Share This Article
Following the defeat of Article 22—the proposed wireless service overlay district bylaw update—at this year’s Annual Town Meeting, the Sudbury Planning Board convened on Wednesday, May 13, and discussed how they might proceed. The consensus among board members was clear: the bylaw was torpedoed by incorrect information, bad timing, and a conflation of unrelated issues.
For now, the board has no immediate plans to bring the bylaw back to voters, opting instead to let the dust settle. However, the board took time during Wednesday’s meeting to clarify several key misunderstandings that dominated the Town Meeting debate.
Here is a breakdown of what the failed vote actually means for Sudbury residents moving forward.
The Real Impact of the Failed Vote
During Town Meeting, the discussion surrounding the wireless overlay update was heavily influenced by a separate, recent development regarding a proposed cell tower on Sudbury Water District land. Board members questioned if some vocal attendees derailed the bylaw vote by creating the mistaken appearance that shooting it down would prevent the Sudbury Water District tower.
The Planning Board corrected several misstatements during their May 13 discussion:
- Voting “No” Did Not Stop the Water District Tower: Board Chair Steve Garvin noted that just days before Town Meeting, the Sudbury Water District apparently signed a contract for a new cell tower. He felt this led to unfounded accusations on the floor that the Planning Board was “in cahoots” with the telecommunications industry. Board member Kirsten Roopenian expressed frustration that the two issues were conflated, stating that the Water District deal and the zoning bylaw update were “completely separate things.” Crucially, defeating the bylaw update does not stop a cell tower from being built on Sudbury Water District land. It just goes through the process outlined in the outdated wireless services overlay district bylaw.
- A “Variance” is Not Necessarily a Higher Standard: Some of the Town Meeting debate centered around the belief that forcing developers to seek a variance offers the town more protection than the special permit process proposed in the update. Garvin stated this was “completely misrepresented.” He pointed out that a variance goes on forever with the property, while a special permit acts more like a license directly with the applicant. By keeping the old variance system, the town is arguably giving up long-term control.
- Process and Transparency: The board defended their process and felt the public hearings they held over the course of four years were open, transparent, and welcoming of public input. Indeed, their meetings on this topic trace back many years.
- The Existing Bylaw Allows Towers Closer to Homes: Opponents of the update feared the new rules would loosen regulations on cell companies. Garvin pointed out the Planning Board was attempting to create a “tighter leash.” Without the updated bylaw, telecommunications companies will continue to operate under the Town’s existing, outdated regulations—which currently allow cell towers to be placed closer to residential houses than the defeated update would have permitted. Garvin noted this on the floor of Annual Town Meeting as well. “Increases setbacks from what the existing setbacks are. [It does] not decrease the setbacks. The one and a half dimension we put in was to make sure it had to be greater than the existing setback.” (55:55 below)
What Comes Next?
Despite the frustration of seeing four years of planning and public hearings dashed, the board agreed that attempting to force the issue again next year would be fruitless.
“I would volunteer that I would have no interest in bringing it back, certainly not next year,” said Board member John Sugrue, noting that the article failed to secure even a simple majority, let alone the two-thirds needed for a zoning change. “There’s no one beating down our door to put cell towers up… I don’t see any immediate reason [to try again].”
Board member Julie Zelermyer Perlman noted that while Town Meeting attendance was small and easily swayed by vocal opposition, there is still a “large contingent of people that really fundamentally support this” due to pervasive dead zones and dropped calls in town.
For now, the drafted bylaw is going in the drawer. If telecommunications companies approach the town in the near future, they will do so under the old rules, which still aren’t updated to meet the regulatory requirements of multiple federal laws.
That nuance may have been lost in all the Town Meeting noise, but Sudbury’s Planning Director, Adam Burney, did explain to the hall that they wanted to avoid appeals and forced locations of towers. Those can can happen if a local bylaw doesn’t comply with certain regulations or includes requirements that are not empirically “defensible.”
Sudbury’s cell coverage woes will likely persist for quite some time with or without the bylaw. At least insofar as there isn’t a long line of tower companies proposing Sudbury projects, and there hasn’t been for years. If that changes, then Town Meeting may have a newfound appetite for a bylaw update that increases local control, setbacks and compliance with regulations.
“If no one comes [before the Planning Board to propose a tower]… maybe it’s much ado about nothing, as Bill Shakespeare once said,” Garvin concluded. “But if they come before us… I think that might also help people understand what the object was, and what the master planning was.”
Here’s the presentation that Burney delivered on the floor of Annual Town Meeting: