August 6, 2019

“Motion made and 2nd to the MINOR MODIFICATION be GRANTED, AS AMENDED with the condition as follows: 1. Any conditions of any previous special permit shall remain in full force and effect unless otherwise modified herein; and that the COMMITTEE REPORT be ADOPTED, 8 in favor, 1 opposed (Campbell opposed)..”

Read it in the official minutes, page 5 (PDF)

“Motion made and 2nd that the SPECIAL PERMIT be DENIED with the following findings: 1. The proposed use in not consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood; 2. The proposed use is inconsistent with the city's zoning ordinance; 3. The proposed special permit may include conditions that are incompatible with the conditions of the existing special permit; 4. There has been no substantial determination of a gap in coverage; 5. The City should be required to make a finding that any special permit holder in a residential zone is compliant with all conditions of its special permit in order to proceed with an application for another special permit by a third party on the same site - particularly for a different use in the residential zone. Having previously submitted the conditions imposed on the Woburn Nursing Center in connection with its 1989 expansion, including that no deliveries be made before 8 a.m., the City Council should be aware that the Rosev milk truck made its delivery to the Nursing Center at 5:30 a.m. on July 25th. The Geriatric Medicine truck headed out toward Main Street from the Nursing Center at 6:05 a.m. that same morning. On Saturday, July 26th, the United Linen truck made its delivery at 6:10 a.m. This morning the Harvey trash truck, which sounded like it had the engine in the wrong gear, arrived at 7:05 a.m. These examples are not aberrations but have become standard operating procedure. The neighbors have tolerated these disruptions notwithstanding the specific condition of the Special Permit that no deliveries be made before 8 a.m. Similarly, the Special Permit prohibits "backing into the facility by delivery vehicles." This is not an infrequent occurrence as tractor trailers periodically back down the street. Condition Number 8 that the "owners are to seek a ban on all tractor trailers on Frances Street" has not occurred. Additionally, the Woburn Zoning Code prohibits storage containers absent a Special Permit and, in the case of a Special Permit, it can only be granted for 1 year. There is a Storage Container in the back of the Nursing Center that has been there for years without the benefit of a special permit. Finally, a number of neighbors have heard that the Nursing Center is for sale. The neighborhood should not be saddled with the potential burden of a 25-year lease with the applicant that could bind any buyer who does NOT want antennas and associated equipment on the site. The fact that the property has been used as a nursing home for the last sixty years does not mean it will continue to be used that way in the years to come. Approval of Cellco's application will burden the neighbors for another generation.; 6. There are three condominiums located at 10-14 Frances Street, and two neighbors across the street from the Nursing Home's emergency access road ( 9 Frances and 11-13 Frances). These neighbors should not have to look at the equipment to be located on the ground to support the two antennas the applicant hopes to install on the Nursing Center's roof. If there is any interest in granting this petition, the equipment should be moved away from Frances Street neighbors and be placed at the back of the Nursing Center or some other location where it is not visible from Frances Street. Because of the change in elevation and the 6-foot fence that is one of the conditions of the special permit, the Cleveland Avenue abutters could not see the equipment at ground level at the Nursing Center. The access road the applicant proposes to use to construct and service its equipment area was approved only for emergency use - in an effort to avoid disturbing the next door neighbors. If the Nursing Center wants to open that road to commercial vehicles, that is a substantial change to it special permit, which would require the Nursing Center to obtain an amendment to the 1989 special permit. As noted in the July 9th hearing, Cellco cannot install 8-foot high fencing around the equipment without obtaining relief from the zoning code's 6-foot height limitation.; 7. The signal propagation maps submitted by the applicant do not accurately reflect the coverage provided by existing Verizon facilities/antenna because Verizon is not showing its strongest signal strength. When Verizon sought to install a monopole on Draper Street in Woburn in 2014, it submitted coverage maps showing three bands of signal strength: -85 dBm; -85 to -90 dBm; and, less than -90 dBm. Because dBm is on a negative scale, the closer the number is to zero, the stronger the signal. -85 dBm is the strongest of the signals listed above. In its 2014 application, Verizon (through its agent Global Tower Assets LLC), said that its coverage goal was to have its entire system at the -85 dBm signal strength on its 700 MHz LTE system (commonly referred to as 4G). Verizon also operates its 3G data on 1900 MHz frequencies. It is not clear if Verizon operates its 4G system on the 2100 MHz frequency. The lower the frequency number, the better the service the carrier can provide because radio waves in the lower frequencies propagate further. The City Council should therefore focus its inquiry on the 700 MHz spectrum because the 2100 MHz frequency is so weak compared to the 700 MHz frequency.; 8. The applicant claims there is a coverage gap along Main Street from the Wyman School to Intervale Road (based on white area in Attachment A of the C Squared Systems radio frequency report). Yet the "gap" is centered along the abandoned railroad line and former location of the Middlesex Canal that runs from the Woburn Cinemas, behind the Tocci building on Main Street. The proposed WCL at 18 Frances Street does not even close the Main Street "gap" - as shown in Attachment B to the C Squared report, because Main Street is still located in a white area in Attachment B. Presumably the signal from Frances Street would not have a line of sight through the hill located on Mishawum Road/Eaton Avenue to reach Main Street beyond Central Square. Similarly, the "gap" on Brentwood road, shown on Attachment A, is still present on Attachment B. The signal from Frances Street cannot reach the top of Brentwood Road because it is so steep. The Brentwood Road gap is not a significant gap. Finally, the only other "gap" on the maps is Beach Street and a few of its side roads. Beach Street is not a "major" road like Route 38/Main Street. The applicant has provided no information on the amount of cars that travel on Beach street or the small dead end streets to the north of Beach Street. To the south of Beach Street is Woodbrook Cemetery. No claim has been made that the gap in coverage at the cemetery is "significant" and requires the installation of antenna to make sure signal strength in the cemetery is -85dBm or better. Whether a "gap" constitutes a "significant gap" depends not only upon its physical size, but also upon the number of customers affected by that gap. A gap that straddles a heavily traveled commuter thoroughfare would be more significant than a gap that affects a small residential cul-de-sac. See Omnipoint Comm. v. Town of Lincoln, 107 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D. Mass. 2000)(finding gap at issue encompassed a large area of the northwest section of the Town, affecting wireless services on the western portions of Routes 2 and 2A which are both heavily traveled commuter thoroughfares). It appears that the length of Main Street shown in white on the propagation map is about .3 miles, assuming that the applicant does not submit a propagation map reflecting its -85 dBm signal penetration. Although the applicant shows the coverage areas for the Woburn 2 location in the Congregational Church, and the Burlington DT beta location on Attachment C of the C Squared report, it does not show the coverage areas of either the Woburn North antenna on Alfred Street, or the State Street Woburn location. Presumably the Alfred Street antenna provides some coverage to the portion of Main street approaching the rotary from Intervale Street. It only seems logical that the coverage provided by the Woburn North antenna on Alfred Street and the State Street Woburn location coverage area are relevant and should be shown. The true coverage gap cannot be assessed without seeing the impact of the surrounding antennae.; 9. A neighbor asked if the applicant had considered putting an antenna on the roof of the 3-story apartment building located at 668 Main Street, in the S1 zone. The roof of that building is at least 30 feet above ground level since it has a ten foot high retaining wall, with 2.5 stories visible from the street. The applicant's representative said that he had. Yet that address is not listed in the Alternative Site Analysis submitted on July 9th. That site may address any "gap" in coverage to the north on Main Street. But the applicant has not submitted propagation maps for any of the sites it "considered" in order to show if they would be effective in filling the purported gaps, and it is not clear how rigorous the applicant's evaluation process was for each alternative site. Nor has the applicant evaluated locating a WCL or monopole in the area of Woburn Cinemas - which is immediately adjacent to the part of Main Street that it contends has a "substantial gap" and which could presumably benefit from additional capacity as drivers are "handed off" from the Woburn North site to the Woburn 2 site, or vice versa, while driving along Main Street. Attachment C of the C Squared RF Report seems to reflect that Verizon's Burlington site already fills that role.; 10. The applicant considered the steeple location at the Methodist Church, 535 Main Street. It did not submit a propagation map, despite the fact that the antenna would be located 60 feet above ground level (as reflected on page 5 of the C Squared RF Report dated May 6, 2019). Without a propagation map, there is no way to tell if a second steeple location could fill the Main Street "gap" - which is likely the only gap that could even come close to being considered as a "significant" gap, though it is only .3 miles in length. See Nextel Communications v. Town of Wayland, 231 F. Supp. 396 (D. Mass. 2002) (Town admitted that Nextel had a need since at least 1994 for coverage in the central part of Wayland, an area which includes important commuter thoroughfares such as Routes 20 and 27). The applicant rejected the Methodist Church location because it is 1800 feet (0.3 miles) from the First Congregational Church where Verizon's Woburn 2 site is located in the steeple. Yet the proposed Frances Street location is just .3 miles north of the Methodist Church.; 11. The applicant has provided no substantive evidence on how the proposed WCL at 18 Frances Street would supplement the capacity or otherwise improve the level of its existing services; as to adopting the eleven findings, 7 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 absent (Anderson, Tedesco absent).”

Read it in the official minutes, page 12 (PDF)

“as to denying the special permit with the eleven findings attached, 7 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 absent (Anderson, Tedesco absent)..”

Read it in the official minutes, page 15 (PDF)

“Motion made and 2nd that the COMMITTEE REPORT be ADOPTED, 8 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstained (Mercer-Bruen abstained)..”

Read it in the official minutes, page 24 (PDF)