Planning board forwards CDD memo on DISH rooftop canisters after engineers cite spacing limits

The Cambridge Planning Board on Jan. 7 reviewed a special permit request from DISH Wireless to install rooftop equipment at 1 Bridal Square and voted to forward a Community Development Department (CDD) memo to the Board of Zoning Appeal for its Jan. 9 hearing.

Keenan Brynn, who said he represents Network Building & Consulting on behalf of DISH Wireless LLC, described the proposal and its layout. He said the equipment shelter would be on the first floor, with cabling to the roof, and that the rooftop design includes two concealment canisters approximately 10 feet tall and 36 inches in diameter. "One of the canisters will have one antenna and one will have two antennas," Brynn said, and each canister would contain radio heads and ballast, with exposed cabling along the roof.

Elijah Lutu, the company’s RF engineer, told the board the engineering choice reflected technical limits, including a required horizontal separation from nearby carrier equipment. "We have to be at least 40 feet horizontal separation from T‑Mobile because their frequencies in the lower band are adjacent to ours," Lutu said, and that limitation influenced rooftop placement and the minimum overall height needed for reliable coverage.

Board members questioned whether the antennas could be mounted on a building face or placed lower to reduce visibility in Harvard Square. Vice Chair Tom Senevich noted the design's visual impact and asked whether other placements had been exhausted. Lutu responded that the team had evaluated penthouse and lower‑roof options but that the separation requirement and the need to clear the penthouse roofline required the proposed canister height. "If we move it closer, we'll probably be up to 8 [feet], but we can't go below 6 because that's the height of the antenna," he said, adding the design includes roughly 2.5 feet of ballast that contributes to the overall 10‑foot dimension.

Member H Theodore Cohen and Associate Member Dan Anderson said the board lacked engineering expertise to second‑guess the technical design but emphasized the board’s role in calling attention to visual impacts. Cohen urged that the questions and concerns in the CDD memo be passed along to the BZA; Dan Anderson noted the city’s memo and the public‑safety rationale for equipment upgrades but said visual precedent is a legitimate planning concern.

The board deliberated and then moved to transmit the staff memo and its questions to the BZA so the zoning board could consider them in its hearing. The motion to ensure the CDD memo would be provided to the BZA was moved by Ted Cohen and seconded by Mary Liedecker; Jeff Roberts conducted a roll‑call and recorded the motion as approved by the members present.

The board thanked the applicants for the presentation and called the discussion a useful dry run for the BZA hearing.

The BZA will hear BZA case 1144543 on Jan. 9; the Planning Board’s transmittal makes the CDD memo part of the record for that hearing.