 Print in "Landscape" mode |
|
Residents Pack Board of Appeals Hearing Opposed to cell tower in residential neighborhood
December 13, 2007 — About 85 residents and those associated with them packed and overflowed Room 211 (Selectmen's Hearing Room) at a Public Hearing to oppose the application by Omnipoint/T-Mobile for a Special Permit and Variances to locate a 100' cell tower in a residential yard at 72 North Mill Street (Google map), a property that one neighbor described as a "junkyard." A home on the property is currently rented from absentee landlord, Cindy Lou Jordan. Ms. Jordan's brother expected to represent his sister, but was denied that privilege after telling the Board that he was not an attorney. In addition, Ms. Jordan did not sign the application, a condition that Board of Appeals Chairman Wayne Davies said was "not fatal" but needed to be addressed.
Attorney Jennifer Lewis, representing Omnipoint/T-Mobile, presented the
applicant's case for a Special "After evaluating customer feedback," said T-Mobile contractor, RF engineer Sameer Parakavetty, "T-Mobile decides where to construct a site." He said the purpose was to fill some gaps in coverage. Mr. Parakavetty showed drawings that detailed the locations of surrounding cell towers to prove his point, but one speaker presented documents from Holliston proceedings that pointed out that the company just received a permit from a Holliston board that allowed it to build an antenna in that town presumably within the two-mile radius. Ms. Lewis was asked why tower had been omitted from the plan presented. "Because it has not been built," said Ms. Lewis to spontaneous laughter from the group. "In terms of a residential area, it is ideal," said Ms. Lewis during her presentation. However, the group of residents and abutters would later disagree unanimously. "We would have to determine that you cannot collocate on another tower," said Mr. Davies. An applicant for a tower must first determine that there is no other existing tower it can locate on in order to provide coverage for the area in question before it can build a new tower. "There is no tower in the coverage area," said Ms. Lewis.
"Are you within two miles of another tower?" asked Mr. Davies. Someone
pointed out that a tower exists at Cornell's. "By your scale, you are less than two miles," said member Rory Warren. READ MORE... Mr. Davies concurred that it was less than two miles. In addition to the criteria of a two mile radius, a cell tower may not be above the tree line in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Lewis argued that because it was zoned agricultural, the burden of a residential zone did not exist. However, member Michael DiMascio countered that residential uses did indeed exist in an Agricultural Zone. Ms. Lewis said, "We are requesting a variance." When asked how comprehensive their site search was, Ms. Lewis stated that they had investigated, but could not locate on YMCA or Laborer's Training grounds. Mr. DiMascio said, "I wonder if you've done a full analysis, or you're taking the path of least resistance." Another speaker wondered if T-Mobile simply picked the most economical site. Speaking to the applicant's claim of a hardship, neighbor Bill Rogers said that the applicant brought it on themselves. "As a resident and as an attorney, I am deeply disturbed by the lack of candor of the applicant, especially their omission of the Holliston tower. "The lack of candor is reason enough to deny the application," Mr. Rogers said. "We did not come here with unclean hands," Ms. Lewis said in closing. She promised that she would provide an updated map at the next meeting; that it was simply an oversight. One neighbor presented a petition said to be signed by 577 people, but did not distribute copies, or the statement of petition. Mr. Davies asked for a scheduled balloon test and a site walk. A balloon test consists of raising a balloon to the height of a proposed structure to determine its visibility from various locations. Although the applicant offered a photo for a test that had already been conducted, Mr. Davies said he would like himself and others to be present. The Board recommended that the applicants respond to a Conservation Commission letter expressing concerns, and offered them a chance for a continuation of the Public Hearing. Ms. Lewis requested the continuance, and the Board set January 30, 2008 as the date. The location has been set for the hearing room, but Mr. Davies said the Board will try to get the High School Auditorium due to the size of the audience. |
|
The Hopkinton News TM online only at HopNews.com ©2007 HopNews.com All Rights Reserved. 508-435-5534
|
Permit. The engineer who accompanied her
claimed that no other tower existed within two miles, a criteria in
Hopkinton for locating a cell tower and related equipment.