Boothbay appeals board sets date for cell tower public hearing
The Boothbay Board of Appeals voted 4-0 on July 22, deeming an application submitted by Mariner Tower II and a local property owner complete. This paves the ways for an August 12, 6 p.m., public hearing to determine the fate of the proposed cell tower construction in East Boothbay. After the public hearing, the board will decide whether to vote on a request made by Mariner Tower II and land owner Lucy Spaulding to overturn a previous ruling. In March, the board denied the applicants’ request for a variance to construct a 120-foot cell tower on Ocean Point Road.
Despite the unanimous decision, some board members thought the application still lacked information. At last month’s meeting, the board requested additional information from Topsham engineering firm Wright Pierce, who the town hired to conduct a site plan and engineering peer review.
The board thought the application lacked research regarding the tower’s placement in East Boothbay, other potential site locations, and availability of alternative wireless phone service technologies.
Town Manager James Chaousis said Wright Pierce had already exchanged the information with all the various entities involved, but the complexity of the project made locating the information difficult.
“The information is there, but there seems to be a problem with everyone putting their fingers on it,” Chaousis said. “It’s really a complex situation with two sets of lawyers and engineers sharing all the same information. I think people are having a hard time locating all the information they need.”
A conference call was held with all the involved parties on July 24 to ensure the board had the requested information by week’s end, according to Chaousis.
Mariner Tower II needs the variance to build a cell tower in a zone prohibited by the town’s land use ordinance. According to published reports, Mariner Tower II wants the tower so its partner, AT&T, can establish a stronger presence in southern Maine.
The board has until September 8 to rule on the appeal. The board previously ruled that the proposed location was in a special residential zone that prohibited cell towers. The board also ruled that Mariner Tower II’s application failed to explore additional sites and other technologies. Mariner Tower II lawyer, Jonathan Springer, claimed in a letter earlier this year that the denial violated the Federal Communications Act of 1996. Springer wrote the act prohibited local boards from “unreasonably discriminating against any wireless providers.”
Related:
Mariner Tower submits second application
