The Boothbay Planning Board is hoping to escape the same fate experienced by the town of Rome regarding cell tower ordinances. Rome’s battle with a telecommunications company last spring resulted in a 190-foot cell tower located in the middle of town. One municipal official described that tower as a “blight on the area’s skyline.” A lawsuit ensued, which has cost the Kennebec County town $42,000 in legal fees.

On March 14, Rome voters approved a new cell tower ordinance, an 180-day moratorium on new cell tower construction, and appropriated another $50,000 for legal funds connected to the lawsuit.

On March 18, the Boothbay Planning Board began work drafting a new cell tower ordinance. The board met with East Boothbay resident Jean Reese-Gibson to consider the new ordinance’s language. Planning Board Vice Chairman Fran McBrearty asked Reese-Gibson to participate in drafting the new ordinance.

Previously, Reese-Gibson opposed two proposals for erecting cell towers on Ocean Point Drive. McBrearty requested her participation due to her knowledge about cell tower regulations.

The board will review three ordinances for ideas on crafting a new one. The board wants the revised ordinance to provide the town more influence over future tower locations.

Boothbay’s current ordinance prohibits cell towers in special residential zones. But that didn’t stop Mariner Tower II and its client, AT&T, from entering into a consent agreement with the selectmen last year to construct one in East Boothbay.

Mariner Tower threatened a lawsuit in U.S. District Court after the town’s board of appeals twice denied a variance to place a cell tower in East Boothbay. Mariner Tower claimed the decision violated the 1996 U.S. Telecommunications Act.

Based on legal advice that Mariner Tower would prevail and cost over $100,000 in legal fees, the selectmen reached a consent agreement with Mariner Tower. The agreement allowed  the construction of a 120-foot cell tower in East Boothbay. It also required Mariner Tower to follow regulations instituted several years ago when another tower was constructed, provide tower space for municipal emergency communications, create a fund to pay for the structure’s future removal, and pay the town’s legal fees.

The planning board believes a revised ordinance will provide them with more leverage for negotiating deals with telecommunications firms.

“The agreement with Mariner Tower had some good conditions, but it didn’t go far enough,” said McBrearty. “The selectmen were behind the 8-ball the whole way. Every time they tried to add more conditions, Mariner Tower refused to negotiate because they knew they’d win in court.”

The planning board is reviewing Rome’s recently adopted ordinance, one from the State Planning Assistance Office, and McBrearty’s and Reese-Gibson’s visual assessment of New York’s ordinance regarding Adirondack State Park.

Reese-Gibson advised the board to be judicious with the new ordinance language. She described Rome’s language as being “too severe.” Rome’s ordinance also requires a $1,500 application fee, which is larger than most municipalities, which charge between $100 to $200.

“This is a town that got hurt. You can tell just by reading the language in their ordinance,” she said. “I think we need to be careful. Ours shouldn’t appear to be severe. If it does, it may not hold up in court.”

The new ordinance will be significantly different from the current one. The revised ordinance won’t prohibit cell towers in any specific zones. Instead, the planning board intends to adopt specific requirements to influence tower locations.

“We can’t stop them. We can only hope to influence where they are placed,” said Planning Board Chairman Alan Bellows.

The planning board also wants to follow Rome’s lead in enacting a 180-day moratorium on cell tower construction. This wouldn’t affect Mariner Tower’s plans, but it would delay possible applications.

“The selectmen haven’t gone for it before, but maybe they will now,” said planning board member Michael Tomacelli. “We weren’t working on a new ordinance in the past, so that might convince them now a moratorium is appropriate.”

The planning board believes a moratorium would give it time to finish a new ordinance for approval during the November election.

The planning board will hold its next workshop at 6 p.m. on Thursday, March 26 in the municipal building.