Posted by Jeffrey R. Parenti, P.E. on December 20, 2011
I have stayed away from the Akeson cell phone tower debate so far. As much a I enjoy spouting, I don’t like to spout on a subject I know little about. I’ve had trouble following this story with all the board decisions, appeals, judge’s rulings, and other events, each one making the saga of this tower more complicated than the last.
Plus, I only have so much outrage to spend. But when I read Carla Agustino’s report in the Minuteman last Thursday, my face turned red. (She did a great job getting these quotes and the story was well-written. Hope there will be a follow-up.)
Here’s some background before I get into the Zoning Board of Appeals, which green-lighted a huge cell tower near a soccer field last week. The following is how I understand it — please correct any facts I may have wrong.
On the one side of the issue you have abutters to Akeson field and the Planning Board, who oppose the tower. On the other, you have the Town Manager, the Board of Selectmen, and of course the cell phone people, who stand to make a profit, and I’m betting it’s a healthy one. (I should add here that the town stands to pick up some tax revenue, too.)
Let me stop now to remind all staff, elected, and appointed people that your first responsibility is to represent and serve the citizen taxpayers of the town. Not developers. If the citizens have a need — in this case, a vehement objection to a cell phone tower — you start by doing everything you can to help them. Or you bring the two sides together and try to work something out.
According to this story, neither of those two things happened here, with the exception of the Planning Board, which wasn’t backed up by anyone else. Let’s look at some of the quotes from the article:
“We have a court order, what is Mark supposed to do, not issue it?” said ZBA Vice Chairman Richard Colantuoni. “Someone made the decision to not fight this thing and probably for a good reason.”
“To not fight this thing” is not a decision, it’s indecision. And about that “good reason,” shouldn’t the ZBA know exactly what those good reasons are?
An abutter said:
“Apparently the selectmen and town manager can overrule the planning board, the judge did not overrule anything,” Christopher Curley said. “Town Manager [John] Curran gave up. No one was defending the abutters, the residents, or the people who play soccer in that field. There seems to be other options available, but bottom line the town wanted the revenue for this location.”
Look, you are not going to win every battle against big companies and their lawyers. But no citizen should feel like that have to fight that battle alone.
Mr. Curley goes on:
“The 140-foot setback was not met, it needed variance,” he explained. “Billerica town bylaws say there should be no exception given to the 140 feet setback and states variance can only be given in a state of hardship, so why was it given?”
Excellent question. Hello, ZBA? Do you have an answer for your constituent?
ZBA member Ralph McKenna reasoned the appeal is not lawfully sound because according to town bylaws, an appeal must be made within 30 days. [Building commissioner Mark] LaLumiere stated the building permit was issued on Sept. 13, although Mr. Curley cited it was pulled on Sept. 23.
“The board of appeals received the appeal on Oct, 20, so there is no jurisdiction anyway,” McKenna said. “From what I understand, the petitioner is not on the court mandated abutter’s list, so he has no case, we have to follow laws.
You have got to be kidding me. The ZBA is going with semantics and paperwork as an excuse? He’s not on some list so his objection doesn’t matter? This is unbelievable.
Colantuoni stressed that the concerns residents have are better suited for the selectmen, the town manager, or a judge, but not for the ZBA.
Translation: “Don’t blame me, blame someone else.” I wish we had a word in English that meant the opposite of “leadership,” because that’s what this is. Hideous.
“Whatever the decision of the selectmen, that’s their thing, we didn’t issue the variances based upon revenues to the town,” Colantuoni explained. “We make a decision and it’s recorded as well as the facts about why we made that decision. It’s a done deal, we can’t do anything about it. It’s a shame these are the type of people who are running this town.”
Wait, who is he talking about? Himself? Are these “type of people” others on the ZBA, or is he talking about the BOS or maybe the Town Manager or the PB? I would like to know more about this.
A neighbor gets the reporter’s last word:
Many agreed that there is generally a lack of communication not only between the town officials and the residents, but also amongst the town’s governing boards.
“I am pretty ashamed to be in this town to be among you folks that cannot communicate properly. I have yet to get any certified mail yet I am told I am on the abutters list,” explained Jim Reinold.
Well said. We have a series of boards that simply do not talk to each other. It’s been my impression that there is a personal problem between people on the PB and the ZBA, and those sorts of grudges hurt the quality of government. In this case, the Akeson neighbors’ government completely failed them. It sounds like multiple errors were made.
Listen, I understand that everyone mentioned in this story is a volunteer expect for the Town Manager (and of course the cell phone company and their attorneys). They only have so much time to give to their boards. But the neighbors are fighting this on their spare time, too. They need help. They deserve better.
Credit the Planning Board, who did stick their neck out for the neighborhood. But the BOS, afraid of a lawsuit, folded. It’s a bad precedent. Companies can smell towns that fear litigation and feast on them. They swing and big stick and weak towns usually cave.
Do I want my tax dollars spent on a lawsuit? Who does? But what I want even more is for my town to defend itself when challenged. Not cower and cry. (Remember, it was Chelmsford that saved Billerica from the Aspen 40B development after we surrendered.)
Speaking of lawsuits — still waiting on that Home Depot case to go against us.