ROCKLAND — In a 3 - 0 vote, with one abstention, an application to construct a cell tower on Camden Street in Rockland was denied by the Rockland Planning Board, Tuesday, Feb. 18. The applicant’s lawyer, however, has mentioned the right to appeal the vote in federal court, according to Board Chair Erik Laustsen.

Despite the absence of two board members and the abstaining of a third member during the vote at the three-hour meeting, the Rockland Planning Board still held the quorum necessary to deny construction of a 120-foot monopole within the Camden Street Commercial Corridor Overlay Zone.

Six or seven years ago, a group of Rockland residents created specific language for that area in an effort to create a downtown-like shopping atmosphere with storefronts close to the road, according to Laustsen. That language requires a maximum – not minimum – setback of 10 feet, as well as varying setbacks, varying heights, window treatments, and structural and decorative elements to reduce apparent size and scale of all structures. 

In the five years following approval of the downtown-like language, this monopole application is the first that the Planning Board has received, according to Laustsen. And, though, in general, the Board works with applicants to help them get to a point where applications meet approval, in this case, the Board saw no way for revision. 

One of the reasons the application came before the Planning Board is for the Board’s ability to approve Special Class exceptions. Bay Communications, the company that filed the application, sought special approval for its 120-foot tower at 182 Camden Street. Usually towers are maxed at approximately 75 feet, according to Laustsen.

“We determined that screening of the tower was virtually impossible,” he said, “unless they planted full-grown sequoia trees or something.”

Other smaller issues that added to the denial included landscaping that didn’t meet requirements, as well as a lack of a proper stormwater study within the 15-page application. 

“They did bring up the possibility that they still could go to the federal court,” he said.

Bay Communications’ attorney Jonathan Springer maintained that Camden Street overlay zone doesn’t apply to them for two reasons, according to Laustsen. 

A perspective from the audience:

One vocal opponent of the proposed Camden Street cell tower that was denied by Rockland Planning Board, Tuesday, Feb. 18, was Rockland resident Ananur Forma. Forma was in attendance for the meeting and has shared her description of the three-hour affair and its results with the Pen Bay Pilot.

“This cell tower has actually brought us together – the people in my neighborhood,” she said. “Having walked around and talked to people numerous times, telling them when the next Planning Board meeting is, I met a lot of wonderful people.”

After the vote, people were yelling and hugging, she said.

“It was wonderful,” she said. “It’s very exciting.”

Forma lives in Pen Bay Acres, which includes 100 houses located behind the proposed tower site.

Many of those neighbors returned to City Hall for the third meeting regarding the cell tower, filling the room with about 80% of the audience that had gathered for the January meeting.

“It was a pretty good turnout for snow and ice,” she said.

The audience and Board listened as a formal independent appraisal of the neighborhood and comparison to other localities, including Benner Hill, which already has a cell tower, yet is located on a higher hill far from the city’s urban region.

In comparing multiple locations, some with cell towers, the appraiser monitored the fluctuation of property values and rate of people moving away.

With Pen Bay Acres unique features, many in the audience felt that the comparisons were not realistic to their houses and waterfront views, according to Forma.

For them, the appraisal that was requested as a counter to the appraisals provided by Bay Communications was too standard, and not representative to their situation.

Still, the audience members had their reasons to be there, even if those reasons weren’t repeated, due to the Board Chair’s request that those who’ve already spoken refrain from doing so again.

One who did speak again was the mother of seven children, one of which has a heart condition, and a house on the market. In November, around the time the family posted their house, the tower application became public. No offers came forth, and the fear mounted that radiation emissions would affect the child’s heart condition. During the February meeting, the mother spoke again to say that she’d received an offer on the house – pending the Planning Board’s decision.

The next day, Forma drove to the mothers house to offer a genuine word of congratulations.

The Planning Board found legal reasons to deny a cell tower application. And though the attorney for Bay Communications conducted himself this time as less difficult to listen to and “seemed a little more human,” according to Forma, that attorney, Jonathan Springer, sited legalities as well.

“The bottom line is, everyone [in the neighborhood] cares more about their health than money,” she said. “We’re pretending to say we care about property values – which of course, we do – but if we all get cancer and go insane, what good is it?”

The first reason is due to a zoning map on the wall at City Hall that was never updated. A provision in a local ordinance states that the map must be updated within 30 days, and that there must be a special file kept, which has never happened.

“Our contention is.... the Planning Board doesn’t have the authority to dismiss it [review of the application] because things technically weren’t done properly,” said Laustsen. 

The other reason is based on the 1996 FCC guidelines that prohibit consideration of health and environmental concerns when considering cell towers. 

As well, according to Laustsen, “if the applicant can state that there’s no possibility of a tower going in from Maverick Street to the Rockport town line, our zoning could actually be overturned.” 

Until the federal government makes that decision, the Rockland Planning Board will continue to follow their policy, which is that the overlay zone language prevails when interpretation is conflicted.

“We did what we could, and now it’s a matter of what fate will fall on us,” he said.

Reach Sarah Thompson at news@penbaypilot.com