Eastern Tower - Decision
Decision on Petition for a Special Permit
Requested by Eastern Tower LLC
A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeal was held Tuesday, April 23,
2002 at 7:00 p.m. at 191 Cabot Street, Beverly City Hall, Beverly, Massachusetts. The
agenda included a petition by Eastern Tower LLC regarding property located at 376 Hale
Street (the “Parcel”). The petition requests a Special Permit “to allow installation of a
95-foot monopole tower/antenna. All equipment will be located on the ground, in ground
structures (4) 10 feet by 20 feet.” The property is located in an R-90 Zoning District.
The Public Hearing on this petition opened on March 26, 2002. The meeting was
called to order by the Chairman Scott D. Houseman. The following five members of the
Board were present: full members Scott D. Houseman, Mark Schmidt, Scott Ferguson,
Margaret O’Brien and alternate member John Colucci. Andrea Fish was absent, having
left the meeting early. The hearing was continued to April 23, 2002 in order for the
Board to get more information.
The April 23, 2002 public meeting of the Board was called to order by the
Chairman Scott D. Houseman. The following five members of the Board were present:
full members Scott D. Houseman, Mark Schmidt, Scott Ferguson, Margaret O’Brien and
alternate member John Colucci. Andrea Fish and alternate member Jane Brusca were in
attendance but not voting.
The public hearing on this application started with the Zoning Clerk, Diane
Rogers, reading the application to the public and the Board members reviewing the
application materials that show the locations and zoning of the Parcel and the proposed
tower/antenna.
At both the March and April meetings, Mr. Matthew Sanford of 266 Hale Street
spoke on his own behalf. He indicated that the proposed site for the tower is on the
grounds of Endicott College located at the baseball field. The idea of the tower is to
blend in with the existing 75 high poles that hold the lights for the field.
In March, he answered several questions concerning the details of the application,
including how many antenna was the tower designed to carry (four of them), how high
the tower would be (95 feet with a 5 foot lightning arrester), and where the auxiliary
equipment would be located (at the base of the tower, one equipment shed per antenna).
1
In April, Mr. Sanford discussed the results of the balloon test that he conducted
that the Board required of him. He commented that several members of the Board were
present as well as some of the public. He stated that the balloon was raised to 100 feet,
the extra height having been added to account how the wind might affect the balloon’s
altitude. He submitted photographs of the balloon test. He added that he traveled around
the city, from Boyles Street to Cross Streets and Common Lane and back to Beverly
Farms, and the balloon could not be seen. Mr. Sanford said that the balloon could be
seen from the entrance of Endicott College on Hale Street. He confirmed that the tower
was not required to be, nor would it be, have any lights on it, day or night
Chairman Houseman asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to
comment on this petition. In March, Joanne Avallon of Boyles Street, expressed concern
about where in the city the tower could be seen. She requested some assurance on this
point. In April, Rene Mary of 274 Hale Street asked if this proposal would go before the
Conservation Commission because of the wetlands on the site. Building Commissioner
Timothy Brennan responded that before a building permit is issued, the applicant would
have to file with the Conservation Commission. Ms. Mary commented that there were a
few neighbors that could see the balloon from their property but that they are not in
attendance tonight. Ward 6 City Councilor Jack Murray stated that he has spoken with a
couple of abutters, that they were not in favor of this petition, but they were not present.
He added that from the harbor in Salem, Independence Park and Dane Street, the balloon
was seen, especially at night. Councilor Murray added that riding in the vehicle you
might not see the balloon. Mr. Sanford stated that because of the leaves on the trees, very
few homes along Hale Street would be able to see the tower. Mr. Houseman asked Mr.
Sanford for a copy of the newspaper article stated when the balloon test would be
conducted. Mr. Sanford responded that he did not have the article with him currently but
would submit a copy to the Board.
The members then questioned the petitioner. They made observations and
obtained answers regarding the criteria upon which findings must be made in order for
the Board to grant a Special Permit. This discussion is summarized as follows: Mr.
Ferguson said he spoke with as many as 12 students from Endicott College when he as on
campus during the balloon test. All of them were in favor of having the tower erected so
they could get better cell phone service on campus. He said the balloon actually flew 108
feet high because he made sure some additional length was added to the test line beyond
the 100 feet. He added that the only visual impact of the tower, in his estimation, would
be to the campus at Landmark School. Ms. O’Brien commented that she observed the
test and that she believed the visual impact to be minimal. She added that she did not
believe that the tower could be visible during the day and that she has no objections to
this petition.
Mr. Houseman pointed out that a balloon test had been performed by the
applicant, at the Board’s insistence, that public notification of the test had been made, and
that in his opinion the Board had acted effectively to give the public and the Board
members the ability to make an informed decision concerning the application. He stated
that he too was at the balloon test and drove around Beverly and could not see the
2
balloon, except from the main entrance to the college on Hale Street. He stated that the
visual impacts on the neighborhood would be minimal and added that regarding cell
towers, this is one of the better locations that he has seen. Mr. Houseman added that if
there were objections from a couple of neighbors, they nevertheless had not shown up to
express them. He raised the issuesof whether the applicant should post a bond to assure
removal of the tower when it was no longer used and whether the Board wished to deal
with any other factors to protect the public’s interest in the nature or maintenance of the
tower. The Board did not want to address these issues.
The Board incorporated its observations as its general findings of fact and made
the following specific findings about the proposed tower/antenna: (1) that the specific site
is an appropriate location for the proposed tower, and that the character of the adjoining
uses will not be adversely affected based upon the plans submitted and the
representations of the applicant, including that the tower will not be lit; (2) that no factual
evidence was introduced or found that property values in the district will be adversely
affected; (3) that no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result; (4)
that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and
maintenance of the tower; (5) that there are no valid objections from abutting property
owners based on demonstrable fact; and (6) that adequate and appropriate City services
are available for the proposed tower.
Following the questioning and discussion, on a motion made by Mr. Schmidt and
seconded by Mr. Ferguson to adopt the findings, which are based on and incorporate the
plans submitted with the application, and allow the application. The Board voted 5-0 to
GRANT the motion and the special permit.
Appeals from the Board’s decision on this petition may be filed in accordance
with the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 17, within twenty (20) days of filing
of this decision with the City Clerk. This decision shall not be valid unless recorded at
the Essex County Registry of Deeds in Salem, Massachusetts after the twenty-say appeal
period has passed without an appeal being filed.
Respectfully,
Scott D. Houseman
Zoning Board Chairman
3