Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board urges no action on citizen petition to loosen wireless overlay rules
Summary
At its May 6 meeting the Town of Concord Planning Board voted to recommend no action on a citizen petition that would ease siting rules for wireless facilities, citing a planned comprehensive review of the wireless bylaw and concerns about removing a professional coverage study requirement.
The Town of Concord Planning Board voted May 6 to recommend that Town Meeting take no action on a citizen petition that would amend the town's wireless-overlay bylaw to make it easier to site cell facilities outside the current overlay.
The recommendation follows lengthy testimony from petitioner Henry Dane, who said the change is needed to address persistent cellphone gaps in Concord's center. "When people walk out of the Colonial Inn and want to know how to get to the Old North Bridge, they take out their cell phone, they get no signal," Dane told the board, urging a short-term fix while the board undertakes a comprehensive rewrite next year.
Board members debated removing a current requirement that applicants produce a professional gap-in-coverage study. Supporters said the study requirement raises cost and complexity and can deter applicants. Opponents said eliminating the study reduces objective evidence for siting decisions and shifts discretion to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Planning Board members also referenced a Select Board directive that the Planning Board perform a full overhaul of the wireless bylaw in 2026.
Dane told the board the petition would permit the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider applications outside the 2019 map without requiring a professional coverage study, and argued urgency because temporary towers had demonstrably improved service in the town center. "The minute they took that away about a week ago, it went from decent coverage to lousy," he said, describing a temporary tower behind Middlesex Savings Bank.
Several board members said they shared the goal of improving service but were not convinced the narrow amendment was the right procedural step. Members asked how long professional studies take, how much they cost and whether the study requirement has in practice been a barrier. The board noted the petition would remove a specific procedural hurdle but not other special-permit criteria, and some members said a short-term fix might not be worth forgoing a more robust, town-led review.
After discussion the board approved a motion to recommend that Town Meeting take no action on Article 41, with the board citing its commitment to a comprehensive review of the wireless bylaw and a desire to study the issue with town counsel before changing procedures. The motion passed on a voice vote; members recorded "Aye."
