Mariner Tower II of Kennebunk amended its federal lawsuit last week against the town of Boothbay.

Mariner Tower filed the lawsuit in March after the town’s board of appeals denied a variance to build a 120-foot cell tower in East Boothbay. The appeals board later denied a second variance in August at an alternative location.

Mariner Tower claims the lawsuit arises out of the town’s “unlawful denial of two variances” sought by the firm.

In Mariner Tower’s amended complaint on Oct. 20, it stated the board’s decision was invalid because it violates the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996.

“The board’s decision is invalid, jointly and separately, as it prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting of personal wireless services in violation of the act,” according to the amended complaint.

The appeals board denied the first variance request in March, in which Mariner Tower proposed building a tower on Patrick Farrin’s property located on 839 Ocean Point Drive. The board denied the variance because Mariner Tower didn’t seek or consider any other alternative sites and technologies.

Mariner Tower wanted to build a cell tower on Ocean Point Road to improve cell phone coverage in East Boothbay. The company was working with AT&T to assist the telecommunications firm’s effort to bridge the “coverage gap” in East Boothbay.

After the appeals board denied the first variance, it suggested six other sites, including a nearby location. Mariner Tower agreed to delay its lawsuit while an alternate site was sought.

Mariner Tower chose one of the sites recommended by the appeals board. The firm selected Lucy Ann Spaulding’s property, located just off Route 96 near Ocean Point Road. 

Mariner Tower II entered into an agreement with Spaulding and sought another variance.

In August, the board denied a variance for the alternative location. The board of appeals ruled Mariner Tower failed to meet the requirements for a variance.

The board ruled the proposed tower would not singularly alleviate the coverage gap in East Boothbay, and the company failed to prove cell phone use was an essential service.

The appeals board also questioned why Mariner Tower didn’t first take the proposal to the planning board.