The most notable topic of the meeting was the presentation by Fran Paresi, an attorney representing Atlantic Tower LLC, about plans for a cell tower at One Cook Road. Paresi laid out the proposal for a 160-foot monopole structure, designed to enhance wireless infrastructure in underserved areas. He explained that the project aimed to use the existing access driveway with minimal tree removal and would require a waiver from the zoning bylaw due to its height. A point of discussion was the visibility of the tower, with Paresi committing to a visibility demonstration to assess its impact on the surrounding landscape. The tower’s proximity to high-tension power lines in East Hampton prompted further dialogue about its integration with existing infrastructure.

Richard Harris, a consultant for the planning board, elaborated on the board’s responsibilities during the pre-application process. He emphasized the need to ensure the tower meets necessary criteria, such as maintaining a two-mile distance from the nearest tower. Harris highlighted the importance of determining whether a peer review is warranted, referencing a beneficial peer review from 2015. Paresi and Harris discussed the timeline for the application’s submission.

The board also considered a proposed peer review of the cell tower project, drawing parallels to reviews conducted in Ashefield. Concerns were raised about camouflaging the tower and its placement on the property, with the peer reviewer endorsing the proposed fall set-back as reasonable. The need for the tower was affirmed, citing insufficient coverage from existing structures. A participant noted the existence of a well-concealed cell tower on Route 10 north of Valley Road, which had gone unnoticed despite living in the area for over a decade.

The board discussed engaging the Division of Fish and Game, an abutter to the proposed site, to gain insights into potential environmental impacts. The chair confirmed that the division had been notified and would be included in the planning process, emphasizing compliance with federal and environmental regulations to mitigate impacts on wildlife and historic resources. A question arose regarding whether the environmental review would be available for town review, with the chair affirming the town’s right to require this information during the permitting process.

Additionally, the board reviewed comments on a draft for a senior bylaw, presented by the general bylaw committee. The comments highlighted areas needing revision, such as clarity in phrases and potential formatting issues. Questions emerged about the criteria for altering scenic roads and whether the bylaw should allow cutting healthy limbs for utility maintenance. Suggestions were made to move specific application requirements from the bylaw to planning rules and regulations, and to clarify criteria for stone walls. An incorrect reference to state law in the draft required correction, and confusion in some paragraphs prompted recommendations for clearer language.