A cell tower will not be built in Hancock, for now.
After months of deliberation and heated public debate, the Hancock Planning Board determined on Wednesday that the applicant, Industrial Tower and Wireless, failed to prove that a new cell tower would not affect nearby property values and denied its application to build one off of Lee Farm Road in a 3-1 vote.
“We asked for a peer report for a reason, and I think we got the answers we were after,” said board member Joe Cummings.
An independent property evaluation report commissioned by the planning board and completed by certified residential appraiser Louis Manias concluded that “even a partial view of a cell tower would impact property values.”
Manias’s findings countered a report provided by Industrial Tower and Wireless that said home values would not be affected.
“These properties that are approximate to a cell tower are selling for no more, no less. Generally, at the same time frame, at the same sale-to-list ratio,” said Mark Correnti, the certified residential appraiser who prepared the cell tower company’s report.
He defended some errors, including an incorrect town name in the report, and explained that he did not include data from the existing Hancock cell tower on Norway Hill Road because the tower is far enough from the homes to not affect their value. He also clarified his use of sale price data versus property values in the report, explaining that, in his experience, boards prefer concrete facts over appraisal values.
The appraisers used two different methods of selecting data for their evaluation.
Correnti used the group-paired method to assess the impact on home sale prices near cell towers, meaning he compared the median prices of groups of homes rather than individual houses, as in the matched-pairs method.
He said matched-pairs analysis requires identical homes that differ in a single characteristic, which is hard to find in New England.
“You’ve got two techniques here. I feel that group-pair in New England is the better route to go because of the diversity of homes,” Correnti said.
Manias disagreed and argued that the sales and surveys used in the report were outdated.
“When you group all your sales together, you take away the individuality of each one of the sales you look for,” Manias said.
Jim Callihan, a member of the board, said he found the matched-pair method more convincing in the peer review and was put off by errors and outdated data in the original report. He also said he preferred using market value data over the sale price.
“These old houses, new houses, beautiful pieces of land, and then a cell tower happens to squeak in there, and it definitely has an impact,” he said. Two other members, Joe Cummings and Peter Webster, agreed.
Rebecca MacNeely, the lone dissenting vote, said she preferred the original report because of the raw data provided by Correnti.
Before the discussion moved to property values, the board had unanimously approved the company’s request to modify the plan from a 150-foot cell tower to a 120-foot tower to comply with setback requirements. In the same motion, the board agreed to consider measuring setbacks from the center of the tower rather than from the base of the structure, as requested by abutters, and recognized that a shorter tower would only serve one carrier.
Attorney Steven Grill, who represents the telecommunications company, said the company was 99% sure it had a carrier lined up for the tower.
Kristen Bernier, an abutter to the proposed cell tower, said she felt relieved and tired after the three-hour meeting and months of heated debate.
“I think it’s just really good that this is over, so that our community can just get back to business as usual,” Bernier said.
Grill said the company has not decided its next course of action. If Industrial Tower and Wireless appeals the decision, the discussion will move to federal court, he said.