Residents raise safety, RF and aviation concerns as Halifax ZBA continues hearing on 150-foot monopole at 285 Holmes St.

Applicants for a proposed 150-foot monopole telecommunications tower at 285 Holmes Street presented site plans and technical studies to the Halifax Zoning Board of Appeals, and the board continued the application to the next meeting after neighbors and aviation stakeholders requested additional documents.

Alexandria Casaldo, attorney for Industrial Tower and Wireless LLC, told the board the company seeks dimensional variances from several local zoning provisions — chiefly setback requirements tied to tower height and a 500-foot separation-from-structures rule — to place a 150-foot monopole on a leased portion of an industrial parcel. “The tower is proposed to be located at 65.8 feet from the side lot line,” Casaldo said, citing distances in the zoning memorandum and the applicant’s request for relief.

Kevin Delaney, vice president of site acquisition and development for Industrial Tower and Wireless, described the leased 2.52-acre site and an approximately 80-by-80-foot fenced compound that would contain the tower and equipment. He said utilities would be underground, typical maintenance traffic would be “two or three visitors a month,” and the company’s modeling shows the site would eliminate “an approximate 2.7 mile gap of deficient coverage for wireless services along Route 36,” including improved service at the MBTA commuter-rail station and for first responders.

Keith Valente of C Squared Systems, who prepared the RF report, told the board the applicant’s materials list Verizon’s licensed bands and that calculated emissions would be within FCC exposure limits. “The low end of all those are 700 megahertz up to 3.7 gigahertz,” Valente said, and he offered to provide the RF study and modeled exposure tables to the board and residents.

Neighbors raised multiple concerns. Sharon Linley said residents were surprised by recent tree clearing and alleged damage to private property, adding, “None of us want it built in the area. Our backyard is pretty much their construction materials.” Other abutters questioned the proximity of the tower to the MBTA right-of-way and to train switching equipment and urged the board to require proof the MBTA has been consulted.

Damien Furtasio, representing Craneland Airport, asked the board to confirm that FAA and Massachusetts Aeronautics records include the site review; he said the tower sits about 1,800 yards from an active runway and sought assurance that location paperwork is on file. Brett Mickelson of Skydive South Boston said his operation uses the railroad corridor for noise abatement and that a tower could force flight-path changes that would overfly residential neighborhoods.

Board members also pressed the applicants on standing and documentation: whether the landowner (identified in the hearing as Lydell Development) had signed authorization or whether the applicant’s 99-year lease and an authorization on file are sufficient for the board to consider variances. The applicant team said they would supplement the record with an owner authorization, a legal memorandum addressing applicant standing, RF/FAA materials, and answers to specific resident questions, and the board agreed to continue the hearing to the next meeting while staff reviews those filings.

The board asked the applicants to provide a clear fall-zone exhibit, copies of FAA and Mass. Aeronautics determinations, the alternative-site analysis included in the application, lighting and lightning-protection plans to satisfy the electrical inspector, and a complete list of alternate properties they considered before selecting 285 Holmes Street. No final vote was taken.