The meeting’s most debate centered on the proposed construction of a 150-foot monopole telecommunications tower on Home Street. Representing Industrial Tower and Wireless LLC, attorney Alexandria Casaldo presented the proposal, which sought several dimensional variances from the existing zoning bylaws. The primary concern was the tower’s proximity to property lines, with the proposal calling for variances from the required setbacks. The northern property line, adjacent to an MBTA commuter rail, necessitated an 84.2-foot variance, while similar variances were sought for other setback lines.

Kevin Delaney, the vice president of site acquisition and development, expanded on the proposal, highlighting the tower’s potential to bridge a 2.7-mile gap in wireless service, crucial for residents and first responders along Route 36. He detailed the project’s minimal anticipated traffic impact post-construction and the configuration of the 2.52-acre industrial lot. The facility is set to host multiple carriers, including Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile.

However, the discussion quickly turned to the absence of the property owner, identified as holding a 99-year lease with Industrial Tower and Wireless. Concerns were raised about the legitimacy of proceeding without the owner’s direct involvement, as well as the primary use of the property, which needed clarification before approving a secondary use like the tower. Some attendees insisted on the owner’s presence to address these issues.

The debate also focused on safety and regulatory compliance. Questions arose about the tower’s fall zone, the implications of its proximity to nearby train tracks, and the potential impact on local flight paths, particularly for skydiving operations. Additionally, the board discussed compliance with federal and state regulations, including those from the FAA and Mass Aeronautics Commission, given the tower’s proximity to an airport runway. Verizon’s representative assured attendees that RF emissions from the tower would comply with FCC limits, addressing health concerns related to electromagnetic exposure.

The board resolved to table the discussion, emphasizing the need for additional information and the property owner’s participation. A motion was made to revisit the topic in the following month’s meeting, allowing for a review of the relevant documentation and legal considerations.

Equally contentious was the debate over a request to build on a lot at zero Cedar Lane, previously deemed non-buildable due to wet soil conditions. A representative from town counsel clarified that while the lot had been classified as such, it could still qualify for construction if it met zoning requirements. The history of the lot’s classification was scrutinized, with one speaker arguing that the owners had created their own hardship by subdividing the property, making it unbuildable. The speaker pointed to public records and contended that the owners’ request for a buildable status contradicted their earlier claims for tax purposes.

Board members deliberated on the implications of a previous tax abatement granted for the lot, noting that the current owner had not benefitted from past exemptions. There was a consensus that further investigation was needed, specifically into the property’s ownership timeline and changes. Neighbors voiced concerns about the potential impact of construction, particularly regarding flooding risks and the house’s proximity to their homes.

The board agreed to table the matter for 30 days, emphasizing the need for clarity and thorough investigation before any decision could be made. During this period, they aimed to gather more information regarding the property’s history, ownership details, and the community’s concerns.