Don’t miss a day of local news. Click here to subscribe to our free, online newsletter.
A cell tower battle continues in Westford at least for another month as members of the Zoning Board of Appeals are faced with an unsavory decision likely to disappoint a significant number of Nabnasset residents.
A push by T-Mobile Northeast LLC to fill a gap in cell phone coverage in the northeast corner of town on the Chelmsford border has led to resistance from homeowners in the densely populated area defined by Nabnasset Lake with Edwards Beach, a United States Post Office and a small strip of stores.
After a protracted and contentious hearing May 17 over where to put a T-Mobile cellular facility, Zoning Board of Appeals member James Kazeniac stared down the carrier’s attorneys, who were asked to explain why a facility is needed in the heart of a residential neighborhood with so much industrial land available less than 1.5 miles away.
“You’re asking us to take a leap of faith and believe you …maybe you snookered us. Your objective is to do the best job for your client. Our objective is to do the best job for the community…” Kazeniac said.
Attorney Frances Parisi of Boston-based Varsity Wireless, LLC, filed the first of two applications on June 17 for a special permit to build a 130 foot monopole at the H.E. Fletcher Social Club at 11 Brookside Road on behalf of T-Mobile. He filed the second application in March for a 140 foot monopole at 73 Brookside Road behind the Willows Pizza restaurant.
Both proposals were met with fierce opposition by residents, prompting Zoning Board members to tighten the screws on the attorneys by demanding they consider more alternative sites, thereby delaying a decision on either of the two pending applications.
The board complained about confusing and imprecise answers and the T-Mobile attorneys complained of endless lists of alternative sites.
Zoning Boards are under a 150 day “shot clock” to act on siting applications or leave themselves open to the possibility of litigation by the applicant. The countdown begins on the day an applicant files a completed application. The time limitation was the result of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in January 2012 – a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in May 2013, which clarified Section 332(c)(7)(B) of the Communications Act. The original wording required local boards to react to the application within “a reasonable time,” without specifying a deadline.
But Parisi, who did not return a call and an email seeking comment, and his colleague, Attorney Brian Grossman, have continuously waived the shot clock requirement for Westford to allow review of alternative sites.
However, time became a point of contention in another regard during the meeting when Board Member David Earle scolded the two attorneys for presenting a thick packet of materials that evening, giving the board members no time to review and digest the information. The content was an evaluation of alternative sites proposed by residents who live near 11 and 73 Brookside. The attorneys included maps and reasons for eliminating the proposed sites.
“You can’t ask a volunteer board to do an analysis and to read this stuff, getting it yesterday or today and you’re asking us to respond in 30 minutes, and you had 30 days. It doesn’t compute,” Earle said.
Proposed alternative sites include two lots on Commodore Way, four on Lowell Road and one on Chamberlain Road.
There are no viable alternatives, Parisi insisted.
“We’ve provided data to show there are no alternatives to 11 and 73,” he said.
Still, Kazeniac held out hope for another location.
“You’re asking us to close this thing out…maybe it’s a slim chance, but there’s a chance that there’s new information on this list…,” he said. “Without going through this list thoroughly, you’re cutting the process short.”
Parisi, when pressed by Earle to identify the ideal spot – or “ground zero” — for the cellular facility, said, “There’s no ground zero. It’s kind of an amorphous blob.”
But Dylan O’Connor, an outspoken opponent of the cellular facility, accused the attorneys of disingenuousness. O’Connor, who lives in historic Brookside Village, had led an effort in which cell phone signals were tested while driving around the village and further throughout Nabnasset. He was elected to the Planning Board on May 2.
“Some of the things they’re saying about this coverage area…are very confusing because this ‘amorphous blob’ seems to move,” said O’Connor. “It’s sort of in Chelmsford and it’s sort of in Westford. It’s really around Edwards Beach…It doesn’t make any sense because they’re not actually trying to serve better wireless in Westford, they’re trying to offload workloads to cell towers that are on a strip that is just inside of Route 3.”
But Parisi flexed his muscles, knowing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives carriers great latitude to place cellular facilities in residential neighborhoods.
“You’re asking us to extend the shot clock and we’ve been willing to do that all the time if we were moving towards a positive decision,” he said. “But if all we’re doing is looking for alternatives than we might as well go and look for alternatives and take 11 and 73 into federal court…If there’s no amount of data that’s going to lead you to approve 11 and 73 then there’s no need to come back in June…”
But ultimately, Parisi and Grossman agreed to continue the hearing to the board’s next meeting on June 21.
“In the scheme of things, 30 days to take that look seems like a good plan in my estimation,” said Kazeniac of the quest for a less objectionable site.
Follow WestfordCAT News on Twitter @westfordnews.
You must be logged in to post a comment.