course so i am a member of law firm downtown that does work for arise and not in the permitting context but i did recuse myself from the recent matter before the planning board and out of an abundance of caution i will be recusing myself from this matter as well but you will be returning to us for the single residence yes i will i will thank you and with that i would like to introduce the four co sponsors of the amendment in alphabetical order mr kramer mr rosie and mr mr thank you chairman planning board and members of the audience the public i'm judy sarno i'm a town meeting member in precinct three and one of the co sponsors we since petition for a special town meeting we called collected two hundred forty two certified belmont registered voters before i go one out like t approach the chair and give you copies of the signatures and the petition i first became involved in issues around cell towers and cell antennas in belmont over fifteen years ago long before i was a town meeting member when my neighborhood opposed a one hundred foot cell tower in the highway department so this is not a new interest for me as a resident advocate i'd like to share a story for the record only i won't be repeating it but it over these many years i've continued to follow all these issues such as the cell tower that was proposed at the intersection of route two and pleasant street all this time i assume to cell towers were regulated similarly meaning i thought they all required special permit so let's look at the first slide this is the current zoning if you look at the bottom it's wireless telecommunications you see the s p it's across every zoning district in belmont we allow cell towers and wireless cell communication devices in every district in belmont in a special permit if it's exteriors if you look above interior it's as why it's in every district why is yes it is allowed by right so interior cell antennas even if visible enclosed in glass do not require a special permit in fact by right installation may be installed without any  public input in fact this is true in every single zoning district where the business a residential the only thing i've been unclear about is the one restriction is it twenty six feet from residential structure i see this as a really serious loophole the signing in in our zoning bylaw which brings us to the next slide this is our simple amendment we're taking the by right still allowing wireless cell in tennis in every zoning district but will like to close the loop and ensure that neighboring residences and businesses can have their voices heard and ha full discussions during a special public hearing and all applications are treated equally we're urging transparency and consistency this amendment will not think the next slide will just show what's on there that we do will simply provide for public process greater transparency opportunity for meaning full comments and will keep the zoning for interior and next year is consistent no surprises furthermore we expect to see new developments in belmont christian square where billy square south pleasant street the incinerator site the renovated high school belmont hill school other locations this special permit as you can see would afford the opportunity to take a more comprehensive approach to potential sites considering neighborhood enter joining property concerns this is taken from the by law now nothing changes prioritizes citing towers on municipally owned properties bringing much needed revenue to the town and consideration of the nature and uses of adjacent and nearby properties i hope you would agree that now in two thousand and sixteen this is the right time to get in front of this issue with a simple amendment to update  nineteen ninety eight outdated and inconsistent by law if we don't pass this by law at town meeting now it will be two years before one of you or the sport can bring this issue back to town meeting what development what by right installations could happen over these next two years this will not prevent or stop installations it will just give you a voice so for transparency and consistency in our zoning by was i hope the planning board will please support this simple amendment and i thank you for your time do any of the other sponsors go to the microphone please give us your name and address and may i ask your celestion the name of that yes everyone right seventy three claflin street that's right next to the telephone bell don't rise on a point of information to the plate on board why hasn't or why i've been told by the telephone that the town will not let them put a were an easy question to answer it would have been answered for you we can certainly look into it but i cannot give you a date and it is somewhat one of the commitment the point of an agenda is we're s area that's affected by the cell phone tower i mean m d i teach at boston university school of medicine i teach radiation safety to medical students dental students and graduate students but four years ago i had to do a massive literature search to understand what the effects were but when you take my word i just i brought the copy of the world health organization report i have underlined it it says that it is a possible carcinogen positive associations have been observed between exposure to radio frequency radiation from wireless phones and glioma and acoustic neuroma that's the world health organization's why that's important for the special permit is this there are about forty two percent of all americans get cancer at some point in their lifetime if you put a cell phone tower near one hundred fifty people they'll be about sixty cancer cases just statistics whether the radiation has any effect of it or not all of those people are going to be able to potentially raise a lawsuit against the city for putting the belmont down putting up a possible carcinogen in their area i think a special permit is defense for the town to show that they've done their due diligence that they haven't put it up without due consideration of the risks involved so i think it is a safety and a defense mechanism for the town lastly i would say our perception of health risks are odd because we don't really understand wireless radiation imagine a chemical a molecule of the world health organization labeled as a possible court carcinogen and by the way that's a formal definition that means in some cases in effect has been seen in other cases an effect has not been seen so is that there's not a preponderance of evidence but in some cases an effect was seen with the town put a chemical that's a possible person engine into the water supply of course not we've all been educated about the dangers of chemicals we understand that those are risks but this is the same risk this is a possible carcinogen or putting it in the environment of lots of people in particular children and i think that there is a is a legal risk to the town for endangering its citizens so that's why i thought a special permit would be a good good idea thank you are you going to leave the reference  you i'm joe green sixteen park road and the moderator of the church a brief statement concerning the church's experience under the existing by law first of all the church is grateful to the planning board for all the time and attention is devoted to arising recede from the church's neighbors and a butters comments on the original design for its proposed while it was responding to these comments horizon redesign of his ability to address concerns voiced about the possibility of excessive noise and the desir ability of preserving historical original materials on march ninth the rise and submitted a revised design and a planning board meeting on may third the board approved this revised design now our understanding of the rationale underlying section three three of the current by law which requires no special permit for interior lines facilities is that it is intended to encourage interior locations for wireless and ten or rather than unsightly and the town meeting vote to approve the bylaw change the church prepared to abide by that decision however we feel that in this case the workings of the original bylaw produced on balance a good result for the child in a reasonable amount of residence in my neighborhood unrelated to this i don't have a stake in the game with this concern as i think it's reasonable to just add this extra safeguard to you know offer a chance for residents to have some input if planning planning board in our situation had to deal with some problems that emerged after the fact and it was more problematic so again i'm just here to support this amendment thank committee at plymouth church just want to address a few things very quickly the health issue keeps coming up it's not supposed to be a basis upon which the permitting can be denied if a properly commission study indicates that exposures to the surrounding area are below federal limits and that is the case those things have been in and all exposures are within the limits nonetheless it keeps coming up and you know there there there is an attempt to draw uncertainty about the health impacts it's quite certain that for over a century we've all been a washin radiowaves twenty four seven as we are right here right now to no known health effects now the class to be carcinogen does it nation is a is a broad designation given to things that the government just hasn't decreed on for one reason or another people want to keep those items on the table but there are no known carcinogen and effects from r f it's in the same class as coffee sawdust and a lot of other innocuous materials that for one reason or another people have believed that there is some link too but they haven't been able to draw that one the other valid reasons that you could refuse the installation are aesthetics and we've addressed those concerns as jo off the table as well general concerns have been expressed about property values and no date has been presented on that i don't really have any but anecdotally i can tell you that homes to consistently sell for over asking price in  and that certain members of the opposition bought in the shadow of preexisting so antenna installations closer to than the ones that ours would be to them you could ask them for yourself what what impact that had vine decision in addition there's all kinds of things in the media about how when home buyers go into properties that they're considering they have their phone in front of their face and they walk through all the rooms and they're watching bars and if they get a house or apartment that has one bar no bars and room they don't rent nobody's not rented a home because it's got five bars in every room they that's that's an asset that actually enhances  that's what this installation will do to provide improved cell coverage data up upload and download rates and improved infrastructure for the town and that's the point of the installation the  to this is path that was walked as our as the first people indicated is a path that has walked a decade now have gotten you know your own history i'm sure but the reason the bylaws exist as they do now was to promote you know the health question was settled except for a few holdouts the health question was settled and you know in a complete with a commission properly commissioned study that issues off the table the aesthetics were of a concern right and so to promote if there are other installations in town that are exterior that are quite unsightly to promote the interior installation such as the one at plymouth the bar was lowered to make the permitting easier to encourage people to cost more to do that but they lowered the bar on the permitting process to encourage those types of that solutions so that's why it's the way it is it makes sense the way it is raise the bar we're going to get a lot more  you i just was coming up to mention my support of the amendment as someone is in a residential area i think the fact that someone can come in and put a tower in a residential area without having to go through any sort of special permit thing process is correct yes you cannot put up i mean ten a side and then ten i misspoke that someone could put an antenna up without a special permit when i looked at that is shocked to see that and next year requires a special permit but an interior doesn't because i actually don't see much of a difference between the two here in essence setting up a business and you're on your property and so i would support that regardless of health rez we're not saying you're going to deny the application for interior and town and we're just saying it should have to go through a more rigorous process which makes sense and especially as our town is growing and people are doing things like air b b and all these different things than they have to come before planning why wouldn't someone trying to put an interior antenna for cells her cell phone that have to do the same think so thank you s a previous speaker said it is really misleading to to characterize disposal before requiring special permit that we will get a lot more exterior proposals those are subject to special permit this will be equally subject to a special permit in scrutiny by the neighborhood and as i think it should and i don't think it's unreasonable so i will be supporting thank you is there any way any other member member of public here this evening who wishes to speak to this issue so to speak going once going twice going three times because then i will ask for a motion to close the public hearing and i believe the answer perhaps you should speak to that and i believe the answer is that would and that would supersede the current application so if i may though i you know for me as a twenty would member also my my issue is not with what they're doing as i listened to point out to several people who spoke my issues with the town of the community and whether or not we need a special permit for interior wireless installation as we do with exterior while installation so what happens with that case which averages myself or for the record has no bearing to me on this conversation this conversation is strictly about the environment in front the discussion has been about that but i think i grew that you know i think we need to put that aside and we need to look at this this basically the citizens and then the petition is basically a use change the used rate now for interior is a law what this does is simply it doesn't this is a lot of the use it makes the use by special permit which for a number of things in town which we've seen in designing that we've changed all that for the town to have more control playing board more control in the citizens to have in the community to have a voice on these things we read them special permit and in my mind i see this as a continuation of that process so it's a change of use it's not forbidding it but it's making it by special permit which means it has to be you know the process that we go through in terms of these things so i think we need to get away from the particular case we need to look at  let me let me ask a question most of my colleagues in the past when we have polls done in changers we have tried to think very carefully about how we balance the equities and how we balance the existing that we've said every time we make a zone in change we are taking away some element of people's private property right what are the rights that we are taking away just given one definition of family we never allow for a long time we haven't allowed people to start businesses in their own home without some kind of oversight and supervision  where do we think the community benefit  and more control in a way and makes it clearer what you do and what you do in the process that you go through question f lot that's on top of the belmont savings bank is the other i don't there's only one other installation like this in town jeffrey death with the with the existing technology having one so but that's not here  guess if if people feel like it creates the all community to address these issues i think it might be worth going ahead and see what it is actually leads to  are continued and we are continued also in the sense not to be a shill for the league of women voters and the war in committee but i guess we are the discussion itself not the planning board meeting will continue tomorrow night i'm certain all right we are we are still in the planning board is still in session so put i ask those whose principal interest was previous item to the public hearing to move out and the much smaller and more intimate group perhaps to move in a little bit  on the sixth of following the report after considerable effort under way as i mentioned this morning by a somewhat  which is the barber will be distributing i'm sorry which geoffrey distributing the clean version i believe and my plan is to is the following to go through it in just like the places that there have been there are no substantive changes to the testing that is as i mentioned this morning our power point presentation will not have to change  questions that we need to resolve this evening if we're going to be able to distribute this to turn meeting members in that we still need to go you need to do this evening is to agree upon the changes we since he has been involved in the drafting of this and the hope would be to mail it to town meeting members this come wednesday the day after tomorrow which brings me to the other item that we would need to discuss this evening given that there have been changes i think it would be the four of us have discussed this in one form or another it would be helpful to have a cover letter that that we we obviously me i would propose to do it to draft it but i need everybody but we need to come together as a board and decide what we want said let me just say  so if i could begin with a quick walk through and i will ask geoffrey wheeler who has done young duty and calling this together over and over  highlight anything that has been changed i believe that articles in article six we ask people to go to three different parts of this examining body and make changes that  in taken as a whole will allow control of the over development in the single residency area so the first of the sections of the zoning where we post to make a change is in the definitions an abbreviation section where we proposed to change the definition where we proposed to change the restrictions on grade two make it clear that to make it possible to lower more than twelve inches and read we can pin you to keep the limit on raising the grade and this is unchanged from the previous version distributed to town meeting  it is in secondly we move to section one point five point four and this is the point at which again the next  looks different from the text you've seen before but it is not there are no differences in substance first of all what we say is there there is currently a section of the by law on non conforming singh going to family residential structures and we are going to insert right now it's a single we are going to insert headings one for the general residence zoning district where we proposed to change absolutely nothing none of the text under general pertaining to general residents will change we're just going to stick in a head  second and this is really the meat of this we are going to add a heading here one point five point four b single residencies zoning district and three different sections general residence single residency and other ok we now move on to section four point two point t o which is the section that provides the setbacks and building and that is a again this as really this is correct there are no changes create a new section with respect to setbacks which controls where age of quit money can be placed again there are no changes in th section and finally we move to section we still are dealing with setbacks and we have the original language how far what not withstanding the front set back requirements is this is the place that we say we require that the setback be the average of the on the buildings of either side to avoid the gap too so that's a walk through and i think that the the changes that we need to focus on are under  the second item the single residencies zoning district again they are changes of substance but they are the places that clarification with m and the principle clarification are two three and again this is this is what we had said amongst ourselves this is what we had said in the presentation the language was not as clear as it might have been and hope it is the first is and now we are in section one point five point fo and picking up with section it is now hopefully clear and we're going to page at the end of this we're going to take ten or fifteen library moments so that people have a chance to actually read this it is now clear that if you are in single residency and you want to do an alteration or renovation or any structural change that there are three possibilities you go in and  nonconformity by that edition whether you are on a non conforming lot or not you can make with a building permit from the building commissioner you don't have to go before any body  and i am now on point to if you propose to increase the gross floor area of your home by more than thirty percent you will need a special permit from the planning board it is also the case that if you apply for a special permit and let me just read the new language in  that is important when combined with the gross floor area added to the structure during the five year period proceeding the date of issuance of the most recently issued building permit the resulted in an increase to gross floor area of the structure so if you made a if you increase the gross floor area a number of times over the last five years we'll look at that the building commission will look at that added to the proposed current change and if that's more than thirty percent you will be required to go before the planning board for a special permit if what ever building permits you pulled over the last five years did not result in a change in the gross floor area this has no application to you it is only about a good to gro now you know that leaves us where there is of course a whole class of additions that are non conforming but are less than thirty percent and those will continue to go  i think this is one of the areas where making certain that that three way division getting cleaned getting back to flow clearly and understandably has been probably the major redrafting challenge the other married your area of change in this was absolutely crucial is we've now described the three cases under which an application will go to the planning board it's thirty percent it's thirty percent added to what you've been doing over the last five years or you've demolished and you proposed to build something that's bigger and on a different  print and or on a different what can you go to the planning board for a special permit and we have now you remember we previously had a reference to the  special permit conditions that referred to the general residence section has been corrected there's been no change in what we're going to look at we've just moved into the proper section so that it is still just in generally in harmony with the neighborhood will neither generate excessive traffic cracking noise or density impacts on the abettors appropriated scale will not increase existing law non conforming lot coverage will not be substantially more get your mental and in making this decision the board will look at scale and design siting walkway driveway exterior like open space drainage and then we continue to say that the process is the same as the special permit process set forth elsewhere  recently issued building permit there are a little concerned that there is some ambiguity there and that i think that this could potentially reach back i do not at this point i do not think if we were to change that that would be a substantive change and that is what we've said if we just simply make that proceeding the date of application does that work and if i could ask people to look at one other issue in that section we've started and leave the building commissioner may issue a building permit and if the if any of the plow and we now go on to say if the proposed alteration or structural change does not meet any of the clauses listed above a special permit shall be required in the board of appeal board but we then go on to describe two conditions happily numbered two and three under which it's not the zoning board of appeals you come to the planning for me that's what we intended to do that's what we've set up and my question is is it clear that you don't have to go if you fall into categories two or three and have to go to the planning board if it is it clear that you don't also have to go so i have one very minor it right so with that in hand we should take probably now kate not that we have our document in hand we should take a look at the amendments again just to anticipate what there are five amendments to the kept but it's not even your draft so it's really not relevant so i'm not sure why he was pro and obviously there is no guarantee that there will not be additional amendments submit a question for us is if we wish it if we incorporate the  spelling if we we have a choice if we inquire if we treat the hyphen in single into family homes differently then amendment three would be with ground but then the by and then the  the major remaining question is what we would like to see what do we think that the message of the cover letter ought to be why not just say you can rephrase than that which is that we have we have made some non substantive changes in the bylaws that we believe are reflective of some additional community input and make the buy a look or or just say you know improve the readability of the by law let it go down we don't need to defend ourselves i think it's helpful to walk through the structural points just as a road map i mean it's very hard to follow it's very hard to follow all these changes over time you know with straight through the ranks i think that  here's here's our proposal do you want to explain to me is fine you know i'm just saying that in some ways less is more in this kind of a case and other comments or matters we should have or if not i'd ask for a motion to approve the changes with the understanding that they are not substantive cases planning board projects and committee reports they do say i am very eager to get to him again we talked about that this morning i don't believe a great deal has changed the structure to the size of generally known as floor area ratio on our reports is a major concern