Final Discussion on Cell Tower Expected Next Month

The regarding the proposed wireless facility at continued Tuesday night, when the Westwood Planning Board held a brief discussion regarding the matter. The actual public hearing is scheduled to continue on June 16, when the board hopes to make a final vote.

The applicants for the project include SBA Towers II, LLC; T-Mobile Northeast, LLC; and MetroPCS Massachusetts, LLC. The applicants are proposing 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. MetroPCS would have an antenna at 86 feet, 9 inches.

Initial plans had the pole be a maximum diameter of 36 inches, with the pole tapering. However, during a  meeting, it was noted by Ricardo Souza, representative of the applicants, that the tapering would not be in the plans.

This drew moans and groans from the public in attendance, as well as comments from residents posted on Westwood Patch. During Tuesday’s meeting, Souza said that if it is the preference of the board, a tapering to the pole can be done.

The public has been open about their opposition to the wireless facility being built. Reasons have ranged from aesthetics to safety, as well as the possibility of diminishing property value.

Souza has maintained throughout the process that the main goal in creating the tower is to fill in coverage gaps in an area that he said the cellular companies have identified as areas of little to no coverage. At each meeting, he has also brought several experts with him, who told the board and the public that there are no health risks and no evidence of diminishing property value due to such towers.

The Town of Westwood also hired David Maxson of Isotrope Engineering to put together a report regarding the project. Maxson’s report differed from Souza’s on many levels, including possible alternative placements of the polls, statistical data and the needed height of the pole.

The applicant, SBA, put up $3,500, as it is accustomed to doing for such reports, according to Souza. However, Maxson’s fee is actually up to $7,500 which Town Planner Nora Loughnane said is attributed to his presentations at hearings and that Maxson felt that it actually involved multiple applicants.

Souza said that he would be speaking with his client about the fee as soon as possible, and with the amount more than doubled, he is sure that there will be questions about the reasons.

“We could have a discussion after I talk to my client tomorrow, and maybe resolve this,” said Souza. “I’m sure we can.”

Souza noted that the typical consulting fee is between $3,500 and $5,000 and that the applicant is ready for this. Souza said that the applicant even usually gets a refund. However, he said, the number given was much higher than usual even though there have been no variations to the plan or application.

Souza explained that Chapter 44, 53 G in the state bylaws allows town to pass on consulting fees to applicant where they put the money into a special account. However, he said they have to be reasonable. Souza and Loughnane both acknowledged that the initial $3,500 was put in the account by the applicant.

Souza recommended that this be worked out as soon as possible, and that they talk about whatever differences in opinion there may be. He also expressed his thought that a timeline should be made, and said he felt that a full report should be completed by the end of May.

Loughnane said that in the meantime, she recommends that the board have Maxson stop his consulting until the payment issue is solved.

“My only statement is that it is twice the amount that was originally requested,” said Souza. “Nothing has been changed. We have not altered the application in any way.”

Rafsky questioned what would happen if Souza talked to his client and there was an unwillingness to pay the additional fee. Loughnane noted that if this were the case, they should discontinue the consulting work and make a decision based otherwise. Rafsky recommended that they make sure the price is reasonable.

“We don’t want to be unreasonable, either,” said Rafsky.

The Planning Board has asked Souza to bring a small piece of what the monopole would look like to the June 16 meeting, so residents can get a feel of the diameter. Souza said that he would work on this, and didn’t think it would be a problem.

The hearing will continue on June 16 at 7:30 p.m. in the High School Auditorium, with the board expecting testimonies to be completed.