The  Board of Appeals rejected a variance for a second time for Mariner Tower to construct a 120-foot cell phone tower in East Boothbay.

The board ruled against all but one of the points of fact in the applicants’ application. The board determined the applicants (Mariner Tower, a Kennebunk telecommunications developer and consultant, and local land owner Lucy Ann Spaulding) failed to meet the ordinance’s requirements.

The applicants requested the variance to build a cellphone tower on Spaulding’s Ocean Point Road property. The applicants requested the variance because the property is located in a special residential zone. The ordinance prohibits cell tower operations without a variance.

This is Mariner Tower’s second attempt at locating a telecommunications tower in East Boothbay. In January, the board ruled against the Mariner Tower’s application to construct one on the Farren property. Mariner Tower and its partner, AT&T, want the tower to alleviate a coverage gap in East Boothbay. The board ruled the applicant failed to include other possible sites and list alternative locations in its application.

The board then proposed six possible alternative locations. One suggestion was on the Spaulding property, which abuts Farren’s. Her property is large, heavily wooded with less visual impact on the neighborhood.

Attorney Jonathan Springer, who represented Mariner Tower, said the appeals’ process was successful in locating a better site for both the applicant and the Ocean Point Road neighborhood.

“In my opinion the process worked,” Springer said. “It pointed us to a better property. And I think that’s exactly what you want your land use process to do. Isn’t it?”

However, the board still denied the request to provide a variance for the alternative location. Several members believed the planning, not appeals board, should have heard both requests. Board member Scott Adams questioned why the applicants didn’t submit either one to the planning board. He also questioned whether better cell phone coverage was an essential service. The ordinance allows for a variance if the applicant provides an essential service.

Adams recommended the board apply a strict interpretation of the ordinance. Adams had concerns about whether one tower would fill the coverage gap.  AT&T official Peter Cook confirmed more towers would be necessary to fill East Boothbay’s entire coverage gap. Adams predicted granting one variance would lead to at least four more requests.

“One of my problems is this really ties our hands,” Adams said. “There could be some significant conditions put on the entire arrangement by the planning board. I feel anything we do tonight is going to be a stepping stone for the next requests.”

Following the meeting, Mariner Tower President Louis Vitali was asked why the variance application wasn’t first submitted to the planning board. Vitali referred the question to Springer, who had no comment.

Vitali was later asked how the second denial would impact his company’s pending lawsuit. 

Mariner Tower filed the federal lawsuit after the appeals board denied its first request in January. Vitali said the lawsuit was put on hold when the company decided to search for alternative sites and technologies. Mariner Tower selected one of the alternative sites proposed by the Board of Appeals. 

Vitali wondered why the board would propose the site only to deny a variance seven months later.

“We put a red light on the lawsuit out of respect for the taxpayers of Boothbay,” Vitali said. “This not only wasted our time, but the taxpayers’ time as well. Tomorrow the red light comes off the federal case. And we move forward.”

During the public hearing, six residents spoke against granting the variance. The residents said the tower would ruin the neighborhood’s beauty, reduce property values, and harm wildlife. One resident also claimed the coverage gap wasn’t as poor as Mariner Tower officials portrayed.

As Springer presented his case, Sally Glaesner’s cell phoned pinged. She earlier called Mariner Tower a “corporate predator” during the public forum.

In his summation, Springer referred back to the incident.“I was called a ‘predator’ earlier by someone whose phone went off.  This happens everywhere we go,” he said. “People want the service, but don’t want a tower in their neighborhood. There’s a word for people who use a service and don’t want to pay for it.”

The board of appeals will meet at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 19 to sign a letter officially responding to Mariner Tower’s variance request.