim McGivern]: I could address a lot of these comments. The phrase shot clock came from the federal law, not from Verizon. We do have a right to deny applications and pursuing for the legal channels, but please take a look at the case history here. I mean, law.
[Alicia Hunt]: I have gotten several questions about why in South Medford, why not in other parts of Medford? And the answer is we have no idea why Verizon chose the neighborhoods that they chose. They have not expressed that to us when asked why these neighborhoods.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Is there an answer to that? I actually got a call from residents today who couldn't be on the call, who said, why this neighborhood? And what is the plan going forward for how quickly other neighborhoods would be impacted?
[Alicia Hunt]: And then some people want it in their neighborhoods, would like higher speed self-service. And there are parts of Medford that have poor self-service like West Medford and up near the fells, and they would like better service.
[Tim McGivern]: I didn't see anything site-specific in the chat. Does anybody?
[Paul Mochi]: Tim, I think the council president had his hand up. I think I saw it a second ago.
[Tim McGivern]: I don't know if you... All right, let me change my view. Too many things open. President Caraviello? Do I have that correct, Paul? Yes, yeah, that's... President Caraviello, did you want to say something on this application for 13 Higgins Avenue?
[Richard Caraviello]: No, I have a general question, Tim, Mr. Chairman. This afternoon, we had Congresswoman Clark in Medford, the fourth most powerful person in Congress here in our city. And during her visit, I saw there were city officials there. I want to know if this question was posed to her about these issues that we're having. this evening. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend. But I said, I think this is something that should have been asked to her when she was here today. And I don't know if that question was asked to her.
[Tim McGivern]: We can we can ask Mr. Rodriguez. If that happened, I don't know the answer. I wasn't involved with conversations with Representative Barber today.
[Dave Rodrigues]: I was not part of the conversation with Congresswoman Clark. It was my understanding that that conversation centered around the pool testing program that got kids back to school in Medford, the American Rescue Plan, and some talk about vaccines. I can't confirm that small cell was discussed.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much, President Caraviello. Okay, so I'm gonna go ahead and request a motion on 13 Higgins Avenue.
[Alicia Hunt]: I make a motion to approve 13 Higgins Avenue with the conditions that we have established.
[Tim McGivern]: Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. Vote, Nisha Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor? Mary Ann O'Connor?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: 13 Higgins Avenue is granted with conditions. 28 Killscythe Road, application number 42, sorry.
[Robin Stein]: And did you vote, because I didn't catch your vote.
[Tim McGivern]: I did, I voted yes, sorry.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, thank you for double checking. So the next application is number 42, 28 Killscythe Road. The poll ID is 2948. My review. My takeaway from the review of this location was there's one three-story residence about 35 feet away, three more within 50 feet, dense residential neighborhood, and the hill puts the antenna in the plane of the third floor residential space on the closest structure. So this is 28 Killscythe. Let me just, Dave, if you could check the emails, I'll check the chat. And if someone could, if folks are trying to get my attention for 28 Killscythe, please let me know. If folks could, I do see everyone's comment, but it makes it difficult. I'm trying to get the site-specific comments. So thank you if you've submitted site-specific. And I don't see anything in... For 28- Mr. Chairman, there were no emails received on this site. Okay. All right. It's 28 Kilsyth. And I don't see anything in the chat. Am I missing anything? Other committee members here?
[Alicia Hunt]: Not that I see. Tim, is it helpful for me to go to Street View on these as we go through?
[Tim McGivern]: I think if it's requested, I know that I definitely have looked at every single one of these. So if a committee member wants to go to Street View or the site specific commenter wants to go to Street View, we can certainly do that.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I'll just let people know that I can switch it to that.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: All right.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, so do I hear a motion on 28 Killside? Let me mix it up a little bit. Someone else besides Alicia or Paul, I guess. I'm the chair, so I don't think I am allowed to motion.
[Alicia Hunt]: A motion to approve it with conditions. Okay.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Do I hear a second on that?
[Paul Mochi]: I'll second that.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. I'll just go to the same order for the vote. Alicia Hunt?
[Paul Mochi]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki? Yes. Marianne O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Um, yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And me? Yes. Next one is 48 Granville Avenue. I know, um, there is, uh, I have received the comment, uh, comments from the folks who live close by. Um, and I'll go over my review of this one. It's within 18 feet of a three story residential structure. Um, as we can see right there. and it's within 50 feet of another one. The plan indicates that the streetlight will be removed from the pole, but there is no acceptable alternate location for a streetlight in this vicinity. So two questions. there is a poll at the corner of Winchester and Granville. I don't, from my understanding, I don't believe it was listed as an alternate poll location. I may be mistaken, but I'd either like to see if we can move the end to there, which is further away from residences, or if there's something, we gotta do something with that light. So let me, I will summarize the comment as being that the people that live in that house close by objects to installing an antenna there. And they would like Verizon to explore an alternate location for that antenna. Um, and, uh, like I said, there's no alternate location for that particular street light. It's a dead end street, and that basically is the light for the street. Um, so Verizon could talk about the light and see if, um, there's a opportunity for the pole at the corner of Granville and Winchester, as opposed to this one. Alicia, could you rotate the screen to look at that other pole?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Hey, Tim, this is Sean. I can speak to the light that the light will will be remaining. Okay. And as as to the poll there, that's at the corner of the street. That has a couple of no-nos on it for us. It's what's called a three-way junction pole. So primary power runs up and down a street, and then primary power comes to the pole another way, three-way junction. And you can also see the equipment up on the top of the primary lines there. They're called reclosers. We can't attach to a pole that has that equipment on it.
[Tim McGivern]: And you had the other polls, at least three of them, I recall in the application that you had also scratched because of various reasons. Could you discuss some of those alternate locations quickly?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Sure. If you want to, we have poll 645, which is if you go up the end of Granville here and take a right, The next pole you'll see has those same reclosers up on the top. So it's not a pole that we can use. And then if we go the other way up the street, you see that first pole, it's got a transformer on it. We can't attach to that. If you go to the next pole, it also has a transformer on it. We can't attach to that. And as we had talked about in our meeting last week, once you get two or three poles away, you were really losing the, the RF coverage objective. We had hoped to satisfy with the location.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. So this is a situation where, you know, we're even in a tighter spot because the residents have vocally stated that they do not want this where it's going. Um, and If I understand everything correctly, which I pretty sure I do, um, we deny it and it goes there anyway.
[Alicia Hunt]: Um, so it, it sounds like though that one of the objections that at least the one that I was, had processed, was it about the streetlight and if the streetlight is staying, um, that helps some of them. We did have one resident indicate early on in the chat that he lives at 48 Granville and wanted to speak.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yep, that was one of the speak on 48 Granville.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, that's Lou. Okay, that is the Roy Mr. Roy. Okay.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Thank you, Alicia, want me to know that there were no emails received on this location, although didn't mention that did indicate that he would like to offer comedy.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, let's go to Mr. Roy and then we'll go to Councilmarks. All right, I'll ask him to unmute.
[SPEAKER_31]: Hi, this is Charlene Roy and it was because of the street streetlight removal was the biggest concern. But also that it's only 18 feet from our house and it's I'm sitting in my living room watching TV and the pole, it looks like it's 10 feet away from the house. And I'm really concerned with the distance.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. And what was your first name again? I'm sorry. I know we met Charlene Roy. Charlene, okay, thank you, Charlene.
[SPEAKER_31]: And why was it mentioned that the light was gonna be removed in the first place?
[Tim McGivern]: That's a good question. They have stated that it's not gonna be removed, so I'm going to, if the committee so moves to grant with conditions, I wanna have the condition on there that the light must remain on that pole. So anyway, so thank you very much, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just respectfully ask we have from what I can see, only five residents that have raised their hand to speak. I know there may be some other comments, sites specific, but I'm not sure why we can't go through the residents that raised their hand, listen to their comments at first, so they don't have to stay in a potential meeting for three to four hours. That would make more sense to me, but just wanted to put that out there.
[Tim McGivern]: I'll take the suggestion, Councilor Marks. My screen has multiple windows open, including the chat. So let me go back to make sure I see everyone who has their hands up.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was trying to get- On that, Joseph Nazaro has said in the chat that he has a question on Grand Hill Street.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, let's take him first, please.
[Alicia Hunt]: Miranda's gonna start unmuting people for us as we call on them.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: Hello?
[Miranda Briseno]: We can hear you.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. I wanted to say at the beginning that I went out looking for the poles. It was very difficult to find them. The numbers didn't jive with what I was trying to see on the map and what the applications say. So I wonder if the abutters did indeed get notice if they were living near a pole. But for this specific pole, I want to know how far it is to the Tufts playing fields. And does the ordinance in Medford deny how close to the playing fields can these antennas be?
[Tim McGivern]: I could field some of those questions. So Verizon has stated, and it is my understanding, that the offsets that they are using are based off of their safety standards. And the distance to the playing fields at Tufts, I don't have it exactly on here, but it looks to be 200, 300 feet. So you're talking about the Tufts playing field basically close by, correct?
[Alicia Hunt]: I think he means Tufts Park.
[Tim McGivern]: Tufts Park.
[Alicia Hunt]: And that the far end of it where people are known to run dogs is on the other side of Winchester and Granville.
[Tim McGivern]: Right. Just looking at it, it looks to be over, I mean, at least 150 feet, if not more than that.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: And what's the ordinance say, please?
[Tim McGivern]: There isn't any ordinance regarding the small cell infrastructure. No ordinance has been created. There's a policy. The policy doesn't have setbacks. The policy references the FCC standards. And there's no offset that would...
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: because this is my concern also in the full Colby Street poll, but which we haven't got to yet. But the other question is the poll numbers and the street addresses don't seem to match. Is that my observation? Am I just dumb or?
[Tim McGivern]: No, the addresses are approximate. And then the poll numbers are in the application to get you at the poll. And then they're all mapped on this map here. The exact location of the poll are mapped here.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: So the abutters did get notice, the people who were meant to get notice got notice.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, within 300 feet of the poll location.
[Alicia Hunt]: The 300 feet put so many people within it that it can't help but get, like it goes about two blocks out of each, like on this map, 50, right? Like 300 feet is gonna be up here, right? So we're looking at some pretty big circles. And we actually, in our applications, they show us the map with the radius of, oh, they show us a 500 foot radius. Hold on. It's not the 300. All right.
[Tim McGivern]: A lot of folks are sending comments in about the noise. One of our standard conditions is that there can be no audible noise at the sidewalk level and the dwelling level. And if they are, then they're not meeting the conditions of the approval. And I don't want to be surprising.
[Alicia Hunt]: This map that I'm using is located. Somebody asked about the map and the exact locations. This map that we're using is linked on the city's website on the 5G small cell committee page. And you can, it's this. I have been switching between the one that allows street views and this one. So if people wanted to follow along and zoom in on each of them, I was just trying to see if I could grab the URL.
[Tim McGivern]: What are you trying to look for?
[Alicia Hunt]: The URL that we used for this map, the one that's embedded on the city's website. So if I switch my webpage to go get the URL, I'll change what everybody is looking at.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, well, let me do that and just send it in the chat to everybody.
[Alicia Hunt]: And to be clear, the link that Tim is sending is available on the city's website for everybody. We're just putting it in the chat for convenience. Was there anybody else who wanted to speak on Granville? I think Mr. Gazzaro still has one more question.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, yeah, further to the address because I was at Colby Street and for Colby Street is one end of the street, but the pole is the other end of the street, the very other end of the street. So it's like about three or 400 feet away. It's the length of the building on Colby Street. Is that an exception? So there are several poles in between that weren't the correct poles.
[Alicia Hunt]: Can we look at that when we get to Colby Street?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, we'll look at it when we get to Colby Street. I understand that the comment as far as the address doesn't line up exactly with where the poll location is, just because the address is the house or the building. And then the poll is most of these right up front. Some of them, they're around the corner. So, and I've made note of the ones that are on a different right-of-way, you know, sometimes around the corner. Okay, so let's go, I said Councilor Marks, and then we're gonna go to Joseph Nazaro after that.
[Miranda Briseno]: He just spoke.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, okay, all right, sorry. So Councilor Marks, and then if there's someone else.
[SPEAKER_15]: It looks like a resident's raising their hand visually, Fire Tao. for coming on this site.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, yeah, let's go with them, please. Hi, Miranda, thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: And we need each person's name and address for the record. And Miranda, if you can try to capture those for us, not just the address they're speaking at, but their address.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Hello? Hello? Hello? We got you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: The name is Andrew Castagnetti, and I've been trying to speak since Councilor Mark spoke earlier. And I want to say he brought up some great points, and I understand it's a done deal, it's a slam dunk, according to Verizon and their lobbyists and the government. However, Verizon's implying or stating, and as Alicia Hunt said in today's transcript, I'll quote, we'll just have to trust it works. I would say trust is good, may be good, but it would be much better if Verizon could place a $10 billion surety health safety bond that'll be much better. Trust me on that one, because there are no guarantees in life or on life. And I can give you one example, even if it is so safe, as we speak, according to GARP. However, 50 years ago, we were painting our house inside our bedrooms. And then 35 years later, we had an issue called lead paint. So Would Verizon, with their surety, place a $10 billion bond in case there's any health issues? I do have a site specific on Bradley Road. I have a loved one whose apartment is directly across from the pole, 10 feet higher than the pole on the fourth floor when you get to Bradley Road. So I'm asking Verizon, clear as a bell, would they have the decency to put up a $10 billion surety health safety bond. I'm asking that to Verizon.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Thank you. Good to hear your voice. Thank you. Verizon, could we get a response to Mr. Castagnetti for that question?
[SPEAKER_15]: Can I also get his address for the record?
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Oh, Clifton Street, C-U-S-H-I-N-G.
[Tim McGivern]: Stan and Mike, the question regarding... Yeah, sure, Mr. Chair.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, the response is no. And as we talked about the last time, local regulation on the basis of health and safety effects is not permitted under the federal law.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. Okay, in the name of duty and humanity and for safety, the answer is no.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, we've got them on the record. And I hope folks, you know, friendly with a lot of folks around here and I you know, I hope people understand where I'm coming from and more than happy to continue the discussions, why I'm sitting where I am. And constant marks also wanted to speak on this. Did we lose him?
[Michael Marks]: I'm here, Tim. I already spoke, but I would hope that you would just call upon the people that have their hands raised.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I did. All right, so we'll take a few minutes here to get some comments. So we'll go with Dennis Dettling, just going down the list that I got here. So we can go ahead and unmute Dennis. Can someone please unmute Dennis? Thank you.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: Yeah, sorry. It took me a little while to click the right thing.
[Tim McGivern]: That's okay. I thought someone else was doing it for us, but thank you very much.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: I've been involved with the city council meetings and politics, and I've been on the same team with Alicia Hunt as far as getting municipal aggregation, and I'm very much concerned about climate change. And anyway, I just wanted to say, so I am concerned about two locations near me, 42 Quincy and 90 North. But in general, I wanted to know, I have two, Three questions, actually. One is why we dropped the requirement of setback from dwellings, because we have a requirement for the setback from parks and playgrounds and schools. And if that's not about public safety, then please explain that. and why doesn't it apply to dwellings? The second question I have is why did we give up on the canister enclosures so easily when it turns out that other cities require canister enclosures and these are composite or whatever materials they are that allow the microwaves to go through, but they protect the wires and other sensitive things that are inside that thing. That doesn't seem to be right to me. And are we following up on the liability insurance? I think that's an absolute requirement. And finally, the fourth question is, Are we making an effort to appeal this to the federal government? And these are all things that were requested by unanimous votes of the city council. And I wanna know whether they, I want answers to these questions, please.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. I can address the setbacks. So it says, the policy says that setbacks can be created, but the policy that the applications were submitted under never defined any setbacks. So that's the answer there. So even if we were to, if the administration were to create a policy that had setbacks it wouldn't apply to these applications. The canisters, I personally thought and the other committee members thought that canisters were worse as far as visual pollution goes. These are smaller without the canisters and they're less visually obstructing to me. So that was the reason there. And the other committee members agreed. And the liability insurance, the renewal of that is part of the conditions. So I agree with you, it's a very important piece of it. So because it's been a year, the certificates have expired. So they would need to generate new certificates. I believe those were your questions.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: The fourth one was about whether we're doing anything about the federal policy appealing to the FCC or for President Biden or federal government senators. I mean, the city has the ability to do that.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm not aware of any actions taken by this administration or any other entity in the city.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: Are you going to agree to that? Is that going to be, is anyone going to make a motion for that? that it be added as, I assume that you have jurisdiction over this as you're the committee that's been appointed.
[Tim McGivern]: We have jurisdiction over the policy that was written by the city's administration. So I believe that would be in someone else's court. This committee is reviewing the applications based off of the policy that was written. We have, as I said before, a pretty narrow purview on this. And I can't speak for other city entities.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: All right, well, the two poles that are near my house, I don't want them. And I wanna know, have any residents requested that they have the 5G near their home? I mean, what is the basis of this?
[Tim McGivern]: The basis is the federal order.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: I mean, I'm sorry. the locations, the locations that were chosen by Verizon. Do we have an explanation for that? And does that explanation include residents requesting that these transponders be near there? Do they want the 5G? Or would they go for broadband?
[Tim McGivern]: I believe there are some residents who have specifically requested 5G.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: In those locations?
[Tim McGivern]: I don't know, we can ask Verizon to address that question. And I do know that there's a desire for folks want 5G, a lot of folks want it. I know a lot of folks don't want it. So Verizon, Stan or Mike, have there been specific requests from residents to want antennas in the vicinity of their home?
[SPEAKER_22]: I don't know if someone on the team can answer that, but I would say just generally, Mr. Chairman, we're here at a hearing about specific sites. I thought we had ground rules here where general comments were being taken up last week, and we were gonna move through these applications. And I would request that you move through the applications. We're hearing a lot of stalling going on to try to delay this, and we would like to get these applications through the committee, please.
[Tim McGivern]: There's a response there. Thank you.
[Miranda Briseno]: All right, so... Can I get the address for the record? Sorry.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: Oh, 120 North Street.
[Miranda Briseno]: Thank you.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: So do we have other site-specific comments on 48 Granville Avenue that remain? I want to get to the applications as well. It's... All right. I know that there are hands up, but I agree that we need to continue to move on. We've heard a lot of general comments and we have to continue. So if there's no other comments on 48 Granville Avenue, I'd like to introduce a condition that the light will remain, which is different from what it says on the plans. Um, so I'd like, uh, to hear a motion. Uh, and if the motion is, uh, to grant with conditions, I would like, uh, that, uh, member to add that the light will remain. If they agree, they still moved.
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with the regular conditions and the, that the light remains on this poll in contrary to what is on their application.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Okay. Do I hear a second? Second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, Alicia Hunt, to vote?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Mulkey? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor? Mary Ann? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Light will remain. All right, thank you. We'll move on to 25 Dexter Street. So this poll is at the corner of Dexter and Bow. It's actually in the Bow Street right-of-way. And it's within 20 feet of a three-story residential structure. The poll ID is 4312. Let me get to that one. All right, and if we could check emails and chat on specific comments to the site?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Mr. Chairman, emails received.
[Tim McGivern]: OK.
[Miranda Briseno]: Are there any hands raised on this one?
[Tim McGivern]: OK. I'll wait until we get the map there. I'm still just going through the comments. I'm getting sort of inundated with general comments. I am going to ask people to please stop sending me general comments. I'm not ignoring questions. There's been a ton of public comment period. And you can choose your carrier.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, is it the one that has the Dexter Street sign on it? I was trying to go to ground level to see it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Let me just see here.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_18]: Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: This one here. And so this is it at ground level.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_18]: That's it, yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: This one looks like they were going to need to install a new pole. The diagram showed it going taller than that current pole is.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I think you're looking at the wrong poll. I think it's across the street from there.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. Thank you very much. This one, the one without the light, that. Thank you. Yes.
[Unidentified]: Correct. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: I appreciate that. So it's the current poll there is according to this diagram that was submitted existing top was at 34 feet. So they're just going to they're going to go with a pole that's four feet taller. And I just I'm sure that we asked this last week, and I wanted to make sure we were clear that there's no intention to extend the pole or put a topper but rather in a situation like this, because this is the first we're discussing specifically, it would be a new pole and you would be replacing it.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I can answer that, yes. It will be a new pole. And when we submit our applications, National Grid does their survey, and they tell us that the pole needs to be replaced for some reason, maybe because this one was leaning a little bit. They thought a new pole would be needed for the antenna.
[SPEAKER_09]: So it will be higher at that point than what's currently there?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: It will be higher, yes.
[Tim McGivern]: That's my understanding of the review too. Yes, Marion, that was my understanding of this review too.
[Alicia Hunt]: I didn't have any other questions on this location.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. I can't even remember if I already asked this. Did we receive any emails on 25 Dexter Street? I don't think we did, right?
[Miranda Briseno]: I haven't seen any chats or anything either.
[Tim McGivern]: OK, I don't see anything. All right, do I have a motion on 25 Dexter Street?
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to approve that with the conditions we adopted. Do we hear a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: Alicia Hunt, vote?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki? Yes. Mary Ann?
[SPEAKER_23]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim is a yes as well. 39 Albion Street. It's 39 Albion Street, application number seven. Poll number is 4732, and it's on the corner of William Street, and it's actually in the William Street right-of-way. It's within 20 feet of one three-story residence and within 25 feet of another. There's the location there. Have we received any emails regarding 39 Albion Street?
[Dave Rodrigues]: No emails received.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, let me just check the chat here and folks let me know on the team if we received anything for 39 Albion Street.
[Alicia Hunt]: This is another one where it looks like it needs to be a new poll.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, there's a few of those. some mid mid pole swap to some of them.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is the location here on William Street.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_18]: Yep.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, Dennis, I have you in for 42 Quincy and 90 North. I just scrolled back to the top. And I see other people's too, Brookings. So we'll get to those. All right, I don't see anything for 39 L beyond.
[Alicia Hunt]: If you have- The new pole at the top of this is gonna take it up above the existing houses.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. All right. Do we hear a motion?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: This poll is going to be replaced or put on top?
[Alicia Hunt]: This is going to be replaced. The existing utility poll, the elevation is 29 feet 6 inches, according to this survey, and they're proposing to put the antenna at The bottom of their utenna equipment is at 34 feet. So they're going to be going up that six feet higher than the current pole.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Most of these tend to be above the plane of homes, unless like kill site that was on a hill.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, I apologize if I'm making people a little dizzy. I just wanted to have a good view of these. Yep. That's the view where we can sort of see it'll go up higher.
[Tim McGivern]: And that's one where you can see it probably is a new pole. You can tell just by looking at the base of it. You can tell by looking at the pole itself, but they haven't they haven't done the finish work on the concrete. That's what I was referring to before. So quite a number of them like that. You can see that.
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with our conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. Alicia DeHunt, vote?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Mulkey? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor? Yes. Tim McGibbon? Yes. Moving to application number 820 Winchester Street. Poll ID 671. Poll is actually in the Wareham Street right of way, it's in the corner. In my review of this one, within 20 feet of one three-story residence, and one more is within 50 feet. That one looks familiar. 671, yeah, that's 671, so that's the pole there. So again, that's another new pole. A lot of these are new poles, so.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Again, can I ask if it's above the residence, what the height could be?
[Alicia Hunt]: The height on their proposal says the existing top of the pole is at 29 feet. and that they're proposing the base of their equipment starts at 34 feet. So they're installing a new pole that's five feet higher than the one that's currently there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: If I can back it up a bit so people can get.
[Unidentified]: Oh, doing that.
[Alicia Hunt]: at it, it'll go higher than the existing. So we can see that it's currently above the houses and it's gonna go five feet higher than it currently is.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: It'll be significantly above the current house there.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, and I don't see anything in the chat for 20 Winchester Street. Do we have anything in email?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Nothing in the email, Mr. Chairman, and Councilor Marks has indicated he has the additional comment.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, Councilor Marks, if you can be brief, that would be appreciated. I'll let you speak, please. Unmute Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Tim. I requested about 20 minutes ago that we allow people that have their hands raised to speak. And you agreed with that. And then a representative from Verizon came on and said they heard enough public input. And then you sided with Verizon. I'm a little disappointed that- I sided with myself.
[Tim McGivern]: I mean, I do want to let these people speak and I am going to.
[Michael Marks]: Give them two minutes each, there's five of them, that's 10 minutes. It doesn't make sense to go through all these petitions. Let the people speak that want to speak.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Just so everybody knows, I mean, there's a lot on the agenda, so I'm trying to keep it moving. But I do want to let people speak. So if we can be quick here, please. I do want to respect folks make sure that folks have a chance to speak. So let's go to Mr. Lysakowski, if I'm saying that correctly. We can't hear you, Mr. Lysakowski. You are unmuted though. All right, well, I think, I believe we may have lost him. Mr. LaScalcia, if he comes back, just let me know. And if you have general comments, you can send them to the next one. Mr. Brandes, we'll unmute you. Please try to keep it brief.
[SPEAKER_23]: Hi, my name is Aaron Brandes. My address is 48 Marion Street. And I have a, One, I have two questions, I guess. One is, it's been my impression that Verizon was having work done at their behest or in some way on many of the designated polls. And I'm wondering if that's true. And secondly, the committee keeps talking about how their hands are tied and how, but aren't you the people who were supposed to, who wrote the conditions that applications had to meet? Can you clarify who wrote them? And also during this, there seemed to be a lot of other towns that are adding more conditions to protect their citizens. And I'm wondering if, if you've had any contact with other cities about this. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. You can let the committee members speak to their experience. I've been talking to quite a number of folks regarding this. The policies and ordinances that other towns are operating under are different from ours. The policy that we have in place, the interim policy was written by the previous mayor's administration and is the one we're operating under today.
[Dave Rodrigues]: All right, Tim, I think I can add a little bit if you want to indulge me just on, in terms of background, in terms of the poll work. Tim is correct. And just to clarify his point, this was a policy that was developed in 2019 under the Burke administration. These are applications that were submitted in 2019 under the Burke administration. And these are, we sought advice of counsel over the past year. Mayor Lungo-Koehn sought to delay this as fervently as she could, and Verizon can speak to that. Some of the conversations that she had with them via email trying to push these out and delay these and find more time and advocate at the federal level to the greatest extent she could. This is, what Tim said, an unfortunate situation. Speaking specifically to the poll work that was done by Verizon, it was brought to our attention that poll work was being performed. Verizon was put on notice that any work performed prior to this hearing was done at their own risk. If they were doing it in advance of this hearing, before these permits were issued, and the permits were not issued, They're out. They're doing so at their own risk. Speaking to an earlier point about the federal advocacy, it is a point extremely well taken. And the mayor and I have spoken about this a number of times. And we are preparing our advocacy strategy to the federal government now so that we can advocate to both Senator Warren, Senator Markey, Congresswoman Clark, the FCC, the White House, anybody that will listen to us, we're gonna talk to about these issues, because she is extremely concerned about the removal of local control over the placement of these things. That's what we mean when, I think, and I'm not gonna put words inside Tim's mouth, but when we say our hands are tied, it wasn't tied by us, by anyone on this call, and anyone that's currently in city government, or currently that probably has ever even been to Medford. which is the most frustrating part for all of us. I've spoken to all four members individually about their frustrations, my frustrations, the mayor's frustrations, and they're working through them. So those are just a couple of brief points on that stuff. I hope it was helpful. So I'm available for any other questions.
[SPEAKER_23]: I appreciate that. And what's your position? Do you have a position in the city government?
[Dave Rodrigues]: I'm the chief of staff for this video.
[SPEAKER_23]: You're what?
[Dave Rodrigues]: I'm the mayor's chief of staff.
[SPEAKER_23]: Chief of staff. Thank you very much. I really appreciate getting some direct responses. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much, Mr. Berenice. If you could do me a favor and take your hand down. Folks, if you have spoken, please take your hand down. I will move on to the next location, but Mr. George, I assume a man, George Silvestro, Marilyn Jordan, and Barbara Kendall. I believe Barbara may have a site-specific one. I've spoken to Barbara. So we'll do it that way, because I do want to let people speak. That is part of this, as has been said.
[Miranda Briseno]: I'm unmuting Mr. Silvestro.
[Tim McGivern]: OK. I wanted to do that in the next one. That's OK.
[Miranda Briseno]: Oh, sorry.
[Tim McGivern]: That's OK. I believe it's a general comment. Do we have any? Let's see, I just kind of lost my place. I believe we're on 20 Winchester Street, 671 and application number eight. So 20 Winchester Street. So do we have any emails on 20 Winchester Street? I don't believe I saw any in the comments in the chat.
[Dave Rodrigues]: There are no emails, Mr. Chairman.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. All right. All right, thank you everybody for your general comments, but it's making it more difficult for me to get the specific ones. Okay, I don't see anything in the chat for 21 Chester Street. And that's, do we have that one on the screen? This will wear him.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, that's my belief that that's, we're looking at it from a distance to see its comparison to the building.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, thank you. All right, I'm on track now. Yeah, we did, we did do that. Okay, so we're ready for a motion.
[Alicia Hunt]: At the- Motion to approve 20 Winchester Street with our standard conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Right, do we hear a second? I'll second that motion. Okay, and we'll vote. Alicia Hunt?
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, it's approved. Conditions. All right, next one is application number nine for Colby Street, poll 4435. And I do know that somebody wanted to speak on poll for Colby Street. I believe it was a gentleman who spoke a couple of times back, so we can get him back on.
[Miranda Briseno]: Yeah, Mr. Nazaro.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, but before we do that, my review, there wasn't any three story residences within 60 feet, and it's at the corner of the Tufts Science Building on Colby. So with that, we'll go to site specific comments, anything in the email, just check that first.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Uh, there were a number of emails received, Mr. Chairman. I'll read them and, uh, several. I'll read them chronological or as they were received on. I apologize if I, um, mispronounce anybody's name. Sharon Sue, uh, an application regarding concerning about, um, additional studies definitively proving the safety of small cells in that application nine is adjacent to her house with young Children. she's concerned about the constant exposure. She did send two emails to that general effect. Another email was received from Sharon Wong, additional scientific studies regarding young children at home all day. I'm not sure if this is the same individual based upon the context of the email. Mr. Nazaro, also emailed a number of times regarding his property in 9698 Princeton opposite the pole. And he stated that he was well-served by the legacy service of 3G and 4G. And he had some comments regarding some of the other comments that were made previously. He stated that 440 scientists have now signed the 5G appeal and he had serious health concerns related to 5G. And restated that the health of the community is the most basic protection. The final email was again from Mr. Nazaro. Um, concerned about the, uh, placement. Uh, that was, that was there in the structural, the structural integrity of poll 365 outside of for Colby. That's the extent of the email. And I did get it. There was a confirmation in the chat, uh, that emails, uh, from Sharon Sue and Sharon Wong, uh, were from the same individual.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: So that pole is one that will be replaced. The existing pole, according to the application, is the top of it is 33 and a half feet high, and the new top of pole would be 38 and a half feet high. So it'll be five feet taller than the existing pole, which looks like it's gonna, again, put it significantly above the other houses. and would address any instability issues of the existing poll, because it will be a new one.
[Tim McGivern]: And does Mr., blanking on his name, the gentleman that wrote an email and said he wanted to speak on Colby, does he want to? Yeah, has he made his point? Would you like to speak?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, hello.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: I don't understand why there are no setbacks for the playing fields. People in their houses won't be exposed to the millimeter wave radiation. People out in the street will be. The pole, I thought, was at the other end of the building where the door opens. That's for Colby Street, but it's the far end of the building by the playing fields. One end of the building, the kids stand out there and smoke, so they'll be irradiated. The other end of that street, the kids are out there in the playing fields, so they'll be irradiated. And there's no protection for children in playing fields and playgrounds with your bylaw or ordinance or whatever you call it, which to me seems very negligent. That poll, by the way, is a new poll. I was wrong with my original identification of the poll. It's a new poll. So if they're going to change the new poll, that's fine. There is no concrete in the sidewalk around the new poll.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. And most of your concerns are health-related, and I'm afraid the policy doesn't have the setbacks to find.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: Why not?
[Tim McGivern]: I do not know why not.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: But that's negligent. We're talking about the health of our children and the students and the people that send their kids to Medford to go to college. Again, that's a federal... No, it isn't. That's a town ordinance or bylaw. It's nothing to do with the feds. You can institute it. You did not. You're not protecting the public.
[Alicia Hunt]: This body does not have the ability to set policy.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: that is not given to us in the policy.
[Tim McGivern]: Mr. Nazaro, please. This topic has been covered at length both today and last hearing, and many people have spoke eloquently on it. I think I agree with you, actually. So, that said, thank you very much. Thank you for getting your comments on the record. All right. So we have 4 Colby Street on the table. Do we have a motion?
[Paul Mochi]: Motion to approve 4 Colby Street with the conditions we adopted.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Do we have a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Seconded.
[Tim McGivern]: Was that a second, Alicia?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, sorry.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, that's okay, just cut out for a sec. All right, so we'll go to the vote. Alicia Hunt, Alicia Hunt? Yeah. Paul Mookie? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yeah, my understanding is this poll's 38 feet high, so yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, and I'm a yes as well. And I'll take this opportunity to let the next person who had general comments in a couple minutes, George Silvestro, if we could unmute him. and we'll move on to 333 Main Street. Hello. Hello, Mr. Silvestro, thank you.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: You're welcome, thank you. George Silvestro, 45 Brogan Road. Thank you. I had a comment on Granville Ave. Okay. That the gentleman that spoke saying the polls were numbered wrong, he is absolutely correct. And I object to that poll too, because I have two houses on the corner of Winchester street and Martin Ave that they get overlapped from different towers, from different polls that you're putting up. So does that mean I'm getting double of the, whatever's coming out of these polls when they're overlapped on the maps that they have, they're overlapped. My other question. on the pole in front of my house at 45 Brogan Road. The reason they put it in front of my house, because there was four other poles on Park Street.
[Tim McGivern]: We will get to that one. I have some comments on that one as well. I did stop by and confirm some of the numbers that you said.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: It refers to the Granville Ave on Park Street. Poll number 222, 2213, there's two of them.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Same number.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: Same number.
[Tim McGivern]: The 48 Granville Ave poll number is 30, and it's the one, it's the only one on the dead end portion of Granville Ave.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: Yes, I understand that.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, okay.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: The reason I'm saying on Park Street, there's two polls with the same number. Okay. of 22, 13. And then it's just a shame that you guys inherited this mess and you guys can't do nothing about it.
[Tim McGivern]: I agree, we're gonna get to the poll in front of your house, Mr. Smith.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: No, but I wanna voice my opinion. I've been on here since six o'clock with you guys.
[Tim McGivern]: I know, I know.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: I do not have the right to speak. I pay the taxes, that pays your salary.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_18]: Yep.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: We all identify ourselves. Can you guys identify yourself with your zip code?
[Tim McGivern]: I live in Manfred.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: I'll wait for 45 Brogan Road.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, I live in Medford, so everybody knows, I live in Medford, I'm a resident, and I'm trying to let people speak and get their opinions, and this is the first time, and I checked out your inquiry, personally, so. All right, so we're gonna move on to three, if you could take your hand down too, that will be helpful, and- I'm gonna wait for 45 Brogan Road. Oh, okay, okay, yeah, I'll get you, I know you're there. Thank you. Yeah, all right, so 333 Main Street, Application 35, pole 2188. The closest residential building is 50 feet away. That's the third story. You could go to that one. That's the next one. And if we could check emails to see if we have any emails that came in on 333 Main Street.
[Dave Rodrigues]: No emails received for 333 Main. Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: And the existing top of the pole is 29 feet, 10 inches, and their equipment is slated to go on a new pole starting at 34 feet, so five feet above the existing location.
[Tim McGivern]: I do have to ask again, otherwise I have to turn off the chat. There's a lot of general comments coming in from the chat. I'm reading them, I acknowledge them. A lot of them, you know, we could spend all night talking about them. And we did spend most of all of last meeting discussing them. And I'm afraid, you know, it's true. We don't have a lot of purview here. So I just need to keep reminding folks of that. So sorry, Alicia, I interrupted. So there we got 3-3 Main Street, Medford Mast.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I have to say it, I've studied electricity and electrical engineering and how some of this stuff works. And the dangerous space is about a foot or two from the box. It doesn't irradiate people on the ground. That's not how this works. And people need to stop believing the hype that's out there trying to scare Americans away from very useful technology. Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Crazy.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. It's there's been a lot of that still coming in. And please, personal attacks to me. Please stop. OK. On the chat. Not going to have it. I do live in Medford. I'm not going to have that. And I've put a lot of thought into this, and I've constructed an opinion that I believe puts the residents of Medford at the forefront. Thank you. All right. Mr. Lysakowski indicates that 330 Main Street is in direct line of sight for his third floor tenants.
[Alicia Hunt]: I am trying to. This is 333 Main Street, as is marked on our map I was trying to get the ground floor. Okay, so it's a cross from Main Street variety. So it's this one.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_18]: Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: All right, so. That pole that you can see there up above the house, is it 29 feet 10 inches according to this survey? And they're going to 34 feet.
[Tim McGivern]: And Mr. Lysakowski would like to speak on this one. Mr. Lysakowski, We can have you speak. Maybe, I don't know if one's going to be put in front of my house. People have to stop with the comments. OK. All right. I'm going to set it.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Hello? Can you hear me?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. Thank you.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: OK. So my issue, and I have some questions for Congressman Marks as well. So this is being treated like a done deal, a fait accompli by the committee and by Verizon. And I'm wondering, besides health concerns, what other mechanisms do we have as citizens and homeowners, such as ordinances, referendum, amendments, Change in city policy. What other mechanisms do we have besides health concerns? Yes, deny these applications And I want a meeting to talk about those things before we proceed with talking about implementation details because Horizon wants you to rush to talk about implementation details because that means it's a done deal so
[Tim McGivern]: We have a finite purview to review these based off the policy. And so that's what we're doing.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: And what is preventing you from expanding your purview as residents and property owners?
[Tim McGivern]: I don't, we don't have the authority to expand our purview. Also, when it regards to what you could do as a citizen.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: You took away your power.
[Tim McGivern]: Basically, as a citizen, you can contact, I encourage everybody to contact their federal representatives.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Well, we need to start local, because this is a local matter. To be quite honest, this could have been created as an ordinance over a year ago.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Okay, what's stopping us from doing that now?
[Tim McGivern]: I don't believe there is anything.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Okay, do that for us.
[Tim McGivern]: City Council rights ordinance.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: City Council. Okay. Yep. What do we have to do to get that on the next city council meeting agenda?
[Tim McGivern]: I'm not on city council. I and I would encourage that please. I can I can tell you to contact the clerk's office.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: City Council.
[Tim McGivern]: President caraviello is the current president.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Okay, he's in this meeting now. Is he still present?
[Tim McGivern]: It was on their agenda last Tuesday. And from the sounds of it, it's going to be on the agenda again.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: OK. So is he present now?
[Tim McGivern]: He was present early in the meeting. I don't know if he's present now.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: OK. Could we check and see if he's here now? Let's get this scheduled on their calendar tonight. The meeting is supposed to be over at 830. We all have other things to do. This is why I'm trying to keep it moving. I'm trying to keep it moving.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_18]: I'm trying to keep moving.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Okay, well, you have to hear from your constituents.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm not an elected official. But I do want to hear from people. I, I'm not elected official, but I want to hear from people. So and I have a substantial amount of time listening to general comments of the city council here. I'm not aware if he's here right now. But we are going to look in the We are going to move on. Thank you very much, Mr. Leslie.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Wait a minute. Wait, hold on.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Hold on.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: I live within 300 feet of that 333 Main Street. It is direct line of sight, direct line of transmission.
[Tim McGivern]: We are going to see if President Caraviello is here. We're going to do that. And he wanted to speak earlier. If he still wants to speak, we're going to let him speak.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: OK.
[Tim McGivern]: OK.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: All right, have the residents of the third floor apartment on 333 Main Street been notified about this? Yes, yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, they have. Tim? Hi, President Caraviello, thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Lykoski, thank you very much.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Lykoski, you are correct. There were several, this was on our agenda last week, and Councilor Marks posed seven questions to the commission along with, I think he made seven motions for this particular project. And I said, and I think as Councilor Marksley alluded to earlier, all the committee people should have received a copy of what we discussed on Tuesday evening. And I think we were pretty clear and unified in what we sent out. Okay, what's the ordinance that's being proposed? There is no ordinance proposed. The city council has never been asked to make an ordinance on this. This is policy written by the administration. And this goes back a couple of years.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Can you explain the process to us for proposing the ordinance and carrying it forward?
[Tim McGivern]: this, can we move this conversation to a place where it's more appropriate, such as city council, or?
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Before you rubber stamp all these applications, I wanna make sure- We're not rubber stamping them.
[Tim McGivern]: I have to move on. We're not rubber stamping them. We're placing conditions.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Well, you're pushing them through without careful consideration. Tim?
[Tim McGivern]: We've been carefully considering this for over a year. We've been carefully considering this for over a year. Okay.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Well, then why haven't the ordinance been passed? City Council had over you to move on this for an ordinance. Tim, can I move that we again, move this meeting to continuance. This is nine o'clock now, and we're not getting further and the residents are not understanding the position we're in.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm going to, we're going to continue this, we're going to continue this meeting. and until we get through some more of these.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: I would like to know why you put yourself in this position to be, to not have- Mr. Lysakowski, please.
[Tim McGivern]: I've said a lot and the topics that you want to talk about should be discussed with City Council.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Okay, let's talk about 333 Main Street.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: That's your immediate concern?
[Tim McGivern]: Yep.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: So what is your proposal?
[Tim McGivern]: that to place our standard conditions on 333 Main Street, that would be mine.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Okay. My other concern is about the pole in front of Tufts Park, right next to the swimming pool.
[Tim McGivern]: I have a concern with every single one of them.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: Well, I mean, my children play in that park. So do mine. Use the pool.
[Tim McGivern]: So do mine.
[Nl3sf1HT5lI_SPEAKER_14]: And, you know, we don't, at this pole at 333 Main Street, is going to cause more unrest and interference in my neighborhood.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, thank you very much, Melissa Kosky.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Can I ask what the height of the pole is, please?
[Alicia Hunt]: The application says that the top of the existing utility pole is 29 feet 10 inches and that the proposed top of the utility ball would be 34 feet. and it would be at 34 feet that the equipment would start.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: 33 feet. I know that folks are, you know, the Verizon folks are basing this on 20 year old guidance, but that's the guidance we have. So 33 feet minimum is the guidance that we're going on. So if it's above 33 feet and above that, I'm okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: As we're looking at two and a half story houses, those are, they look like three, they're legally two and a half. The zoning height regulations in Medford is 35 feet, while obviously there are things that don't comply with zoning. When you can see that most of that buildings are the same height, one has to, they're under, these poles are going up around the roof line of the top story.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: All right, do we have a motion for 333 Main Street?
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Do we have a second?
[Alicia Hunt]: With our conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Do we have a second? I'll second that too. All right, vote. Alicia Hunt?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moghi? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor? Yes. Tim McGivern, yes. All right, moving on to 600 Boston Avenue. Application 45, poll 4910.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Mr. Chairman, there have been no site-specific emails received for this location.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. I didn't see any comment on the chat for 600 Boston Avenue. All right, there's one new one, let me just check that. A poll could very well go in front of my house, Ms. Kuczynski. They haven't proposed one, but I would be in the same situation that I am for every single one of these. I live in Medford. All right, my measurements for 600 Boston Avenue, 58 feet away from St. Clement Elementary School, 70 plus feet away from the third story buildings, horizontal plane. Any other, any comments from the committee?
[Paul Mochi]: Alicia, can we get a street view of that one?
[Tim McGivern]: It's that one, that asphalt patch, I believe, right there.
[Alicia Hunt]: The one right there that looks cut off at the top. I don't have the next one open.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This says,
[Alicia Hunt]: Maybe it's just an artifact of what's there, but the proposal here says that the top of the existing and proposed utility pole is 38 foot six inches. It just gives the impression of being a lot shorter.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, it doesn't look like it's that high. Is that the right pole number they have on there? Are they replacing it?
[Alicia Hunt]: We could have Verizon speak to this specific poll. Are we looking at the correct one? Are they replacing it?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Yes, you're looking at the correct poll.
[Alicia Hunt]: Is that really 38 feet?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: It doesn't look like 38 feet in its current state there, no.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just taking a look to see if there was... I mean, there's no way. So we could, it'll be replaced then.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, they would have to do it per the plan. So the plan has it that the antenna at 41 feet above grade.
[Miranda Briseno]: Right.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. So for the application.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: make that as a condition on this poll, please?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I agree. So Marianne, is that a motion to grant with condition? Yes. Okay. And the condition would be to confirm that it meets the offset from ground. Correct? Correct, thank you. Okay, do we hear a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, vote. Alicia Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Momoki?
[Paul Mochi]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Marion O'Connor?
[Paul Mochi]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGibbon, yes. Thank you. All right, we're gonna move to 13 New Bern Avenue.
[Robin Stein]: I didn't hear Marion's vote, did you hear it?
[Tim McGivern]: I did, it was yes.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, I just didn't hear it.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I believe, Marion, I'm not incorrect, right?
[SPEAKER_10]: No, you're right. Yes. Internet is bad, so I shut my video off. So hopefully you can hear me.
[Tim McGivern]: 13 New Bern Ave. Poll ID is 618, application 39. My measurement is 18 feet horizontal distance from a three-story dwelling, as you can see there. ADA measurement clearance is checked out, et cetera. Otherwise, I wouldn't have noted it. So 13 new burnout, any emails? I know where every single poll is, I mapped every single one of them. I'm voting what I believe is the best interest. All right. Thank you, Ms. Jordan, for clarifying where your comment will go on Sheridan Avenue. So I appreciate that. Thank you very much. I don't see anything for 13 Newborn. Dave, any emails?
[Dave Rodrigues]: No emails for this location.
[Tim McGivern]: OK. Do I hear a motion?
[Paul Mochi]: Motion to approve with our conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: Do we hear a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, that was a second, I believe. So call the vote. Alicia Hunt?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki? Yes. Marian O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: The height of this pole was?
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry. This is a designated utility pole is 33 feet 9 inches, and that the proposed pop of the new would be 38 feet 6 inches.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And Tim McGibbon, yes. All right, next is 8 Alfred Street. Application number 38, poll 634, poll ID 634. My measurements on this one, 20 feet from a three-story dwelling.
[Dave Rodrigues]: No emails for this location, Mr. Chairman.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Thank you very much.
[Tim McGivern]: And I don't see anything in the chat for 8 Alfred Street.
[Unidentified]: All right.
[Tim McGivern]: And we're going to the poll here.
[Alicia Hunt]: Is that the right one? Or I can flip back and forth.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: That's the poll right there, correct.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Questions from the committee?
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll tell you, and again, this is the existing top of the pole is 29 feet, seven inches, and that the proposed top of the new pole would be 34 feet with the equipment above that. These are two stories, so it'll be significantly above what's there.
[Tim McGivern]: Do we hear any motions?
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, do we hear a second? Second. All right, we'll put it to a vote. Alicia Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul Mulkey? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Tim McGivern? Yes.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: All right.
[Tim McGivern]: We will move to 236 Harvard Street, application number 46, poll ID 4618. My measurement was 25 feet from a three-story dwelling, which can be seen there. Any emails for 236 Harvard Street?
[Dave Rodrigues]: No emails for this location, Mr. Chairman.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. The chat is getting overloaded. If you did want to speak on 236 Harvard Street, please let me know. I don't see anything in here. All right. Any additional questions by the committee?
[Paul Mochi]: Is it? Alicia, can you go back to that view we had a second ago?
[Alicia Hunt]: I don't think it was right. I was trying to get the right location. So it's across from Benton Road. Okay, there. Sorry. Things are not easy to navigate.
[Tim McGivern]: I wish the map allowed us to go into street view. It's right there.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, okay.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, let's see, let's double check this.
[Alicia Hunt]: This thing says the existing, the top of the existing utility pole is already at 38 feet. And so this would go on top of the existing pole.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay. Any motions? Motion to approve dislocational conditions. Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: Call vote. Alicia Hunt.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Mulkey. Yes. Marion O'Connor. Yes. Jimmy Gibran. Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: And we'll go to 549 Main Street.
[Tim McGivern]: Application 40. Poll ID 543. Measurement was 30 feet from multiple two-story dwellings. Anything from the email?
[Dave Rodrigues]: No email for this location, Mr. Chairman.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. I didn't see anything in the chat. I'm going to look at technology. It's that poll right there, 543. Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: We're learning that we can read poll numbers. We were doing this for the Streetlight Project and reading poll numbers through Google. So that's the poll.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, and Ellesmere Place is effectively a driveway. There isn't a right of way there. It's an easement driveway.
[Paul Mochi]: Is that a new, are they going to replace that or is that going on existing?
[Alicia Hunt]: So this says top of existing utility pole is 35 feet, three inches. The top of the proposed pole is 38 feet, six inches.
[Paul Mochi]: So it will be a new pole here, Alicia?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Paul Mochi]: It's pretty close to that opening there. Do we know if Verizon might have an opportunity to push that a little bit to the side so they have a little more clearance to navigate that churn?
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, I then picture people driving over the sidewalk.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I mean, Paul, I'm okay in general with having the pole there. It prevents people from driving on the sidewalk on that turn. And there hasn't, I mean, I'm not aware of any complaints with it.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, it just looks a little tight there, but that's really your call, Tim, with the sidewalks.
[Tim McGivern]: You know, like I said, it kind of acts like a baller there and it does having a pole there or something like that, street furniture does protect the turning. So, and we haven't, I'm not aware of any complaints. I looked into it. I wasn't aware of any complaints regarding the pole location. So I'm inclined to leave it, leave it where it is. Although if, you know, if someone wanted to, I don't think moving it a couple of feet would necessarily hurt. I just don't think it's necessary.
[Alicia Hunt]: Well, any discussion or a motion to approve with conditions?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Okay, do we have a second?
[Alicia Hunt]: Second. Somebody just raised their hand. Was this the location or is it the next location that George Silvestro was interested in?
[Tim McGivern]: Mr. Silvestro, did you want to speak to this location? You wanna let me know in the chat?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: Yes, I'll speak.
[Tim McGivern]: On this location, 549 Main Street?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: Yes, it's in regards to, I mean, you're talking about the pole being close to the sidewalk and all that. Yeah. My concern with poles like that, which there's a lot in the city, the cabinet that they're gonna put 12 feet up with the meter at eight feet, seven feet, The box, the cabinet they're gonna put up is 48 feet high, 20, I mean, sorry, excuse me, 48 inches high, 24 inches wide, 21 inches deep. Where on the pole is that gonna be mounted? Because your typical UPS truck is at least 12 feet tall. Any truck on the road is under 14 feet. 14 feet is the max. when they pull up to a curb, if it's mounted on the sidewalk side or the street side, because from what I understand, the poles are supposed to be 10 inches from the curb. So they're gonna be in the street if they're mounted on the outside of the pole.
[Tim McGivern]: We're gonna pull the application and take a look at where it shows the mounting.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Is the cabinet,
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: 21 flush to the pole, 21 inches deep flush to the pole or is there a bracket on the cap?
[Alicia Hunt]: The application that I'm looking at shows the equipment being the box that I believe that you're referring to that starts at 12 feet, that it's about a foot or two above the existing street sign and it faces that Ellesmere at it. I don't know how to explain it. It's perpendicular to me.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: It faces the houses. It's on the inside of the pole, not the outside.
[Alicia Hunt]: No, it's on neither. It's on the sideways to the street. It's sideways to the street.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: According to the- It would be on the left of the pole, on the right of the pole going into the driveway. I think so.
[Tim McGivern]: We can certainly condition this that it doesn't interfere with vehicular movements.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: Well, that's my concern that depends on where they mount these boxes on all these poles.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, they're generally above the vehicular zone. That is something I looked at.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: But I agree, there's this one because 12 feet isn't above it.
[Tim McGivern]: Because 14 feet is the clearance, yes. If there is a potential for this to be in a vehicle zone, we can condition it, that it's not obstructing. And this is the idea of having a little bit of control here. The city has a little bit of control. So we can condition this pole to say that it cannot obstruct any typical vehicle movements into Ellesmere Terrace. So that's how I would wanna deal with it. And that's some of the control that the city has here.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, I think it's going to apply to a lot of poles, depending on where they put that. And the electric meter is going to be seven, eight feet, I believe. If it's right under it, that's going to get hit too, if a truck rubs against it or something. Yep. And then that's my concern.
[Tim McGivern]: It is a good concern. I think I'd like to whoever makes the motion if they could consider a condition for this one to specifically say that it doesn't obstruct typical vehicular movements onto Ellesmere Terrace.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think Verizon would like to respond to that.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, they can respond to that. Mr. McGibbon, I'd just like to bring up the fact that since we filed these applications, the technology's changed the way that we do not need those boxes on the big box on a pole. Okay. So it's much smaller equipment, it's the meter, a disconnect, and then the antenna and radio is above.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, that's less visually impactful, so I appreciate that, certainly. Okay, I still think, you know, just because where this one is, I don't, I mean, I wouldn't imagine that you'd want to put them in the vehicle turning zone, but just to sort of make sure, and it was brought up as a concern, and it's a legitimate concern. So I think that should be a condition for this particular poll, just to confirm that it doesn't obstruct any vehicular movements onto Ellesmere Terrace, whatever the equipment is. So if that's already the case, then it shouldn't be a big deal.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you, Mrs. Sylvester. I appreciate the constructive comments.
[Alicia Hunt]: I move to approve with the condition that nothing obstructs the vehicular movements. Is that appropriate?
[Tim McGivern]: Onto Ellesmere Terrace.
[Alicia Hunt]: Onto Ellesmere Terrace.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, or off Ellesmere Terrace. Do we have a second? I'll second it. All right, we'll call a vote. Alicia Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Palmer? Yes. Marion O'Connor? Yes. Tim McGibbon, yes. All right, next one is 89 Princeton Street, application 47, poll 2296.
[Alicia Hunt]: It appears, is it actually on Radcliffe Street?
[Tim McGivern]: That is correct. This pole is actually on Radcliffe Street, but it's next to 89 Princeton Street, which is the house.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, I see. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: My other measurement on that, 25 feet from multiple three-story dwellings, horizontal distance. All right, and this is- Everyone will receive no emails on this location. Thank you, you read my mind. 89 Fenton Street, let's see.
[Alicia Hunt]: This poll here in the distance for the street view, I think the distance helps us sort of see the, oops, and this is it up close, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Or did I get the wrong one? Apologize.
[Tim McGivern]: I don't see anything on 89 Princeton Street in the chat. Again, I'm gonna ask people that general comments.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think the information that people have been asking for is This says top of existing utility pole is 29 feet. The proposed top of new utility pole is 38 feet, six inches. There's nothing else different about this one.
[Tim McGivern]: Right. And there was no emails, none in the chat. And I did my review of this one. Any other comments from the committee or do we hear a motion?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Motion to approve without conditions. Okay. Do we hear a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: All right. Leishon?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Pamoki?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGivern? Yes. Thank you very much. We're gonna do Marion Street, and then we'll do the one at 499 Main Street, and then I'll propose a five-minute break before we go into Hillside, Evermistic area. All right, 62 Marion Street, 4497. Application, number 37, 30 feet to closest three-story dwelling, multiple buildings. So.
[Dave Rodrigues]: And Mr. Chairman, we received no emails on this location.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. All right, there it is. I don't see anything in the chat.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I believe it's that poll there.
[Tim McGivern]: OK. Yeah, that looks familiar.
[Alicia Hunt]: The application says that the existing utility pole is 33 feet nine inches and that this equipment would go on top of the existing pole.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Any other concerns or questions from the committee or a motion?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So how high would that be? Hold on.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, it says that the equipment would start at 33, well, its base is at 33 feet 9. It says the CL of proposed antennas is 36 feet 3 inches. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Anything else from the committee? We can hear a motion whenever someone's ready.
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with our standard conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, do we have a second? Second. Roll call, Alicia Hunt? Yes. Pamela Mulkey? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGibbon is a yes. All right, the next poll on the agenda is application number five, Main Street, close proximity to 499, which isn't necessarily a good bearing. It's the outside of the Tufts pool building on Main Street.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Mr. Chairman, there are no emails for that location.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. I don't see anything in the chat. Again, if inundated with general comments in the chat, I appreciate the comments. It just makes it more difficult for me to find the site-specific ones. So if you've submitted a site-specific request for comment earlier, please try to refresh it if you can when it comes up. Thank you. And I know Ms. Kendall and Ms. Jordan are on for 101 Sheridan. All right, so there's that.
[Alicia Hunt]: So it's this one, I believe, is that correct? By your description?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, go to the map here just so I can double check. I believe it is, but just so I can double check.
[Alicia Hunt]: Between the entrance to the playground? Is that it?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Left side of the building, yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: in the playground and the, oops.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, that's it, Alicia. That's the one.
[Alicia Hunt]: And it has the spotlight on it. It does indicate, the application actually indicates it has the existing spotlight on it. It says the existing top of utility pole is 29 feet, five inches, and the top of existing Street light, is it 31 feet? And the proposed antenna height, is it 31 feet? This is the shortest one that we've seen so far. Most of them, they're going up higher than that. I am a little perplexed that this equipment won't interfere with our street light that's there, either one, at least the one that lifts up. I don't know, it might be helpful for Verizon to speak to that a little bit.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, rising Can you speak to that.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: So, what the question is if it would interfere with the streetlight.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, so this is the shortest location. Most of them have going up a little higher than this. And our street light actually, as indicated at your survey and what we can see there, actually reaches up above the top of the pole and then your equipment is gonna start at that same height and go up. So is there any interference between them here and why is this pole not going up higher the way the others were?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: The pole is remaining as it is. That's a National Grid's decision. We submit the application, and they kind of tell us what, if the pole needs to be replaced or not. And there wouldn't be any, there shouldn't be any interference with the light. It would be fine if there was a condition, if there was any sort of interference that you guys thought was coming from our antenna to check it out. But we've been installing these throughout New England, and we haven't had any interference with any lights, LED, or connected lights even.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was assuming physical. I will radiate. sorry, reiterate, as we mentioned at the last meeting, the city owns the streetlights on the city streets, not National Grid. So both of the lights on this pole are owned by the city. So we would not want, if there was any difficulty, if things had to be adjusted, you'd be in touch with us about it and you would cover the cost. That's one of our conditions, but I'm pointing it out on this location. It's already one of our... Did anybody else have anything?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So the final high of the equipment would be less than 33 feet.
[Alicia Hunt]: that says that the top of the proposed antennas is 33 feet and the bottom is 31 feet. Okay.
[Paul Mochi]: So Verizon, when you're talking about the equipment should not interfere with the street light, I forget what address it was, but a few minutes ago, you made a comment about the technology changing. since these plans were prepared. Could you address that? Is the technology changing in terms of how that's affecting what we're looking at on the plans? Will there be more equipment than we're looking at or is it going to be smaller or less?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, the equipment actually all got smaller since we filed the application. So the box is down to a smaller unit and the meters are standard size.
[Paul Mochi]: Same configuration and the same amount of boxes on there, basically. Correct. Smaller in size than, right? Smaller in size, right. Do we have a motion? All right. A motion to approve without conditions.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, call vote. Alicia Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor?
[Unidentified]: No.
[Tim McGivern]: And Tim McGibbon, yes. So that's three yes, one no. Thank you very much. We're gonna take a five minute recess. So, and then we'll come back and we'll get to as many as we think we can in a reasonable timeframe. Just so folks understand, that's one third of the applications, okay? So we will, sorry, do we need a vote on taking a recess, Robin?
[Robin Stein]: No, I think you can just tell everyone you're having a recess and the hearing's still open. You'll be back in five minutes.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, so it's 9.32 now. 9.37 we will return. So starting now. Thank you very much. All right, it's 9.37. Get the committee back.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, welcome back everybody, thank you. All right, so we're gonna keep moving. We will go until this committee runs out of steam and is not able to function anymore. And we're gonna have to see where that lands us, okay? So we're gonna go ahead and we're going to open up the hearing for 50 George Street. So this is application number one. And it is poll ID 2150. And maybe Alicia's not back yet.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Mr. Chairman, I'd probably take the roll again.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No way. Alicia, are you here? Paul, are you here? I see Marianne. Marianne's here. No Paul yet, no Alicia, so we'll wait a minute until we get back on track here. Tim, I'm here. All right, thank you, Paul. And we got Alicia. There's Alicia, okay. And we got Marianne. You guys all set? Any objections from the committee to keep moving? Next application. Alicia, what I just said and Marianne and Paul, we're gonna keep going until this committee runs out of steam. 9.40 now. So, and obviously we're about a third away through the applications. So we're gonna keep plugging. I'm gonna try to maintain the situation as I have been trying to do. So we will continue.
[Alicia Hunt]: Which group are you going to next so that I can start to queue it up?
[Tim McGivern]: Yep, 50 George Street is the next one. It's application number one, is poll ID 2150. And this poll is actually in the Wedgmere right of way, Alicia. It's on the corner. All right. So this antenna is within about 20 feet of a second story at about the roof line or above. My measurements on this one. And we're gonna, Alicia.
[Dave Rodrigues]: We received no emails on this location, Mr. Trim.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, no emails on this one. Let me check the chat.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, so 50 George Street.
[Alicia Hunt]: You can see it there. I can go to Street View in a second. I was just taking a look. Top of the existing utility pole at 29 feet. And then the proposed antenna height would be 31 feet.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, no emails, I didn't see anything coming from the chat for this one. So it's open to the committee for any more questions or a motion.
[Alicia Hunt]: This one with the T stop sign on it, is that correct?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Which?
[Tim McGivern]: On the curved side of Georgia Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: On the curve.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, so way across here. Yeah, it's on the curve. It's the one with the sign on it, the dead end sign. That's the one.
[Alicia Hunt]: The one with the dead end sign on it?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: So the top of that existing pole, which is clearly in line with that house's top of chimney. Yes, sorry. We get a little slower the later we get. All right. Any other comments?
[Tim McGivern]: Comments or questions or a motion?
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll move to approve with our regular conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Do we hear a second? Second. All right, roll call vote. Alicia Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Mulkey? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor? No. Tim McGibbon? Yes. Okay, next one is 200 Boston Avenue. Application number 15, hole 787. And while Alicia is navigating there, Dave, will you check the emails? No emails for that location, Mr. Chairman. OK. And I don't see anything in the chat. 200 Boston Avenue. And then my measurements, this one is within 60 feet of a three-story residential building. Yeah, it's basically out front of 200 Boston Avenue. Yeah. I believe it's that pole right there, Alicia. We might want to double check. crossing sign.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, you can see on the proposal, it says existing street signs will be relocated if necessary. So I guess I'm wondering from Verizon is if with their new equipment, they no longer need to move the street sign or if they'd like to upgrade and improve it to a flashing one, more reflective one while they're at it.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: It's right in the area of where our equipment still would land on the pole.
[Alicia Hunt]: Would you guys, do you want to go ahead?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_18]: What does that mean?
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just going to suggest they could put in a newer, if they're going to be relocating and we have a crossing sign there for a reason to help people, they could, can there still be the crossing sign on the pole with the equipment? And if so, then can you put a nice new sign on?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: We could. We could put a sign similar to that on a metal pole, like you'd see if it wasn't attached to the utility pole.
[Alicia Hunt]: Like install a metal pole next to the utility pole that would have the crossing sign on it.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Right.
[Alicia Hunt]: Tim, you're more on top of street furniture than I am.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I mean, that would be acceptable. I like the idea of upgrading it if we can. If it needs to be relocated, we shouldn't put something there that needs to be updated.
[Alicia Hunt]: We have a current standards that we usually, we've been doing with flashing, with fluorescent, neon.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, like solar powered ones that flash. There are those that are just the signs. There's something like that we could ask them to do.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'm going to be able to add another poll right there in front of that.
[Tim McGivern]: If it meets clearances, when I was looking at this, I wasn't necessarily thinking of the sign relocation with the presumption that there seems to be plenty of room in the furniture zone here. There's a couple of trees. There's actually not many trees. There's a hydrant, as you can see. But in general, the block has a pretty clear furniture zone. So I'm sure there's a location that would work. whether it's ahead of the pole, behind the pole, or on the other side of the crosswalk. Because as you can see, this says crossing ahead, but it's kind of in the wrong spot. It's really, you just passed the crossing. So this one, I would like to condition that a sign that meets current standards is installed ahead of the crosswalk in this location. And that's on Verizon to do. Yeah, that would be them if they have to relocate that sign. Yeah, and that would be my condition. And again, folks, this is another example of the small control that the city would have here.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Can I ask a quick question? Is there an existing pole that's right there that might be already considered for the town? Looks like there's a little metal pole there right in front of this crosswalk. Yeah, that spot.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I mean, that could be considered. I think I'd like to condition this to have the city approve the new location of the sign.
[Alicia Hunt]: If that's an appropriate one, and if that poll is sufficient to hold the standard signs that we're installing now, which are the solar powered flashing crossing signs.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, that's right. Maybe this poll would work, Alicia, but I would rather have it a little bit broader, where we would need to approve the location. Because there are certain distances that you try to meet if you can. So we'd want to try to meet that distance. And I'm not sure, just looking at if that poll is acceptable.
[Alicia Hunt]: A condition that the new crosswalk signage has to be installed at the approval with the coordination and approval of our traffic director or director of traffic.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_18]: Yeah.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Yep.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And the height of that pole that they're proposing.
[Alicia Hunt]: So the existing utility pole is 34 feet 11 inches, and it says that the equipment would start shortly above that. Thank you.
[Paul Mochi]: Tim, getting back to that existing post, if we're gonna use that to mount the new sign, I'm trying to see, looking at this picture, I'm not sure what clearance is. Can we add a condition that you also have approval on that as far as sidewalk regulations that we have proper clearance around that pole also?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, Paul, I want to condition it so the exact location needs to be approved by director of traffic.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: That way that covers all the bases because it's all quite, we don't want to miss any sort of nuances. It's kind of a bunch of factors and variables in play distance from the crosswalk ADA clearance clearances offsets and curb offsets from other street furniture, etc. And the list goes on. So, um, I'd like to have just the the location approved. If it happens to be that pole, that's serendipity, but if it needs to be a new location, it needs to be a new location. So not a big to do there. Are there any objections from Verizon on that?
[Alicia Hunt]: The benefit of those who may not be aware, the director of traffic works in Tim's office, so it's easy for him to say that, yes, he will coordinate with you on this.
[Tim McGivern]: That's right.
[SPEAKER_22]: Okay, so we don't have an objection to that. I think having some more detail in terms of exactly what you're looking for will be helpful, but I guess we'll get that through the coordination with the traffic director.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, two things. The new standard we're doing for these signs is a solar-powered flasher. I don't think it's a huge extra expense. And the location would just have to be confirmed. We can even mark it out for you. That's probably the easiest way to do it. That's usually how we do something like this. So the director of traffic, Alicia's correct, works out of my office, would place that location on the pavement for coordination. So, and if it happens to be that poll, you know, I can't see, there might be another sign on there. I'm not sure. So that's why I'm not committing to that poll at all. So, okay. All right. We hear any more discussion questions or emotion?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a site specific question in the chat.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, I'm sorry.
[Dave Rodrigues]: from Mr. Chiaramonte. Apologies if I misheard that name.
[Alicia Hunt]: You want to speak? His comment is, was the cell tower on the Elizabeth Grady building taken into consideration when considering this location?
[Tim McGivern]: Mr. Chiaramonte, would you like to speak live? Okay, so the question was cell tower on the Elizabeth Grady building taken into consideration when considering this location. I'm not familiar with the cell tower on the Elizabeth Grady building. Verizon, do you have an answer to that question? I'm assuming you did.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, I can ask John Fournagle, our RF engineer to address that, but there are antennas on that building, but they do a different thing than this antenna does. John will explain it.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. All right, I see those in comments.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, is that somebody we need to unmute? Is he here?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, I just unmuted. You hear me? Yeah, typically, typically that's a that's a rooftop macro, which we generally which we generally don't use for these type of 5G designs.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Does that increase the I don't know, the radio frequency waves and that vicinity or is that?
[SPEAKER_00]: No, just it's two different frequency ranges. So the frequencies that we're using for these small cells are higher frequencies and they tend to, especially on macro rooftops, they attenuate very, very quickly, especially at heights like this. Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, Mr. Tremonti, thank Verizon for the response. So if there's no other emails, Dave, I believe you confirmed there wasn't any emails. We'll go ahead and any more questions from the committee or motion?
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with the condition around the relocation of the site sign with the approval or with the coordination of the director of traffic.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, do we have a second? Second. All right, roll call, Alicia Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Mulkey? Yes. Marian O'Connor? Yes. Tim McGibbon?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, next one is 16 Mystic Avenue. Application number 20. Poll ID 717. Dave, any emails?
[Dave Rodrigues]: No emails, Mr. Chair.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. I don't see anything coming in from the chat. I'll check it again in a minute.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: My review, 57 feet away from a three-story residential building. What's the only one I have for that one?
[Tim McGivern]: 16 Mississippi Avenue, it's right in front of that building, Alicia, the one the red pin is on. It's, yeah. And there it is, that yellow sign. Nope, not that one, to the left. Yeah, that one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That one, okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank goodness for the mute button or you'd hear me talk twice as much. Where's the residential building from there?
[Tim McGivern]: Is there one? There is one.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Okay, thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: 57 feet away, three-story residential building. So you can see that there in the image.
[Alicia Hunt]: This says that the existing top of the pole is 38 feet, six inches. And then we'll go above that. Okay. Oh, is there anything, the existing street sign to be relocated if necessary? What is that street sign? Oh, this is right before that building in the distance. That is our fire headquarters. And actually this is our police station right behind it.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. So I would say similar to that last one, we would want to relocate it. We don't have any updated standards for that type of sign. So it would just be the same if it's in poor condition, we'd want a new sign. But besides that.
[Alicia Hunt]: It could be relocating the existing sign.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, and it's not like for a crosswalk. It's basically an advance warning sign for emergency vehicles entering and exiting. So the same general vicinity would be appropriate, probably in front of the pole. But again, this is something that we'd want to just, since it's street furniture, we'd want to have it confirmed with the director of traffic. If it needs to be relocated.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: can provide some comment on whether it will need to be relocated? Yeah, I'm trying to pull the application too, Cynthia says on there.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Just looking at it, it looks like it would need to be relocated.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I don't recall what the app said.
[Alicia Hunt]: The application visually shows the equipment on the other side of the pole and says existing street sign to be relocated if necessary. And it appears to be where that box is, the large box.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, yep, which we're being told is smaller. And so, I mean, a similar condition, if it needs to be relocated, if that is the case, then we would want the new location approved by, or coordinated and approved by the director of traffic. No, nothing in the chat. So we can go ahead and either any additional questions or a motion.
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with the standard conditions and the requirement to relocate the existing sign if necessary. If it's necessary to relocate it to coordinate with our director of traffic. Yep.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Do I hear a second? Second that. All right, roll call vote. Alicia Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki? Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGivern? Yes. All right, next one is 0 Boston Avenue. So that's not an address. It's application number 48. It is a pole 3310-5. And the closest residential building is more than 100 feet away.
[Dave Rodrigues]: There are no emails on this site, Mr. Chairman.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. I don't see anything in the chat. So there you have it. Just so folks can orient themselves, the new T station is across the street from this pole and the brand new Tufts power plant building is the closest building. So I would imagine that more disruption is going to come from that power plant building.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, so there appears to be two poles next to each other. It appears to be not the one with the signage according to the application, but the other one, is that correct?
[Tim McGivern]: Sounds familiar. I'm just going to double check in here.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah. Okay. The top of the existing utility pole is 34 feet, seven inches, and the equipment would go above that around 37 feet.
[Tim McGivern]: We do have a question. Will this be the same equipment as the others? I believe the answer is yes. All of the applications I did confirm at the first hearing is all the same equipment. Okay. Do we have any other, anything from the email Dave?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Did I already ask that? Nothing in the email, Mr. Chairman, but there are some specific questions in the chat from Mr. Nazaro.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. The question was actually that, will this equipment be the same as the others? So we got that.
[Tim McGivern]: It's asking if it's handling more data potentially, same power density, and I'll ask Verizon to confirm this, but I believe it's all the same equipment that is being proposed on all of these polls. So it's no different from the other ones. Can I please have that confirmed?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: That would be correct.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. The three antennas, they are tri antennas, so they face in three directions. Thank you, Mr. Nazaro. Motions from the committee?
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with our standard conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Okay, do we hear a second? Second. All right, roll call vote. Malisha Hunt.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Mulkey. Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor. Yes. Tim McGivern, yes. All right, next one is 97 Greenleaf Avenue. This is application 11, poll number 3755. Do not receive any emails for this location, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. University was notified. Yes. All right. So this one has an existing double pole. I would like Verizon to confirm that it's an in process double pole. We do have a condition just to remind everybody that, and it's in the policy that they can't go on double pole. So that would have to be complete before this. And obviously the concrete collar at the base would need to be repaired. as per the standard conditions we've already created. The pole is actually in the Burgett Ave right of way. And within 30 feet is a three-story dwelling. Yeah, that's it. So it looks like it's an in-process pole switch. So just so folks understand what happens with utility poles, if a owner of a pole is going to replace the pole, they put the new one in, and then they have all of their VCs move the equipment from one pole to another over a certain period of time. And then once that is complete, they remove the old pole and finish setting the new pole. That's a really rough outline of the process. And this one looks like it's mid process. So just want to confirm that with Verizon. How long does that usually take to It could take anywhere from a few weeks to many months. It usually depends on the leases on the poll. You know, sometimes there are wires, services that poll owners sometimes have trouble coordinating with, and that's just the truth of it. So.
[Alicia Hunt]: I mean, it take years to get the second poll removed.
[Tim McGivern]: Sometimes there have been cases where it's been way too long years. It's, you know, I'm trying to move a poll in tough square and it's, you know, we had a brutal time of it. So, you know, but that's why- There's an editorial comment, Mr. Chairman.
[Dave Rodrigues]: There is a requirement under state law to have the double poll moved after 90 days. That is never enforced. It's not unenforceable at the municipal level. It has to be enforced at the state level, but it's never enforced by DPU. Yeah, sounds about right.
[Alicia Hunt]: But we can enforce here that the new equipment, the double pole has to come out before this new equipment can go on. And there's one of our conditions is the one year on the thing, which will help Verizon help us get rid of these double poles in these locations.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Again, I just want to keep pointing out, this is another example of the city maintaining what little control we have here.
[Alicia Hunt]: So just- So I'm assuming that because the application said top of existing utility pole, 29, three feet, and the new pole would be 34 feet, that what we're seeing here is the old 29 and the new 34.
[Tim McGivern]: That would be consistent with my understanding as well, Alicia. Yeah, this would be the new pole, yeah.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So the old 29 will come out.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And the new 34, it would be built on top of the new 34. Mm-hmm. That would be higher than 34 feet.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, it'll start then at 35. It says the center line of the antennas will be at 36 feet, six inches, and the top is at 37. I'm gonna do math. put into, so 35, the bottom of the antenna would be at 35 feet 4 inches.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. I don't see the map at this hour.
[Tim McGivern]: I don't do anything in the chat. And I don't know if Verizon, if you could confirm that this is in process and this is the new poll in process of the switch out, if you know that. That is correct. Okay, thank you. All right, any other questions or emotions from the committee?
[Paul Mochi]: Motion to approve this location with outstanding conditions. Okay, do we have a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: All right, roll call vote. Alicia Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul Moki?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. Mary Ann O'Connor?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGibbon? Yes. Next one is 110 Winthrop Street. Application 012. Poll number 5935 or poll ID 5935. And the relevant measurement I have for this one is a three-story dwelling is within 40 horizontal feet.
[Dave Rodrigues]: And we do have an email for this location, Mr. Chair.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, you can go ahead and read that.
[Dave Rodrigues]: I was received from celibam at hotmail.com, Tim Tamara. This poll is close to houses on both sides of the street. If you are making conditions, it's my understanding after speaking to Alicia, she stated the city council didn't vote in for April, 2019. So no new conditions and residential dwellings will not be included in the original 44 applications. That was a verbatim recitation.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. It sounded correct. Okay, let me check the chat. Okay, nothing new in the chat.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, I lost my orientation here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, so it's this. Do we?
[Alicia Hunt]: I may need help orienting this one.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, down the street a little bit, I believe. Is this it here?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I believe so, yes.
[Alicia Hunt]: Looking at this, the proposed top of the utility pole would be 38 feet, six inches.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: to be on top of 38, is that what they're saying?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, yes. All right.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, any other questions, comments, motions?
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with our standard conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Do I hear a second?
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh. Sorry, I think Councilor Marks is raising his hand.
[Tim McGivern]: Councilor Marks, okay. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Tim.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to make sure what I heard was what I heard. Did you state that the city council did not vote in April of 2019 to add dwellings and that's why it was not added?
[Alicia Hunt]: Is that what you stated? I have to tell you, I had no understanding of what that letter, it did not make any sense to me. Okay, I wouldn't know what the city council voted in April of 2019.
[Tim McGivern]: Just if I can clarify, Tim. Sure, please do. Yep. It was this inside a customer. This is in reference to the comment that was read via email. Correct.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And I received one as well, stating that Alicia mentioned that this was going to take place in the neighborhood because the fact that the city council did not add dwellings to the interim policy. And as we all know, the city council does not create policy. The interim policy was created by the previous administration. And this council has been on record for the past two years, offering at least a half a dozen recommendations to the both city administrations, the previous one and this current one to update the current interim policy. So I just want to set the record straight, because what Alicia mentioned is totally incorrect.
[Alicia Hunt]: This is a record. That's the letter that the butter wrote. They must have understood something that I said to them.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, well, you just reiterated when they said it, you said it was the city council. So apparently, they didn't misunderstand, because you just reiterated what the letter said. So unless unless I'm hearing wrong, you did clear you cleared the record.
[Tim McGivern]: I think Council Member Archie cleared the record. So the statement was read from the email. You responded and clarified the record, and I appreciate that.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and if I could just add, Tim, it is almost 10.30. We're going on the same slope we did last week. We still have residents with their hands up that have been on the meeting for three and a half hours about their property. And with all due respect, I think this meeting should come to an end. And I think we should hear from those few residents that have their hands up.
[Tim McGivern]: I agree. So the two people who have their hands up, Miss Jordan and Miss Kendall, I know they want to speak on one on one Sheridan, which and I acknowledge that it's 1030 was the time that we ran out of steam last time. I'm probably going to run out of steam then. We've made some we've made some progress on the agenda. So noted. Okay. Very much so. I run out of steam at some point. So I want to try to get through as many as I can. Okay, so I would because of this, I mean I will say if I'm Miss Jordan and Miss Kendall I know you have wanted to speak on one on one Sheridan. And in the interest of time that you've been waiting. I think it is a good idea to hear you now.
[Dave Rodrigues]: And Mr. Chairman, with respect to one-on-one sharing, and there are a number of emails as it relates to that, it may make sense to take that item out of order and advance that item if there's a number of public input on that one.
[Tim McGivern]: That is a good suggestion. Do I hear a motion from the committee to take that out of order?
[Paul Mochi]: Motion to take it out of order.
[Robin Stein]: Tim, can I just clarify? I think one went for if you hadn't voted yet. want to finish unless I missed it. I apologize.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're correct. Here's an indication that I'm running out of steam. You are correct. We haven't voted on this one yet. So let's close this one out. And then we'll go to we'll go to that one. Okay, so I didn't. Dave, any emails on 110 Winthrop Street? I believe you confirmed there wasn't but just double check.
[Dave Rodrigues]: There was the empty the message that was read.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, yeah, the message that was read. More indications I'm running out of steam. Yeah, okay. So I read that, my measurement. I think we're at any more comments from the committee or motions?
[Paul Mochi]: Motion to approve 110 Winter Street with standard conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Okay, hear a second?
[Alicia Hunt]: Second.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: All right, roll call, Alicia Hunt?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki? Yes. Marianne O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Me, Tim McGibbon, yes. Do I hear a motion to take 101 Sheridan Avenue out of order in respect to the residents that have been waiting to speak? So moved.
[Paul Mochi]: So moved. Second.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, we'll call vote. Alicia Hunt?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki? Yes. Marianne O'Connor?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim McGibbon, yes. All right, we're gonna go to 101 Sheridan. 101 Sheridan Avenue, application number 29, poll number 1510. And I have a record of conversation with Barbara Kendall, who also would like to speak. And she's opposed to the request and request that we deny the application, and she would like to know if it can be moved. And we will have her speak right after I read my measurements. The antenna is within 24 feet of two three-story residential buildings. It's also 60 feet within two other three-story buildings. All right, and we will go to Ms. Kendall. Hello, Ms. Kendall.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_16]: Hi, can you fix that picture because you're not getting a very good idea of the location of that pole. Can you can you pull it. So you can see street level I want you to be able to see the, the two houses that are most directly affected here can you fix that. picture that I'm looking at. First, is that the right pole? Are we looking at the right one? Go down. See the pole that's standing right there smack dab in the middle? There's a pole standing by the roof. Can you bring this up? I want it to go like this. All right, so there's the pole, okay? see that little white van? There's the pole. Oops, I'm going to do it again. There's the pole. This is my house to the right by that tree. And I have, this is a really, really small lot with a shared driveway and a side yard of less than three feet. There is only four feet from that pole to my front walk. Can you see the little portion there? This is my front door. This is my sidewalk. There's no side yard. There's no buffer zone between these two houses. It's smack dab on top of me. Now I went and looked at the other 10 site locations listed for Medford Square in the Greendale area and most of them like on Forest Street have frontages or side yards about 50 feet They're on a corner, they're in front of or next to commercial buildings, which act as buffers. I don't have that. When I sit on my front porch as you can see right there, I'm looking smack dab at that pole and my bedroom was on the second floor, and I'm right in a direct line with that telephone pole. So, for me, this. This post directly in front of my bedroom window, and on many levels it's going to interfere with the enjoyment of my home. I like to sit on my front porch and the only time I don't sit there on that I sit on that side where the pole is, and I sit there all year, except for the winter when it's when it's really snowing. But as far as I'm concerned, with the amount of equipment that's going on that pole, and there's already a tremendous amount of equipment on that pole, this tower will be an eyesore. And in your policy, it says you're supposed to do something that's aesthetically pleasing. Well, it's not going to be aesthetically pleasing. It's all going to be exposed, and it's going to be staring me in the face no matter where I look. When I get out of my bed in the morning, the first thing I'm going to see is this eyesore of a pole. Now, they also said they're going to put cooling fans. So that means I'm going to have humming noise or some kind of a whine that I'm going to hear every morning and every night when I go to bed. So because it is extremely close proximity, I don't think this is not going to increase the value of my home. If anything, it's going to make my value go down. Right now, it's valued at $600,000. With that pole and the cell tower on top of it, if I try to sell this people are going to look at and say I don't want this house, I'll be lucky if I get 300,000 for it. I really feel that this should not be approved, and I looked at other air houses of poles in the area. If you go down to Stevens Square, which is a commercial area, you have Citizens Bank. That's on Yeoman's Ave. It has a pole in front of citizens. It has a pole in back of their parking lot. And it has one across the street that's in their parking lot. And there's nothing on them. There's no transformers. There's no extra equipment. So when you looked at the corner of Grant, Dudley, and Revere Place, those poles have nothing on them. They're towards the end, and they're in the commercial areas. So my concern is that you've taken a lovely residential area, you stuck the coal in the middle of it, it doesn't enhance the neighborhood, if anything, it detracts from it. So I would hope that you would look at this and feel, okay, we're destroying a neighborhood, let's not put it there, let's put it at the top of Sheridan Ave on Salem Street, which is in the commercial area, put it on Dudley Street. put it on Grant Ave, because there's a restaurant right there at the corner of Grant Ave, put it on the Spring Street where the Citizens Bank is, Yeoman's Ave, rather than smack dab in the middle of Sheridan Ave. Okay, I guess that's all I have to say. It's very distressing to look at this poll.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much for your comments. And we will go to Miss Jordan. And Miss Jordan is asking about a petition that was signed by 34 homeowners against the 5G cell tower on Sheridan Avenue. Dave, did that come in in the emails?
[Dave Rodrigues]: It did, Mr. Chairman. There was a number of emails that were received with respect to this site. There are a number from Ms. Kendall, including two letters that were received from her. I generally state the positions that she already spoke of in person or through the Zoom. There also was a petition that was signed by a number of individuals in the Sheridan Avenue neighborhood. Those, I suggest those both of those documents be included into the record into the minutes of the record of the committee. and they are publicly, and so they'll be publicly available. They are available to the committee members to view via the 5G comments mailbox. There was also emails received from Marilana Tetchy Bariola from 62 Sheridan Ave to whom it may concern. I was unable to attend last night's meeting regarding the plan to place 5G network equipment on the utility poles in the city. I received notification that one will be placed One will be placed on a pole 300 feet from my home. I do not want this near my home. It has been banned in cities and countries across the globe due to adverse health effects. We are already dealing with a health crisis. Please consider the negative impact this will have many in our city. Signed, Marilyn Atechi Bariola, 62, Sheridan Ave. There was a email received from Marlene Seymour. I am emailing you today as a concerned resident of Sheridan Ave. My parents are owners of two family home at 89 Sheridan Ave, just shy of four years. The five adult family members that resign at that address as well as many neighbors are opposed to 5G cell towers that are being placed on Sheridan Ave. In fact, I know there was a petition in place for this matter. I would like to know how we were able to address our concerns further and see if this is not getting the green light. I can be reached at her email address or at her telephone number. You may, in the email, the phone number of her parents, Brendan and Arthur Seymour, signed Marlene Seymour. There was an additional email received from Cheryl Montecalvo. I'm writing to say I do not want the 5G network on or near the Sheridan Ave area. Thank you. Any questions, please call her home. Richard and Cheryl Montecalvo, I'm unable to attend the meeting due to work and health. Second, I'll follow up email from Ms. Maltekova in regards to the first email I neglected to add their names, which were stated. And that is the context of the comments for one-on-one sharing. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_22]: Mr. Chair, can we address the analysis for this site? And also note for the record, there are no fans that would be on these installations.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, thank you, Mike. That is correct. We confirmed that. That was a concern with noise. There are no fans, and that was confirmed by Verizon a couple of times. So please go ahead and address what you wanted to address. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_22]: Sean will address this.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Thanks, Mike. So Alicia, if you want to kind of go up the street a little bit, we selected this pole. It was the best pole for us to use in the area. If you go up to that next pole on the street with a, oh, if you want to go that way, that's fine too. You can see that next pole has a, this one has the risers on it, so we can't use that one. And then if you go to the next one, it's, Get the same equipment up top. So, you know, we're, we're moving within now three poles down the street from the RF coverage objective. And if you're able to go the other way up the street, you'll see. The next poll is going to have a transformer on it. And then the next poll after that's going to have a, uh, the primary reclosures on it.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, so that's the transformer, is that correct? The garbage can? That's the transformer, correct.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: And then actually, if you go, if you turn around here, the next pole... This one looks empty. That's the pole we're going on.
[Alicia Hunt]: That's the one we've been talking about, okay.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Right, and then if you go the other way, I think you can see that next pole there has a... has a transformer, so we can't attach there. And the next pole, after that's gonna have some reclosure equipment at the top of the pole.
[Alicia Hunt]: So why is this street necessary?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: John, I have to pass it off to you to just explain a little bit about the network and why we needed coverage in this area.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, from an RF perspective, we need to kind of get coverage down in this area and we need to hand off to the other sites that we're planning in the network. So the site was needed to really, you know, match coverage throughout the entire area. And on Sean's point, if we move further north or further south, after we get past the poles that we can't use, it really just starts to overlap with other sites that we're using. And, you know, pretty much like the whole design would wind up, you know, becoming null, really, or moot.
[Tim McGivern]: So I know folks are concerned with health impacts, but I'll repeat, we don't have purview over that. We have purview over the policy as written, as the applications were submitted. So, and I did speak to Ms. Kendall about this today directly. So if the committee has more questions or wants to entertain a motion or... Tim, do you have that application for this specific poll in front of you?
[Paul Mochi]: I don't have that particular one with me now. Get it right here, Paul. Okay, I just wanted to see, do they have the description of their reference to try and locate the pool? Is that something you could read to us now?
[Tim McGivern]: All right, location selection criteria. This is just in the application. And the four polls referenced, I believe, are probably the ones that were just discussed. So I'll just read it. It's similar to a lot of the applications. Choosing a location for small cell infrastructure has many factors to consider, such as local zoning requirements, state and federal regulations, as well as aesthetic requirements from the municipality. In addition, Verizon Wireless has many guidelines on where small cells can be located in terms of having an effective wireless infrastructure site, including but not limited to height of the antenna above ground level, location with regards to other wireless infrastructure sites, and access to power and fiber backhaul connections. The pole located at 101 Sheridan Avenue is superior to other locations, given that it is set in a heavily trafficked area for the purpose to increase the bandwidth and cellular quality of Verizon network devices in the vicinity. The location itself is set in the public right of way. This location was not only chosen for its compliance with Verizon wireless and national grid requirements, but with respect to the municipality's desire for co-location on an existing structure. It is not directly adjacent to a park, school or playground. The following table is a list of utility poles that are close to 101 Sheridan Avenue pole that do not meet all of the involved parties requirements to allow a small cell installation on a given utility pole. This serves to illustrate the fact that many potential candidates cannot be chosen due to the mandatory guidelines. So the alternate poll locations in this vicinity that were considered and described are poll 2438 at 99 Sheridan Avenue, poll number 3513 at 89 Sheridan Avenue, poll 1509 at 81 Sheridan Avenue, and poll 1511 at 113 Sheridan Avenue. And the reasons are either transformer or primary closers and primary risers as the gentleman from Verizon was indicating. So that is the description of why they located it here and the alternate locations that were considered.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay, thanks.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep. All right, so Marilyn Jordan also wanted to speak on this, so unmute Ms. Jordan.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_17]: If I'm muted, can you hear me?
[Tim McGivern]: Hello, Marilyn.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_17]: Yes, I can. Thank you. Okay. You told me that you received the hand-delivered petition, which we passed around in the last two days, we got 30 signatures, even with COVID, people were answering the door to sign it. Nobody wants this on this street. This is not as heavily traveled as let's say Spring Street or Central Ave or even Salem Street. I know you said there is a, There's, I'd like to know what the noise policy is and the regulation on this, although he said there will be no fan. I'm not sure there won't be still a humming. This home has been in my family since 1955. My son lives there now. My sister owns it and lives there. This is a family neighborhood. And if you go all the way to the top of that street to central lab you'll see when a phone telephone pole that does not have a transform or anything on it. At the end is the Franklin school which is now condos in there, they're putting one right in front of there on Central Avenue, I'm not sure the number but it's in your pile. And at the other end of Sheridan Ave, between on the corner of Sheridan and Salem Street, going in the other direction, there is no transformer and nothing on that pole, nor is there any on, as I said, Hooker Street. I just don't understand with all the people who do not want this on this street, that it just shouldn't be put there. It's out of place. It's in a very densely populated area. Not densely traveled, but densely populated. And most of these are single family homes. And the owners live in them. And they are family homes. People have lived on this street and in this neighborhood for 55, 60 years. My parents died in that house. That is not fair to us to do this to us. We've been Method residents since 1935. We lived on Pool Street, we lived on Garfield Ave, and now we live on Sheridan Ave. And I don't understand how Verizon can just willy-nilly say to us, well, this is what you have now. or the FCC or anyone. I called every single one. I called Senator Warren. I called Senator Maki. I called Representative Clark. I called Paul Donato. He helped me, but I didn't hear from Maki or Warren or Clark. If I had known she was in the city today, I would have been there to talk to her. It's unconscionable that we're doing this on Sheridan Ave. And all the people on Sheridan Ave who signed that petition, and I only had two days to get signatures. If I had had longer time, I would have had hundreds of signatures. I would have had all of Grand Ave, all of Sheridan, and all of Farragut. And I guess that's all I have to say. I really hope that you will listen to our plea and deny this. Verizon can find another spot.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, thank you, Ms. Stratton. I hope you have been hearing what I have been saying and other folks have been saying regarding the position that this particular committee is in. I understand the petitions and I understand your concerns. And it seems like that the sort of the overhead clutter and basically visual pollution is a concern. And it sounds like to some of the health impacts might be a concern. And, you know, as it's been stated multiple times, you know, the health concerns aren't in the purview of this committee. the fact that lots of residents on Sheridan Avenue don't want this. If you want this committee to deny it, then I would be concerned that it's going to land on this poll anyway, through the courts. And again, if we have a little bit of control with conditions here, and I'm trying to maintain some of that control, but we are totally hearing Well, lots of courts have taken it up, and the results have not been great in regards to many of the concerns that folks are citing.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_17]: I would like to say I would like to take my chances with the court. It's 16 feet from my sister's bedroom window. I'll take my chances.
[Tim McGivern]: Understood. Thank you very much.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? I know the question was posed to Verizon as to why this location, and I really didn't understand the answer. Like this one poll is gonna blow their whole, that didn't make sense to me. So could we get a better answer on that?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, we can ask. We can certainly ask Verizon any more questions. Thank you very much, Ms. Jordan.
[Alicia Hunt]: Or why not this poll on Hooker Street, which is right around the corner?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I can answer to that one if you actually get a little bit closer to that poll it has what's called a telco box on it. So it's unattachable for us.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Can I, can I get the answer again like why, why we have to have this poll like it's gonna mess up the whole entire network or something I didn't I didn't buy that I'm not sure what that is was.
[Tim McGivern]: You guys have any more detail? you know, why this poll is critical to the network or your coverage?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, we, you know, pretty much when, you know, we want to get a site, we need a site here and the way the other sites work and they play with each other, how we, how we really get it is that if we start moving the poll too far north, then we just create another gap. And those are the gaps need to be, you know, they would need to be filled. And statistically, we will probably wind up coming right back to the same location, looking for a poll. And on, on the point from the other gentleman, Sean, those polls are not available to us. They're not workable.
[Alicia Hunt]: This one a block and a half away on grant too far away.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: But which one you.
[Alicia Hunt]: 12 grants where the stop sign is. On this location, it would be on this corner, so it would be here.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: So that one, it looks like it's a three-way junction pole. It's got a primary power going up and down the street, and then it looks like it has a primary connection coming across the street.
[Alicia Hunt]: You can't use it because of that?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Right, that's National Grid's policies. All the reasons I'm giving for not being able to attach to these poles is per National Grid's attachment MLA agreement that we have with them.
[Tim McGivern]: Do you guys have options to install new poles?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: We could certainly install new poles, but we've always gone out and found existing infrastructure rather than going out and dropping new. If there's something that we can use in the area, we'd rather use something existing. That's usually where municipalities would want to see us is on existing structures.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I mean, I don't really like utility poles in general, so I wouldn't want more added, but just wanted to ask a question rather than ask the question. So, okay. So listen, it's 10, almost 10 45 here. We've made some significant progress on this agenda. I'm leaning towards falling asleep. So,
[Alicia Hunt]: And I make a suggestion on this specifically.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, please.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, we can feel like we need to take a break and, you know, continue this hearing. Could we ask that Verizon seriously reconsider this location. And when we reopen the hearing, we would start with this location and ask them if they have any other alternatives that they could propose at that time. And that would allow them some time to talk to their engineers.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to do that too, Tim. I'm not agreeing with the description of why they need to use this location and why they can't put it somewhere else. So I'm ready to do that also.
[Tim McGivern]: I agree. And I will just say, you know, that, over the course of the year plus that this has been active or these applications have been in the city, this particular poll is the one that we have received the most commentary on from the public and most of it is not favorable. So I would like to ask Verizon to confirm or explore any locations that may not be on Sheridan Avenue like that one that Alicia showed. With that said, I mean, I know Verizon, I know you guys are going to want to keep going, but it is late. And I believe, you know, we should continue the hearing to a date certain. And we can do it, you know, we can do it a week from today, if the committee Members are available. Before I turn it to Verizon, I wanna talk to the committee members to see if we're available on a date certain, no later than a week from today.
[Alicia Hunt]: We have the community development board hearing a week from today and I have to be at that. And that starts at seven and could easily go two or more hours. Okay, Wednesday. Um, there is a public meeting about 200 Boston Ave scheduled for Davis at 6 to 7. I have to be at that.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Are we talking about the 14th? What are we looking at?
[Alicia Hunt]: The 14th.
[Paul Mochi]: 14th, yeah. That's the, uh, you said 200 Boston Ave, Alicia, right?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yep. I think Paul and I both have to be at that public meeting.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, we're gonna both be at that, right.
[Alicia Hunt]: If from six to seven, I don't anticipate that running very late, but then we'd be talking about starting at seven, seven 30. I'd hate to commit to before seven 15. Is the.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Monday the 12th.
[Alicia Hunt]: I can't do.
[Tim McGivern]: Can't do the 13th might be able to do Monday the 12th.
[Dave Rodrigues]: I can do the 12th. Well, just a cautionary tale on the 12th, we may be up against the open meeting law.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, I don't know that you'd be able to post.
[Tim McGivern]: What would be the earliest that we could meet? Tuesday. Tuesday.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Do we have to do, I know we do because of the residents. I was just gonna say, do we have to do, could we do earlier than later? Do we have to do in the evening or could we do?
[Tim McGivern]: It's a city council night.
[Alicia Hunt]: Tuesday the 13th. I have a placeholder for traffic commission that evening, Tuesday the 13th at five. I haven't been officially notified, but I assume.
[Robin Stein]: Do we want to just try the 14th at 7.30?
[Alicia Hunt]: And I think what Marianne was suggesting is, would it be inappropriate for us to start this meeting Well, four to six is no better than starting at 730 on the 14th.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I mean, if we don't do it on the 14th, it starts getting, you know, into the next week.
[Paul Mochi]: I think we have to find some way to do it on the 14th. That looks like the best date for everybody.
[Tim McGivern]: I agree, and if it's at 7.30, this, of course, would be the third continuation, but we, let's see, let me just check our progress here.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I was thinking more like standing at like five or six, I mean.
[Alicia Hunt]: Well, look, Cummings, meaning that Paul and I have to be out is six to seven.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Oh, okay. but either on any of the other days, starting at five or six as opposed to starting at seven, 7.30, because then we're gonna be in the same predicament. We're gonna be sitting here at 11 o'clock.
[Tim McGivern]: There's 20 left, so.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, well, if we start at 6.30 and we've only got 20, that shouldn't go that long. I don't think Marianne, you know, like these last two have gone.
[Tim McGivern]: No, and folks, that is, I'm trying to be respectful of public and I'm trying to be respectful of Verizon. I'm trying to be respectful of this committee the best that I can. So I think that if we can land a time on the 14th.
[Paul Mochi]: Tim, I think the only way it's gonna work on the 14th is if we do 6.30 and we just- You mean 7.30?
[Alicia Hunt]: 7.30? The Cummings meeting has been bubble-sized for 6 to 7.
[Paul Mochi]: Oh, I'm sorry, Alicia. Yeah, why don't we do 7.30 then?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: 7.30 is late for people.
[Tim McGivern]: I know, but we risk pushing it out even further. We don't have a lot of options, though.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Yeah, Paul and Alicia, with respect to the Cummings meeting, if you do want to schedule this for earlier than that, I'll be there and Vic will be there to cover. And we can try to front load some of the questions for you guys at that meeting to try to sequence them a little better. If you wanted to do it at 6.30, we can get you out of there by then.
[Alicia Hunt]: We could start this meeting. With that, how about we started this meeting at 7 on the 14th. And so then we'll step out a few minutes before 7.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, why don't we do that then seven o'clock on the 14th.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Okay, it's next Wednesday. Okay, now that the committee has come up with a time. Verizon. Given the late hour. Is that acceptable to you.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: is what acceptable, Tim?
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, I'm sorry, to continue this next Wednesday, so six days from now at seven o'clock, we got 20 applications left in the agenda. Some of the 14.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. Well, without extending the shot clock, you're setting the date, we'll be there.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I mean, the shot clocks, as we already know, we're well past that. So I wanna make sure that you guys, we got some momentum going. You know, we've got 20 left.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: No, I understand and certainly appreciate the work of the community as well as the ad hoc committee. But if you have scheduled for Wednesday the 14th at seven o'clock, we'll be there.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you, Sam. All right, so I'm going to put, well, I need a motion and then we'll put it to a vote.
[Paul Mochi]: Motion to continue the meeting for the 14th at seven o'clock.
[Tim McGivern]: Do I hear a second?
[Robin Stein]: Can we just clarify, you're continuing the public hearings on the 20 open applications?
[Tim McGivern]: On the 20 open applications, including 101 Sheridan Avenue. And in the meantime, I'd ask Verizon to do the due diligence on the location of that particular antenna.
[Robin Stein]: I just wanted to clarify, I was on the ones that had not yet been voted.
[SPEAKER_22]: Mr. Chair, we'll do the due diligence, but I just want to make the point that we did the due diligence coming in. That's why Sean was able to give you those answers. We're happy to take another hard look.
[Tim McGivern]: Understood. Understood. Yeah, I do realize that. I do realize that. I'm just asking on behalf of the residents of Sheridan Avenue who have put significant time into gathering a petition and have put, you know, are very concerned about the location and their homes and what the impacts this antenna may have. So, you know, with that said, I think it's worth a second look, and we will also take a second look at it. So I think we're going to do it that way. And we'll start there. And let's see, anything else? So we got the second, did we get receive a second on that? I believe we did, right? Okay, so the motion is to continue this public hearing, starting with 101 Sheridan Avenue, which was taken out of order. And then the plan would be to go back to order on that. And the date is seven o'clock on the 14th. And do I have a, can I get a vote?
[Robin Stein]: Can you just clarify to folks where they can find the Zoom information again?
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, yes, it's on the city calendar. I know that the city event calendar posted in the clerk's office and on the Verizon 5G website for the city.
[Robin Stein]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Dave, did I cover everything? As far as where the links, the Zoom information, the agenda. We'll match them up to what you said. Okay, yeah, I mean, I think it's already all there, so.
[Dave Rodrigues]: And Mr. Chairman, please don't close the meeting. I just have to save the chat. I have to download and save the chat.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I'll be the last one here. I'll be the last one here. So, seven o'clock on the 14th, and you just need to vote on this. Alicia Hunt?
[Miranda Briseno]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. Paul Moki? Yes. Marianne O'Connor? Yes. And Tim McGibbon, yes. Thank you very much, everybody. And we will see you seven o'clock on Wednesday, and we'll pick up where we left off, and we will see if we can make it to the end. I think we will be able to.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Do we need a motion to adjourn?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, a motion to adjourn. Second. Am I allowed to motion to adjourn? I am not sure.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mary Ann motion to adjourn.
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Ann motion, yeah. All right, second. I second it, so. All right, Alicia. Yes. Paul, Moki? Yes. Mary O'Connor? Yes. Tim McGowan is also a yes. Thank you for everyone's patience. Thank you for everyone's input. This is a lot of work, so appreciate it. Thank you very much.
[Unidentified]: Thank you all. Thank you.
|
total time: 0.32 minutes total words: 41 |
total time: 12.61 minutes total words: 691 |
total time: 1.51 minutes total words: 133 |
total time: 2.18 minutes total words: 170 |