Gates cell phone article opposed
Published on May 12th, 1999
STONEHAM MA - Although a majority of Town Meeting attendees voted in favor of adding to the town's established wireless communication district, article 21 on the warrant failed when a required two-thirds favorable vote was not achieved.
At Thursday night's continuation of the Annual Town Meeting, voters on both sides of the issue responded to the article which sought to add the Gates Condominiums on Marble Street to the district.
Article 21 originally called for adding to the wireless district any parcel of land abutting route 93, measuring at least three acres. In addition to the Gates, this criteria would have also been met by the Hillside Gardens apartment complex on Hill Street and the General Foods property.
In his motion, Attorney Charles Houghton amended the article to a more restrictive one and called for only the Gates to be added to the district.
Houghton explained that the 1996 Federal Communications Act mandated that cities and towns adopt a bylaw addressing wireless communication. The town subsequently adopted such in 1997 and also included provisions restricting the size of the antennas which serve to distribute the signal for cell phones.
"The purpose (of the article) is to add the Gates to the district," Houghton explained.
He described the Marble Street complex as a good location since the four-story building abuts route 93.
Since there is no detriment to the public good, Houghton said, inclusion into the district would also allow the Gates to obtain revenue from renting rooftop space to wireless businesses.
"It's a 30-year tax-paying entity (and)...99 percent owner occupied," said Houghton of the Gates.
Planning Board Chairman Stephen Catalano reported that while the Planning Board took a position for unfavorable recommendation to the article and the amendment, he advised that not all members were opposed.
"The Planning Board was concerned that this would be viewed as spot zoning since it only pertains to one parcel," he explained, but said that the vote was split among board members.
In addition, Catalano advised that a lengthy process was reviewed by the town in establishing the district, with many opportunities for public input.
"At no time did the Gates approach the Planning board with its desire to be included."
Despite the board's position, Catalano conceded his personal view was that the Gates' location is a good one for inclusion into the district, with minimal impact to the surrounding community.
"I think it is an appropriate place."
Spring Street resident Kathleen Sullivan reminded voters that the state attorney general is responsible for approving all zoning articles that pass at Town Meeting.
"If the attorney general thinks it is spot zoning, (she) will reject," she said.
In addition, Sullivan called the town's bylaw regarding wireless communication "very well written," taking into consideration the importance of aesthetics.
"Most residents don't even know they're there."
Opposition to the article was strong, however.
"I have a perfect view of every rooftop at the Gates," stated Hill Street resident Ann Gallagher, and said she was not in favor of looking out at cell phone antennas.
Rustic Road resident Jeanie Avola called the article a money-making proposition with the Gates residents as the sole beneficiaries.
"We should not be attempting to rezone the wireless communications district one parcel at a time," she said.
Likewise, Everett Street resident Kristen Russo opposed article 21 since the property directly abuts a residence A district.
"This sets a dangerous precedent...Please preserve our beautiful neighborhoods and keep wireless (communication) in the already zoned neighborhoods."
Sponsor of the article and twenty-year Gates resident Celia Schulhoff advised that anyone using a cell phone on the Stoneham network would benefit from the Gates' inclusion in the zone.
"It's a wonder when it works," she said, holding up a cell phone. But it's frustrating and even leads to panic for some when a cell phone is cut off from being outside a district, she added.
"We ... have to be ready for (cell phone) proliferation," she said of the current and future needs for the technology.
"There is a need...We believe it was an oversight to be left out of the original zoning," said Schulhoff, adding that the Gates' ideal location merits modification to the bylaw.
The 85 votes in favor were not enough to win a two-thirds majority over the 81 opposed.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!