Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Bylaw topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board member Abby Flanagan urges replacement of Concord’s 1998 wireless bylaw to close coverage gaps
Summary
Planning Board member Abby Flanagan told Civic Concord listeners the town should replace its 1998 wireless zoning bylaw (Article 35) to allow clearer permitting for equipment swaps and smaller installations, keep review for new towers, and bring local rules into compliance with federal telecommunications law.
Planning Board member Abby Flanagan said Concord should replace its 1998 wireless zoning bylaw to make it easier for carriers to close persistent cellphone coverage gaps while preserving review for larger, potentially obtrusive projects.
"The zoning bylaw has remained stagnant," Flanagan said, arguing the old wireless-overlay district is so restrictive that "it doesn't allow carriers to close gaps in coverage. Just full stop." She said the planning board is proposing to scrap the existing bylaw and replace it with a clearer, project-based framework ahead of this year’s Town Meeting.
The move responds to longstanding signal problems in town, Flanagan said, citing weak coverage at the high school and other spots where residents and emergency personnel have experienced dropped calls. "We've had listening sessions where emergency room doctors at Emerson are, you know, not getting their calls in public-safety emergencies," she said, framing the change as a public-safety and day-to-day connectivity issue.
Under the proposed replacement, the town would shift from a single, restrictive wireless-overlay district to a three-track permitting system: a simple building permit for routine equipment swaps; site-plan review for co-locating additional antennas on existing structures; and a special-permit process for new standalone towers. Flanagan said the simpler tracks are intended to make predictable rules for carriers and residents while keeping public hearings and community input where it matters.
"This gives us kind of three different paths," Flanagan said, describing examples: an equipment swap (handled by a building permit), co-location on an existing antenna (site-plan review), and a new tower (special permit with robust oversight). She emphasized that site-plan review and special permits will still require properly noticed public hearings and that the Historic District Commission and environmental regulations would continue to apply.
Flanagan also said the update is necessary to align local regulations with changes in federal telecommunications law. "The simple fact of the matter is the current zoning bylaw doesn't match the federal law," she said, adding that bringing the town’s rules into compliance is part of the article’s purpose.
The planning board removed blanket setbacks from the bylaw draft because, Flanagan said, leaving all current setbacks in place would effectively preserve the existing constraints and defeat the goal of allowing targeted solutions. Instead, site-specific considerations — proximity to wetlands, historic districts and nearby structures — would be evaluated during site-plan and special-permit reviews.
Flanagan said the proposed approach encourages carriers to pursue less obtrusive installations (for example, screened equipment in church steeples or cupolas) and emphasizes transparency: "We actually love public comment," she said, noting the planning board reads all submitted letters and values community input.
The planning board’s briefing book and an FAQ are available online; Flanagan urged Town Meeting members to review materials before voting and to bring questions to Town Meeting. Article 35 is scheduled for consideration at the 2026 Town Meeting; the planning board’s presentation and public hearing record will inform the final vote.
