SEEKONK - The proposed addition of antennas to a cell phone tower has re-ignited a slew of controversy between residents and members of the zoning board. At a recent meeting, residents who live next to the tower came out to protest both the antennas and the conduct of the zoning board.

This was not the first time the issue had come before Seekonk's Zoning Board. The same residents have been unsuccessfully fighting the construction of the cell phone tower and additions made to it since the process began in 1996. Their main concerns were that the tower lowered their property values because it was an unsightly structure and made a constant humming noise.

"It's an eyesore. It hums away in the summertime. It'll make you nuts," said resident Mark Blaise.

They were also afraid of potential health risks these types of towers could pose to residents who live around them. For that reason, they argued that the towers were more suited to open areas or industrial parks than dense residential areas.

"They don't put these in people's back yards," said resident Ginger Denney.

Meeting woes

The larger part of the controversy stemmed from an illegal meeting that the board held on the topic on Jan. 31. The meeting had been originally scheduled to take place Jan. 21, but was canceled because of snow. Board members decided to reschedule the meeting for Jan. 31, but they failed to give adequate notice according to the town's open meeting laws. Seekonk stipulates all meetings should be announced at least two weeks prior to the date they occur. The meeting announcement was published on Jan 29 – the Saturday before the Monday meeting. Meeting notice was also posted at town hall on that date.

The board found in favor of the petitioners proposal to add antennas to the tower at that meeting. But when residents received notice that a decision had been made several weeks after it had taken place they were in shock. They felt the board's actions were an attempt to silence their input on the topic. By filing the decision so many weeks after the decision had been made, residents suspected they were also trying to quash any chance they might have to appeal the case in superior court. They said that many judges required that an appeal to take place 21 days after the meeting was held. They calculated that they received notice of the decision 18 days after it took place.

Preventing an appeal

"In essence they bluntly violated the town's open meeting law, and delayed the decision until there was virtually no time left to file an appeal," said Mr. Blaise.

Despite the time constraints, residents took quick action against the zoning decision. Ms. Denney contacted the District Attorney's Office on the Friday she received notice. She also contacted the interim town administrator with her concerns, hoping for some sort of reconciliation. She wanted the members of the zoning board to resign.

After consulting with the town's counsel, zoning board members and the board of selectmen decided that the Jan 31 meeting was indeed illegal and effectively nullified any actions taken there.

At the most recent meeting, zoning board member Gary Sagar said that the illegal meeting was not held with any malicious intent, but was rather a simple mistake on the part of zoning board members. He said he was not clear that rescheduling a postponed meeting so close to its original date was in violation of town law. He took full responsibility for the mistake in a letter he read aloud at the meeting.

"This effort was an attempt to accommodate an unforeseen event and I apologize for that," said Mr. Sagar.

Zoning board strikes back

Despite this apology, he noted that he had been appalled by the behavior of the residents. He claimed that the residents had severely disrespected officials at town hall when they had come to voice their complaints that Friday. Accordingly, he had his personal attorney send letters to the residents demanding their apology for the comments they'd made.

"Their language was inflammatory and further demonstrates malice," said Mr. Sagar.

Residents responded angrily to Mr. Sagar's letter

"We did not say anything malicious. There was nothing reckless or untruthful in what I wrote. If you are angry, so am I. But the taxpayers are the injured party," said Ms. Denney.

"As a result of our attentiveness you are now trying to use the threat of what is tantamount to a slap suit to try and intimidate us into backing off," she said.

Residents claimed that the initial decision to approve construction of the tower in 1997 was made despite legal documents that specifically prevented the installation of this sort of structure on the property, which would normally be considered too small. According to them, the documents had been suspiciously lost before that hearing. They complained that, now that the tower was installed, it was easy for cell phone companies to get permission to add antennas to the structure. Even if the town ruled against these additions, because the Federal Communications Act guaranteed that every provider have equal access to airwaves, all these companies had to do was prove they had a gap in coverage and superior court would overturn their decision. This had happened twice since the tower was constructed.

The residents were skeptical the board would be able to make the right decision.

"If they support the tax payers and vote against the petitioner, Verizon will take it to court. If we try to fight them in court it will cost the town a lot of money. With a competent attorney we may be able to finally approve that the initial decision to grant Verizon the right to build on that undersized lot was illegal. But heads will roll," said Ms. Denney.

BY CHARLOTTE O'DONNELL

codonnell@eastbaynewspapers.com