An application for a special permit to construct a cell-phone tower off High Street was heard on January 13 by the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, which after lengthy discussion voted to continue the public hearing to its next meeting.
The public hearing opening Case No. 1170 involves Industrial Tower and Wireless, LLC, which is seeking the permit to reduce the required setback by 50 percent so it can construct a 190-foot, monopole-style telecommunications facility under Chapter 22.30 that addresses Personal Wireless Services Facilities of the Rochester Zoning Bylaws.
Before the presentation by Industrial Tower and Wireless, LLC, representatives Shayna Galinat and engineer/industrial manager Kevin Delaney, ZBA Chairman David Arancio read an abutters list over 30 names long.
Having received a negative determination of applicability to wetlands confirmed in correspondence from Rochester’s conservation agent and having made a preliminary introduction of the project to the town’s Planning Board, the zoning hurdle was on deck.
Galinat explained that the Special Permit application seeks relief from the Chapter 22.30 setback rule requiring 100 percent of the tower height, which would be nearing 200 feet including its antenna. The applicant proposes 50 percent or 100 feet, citing the common land ownership of the A.D. Makepeace Company.
Where the ZBA meets the case is in the matter of the tower’s location to the nearest property line. The applicant hopes the board will allow a 100-foot proximity because the tower would sit on land owned by A.D. Makepeace and be closest to an adjacent lot also owned by the same cranberry company. The closest property not owned by A.D. Makepeace is 521 feet away.
With a slide presentation, Delaney summarized the proposed construction to include a 2,500 long and 12-foot-wide driveway that would enter from High Street and run alongside the bogs to the site where the driveway will be met by a locked gate.
Inside the 100-foot square will be an 80-foot square with the tower at the center of the compound. Within the compound, the applicant is proposing 6-inches deep of .75-inch crushed stone. The only clearing is proposed for inside the 100-foot square. Communication shelters will surround the tower, and no cables will exist outside the square. All utilities to the site will be underground.
The arrays to be placed near the top of the tower will require 10 feet of vertical separation from one another. The tower is not the kind that requires any type of lighting, according to Delaney, who said there will be no beacon or strobe light. Delaney said the applicant has permission from the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission.
In answer to ZBA member Davis Sullivan, Delaney said that any antennas extending the height of the 190-foot tower would belong to the Rochester Fire and Police departments and would not result in a tower 200-feet high so as not to require further permitting or lighting.
Delaney displayed a coverage map illustrating the closest tower being between three and four miles away in Wareham and two other towers in Rochester that are between four and five miles away. The new tower would presumably fill in a significant coverage gap in Rochester.
“I’d be willing to bet that just about every person that’s been here uses a cell phone, and utilities need to be in place for services like that,” Sullivan would say late in the meeting. “I happen to have two sets of power lines through an easement on the back of my property. You need to have electricity.
“You have to take into consideration what they’re trying to do here, they’re trying to improve the service in dead areas in Rochester so there would be some benefit to the people in town.”
Davis’ unofficial endorsement of the project followed several comments made by abutters attending the public hearing at Rochester Town Hall or via Zoom.
Questions ranged from clarification of the application and concerns about radiation to the necessity of more towers and a written report referencing studies that trace health problems to the proximity of such towers. Arancio asked for the report to be sent to the ZBA administrator.
Delaney explained that cell-phone towers and the phones themselves have evolved over the decades, and the resultant specifications have meant less height, less coverage and the need for more, smaller towers.
Abutter John Lund, 43 Forbes Road, was told that the balloon simulation at the top of the tower could not been seen from any spot in between the markers displayed in the slide presentation, but a subsequent comment said that the visibility determinations should be made when the trees are bare.
After Galinat summarized her confidence in the applicant’s qualifications for the Special Permit, Arancio was quick to predict that the January 13 meeting would not provide adequate time to digest all of the responses.
ZBA member Thomas Flynn asked Galinat to elaborate on the application, citing “improvement in vision and safety” as the bylaw-prescribed driver that would justify a vote to reduce the setback requirement in the applicant’s favor. He told Galinat that he interpreted the presentation as mitigation rather than improvement.
Referring to a visual of what a 200-foot property-line setback would look like, Galinat said, “We believe that the 100-foot setback is improving the visual aspect (to abutters.)” She asserted that a plan based on a 200-foot setback requirement would make the tower more visible from area residences.
Galinat said that while introducing the project to the Planning Board, the initial plan was for the setback to be only 40 feet from the property line on the basis that A.D. Makepeace owns the adjacent lot. Arancio advised Galinat that should the company’s impending full-scale presentation to the Planning Board result in a single change on the plan of record, the applicant will then be required to go back before the ZBA.
ZBA member Kirby Gilmore’s recusal from the case prompted Arancio to advise Galinat that the remaining four voting members would all need to vote in favor for the permit to be awarded, but that became a moot point when the need to digest substantial feedback and conduct a site visit (Friday, January 21) necessitated continuation.
The members voted 4-0 to continue the public hearing to January 27.
In other business, the ZBA voted to approve its FY23 annual budget proposal. The members also voted to approve the ZBA’s 2021 annual report.
The next meeting of the Rochester ZBA is scheduled for Thursday, January 27, at 7:00 pm.
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
By Mick Colageo