Planning Board Sued For Denying Cell Tower

The Westwood Planning Board is being sued for an unlawful located at 7 Clapboardtree Street in June.

SBA Towers II LLC and MetroPCS, the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, claim that the decision violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

At a meeting in June, after months of deliberation and continuances of a public hearing, the Planning Board denied a  proposal to construct a cell tower at Temple Beth David. 

The issue was highly-opposed around the town, with many saying that the structure would be an eye sore and that additional coverage was simply unneeded.

The applicants for the project, who include SBA Towers II, LLC; T-Mobile Northeast, LLC; and MetroPCS Massachusetts, LLC, were seeking to construct a 99-foot, 6-inch flagpole-style monopole that would contain three T-Mobile panel antennas at the centerline height of 95 feet, 3 inches. 

As part of the proposal, MetroPCS would have an antenna at 86 feet, 9 inches at 30 inches in diameter. Ricardo Souza had been representing the applicants and brought a team of experts to each of the hearings. The Planning Board also brought experts to the table, with many of the opinions not lining up.

At the meeting in June, Souza brought Dan Goulet of C Squared Systems, who explained that about 53 percent of Westwood's residents are covered by T-Mobile, which is an amount that could increase to more than 65 percent with the new tower. 

Only 44 percent of residents in Westwood are covered by Metro PCS. This, he said, is a number that could increase by 14 percent with the proposed tower. 

However, residents in town were not impressed by Souza’s experts and adamantly expressed their opposition. Most spoke about the size of the structure, saying that it would stand out much more than a flag pole, as it was described.

At the June meeting, Planning Board Vice Chair Steve Olanoff reportedly expected this decision to be sent to the court, but felt that it should be turned down.

Town Planner Nora Loughnane told Westwood Patch that she was not surprised that the decision is being sent to court.

“I'm not surprised that the applicants appealed the board's denial,” Loughnane wrote in an e-mail. “I had expected an appeal within 20 days of our filing (as specified if the town's special permit regulations), and was surprised when that deadline passed. I've since learned that our regulations are superseded by the Telecommunication Act's 30-day appeal period.”

As for what comes next, Loughnane said that the Planning Board will work with the applicants to find a suitable site for a wireless facility. She said that this must be a spot to satisfy the applicants’ desire to improve service to the same general area.

However, it must also not negatively affect the neighborhoods in the vicinity. Since the public hearing, there has been no discussion of specific sites.

“I look forward to meeting with the applicants to investigate suitable sites in the near future,” said Loughnane.