234 Bridge Street-Cellular Infrastructure on Light Pole
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Board; Salem Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Victoria Caldwell, Asst. City Solicitor
CC: Kate Newhall Smith, Principal Planner; Tom Daniel, Director
RE: 234 Bridge Street, Cell Attachment
DATE: November 4, 2021
As you know, Verizon originally petitioned to have a cell attachment placed on a City-owned streetlamp
at 234 Bridge Street, a location within the boundaries of the City’s urban renewal plan. The Design
Review process and SRA project approvals are mandatory for all non-public projects within the
boundaries of the Salem Downtown Renewal Plan, including the review of plans for all private
improvements for buildings and sites and those aspects of proposed projects related to the objectives of
the Salem Downtown Renewal Plan. Verizon requested the location to provide for enhanced data
capacity, capacity that the City has advocated that Verizon provide, due to public safety needs around
the MBTA station.
In response to aesthetic concerns raised by the Design Review Board, Verizon agreed to review the
possibility of moving the attachment across the street, to 1 Washington Street, and placing it on a traffic
signal light. After much work and expense, Verizon submitted revised plans to site the attachment on
the traffic light at 1 Washington Street. The DRB and SRA reviewed the revised project and
recommended the placement at the new 1 Washington Street location. Verizon submitted this
recommendation along with the revised plans with its petition to the City Council for a grant of location
in the public right of way as required by Mass. General Laws Chapter 166, Section 22. After a public
hearing, on October 28, 2021, the Council voted 10 – 0 to approve the 234 Bridge Street location rather
than the 1 Washington Street location recommended by the DRB and SRA.
Pursuant to the terms of the SRA’s approval (Small Project Review – SRA 21-20) of the DRB’s
recommendation to site the attachment at the traffic signal at 1 Washington Street, the applicant must
return to the DRB and SRA for review of the plans to place the attachment at 234 Bridge Street, as the
project cannot be completed as presented. Given that 1 Washington Street is no longer an option due to
the Council’s vote, the DRB and SRA review must be limited solely to a review of the proposed design for
the streetlight at 234 Bridge Street.
Under the FCC regulations for small cells, recently upheld in City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d
1020 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2855 (2021), such review may involve “reasonable”
aesthetic considerations, provided they are published in advance, but they cannot be such that it would
“prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” the placement of the attachment at the location permitted
Type text here
2
by the Council. Failure to permit an attachment here could result in a finding that the City has
effectively prohibited wireless service in violation of Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the
federal Telecommunications Act.
Design Review Board Recommendation
234 Bridge Street
Small Project Review – Revised proposal for installation of cellular infrastructure on decorative
light pole
Meeting Date: November 18, 2021
Members Present: Paul Durand, Chair, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Catherine Miller, J. Michael
Sullivan
Members Absent: Marc Perras, Helen Sides
Decision: At a regular meeting of the Design Review Board (DRB), upon a motion duly made and
seconded, it was unanimously voted to recommend approval of the proposed project as designed and
conditioned herein.
Referenced Plans and Documents
1. Plan Set titled ‘Fluted Steel Pole #234 Light Post 234 Bridge Street’, prepared by B+T GRP, 1717 S
Border Avenue, #300, Tulsa, OK, 74119, dated 2/17/19.
2. Comments from Patricia Kelleher, Preservation Planner, dated 12/2/20.
3. Comments from Victoria Caldwell, Assistant City Solicitor, dated 11/4/21.
4. Staff Comments dated 11/10/21.
Conditions of Approval: The DRB recommends incorporating the following conditions:
1. Consistency with Approved Design/Plans: Should the applicant determine that the project may
not be completed as presented and conditioned herein, he/she/they shall return to the DRB to
review proposed modifications prior to making any changes in the field.
Findings
1. The Board thanked the applicant for his continued cooperation and understanding as the project
was reviewed by the various City entities.
2. Board members found that while the location is not desirable due to its high visibility and the
fact that the installation will create a visual interruption in the series of decorative light posts
that line Bridge Street, they appreciate the applicant’s efforts at blending the infrastructure into
the environment by ensuring that all components are black.
Signature of the DRB: By the signature below, I certify that this recommendation accurately reflects the
actions of the Design Review Board.
_______________________________________ _________
Paul Durand Date
Chair
11/22/2021
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
TOM DANIEL, AICP
DIRECTOR
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE: 978-619-5685 ♦ FAX: 978-740-0404
MEMO
To: Mason Wells, Staff Planner
From: Patti Kelleher, Preservation Planner
Date: December 2, 2020
RE: Request for Grant of Location for Cell Antenna Attachment
I have reviewed the request from Verizon Wireless for the installation of a cell attachment to an existing light pole
at 234 Bridge Street. As part of the review for cell attachments, a determination must be made that the attachments
will not impact the city’s historic resources. Therefore, I have reviewed the submitted plans and offer the following
comments:
• While the light pole at 234 Bridge Street is outside of the boundaries of the Downtown Salem National
Register District, it is adjacent to the Salem Railroad Signal Tower (1927, SAL.3579), which has been
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the First Universalist Church
(1808, SAL.2432), which is individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, is located across
the street from this pole.
• This light pole may be within the boundaries of the Urban Renewal Area, which could require review by
the Salem Redevelopment Authority.
• The selected light pole is in a highly visible location at the intersection of Bridge and Washington Streets.
This decorative light pole was installed during a previous improvement project on Bridge Street and is an
historically-appropriate design that is carried throughout the Bridge Street entrance corridor. The proposal
to install a 5’ tall steel pole and a 2’-9” antenna onto the existing pole would extend the height of the light
pole almost 7 feet. In addition, the proposal would install a 22” wide x 48” tall equipment box to the side
of the pole, which extend beyond the width of the pole. These additions would be visually intrusive at the
entrance to the historic downtown and would diminish the investment the City has made to improve Bridge
Street.
Based on the above findings, I recommend an alternative location be selected to minimize impacts on adjacent
historic resources and the historic downtown and to be less visually conspicuous at this busy intersection. If an
alternative location cannot be used, then the pole mounted equipment enclosure should be placed as high as
possible on the pole (it is currently positioned at 8’ above grade) and on the least obtrusive side of the pole (which
may be difficult due to pole’s location on an intersection). Staff also recommends that all attachments be painted
black to match the color and finish of the light pole. The Historical Commission often requires property owners to
paint vents and pipes in a finish to match color of building.
1
Kathryn Newhall-Smith
From:Dan Klasnick <dklasnick@dkt-legal.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 11:01 AM
To:Kathryn Newhall-Smith
Subject:RE: SRA review dates
Hi Kate,
Good morning. I have inquired about the availability of further manufacturer specifications for the
replacement light post. While further manufacturer specifications are not available, Verizon Wireless
did include a detailed schematic and photographic representation of the replacement light post on
Sheet L-2.. That same plan set is attached to the Small Wireless Facilities License Agreement that
Verizon Wireless entered into with the City for the replacement of the light post and installation of the
small cell equipment. Verizon Wireless has committed to installing a light post that will match the
appearance of the existing light post to the extent possible with consideration of the depicted features
to accommodate the small cell equipment.
I hope that my response is helpful. Have a great day!
Thanks, Dan
________________________
Daniel D. Klasnick, Esq.
Duval & Klasnick LLC
Counselors at Law
dklasnick@dkt-legal.com
Direct Dial: (781) 873-0021
Mobile: (774) 249-2814
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This transmittal may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or
confidential. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, any review, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you suspect you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately and immediately delete this message and all attachments.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
that any U.S. tax advice contained in this document is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter that contained herein.
Our Expertise. Your Future. Succeeding Together.®
From: Dan Klasnick <dklasnick@dkt-legal.com>
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 1:07 PM
To: 'Kathryn Newhall-Smith' <knewhallsmith@Salem.com>
Subject: RE: SRA review dates
2
Hi Kate,
Thanks for reviewing and offering that guidance. I will inquire with my client.
Take care, Dan
________________________
Daniel D. Klasnick, Esq.
Duval & Klasnick LLC
Counselors at Law
dklasnick@dkt-legal.com
Direct Dial: (781) 873-0021
Mobile: (774) 249-2814
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This transmittal may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or
confidential. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, any review, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you suspect you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately and immediately delete this message and all attachments.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
that any U.S. tax advice contained in this document is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter that contained herein.
Our Expertise. Your Future. Succeeding Together.®
From: Kathryn Newhall-Smith <knewhallsmith@Salem.com>
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 12:58 PM
To: Dan Klasnick <dklasnick@dkt-legal.com>
Subject: RE: SRA review dates
Hi,
Apologies for the flurry of emails!
I reviewed the DRB’s minutes from the February 2021 meeting where they discussed the original proposal.
One item they were particularly concerned about was the replacement light pole. If possible, can you provide the spec
for the replacement pole so that board members can see that the replacement will be an exact replica to the existing?
Thanks,
Kate
From: Kathryn Newhall-Smith
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 12:33 PM
3
To: Dan Klasnick <dklasnick@dkt-legal.com>
Subject: SRA review dates
Hi Dan,
I spoke with Tom Daniel and confirmed that the project will be on the SRA’s 11/10/21 meeting agenda and the DRB’s
11/18/21 meeting agenda. As with past projects, I will ask the Authority members to consider issuing an approval
pending completion of DRB review, which will eliminate the need to go back to an SRA meeting after DRB.
Please let me know ASAP if you need me to place 234 Bridge Street in a specific spot on the agenda. The meeting will
begin at 6pm and there are five other applications, though I believe they will be quick.
Feel free to call if chatting over the phone is easier. I’ll be in the office, at my desk, until 2:45 today and back in
tomorrow from 8-4.
Thanks,
Kate
Kate Newhall-Smith
Principal Planner
City of Salem | Department of Planning & Community Development
98 Washington Street, 2nd Floor | Salem, MA 01970
978-619-5685 ext. 42509 | knewhallsmith@salem.com