Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable John Keenan, House Chair
The Honorable Benjamin Downing, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
State House, Boston
Dear Chairman Keenan, Chairman Downing, and Members of the Committee,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association is writing to express our strongest possible opposition to S. 1908, An Act Upgrading Mobile Broadband Coverage in the Commonwealth. This bill, as written, would completely undermine the well-established principle of local control of land use and zoning, and would have a negative impact on the character of communities across the state. The measure is extraordinarily broad and detrimental in scope and should not be moved forward.
The bill title sounds innocuous enough, but in reality S. 1908 is a radical proposal. The bill would establish a new chapter in the Massachusetts General Laws – Chapter 43F, Expedited Collocation Permitting. This chapter would allow a mobile broadband service provider to place or upgrade equipment used to provide wireless telecommunications services on or in existing structures capable of supporting them, or to collocate the equipment on existing facilities. These structures could include towers, buildings, water towers, and even homes – with no local government review. The expansion of these structures could add 20 feet of height or more to the supporting structure and could extend 20 feet or more horizontally to a monopole or tower – with apparently no limitation at all for other structures. And the definition of a qualifying structure in the bill seems to include every building or structure in the Commonwealth, except utility poles, in virtually any possible location or zoning district.
The bill removes all local authority to review environmental and aesthetic impacts of such a “collocation.” Historically, “collocation” has referred to siting telecommunications equipment on existing telecommunications structures. But not in S. 1908. The bill would redefine the traditional term “collocation” to mean new telecommunications structures on nearly any existing building or facility that could bear the weight. Thus, we believe the term is misleading as used in the bill. Facilities could be “collocated” in historic districts, as long as they weren’t placed on a structure directly listed on the national or state register of historic places. In addition, this bill would supersede the general rights-of-way ordinances that many municipalities have established to create a permitting process that must be completed before a third party can add structures or attachments to the rights-of-way. Municipalities would also have no recourse to ensure that as technology evolves, unused or abandoned facilities would be removed in the future. The wireless telecommunications provider would not need to comply with any local land use or zoning ordinances or bylaws, and would instead only need to comply with the local building code.
In short, S. 1908 would impose an unprecedented shift away from local control of land use and would subvert local authority in this critically important area. Clearly this industry-written measure envisions no role for the general public and fails to understand that citizens have a right to basic zoning protections that guarantee accountability on the part of developers.
Under this proposal, in order to obtain a “collocation” permit, a mobile broadband provider would merely need to submit an application to the appropriate issuing authority. The issuing authority, often a municipality or one of its boards, would have only 45 calendar days to review and act upon the “collocation” application. The issuing authority would be required to review the application and notify the applicant if the submission is incomplete within 15 days of its receipt. If the applicant is able to cure the deficiencies within 15 days of notification, the issuing authority would be required to act upon the application within the original 45-day timeframe. If the applicant requires more than 15 days to cure the deficiencies, then the deadline for review would be extended by a corresponding number of days. Essentially, industry could manipulate this process to give citizen boards only 15 days to act on any application. This is totally unreasonable and irresponsible.
The timetable presented is unrealistic and unworkable for municipalities. Most municipalities would require more time to review and act upon an application than the 45-day timeframe proposed in the legislation. Very few municipalities, if any, would be able to accommodate the extremely short timeframe created in the event that an applicant submits a deficient application, and then submits a revised application on the 15th day after notification – as noted above, this scenario would effectively leave a municipality with a mere 15 days to review and act upon a complete application. All other zoning applications must be complete upon submission, and yet this bill would create a special class for wireless facilities with a permitting timeline that would be hugely burdensome for municipalities. If a municipality failed to meet the requisite deadlines for action, the collocation application would be considered approved. This irresponsible automatic approval would remove local control and in no way benefit the community.
Furthermore, an issuing authority, in the course of the application review process, would be statutorily prohibited from requesting information relative to the need for the permit, and it would not be allowed to evaluate the application based on the availability of other potential locations. It would not be able to regulate the type of wireless facilities, infrastructure, or technology used in the collocation. If a municipality needed a technical consultant to review the application, the municipality would not be allowed to assess the applicant a fee of more than $500 to pay for the consultation. The narrowly constructed parameters of this process are clearly not in the municipal or public interest.
The cities and towns of the Commonwealth support expanding and upgrading wireless telecommunications services throughout the state for the benefit of consumers, but the expansion simply cannot come at the expense of well-established local control of land use and zoning that protects the quality of life for residents. We urge to Committee to reject this anti-consumer, anti-community bill, and issue an unfavorable report as swiftly as possible.
Thank you very much for the important work you do on a wide range of issues that impact our cities and towns. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your office contact me or Catherine Rollins of the MMA staff at 617-426-7272 at any time.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA