Ten public meetings and an entire year later, the Zoning Board of Appeals finally approved a proprosal for a 130 foot cellular facility in the Nabnasset section of town.
Attorneys representing T-Mobile Northeast LLC, had reached the end of their patience and wanted the board to take a vote on that July 19 evening despite a plea from ZBA alternate member David Earl for another month or two.
“That’s my response. The response is no,” said Attorney Brian Grossman of Varsity Wireless, LLC, of Boston. “We expected to come tonight and review a decision,” he said.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives cellular carriers great latitude in placing communications facilities in residential neighborhoods. When faced with approving a cellular facility, zoning boards are under a 150 day “shot clock” to act on the siting application or they leave themselves open to the possibility of litigation by the applicant. The countdown begins on the day an applicant files a completed application, however, representatives of the carriers are empowered to grant extensions.
“We applied a year ago,” said Attorney Francis Parisi, also of Wireless, referring to the multiple extensions he had granted the board since July 20, 2016, when the application was filed.
Facing Parisi’s July 26 deadline, the board unanimously approved a monopole behind the H.E. Fletcher Social Club at 11 Brookside Road, part of the Brookside Historic District, much to the disappointment of the district’s residents.
By voting before the deadline, the board avoided federal government intervention that could have resulted in the government’s issuance of a permit.
But Brookside resident Miriam Kadansky threatened legal action by Brookside residents, vowing to continue resisting the granting of a permit for the facility.
“You can rest assured that the Brookside Historic District has engaged an attorney. We expect to fight this in all possible ways should you approve this application,” she said. “…We would ask that you deny it now, save us all a lot of time and energy and money thrown away on lawyers.”
Historical Commission Chairman David Gutbrod said the Massachusetts Historical Commission recently has provided documentation that the banks of the Stony Brook may have Native American graves. Anything within 100 meters is considered high sensitivity and protected, he said.
“There are two sensitivity issues that may not have been addressed,” he said. “…We have recently found along Stony Brook, several sites, 3- to 5000 years old, within the Section 106 appropriate distance sensitivity. So we would like, the minimum, for any of the sites along the Stony Brook sites to have an archeological test done…It seems to have been skipped.”
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 protects historic properties.
Planning Board member Dylan O’Connor who lives on Lambert Way, directly behind the site of the tower, spoke against its placement on the social club’s grounds.
“By definition a better site is not a historic site,” he said.
Grossman asked the board to approve an alternative proposed site, but the board voted to have Town Planner Jeffrey Morrissette prepare a draft decision to deny 73 Brookside Road. The board determined 11 Brookside Road would provide better coverage and perhaps prevent an application for a second monopole in the Nabnasset section.
Left to be determined is the appearance of the facility. ZBA Chairman Robert Herrmann’s preference for a clock tower was denied by Grossman and Parisi who said they could not provide one.
“From a legal perspective, what we’ve proposed is a monopole,” said Grossman. “…My client will not agree to a clock tower.”
“The problem I see is there is not a standard clock tower design,” said Parisi.
The disagreement created uncertainty so Herrmann named a three-person committee with representatives from the Historic Commission, the Planning Board, and the community to explore physical options and make a recommendation to the ZBA.
You must be logged in to post a comment.