The Mariner did a good job in accounting the meeting so I won't rehash it here.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cohasset/topstories/x2048882663/Bear-Hill-forum-draws-a-crowd
This is one of those issues that has so many layers we may never be able to fully resolve them. I did find answers to a couple of questions posed in my original blog. I'm reporting, you decide.
ATT pulled out of negotiations with St. Stephen's due to site restrictions and ATT rejected the Scituate Hill water tank because of conflicts with existing towers in the area.
I finally talked to the chair of the ZBA who said that federal law trumps local law and that the cell industry can pretty much put a tower or antennas anywhere they like.
Although it's a commercial installation in a residential zoned area, the ZBA and the Building Inspector decided it doesn't trip anything that would call for a hearing.
The Traffic Study showed that Reservoir Road is heavily traveled with about 600 vehicles per day. Their conclusion is that a little more traffic won't negatively impact safety.
The meeting went until 11pm with much discussion back and forth between the public and the commissioners but questions await answers. On the bright side, I think I saw a very small shift in the dynamics. Tune in for the next installment.
3 comments:
The (new) water commissioners argued this past week that they were simply dealing with the situation as they found it regarding the reduced and relocated easment. The fact is that the easment was reduced because the water department found that the old, wider easment was unnecessary for the forseeable needs of the department. This judgement was made, the record shows, at the very time the department was negotiating with cell phone companies regarding their use of the water tank and, by inference, their need to access their installations. The reduction of the easment was made with full knowledge of the department's needs regarding the construction and maintaining of any cell towers.
The new commissioners expect the citizens of Cohasset to honor and repay millions of dollars in debt incurred by the Water Department prior to these commissioners joining the board; the citizens of Cohasset should expect the new commissioners to honor the letter, as well as the intent, of the new easment as stipulated by their predecessors and a remaining board member.
Contrary to what the chair of the ZBA stated, federal law does not trump local law and the cell industry cannot put a tower or antennas anywhere they like. That statement is patently incorrect. The FCC and the applicable law clearly indicate that issues such as construction, antenna siting, permits, inspections, zoning, and environmental review are within the jurisdiction of state and local governments.
In my subsequent comment to this blog I will include the applicable federal law. The important part to note is section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), which states: No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions. Meaning that the health impacts of RF emissions cannot be a deciding factor is such emissions are within FCC standards.
In June 2000, the FCC published the guide titled “A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance” to assist local governments and individual citizens in better understanding the origin and application of FCC safety rules to safeguard public health from RF exposure. The guide focuses on the FCC limits for human exposure to RF emissions. It does not address other issues falling generally under the jurisdiction of state and local governments, such as construction, antenna siting, permits, inspections, zoning, or environmental review.
The guide is available here, near the bottom of the page just above the “Software” section: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/
THE ZBA IS SIMPLY DERELECT IN THEIR DUTIES BY NOT REQUIREING THAT THIS PROJECT BE SUBJECT TO THE FULL SPECIAL PERMITTING PROCESS.
Text of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)
(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY.
(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY. Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.
(B) LIMITATIONS.
(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by and State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.
(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief.
(C) DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this paragraph
(i) the term “personal wireless services” means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services;
(ii) the term “personal wireless service facilities” means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and
(iii) the term “unlicensed wireless service” means the offering of telecommunications service using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)).
Post a Comment