JACKSON – Members of the Jackson Zoning Board of Adjustment will hear additional testimony regarding two proposed wireless telecommunication facilities at their Feb. 7 meeting.
An application filed by T-Mobile Northeast LLC/Eco Site LLC/Pyramid Network SVS LLC proposing to build two separate wireless telecommunications facilities was heard by the zoning board on Dec. 6.
Attorney David Kenny, radio frequency engineer Adam Feehan, engineer Jeremy McKeon and site acquisition specialist Gino Sainte-Rose represented the applicant.
One application proposes the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility with a 100-foot-tall monopole on Cassville Road.
A second application proposes the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility with a 100-foot-tall monopole on West Veterans Highway.
A lightning rod to be placed atop each monopole will bring the final height of each tower to 105 feet, according to testimony presented to the board.
The properties on Cassville Road and on West Veterans Highway are zoned for residential use and require the applicant to seek a use variance from the zoning board in order to construct the monopoles.
The board’s vice chairman, Sheldon Hofstein, asked if the applicant has purchased the properties on Cassville Road and on West Veterans Highway or if it is planning to lease the parcels where it wants to place the equipment.
Kenny said the applicant is seeking to lease the properties.
Feehan said T-Mobile is licensed to provide wireless service in Jackson for three different frequency bands: 700 megahertz, 1,900 megahertz and 2,100 megahertz.
“They provide 4G LTE (Long Term Evolution) service and 3G service in these bands, otherwise known as 3G and 4G on your phone,” Feehan said.
Several board members asked if the proposed monopoles would only provide a benefit to customers of T-Mobile or if the towers could benefit customers of other telecommunications companies.
“If other carriers were to install wireless antennas on these facilities, then yes, it could be to their (customers’) benefit,” Feehan said.
Feehan explained why the sites identified by T-Mobile are suited to alleviate a gap in coverage.
“From a radio frequency standpoint, in order to alleviate the gap in coverage you want to be located in the center of the gap … (both proposed facilities are in the area needing coverage). A one-site solution would not work because the gap is so large in this area and that is why we have two sites proposed,” he said.
Feehan said each site would be able to satisfy its own individual coverage area.
He addressed the need for the 100-foot height of each tower, explaining that trees in Jackson are tall and stating that a reduction in the height of the proposed towers would decrease the coverage the facilities could provide.
Board member Scott Najarian asked if T-Mobile could increase the capacity of existing antennas to fill the gap in coverage.
“No, that cannot be done because by adding additional equipment on an existing (tower) site you could add additional capacity, but you will not be able to cover (additional areas),” Feehan said.
Board member Kathryn McIlhinney asked if Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations enter into the application because T-Mobile is proposing to place the towers on private properties in residential zones.
“Does that allow you any leeway? Can you circumvent any of those regulations because it is on private property,” McIlhinney asked.
Kenny said no and added, “The FCC sets the threshold; for wherever we put these antennas, (we) cannot exceed the FCC guidelines without installation and mitigation measures. (At these sites), we are well within the threshold so we are not even installing mitigation measures … (these sites) are well within the FCC threshold.”
Kenny said federal law pre-empts any attempt to circumvent regulations and he said the proposed locations for the towers on private property does not “lessen the burden” on the applicant.
Sainte-Rose was part of the site acquisition team. He said he used a half-mile radius to locate the sites.
Sainte-Rose said the nearest municipal property to the proposed Cassville Road location was “all wetlands,” so that site was not pursued because there would have been significant environmental issues and structural problems constructing a tower.
McKeon described the proposed Cassville Road site as a 65-foot by 65-foot compound that would be fenced in by an 8-foot-tall chain link fence. The monopole would be in the center of the compound.
Zoning board members said several acres near the Cassville Road site were recently donated to the fire company in that area, which could provide another possible site for the monopole.
The board’s attorney, Sean Gertner, said the applicant may want to investigate that possibility.
