Left In Lowell

My back yard is your back yard!

16 Responses to “My back yard is your back yard!”

1. Kim Says:
   May 1st, 2011 at 8:23 pm

   I take real concern with changing the TSF zoning to allow this. In my neighborhood we have a Tewksbury developer that wants a Lowell TSF zoned lot (on the town line) to be used for parking spaces for his apartment complex that he plans to build with a comprehensive permit on his Tewksbury land. We need to be real careful with setting a precedent on our TSF zoning.

2. Kim Says:
   May 1st, 2011 at 10:20 pm

   Ooops I missed that it was a SP zoning for telecommunications. So we can not have a radio or tv tower, I can not open a call center in my home, I can not have a storage unit over 120sf but we can get cell towers. I will not argue health issues and you can call me a NIMBY all day long but why not put these in areas that are not TSF?? $$$$$$$$$

3. Adam Baacke Says:
   May 2nd, 2011 at 11:46 am

   For better or worse, the Federal Telecommunications Act prohibits municipalities from completely prohibiting wireless telecommunications facilities like cell phone towers in ANY location. The reason for this was that in 1996 Congress was eager to see this new technology expanded and feared that local opposition could prevent the construction of the network of towers and antennas needed to provide the service we now all enjoy.

   As a result, the City’s Zoning Ordinance allows these facilities on a case by case basis with a special permit in all zones, with as many restrictions and design parameters as we can reasonably require under the terms of the Telecommunications Act. The issue before the Zoning Board is not a rezoning and does not propose any changes to the TSF Zoning District in general. It is the special permit hearing for a particular cell tower proposal.

4. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   May 2nd, 2011 at 12:35 pm

   What can happen in urban areas is that cell towers can be and are incorporated into existing structures so that the eye sore that Mimi talks about is not visible. There is a cell tower at Fenway Park…ever see it? Adam is correct that the federal government does allow construction of cell towers over municipal objections, but instead of fighting the tower itself look for a way to make it part of the landscape. I have seen such towers ‘camouflaged’ as trees etc.

   Unfortunately Mimi is right, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If we want to keep taxes down, not cut services and be able to use our cell phones without dead spots, then the tower is a win-win in that it generates money and lets you text needlessly!

   You could also look at their proposed coverage map and see if an alternative location would be better suited to keeping everyone happy

5. joe from Lowell Says:
   May 2nd, 2011 at 1:40 pm

   They’re not changing the zoning, Lynne. This is a use allowed by SP in the TSF zone.

   Now, the question about the use of park land - that’s an interesting one. Let me throw this out there: I think some commercial use in parks is good. I love to buy an ice cream and walk across Pawtucket Street to that waterfront park. If there were, say, a couple of vendors permitted to operate snack carts at Shedd Park, I’d love that, too.

6. joe from Lowell Says:
   May 2nd, 2011 at 1:40 pm

   Er, Mimi, that is.

7. Lynne Says:
   May 2nd, 2011 at 3:04 pm

   Well, Mimi, since you’re an AT&T customer you ought to look at whether AT&T is looking at making their local service better. As a Sprint customer, I already got my good 4G wireless coverage so you know, I’m pretty set. If you had bought a REAL phone…

   (Yeah, a silly tongue in cheek swipe at an iPhone user from an Android adherent, what else did you expect?? Heh. Mimi knows I’m kidding.)

8. Mimi Says:
   May 2nd, 2011 at 8:25 pm

   Lynne, hah, hah, hah. I still love my IPhone, although we are not quite 4G yet.

9. Mimi Says:
   May 2nd, 2011 at 8:28 pm

   UPDATE:

   Lost round 1. Vote was 4 - 1 (thank-you Steve Gendron). The public hearing lasted well over 2 hour. On to the ZBA meeting next Monday. This is not going to be an easy fight but I am determined to show people the errors of their way.

10. Magnolia Says:
    May 3rd, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    My opinion - these thing are just plug-ugly and I wouldn’t want one in my neighborhood- I don’t care what part of the city anyone is in.

11. joe from Lowell Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    You know what else is ugly?

    Telephone poles and power lines.

    Take a look at your street. Wouldn’t it be prettier if there were no utility poles, and no lines running across the front of the houses?

    Yes, yes it would. And yet…

12. Mimi Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    Joe:

    Right now my street looks like your street. What I am asking is why is my residential neighborhood singled out? If DPD is willing to start putting cell towers throughout the City on all of its parks, then I do not mind doing my fair share.

13. joe from Lowell Says:
    May 6th, 2011 at 11:36 am

    It’s about cell coverage, Mimi. The location of towers is determined by need, which is determined by the physics of cell-antenna transmission, and the location of users.

    Surely, you aren’t proposing that cell towers that serve no useful purpose be put in other people’s neighborhoods?

14. Mimi Says:
    May 7th, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Joe:

    This particular cell tower is going to serve those on 495 driving by our City. No, I do not suggest that “useless” cell towers be put up in neighborhoods, that is why I do not want one in my neighborhood.

15. joe from Lowell Says:
    May 7th, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    Mimi,

    Do Lowellians never use 495?

    But more importantly, what kind of an attitude is that for a liberal? What if someone from Westford said that about affordable housing?

16. Prince Charming Says:
    May 8th, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    I do believe that this cell tower was slated for the old 1400 Motors until the neighbors objected. I think it’s good practice for the city to raise revenue and yes, I have a cell tower within 100 yards of the castle.

Leave a Reply