Laserfiche WebLink
Even in the Wireless Facility Overlay District, the Planning Board is the entity which may grant a <br /> waiver to allow height of a personal wireless service facility of up to 200 feet, and only if there are no <br /> serious impacts on neighboring properties. There is no provision that height restrictions may be <br /> waived by the Zoning Board Of Appeals: <br /> Article IX Section 174-45.3.E.6 "Within the Wireless Facility Overlay District,personal <br /> wireless service facilities of up to one hundred(100)feet in height may be permitted by <br /> Special Permit, except that the Planning Board may grant a waiver to allow height u to o two <br /> hundred(200') feet where circumstances warrant(e.g. no serious impacts on neighboring <br /> properties, residential areas...). <br /> Mr. Phelan inquired about specific examples of serious impacts and the Chair responded that issues <br /> could be aesthetics,property value loss or a home located in a fall zone. Mr. Phelan stated there were <br /> no homes in the fall zone. Mr. Phelan inquired whether the Chair was suggesting that the Planning <br /> Board should take action against the ZBA and the Chair responded that she did not join the appeal, <br /> adding that she stated on September 4 that she was not confident that the variance would hold. Mr. <br /> Phelan stated that the Court would make the determination. Mr. Balzarini stated that the ZBA went <br /> beyond their boundaries. Mr. Callahan stated that the Planning Board needed to address what was in <br /> front of them. Mr. Phelan expressed concern that Board members were concerned with aesthetics over <br /> public safety matters. There was clarification that they were discussing page 8, and that the ZBA was <br /> not the place to acquire a variance, but the Planning Board was the authority to waive the height. Mr. <br /> Phelan asked why it was not discussed with the project proponent and the Chair responded that Ms. <br /> Thompson did not wish to discuss it and Mr. Balzarini responded that he had questioned how the ZBA <br /> was able to grant a variance. There was disagreement as to whether or not the matter was adequately <br /> explained. Mr. Balzarini stated that he lived at his home for 37 years and heard no complaints <br /> regarding safety and he had no issues with Verizon. Mr. Callahan stated that there was testimony last <br /> spring indicating that people were unable to make calls to 911. The Chair asked for a location in the <br /> Bylaw that allowed acceptance of the proposal due to public safety. Mr. Balzarini stated that the cell <br /> tower should be located where it could benefit the most people,the first time. Mr. Phelan stated that <br /> the ZBA granted the variance and the Court would offer the legal judgement. <br /> Chairman Waygan, Mr. Balzarini and Mr. Cummings agreed with the finding. <br /> The Chair referenced page 9. <br /> THE AMSHPEE ZONING BYLAW REOUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS FOR <br /> MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE,AS WELL AS ABANDONMENT OR <br /> DISCONTINUANCE OF USE <br /> The Blue Sky Tower's application fails to address how the proposed wireless service facility will be <br /> monitored and maintained, and how it shall bond the facility in case of abandonment or <br /> discontinuance of use in compliance with the following sections of the Zoning Bylaw: <br /> 1. Article IX Section 174-45.3.E Monitoring and Maintenance provisions (1), (2), and <br /> 2. Article IX Section 174-45.3.M Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use provisions (1), (2), and <br /> (3) <br /> Mr. Phelan stated that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 clearly outlined the concern, in 143 pages, <br /> to address all the issues. In addition, Section 704 required that the Board be very specific in their <br /> 6 <br />