PUBLIC COMMENTS: Harvey Desruisseaux, 36 Walnut Drive He has talked with a real estate appraiser who offered the opinion that a cell tower in the immediate area would have little to no effect on property values. He however has a concern over the eyesore that this could be. The tower should be camouflaged. Frank Zitkus, Member of the Hebron Planning and Zoning Commission He mentioned that the Hebron Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted comments to AT&T and would like answers to these questions and suggestions. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub, representing AT&T, said that they have not provided any answers to the questions as of this date, but they would do so and these would be submitted to the Town. Mr. Zitkus stated that one of the comments from the Commission is that height alternatives should be studied to see if the desired coverage could be achieved at a lower height. Response: Doug Roberts, AT&T engineer, stated that they looked at heights at 80 feet to 100 feet and that they lose coverage with a lower height. Even at 90 feet they suffer a significant loss in coverage. Mr. Zitkus asked if other sites to the south of this subdivision had been reviewed. Response: Doug Roberts answered that they have not done so but they can do so if the Town requests this to happen. Mr. Zitkus suggested that they look for alternative sites that are further away from populated areas. He also asked if the State of CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) have been contacted as the site is close to an area that they have identified as having endangered species. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that they have submitted a formal request with DEEP and that the State would be getting back to them with a report. He believes that the endangered species is a type of bat. He further explained to the public for everyone s information that the DEEP publishes a Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) map showing areas where there are species of special concern. If a development project gets close to these areas the applicant typically contacts DEEP and they will provide a report on the affect that the project might have on the species. They have made the contact and are waiting for an answer. Mr. Zitkus asked if the State had been contacted about locating the tower in the nearby State park. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that they always look at this possibility but that State land is generally unavailable. They will provide the Town with the response. Mr. Zitkus stated that the Commission didn t pinpoint specific alternate sites but general areas that they thought would be better locations and asked if that was acceptable. 1 P a g e
Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that yes they would look at these alternate areas. Mr. Zitkus asked if they could get permission to walk the site. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub started that they would get permission. He stated that when an application is made to the Siting Council that a site walk is held and would be open to the public. Also at this time when the Siting Council comes to the site, another balloon flight is performed. He also stated that the photos displayed tonight on the viewshed analysis would be provided to the Town Manager. Dave Zano, 58 Elizabeth Drive asked what made you choose this site over the three looked at. Response: Steven Quinn, Smart Link, responded that one site was the State of CT forest. A representative from the State stated that they had no interest. The second site was a Town park property in the immediate neighborhood. He stated that they contacted the local park department and the response was that there was no interest. The third site was the selected site at 79 Daly Road where the property owner had interest. Andrew Tierney, Hebron Town Manager He asked that the Town be provided with the written requests and responses from the State and the parks department. Dan Larson 147 Hope Valley Road asked: 1) if the AT&T representatives had a topo map available; 2) what was the noise expected from the generator; 3) were the neighborhood residents notified of the balloon test; and 4) is the cell tower taxable? Response: Attorney Daniel Laub displayed a map on the power point showing general areas of topography and relative areas of elevation. Doug Roberts, civil engineer, noted that the noise from the generator is regulated by the State. He stated it would be run ½ hour a week as a test and usually during the mid-day during the week when most people would be at work. Attorney Daniel Laub noted that they had notified the immediate neighbors of the balloon test. Andy Tierney, Town Manager, stated that the Town took it upon themselves to notify the entire neighborhood and over 200 notices were sent out. Attorney Daniel Laub stated that the cell tower is taxable and AT&T would pay those taxes. Tom Walwyn, 52 Elizabeth Drive asked about potential radiation from the cell tower antennas. Response: Martin Lavin, radio-frequency engineer for AT&T, answered that there was an analysis done as required by the State and it is estimated that standing right next to the tower one would experience 5.2% of the allowable radiation amounts allowed by Federal regulations. One hundred feet away it drops by a factor of 10. The 5.2% is the worst case as the analysis is done assuming the antennas are all pointed straight down (which they would never be) and you are standing at the foot of the tower. He stated this was a lower amount of emissions than if you are standing in front of a microwave oven or even a baby monitor. The standards are very conservative. They come from over 300 double-blind tests and analysis done and the very worst 2 P a g e
case assumptions were used to develop the standards and on top of that the Federal government builds in a very conservative safety factor. The emissions from this tower and the AT&T antennas are estimated to be 5.2% of that very conservative figure. Peter McDonald, Walnut Drive asked about the placement of cell towers and radiation. Response: Martin Lavin referred to the radio emissions slide from the power point; he stated that what we are dealing with is non-ionizing radiation, a type of radio wave. These cannot do damage the way that ionizing radiation can do damage. Al Boyajian Hickory Drive He asked: 1) if this would interfere with the reception of his dish-tv; and 2) would any other company use this tower? Response: Martin Levin stated that this would not. By Federal regulation he stated that they are not allowed to interfere with any other license, and the Dish-TV is considered one of those licensees. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that the tower is specifically designed to allow other companies to co-locate on it. Also, the State requires towers owners to allow other carriers to be placed on their towers. Also, they commonly allow local emergency service antennas on their towers Sandy Graham, 20 Elizabeth Drive She asked why this location was picked. She stated that the site is very low in elevation. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub noted that in the 1980 s companies looked for locations in high elevations to spread the most coverage. The issue now is the need for capacity and the demand for data transmission is so large due to the wide use of smart phones. Most companies now are looking for locations to increase data capacity. That is why they look for smaller cells with somewhat smaller towers. Dave Edwards, Hickory Drive He asked: 1) if they would fly the balloon again? 2) if they were planning to construct a monopole tower or a mono-pine?; and, 3) would it require red lights? Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that the Siting Council would require another balloon flight. He believed that the preference in the room was for a mono-pine and they would offer that. And he stated that no reds lights would be required. They run every tower plan in front of the FAA but under 200 feet they are confident that no lights would be needed. Ryan, 27 Walnut Drive stated that he looked for the balloon yesterday and didn t see it. He would like to see it flown again. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that as they review all the comments from the Town and start to look at alternate sites, they could fly the balloon at this site again and any alternate site that they believe could be feasible on the same day. 3 P a g e
Pat Ayers, Elizabeth Drive She asked: 1) where was the closest residence to the tower?; 2) Did they look at the large undeveloped tracks of land around this neighborhood such as nearby in Bolton and Andover that are at higher elevations with less houses? Response: Doug Roberts stated that the closest residence was 242 feet away. Attorney Daniel Laub stated that they can check the sites at higher elevations that were noted. He noted that the Town also asked them about checking those sites. Resident Asked: 1) what was the Elizabeth Heights Park site that was noted on the power point presentation as an alternative site? And, 2) how far would the tower be from the street property line? Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that the Elizabeth Heights Park site is a Town owned open space parcel. Doug Roberts noted that the tower was shown on the plans to be 335 feet back from the street property line. Tom Lockwood, 58 Hickory Drive Asked if a survey was done to see if children lived within 1,500 feet of the site. He stated that the Siting Council has this as a standard. He stated that it is all marsh land in this area with endangered species and plants. He stated that locating it near the gas line right-of-way would affect as many people. He was concerned about the impact on property values. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that they had not done any survey on children and he was not aware of any such requirement. Elizabeth Thornton, Hickory Drive She noted she is not in favor of any of the three possible sites mentioned tonight. She asked why this was planned for the middle of a residential neighborhood. It should be placed away from residences. She indicated that there was a new cell tower on Rt 85 in Bolton going up. Couldn t AT&T use that tower? She stated that she was shocked to see the notice that this was even being considered in this location right in the middle of a residential neighborhood. She noted that she was proud of her neighborhood. Also, she asked if the antennas emit high frequency sounds that animals could hear. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that they were not aware of any new tower sites being proposed in Bolton. He offered to check on any new Bolton towers. And Martin Lavin responded that the antennas do not produce any high pitched sounds. Glenn Meadows, Oak Drive He stated that he was an AT&T customer and never had a problem with cell service. He asked what carrier this tower was being constructed for. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub responded that the tower was being proposed by AT&T for their antennas and equipment. Mr. Meadows asked what the lease terms were. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that they typically rent the space for four renewable terms of 5 years each. 4 P a g e
Mr. Meadows asked what happens if and when the tower is no longer needed. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub answered that the State requires that the owner remove the tower from the site at whatever time that there is no need for the tower. Mr. Meadows asked if the 5% of the allowable radio emissions is from the one set of antennas or when the potential other four sets of antennas are installed from other carriers. Response: Steven Quinn answered that the 5% of the emissions that were discussed tonight in the presentation were just the estimated emissions produced from this set of proposed antennas from AT&T. If another carrier proposes a set of antenna on the tower they have to do their own analysis of the emissions from the initial set of antennas added to the emissions from their proposed set of antennas and document what the cumulative emissions would be. To the questions of Could they grow over time? he answered that yes it could grow but that it would have to be below the Federal standard for emissions. Mr. Meadows asked what are the amount of taxes that are paid to the Town for this type of cell tower installation. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that he did not know what the exact taxes would be but stated that yes they are taxed. To the question of If a new carrier placed antenna on the tower, would that be additional taxes?, Abigail Jewett, from AT&T, answered that AT&T pays the taxes on the tower and their equipment, and any additional carrier pays taxes on their antennas and their equipment. Harvey Desruisseaux, 36 Walnut Drive asked how the relationship with Frontier will affect this. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub noted that it will not affect this. Frank Zitkus, Member of the Hebron Planning and Zoning Commission, asked the applicant to contact the Siting Council about any other planned towers such as the one mentioned tonight in Bolton. A member of the public noted that the tower in Bolton was proposed on West Street. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that they were not aware of that proposal, but that they would check with the State. Tom Stowe, Daly Road asked if the RF emissions from all the carriers that might be on the tower someday could go up to the allowable 100% of the allowable emissions. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated yes. Linda Hadley, 126 Daly Road She stated that she had no objections to the tower. She expressed a preference for a flagpole design or a mono-pine design. She asked how long the generator would run. 5 P a g e
Response: Doug Roberts stated that it is tested once a week. In a power outage it is set up to automatically turn on and stops when power is restored. It can run 2 to 3 days on the fuel that is on site. Tommy Walwyn, 52 Elizabeth Drive He asked: 1) how does the tower stand up to the weather and high winds? And, 2) when did you pick this site? Also, he noted that the owner has been taking trees out of the site for the last two summers. Response: Doug Roberts answered that they have to meet Building Codes and that the design specifications of each tower depends on where it is built in the State as it needs to be designed to withstand certain wind speeds. They are much stronger that cable or guyed towers. Steve Quinn stated that they picked the site 10 or 11 months ago. Harvey Desruisseaux, 36 Walnut Drive Asked if any notes were being taken to document these comments. Response: Andrew Tierney, Town Manager, stated that the Town Planner was taking notes of the public comments that are being made at this meeting. Also he stated that Summary Notes from this Informational Meeting would be put together and placed on the Town Website. Mike O Leary, Town Planner noted that the applicant s original report and notice to the Town has already been placed on the Town Website under Local News so that the public can see the whole report. He noted that the Meeting Notes would be uploaded in the same area as well as any other information relevant to this proposal. Harvey Desruisseaux, 36 Walnut Drive Asked what was the construction timeframe that is anticipated. Response: Doug Roberts answered that these sites are typically an 8 12 week construction period. It also usually takes 6 9 months in front of the Siting Council. Attorney Daniel Laub stated that typically construction is 2 to 2 ½ years away from a public informational meeting like is being held tonight. He stated that this is the very first step in the process to get town and citizen input. Tom Lockwood, Hickory Drive asked about the formal filing to the State and how would residents know. And how would they have input. Response: Attorney Daniel Laub answered that they place a Notice of Filing in the local paper and notify the abutting property owners. The application gets posted on the Siting Council website. Also the State includes a record of the entire process on their website. He noted that after an application is filed with the State, that the Siting Council has a meeting in the Town that the tower is proposed, and they schedule a site walk and require another balloon test. They accept comments from the Town or citizens. He stated that the Siting Council website is www.ct.gov/csc. 6 P a g e
Response: Andrew Tierney, Hebron Town Manager, noted that the town wants to gather resident input and will provide input to the State. Elizabeth Thornton, Hickory Drive She asked what is the process to stop this application? Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that this is the very beginning of the process. They will be looking at alternatives. They want to hear the residents reaction and that is why they are having this dialogue. If there are alternatives we will look at them. He noted that they can go to the Siting Council with 2 or 3 alternatives sites. Elizabeth Thornton suggested looking at sites further south. April, Walnut Drive asked if the Bolton site, if approved, would that help them? Would AT&T piggyback on that? Response: Attorney Daniel Laub stated that if there was another tower existing or approved but not yet built that would provide them the service, the State would require them to go on that tower before building a new one. Andrew Tierney, Hebron Town Manager, asked if there were any more questions. Hearing none, he stated that the meeting tonight was completed. He re-stated that this was the start of the process, and that tonight s meeting was optional on the part of the Town, but that it was required by the Board of Selectmen to give the residents an opportunity to hear directly from AT&T and to express opinions. Also, there was a lot more information for the applicant to provide the Town, and there are other sites for the applicant to investigate. 7 P a g e