Representatives of Bell Mobile Atlantic, on behalf of Verizon, asked the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals once again on November 12 to overturn an earlier decision made by the building commissioner to deny a building permit that would add 12 new cellular antennas to an existing tower off of Cranberry Highway. The denial means that Bell needs to request a site plan review from the Rochester Planning Board, something that Bell feels will take too long a time considering the encroaching winter and the time already spent discussing the proposals.
The overturn request was discussed at an earlier ZBA meeting, but the ZBA opted to continue the matter into November, citing discomfort with the proposed plans.
“We’re going to hear more about how high our Verizon bills are?” board member Jeffrey Costa jokingly inquired of fellow board member Kirby Gilmore.
“They’ll tell you the only reason they’re so high is because we need so many town meetings to sort this out,” Gilmore replied.
Attorney Victor Manougian clarified that Bell’s plans hadn’t changed at all.
“We’re trying to work with the town to comply with what the building commissioner says we need to do,” said Manougian. “We want to move forward now. We’re asking you to overturn the process only in this instance. It should not become a normal model for future companies.”
“So if we don’t approve this, they need to go to a site plan?” board member David Arancio asked.
Planning Board Chairman Arnold Johnson sat in on the meeting and offered up clarity on the matter.
“They have two choices. They can appeal in federal court, or they can wait on the Planning Board and submit a site plan review,” Johnson explained. “They chose to subvert the process, hoping it would be faster than using a site plan.” Johnson pointed out that Bell had submitted site plan reviews elsewhere.
“A quick Google search showed me eight towns where Bell has applied for a special exemption grant: Harvard, Oxford, Wilmington, Newton, Concord,” he said, ticking town examples off. “All included a site plan review and a Special Permit request. It’s not an uncommon thing.”
The ZBA questioned, if Bell was attempting to move things along quickly, why had they not filed a site plan review application until October 14?
“That was my own fault,” said Manougian. “It seemed to me that you can’t file a site review until you’ve had an informal meeting and you know what the check amount will be. The month delay was me, but I still feel that we are eligible for exemption.”
This did not ring true with Johnson, who pointed out that for many of the other towns with which Bell had filed, they had submitted a site plan review application alongside the initial building permit request.
“What I am most concerned about,” continued Johnson, “is that if someone is trying to subvert the process and the Zoning Board agrees, everyone else in the future will take the same shot. It is the view of the Planning Board that Bell is not exempt.”
Arancio agreed. “We have objectives which need to be followed.”
The board voted for a unanimous denial of Bell’s exemption request. Gilmore said, “I could go either way. I think ultimately that I’ll take my advice from the town counsel. It shouldn’t have to be this way, but it is. I like to get things done fast, but in this instance I move towards the process we have, which requires a site plan.”
Bell will now be forced to either file a federal appeal or undergo a site plan review with the Rochester Planning Board.
The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for December 10 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.
By Andrea Ray
