Planning board forwards staff memo as Zoning Board prepares to consider Dish Wireless rooftop antennas at 1 Bridal Square

At its Jan. 7 meeting the Cambridge Planning Board reviewed BZA case 1144-545-43, a special-permit application from DISH Wireless LLC to install rooftop telecommunications equipment at 1 Bridal Square and unanimously voted to transmit the Community Development Department (CDD) staff memorandum to the Board of Zoning Appeal for its Jan. 9 hearing.

The board’s review focused on the proposed equipment and its visual impact. Keenan Brynn, representing Network Building and Consulting for the applicant, described the installation: “The equipment shelter … is approximately 10 by 15 in size,” and the rooftop would host two concealment canisters about 10 feet tall and 36 inches in diameter. Brynn said the radios and cabinets would be located inside the building, with cabling running to the roof, and that each canister would contain radio heads and antennas.

Dish Wireless engineer Elijah Lutu told the board the antennas themselves are about 6 to 7 feet tall and that ballast and mounting add about 2½ feet, producing the roughly 10-foot overall height. He said the company had examined alternatives, including locating antennas on a penthouse, but must maintain about 40 feet of horizontal separation from an existing T‑Mobile installation because adjacent lower‑band frequencies (around 600 megahertz) could cause interference. “We have to be at least 40 feet horizontal separation from T Mobile,” Lutu said, adding that moving or lowering the antennas could “affect the overall coverage of the site.”

Planning board members pressed for alternatives to the 10-foot canisters. Several members said they were concerned a decision to permit this design could set a precedent for similar tall concealment structures across the city’s commercial districts. “The solution’s clever … but these are, on slightly unprecedented as a solution in the city,” said Tom Sanovich, acting chair, who also noted the potential visual impact in Harvard Square. Board members encouraged the applicant to continue exploring less visible options and flagged the CDD memo’s questions for the BZA.

Board discussion also noted that the Historic Commission had indicated it would like to review the design if the applicant could not reduce visual impacts. The Planning Board did not make a recommendation for approval or denial of the special permit application; instead the board voted to ensure the BZA received and considered the CDD staff memorandum and the issues summarized there.

The board’s motion to transmit the CDD memo to the BZA was moved by Theodore (Ted) Cohen and seconded by Mary Leidecker. The roll-call vote on Jan. 7 was: Ted Cohen — yes; Mary Leidecker — yes; Diego Macias — yes; Ashley Tan — yes; Tom Sanovich — yes. Sanovich told the applicant and engineer, “I consider this a dry run,” referring to the Jan. 9 BZA hearing.

The BZA hearing date is Jan. 9, 2025. The Planning Board’s record shows the applicant presented technical reasons tied to coverage and interference that, according to the applicant’s engineer, constrained pole and antenna placement and height. The Planning Board emphasized it lacked technical jurisdiction over federal telecommunications requirements and engineering, and limited its role to raising questions about visual and design impacts for the BZA and other local review bodies.

The Planning Board meeting packet included CDD staff materials and a memorandum summarizing technical and design issues for the BZA to consider. The CDD memo was the document the Planning Board voted to forward.