Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board proposes major rewrite of wireless bylaw to ease collocation and equipment swaps; residents seek clarity on setbacks and RF monitoring
Summary
Article 35 would replace Concord’s wireless communications bylaw to align with federal law, allow collocation and equipment swaps by building permit, use site plan review for many facility types, and retain special‑permit review for new towers and sensitive locations; commenters asked for side‑by‑side comparisons, raised concerns about setback reductions, RF emission monitoring, and insurance/liability provisions.
The Concord Planning Board introduced Article 35, a repeal‑and‑replace of the town’s personal wireless communications facilities bylaw intended to bring the zoning code into alignment with federal requirements and to reduce barriers to expanding local cell coverage.
Under the proposal, collocation (adding antennas to existing towers or structures) and like‑for‑like equipment swaps would, in many cases, proceed with a building permit; site plan review would govern many other installations, while the most impactful new towers and facilities in sensitive locations (historic districts, wetlands) would continue to require a special permit and public hearing. The board said the change aims to encourage lower‑impact solutions — camouflaging on steeples or rooftop collocation — while preserving robust processes for high‑impact projects.
Residents pressed for clearer comparisons between the existing and proposed bylaw and asked whether the change reduces setbacks for towers. Several commenters noted concerns about radio‑frequency measurement and insurance. Alicia Boyagen asked for more periodic and public RF monitoring and said it is now “super easy to measure accurately,” arguing transparency would help residents with health concerns. Other commenters warned the proposal might effectively cede too much authority to carriers and urged graphical examples of how the new rules differ from the old ones.
The board said it will prepare side‑by‑side materials for the briefing book and that the proposed code retains special‑permit review for new towers while simplifying review for equipment swaps and collocations to encourage use of existing infrastructure. No formal vote was recorded at the hearing.
Direct quotes in this article are taken from public speakers at the March 3 hearing.
