The proposal for installing nine wireless antennas on B Street became the focal point of the meeting. During the discussion, significant opposition emerged from the local community, primarily due to apprehensions about health risks and the perceived lack of adequate community involvement. Residents and representatives from neighborhood offices expressed their unease over the antennas’ visibility and potential health impacts, particularly on families with small children living nearby. Sigy Johnson from the Office of Neighborhood Services highlighted the concerns raised during community engagement efforts, noting that requests for alternative site evaluations had not been addressed.

A resident who lives directly across from the proposed site shared personal concerns, emphasizing the discomfort of living near the antennas, especially as a parent. These sentiments were echoed by other residents who questioned the necessity and public benefit of the installation. The project’s perceived violation of building height regulations further fueled the debate, with plans to increase the structure’s height from 62 to 70 feet drawing sharp criticism.

In response to the community’s outcry, the applicant and their representatives addressed the board. They contended that the project met zoning ordinances, asserting that the antennas would be concealed to blend with the building’s brick facade, thus minimizing street visibility. Donald Hayes, an independent consultant in non-ionizing radiation, provided insights into the health implications, referencing a study by Fox Hill Telecom. Hayes assured the board that the project would adhere to federal exposure limits, stating there was no risk of public exposure exceeding regulatory standards.

Despite assurances, residents remained skeptical, citing a lack of transparency and the need for further dialogue. The board deliberated extensively, weighing the community’s fears against the technical compliance presented by the applicant. Ultimately, a motion was passed to approve the proposal, provided the antennas would be concealed from street view, but not without a dissenting vote from one board member.

The meeting also addressed several administrative deferrals and extensions. A deferral for case BOA 159 9326 concerning 46 High Street was granted to allow more time for negotiations with abutters. Similarly, deferrals for cases involving 13 Windship Street, 81 Lexington Street, and D Street were approved to accommodate additional documentation and plan revisions from the Inspectional Services Department (ISD). The board acknowledged the frustration expressed by architects and representatives over delays in receiving necessary documents from ISD, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and timely responses.

Another notable case discussed was BOA 155 2298, concerning a property on Dudley Street. The applicant sought to divide a large unit into two smaller ones, continuing from a previously approved 2019 plan. Support from abutters was noted, with praise for the applicant’s reputation as good neighbors. However, due to incomplete documentation, the board decided to defer the proposal until January 14.