974 CMR, § 4.03
While it is the intent of 974 CMR 4.03 to provide a local complaint mechanism for receptors that might be experiencing interference, it is recognized that with EMI, it is uniquely difficult from a technical perspective to attribute such interference to a particular point source. For this reason, the complaint mechanism is supplemented and enhanced by a process which attempts to minimize or preclude potential EMI issues by requiring an applicant for site plan approval of a facility that may cause potential EMI interference to a Special Receptor to demonstrate the unlikelihood of such interference or that proper mitigation measures will be taken as a condition of permit issuance.
Once there is reasonable certainty of the interference source, the violator shall be subject to provide reasonable mitigation measures that essentially resolve the difficulty.
Potential violators will be given 30 days in which to respond to a complaint or otherwise provide reasonable confirmation to the Building Inspector or other duly authorized DEC official, that the problem did not exist or has been eliminated. If probable cause is determined, a second 30 day time period will be granted in which to correct the interference or to demonstrate that good faith efforts have been initiated. If such efforts are not initiated, the violator may be subject to remedies in the Devens Zoning By-laws, including levying of fines, requirements to post performance guarantees, permit reconsideration by the DEC or legal action. Emergency nuisance conditions may, at the discretion of the DEC inspection official, require more expeditious remediation.
As a supplement and enhancement to the preceding complaint process, the EMI performance standards generally require that the inspection official attempt to preclude or minimize potential interference to the maximum possible degree to Internal Receptors at the beginning of the process, or the building permit application stage. Accordingly, the following procedure is described. Prior to the issuance of a building or occupancy permit, the applicant proposing the construction or use of a potentially interfering facility, as generally defined in the preceding paragraph, shall be required to demonstrate the unlikelihood of interference, or that proper mitigation measures will be taken as a condition of permit issuance.
Special consideration shall be given to interference to the radio telescope operated by Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution and located on Oak Hill on Pinnacle Road in the Town of Harvard. Interference with the 1400-1720 MHZ band utilized by the radio telescope shall be strictly prohibited. Strong radiation at any points outside of this frequency range that could cause significant disturbance in the radio telescope on more than one occasion and may require appropriate mitigation measures in the form of filtration devices or avoidance of directly interfering radiation patterns.
As a supplement and enhancement to the preceding complaint process, the EMI performance standards generally require that the inspection official attempt to preclude or minimize potential interference to the maximum possible degree to Special External Receptors at the beginning of the process, or the site plan approval stage. Accordingly, the following procedure is described. Prior to the issuance of a site plan approval, the applicant proposing the construction or use of a potentially interfering facility causing potential EMI interference to any Special External Receptor, shall be required to demonstrate the unlikelihood of interference, or that proper mitigation measures will be taken.
974 CMR, § 4.03