ZBA Denies Cell Tower At Mount Greylock High SchoolBy Andy McKeever, iBerkshires Staff
10:30PM / Thursday, January 19, 2012 | |
 Attorney for AT&T Edward Pare Jr. told the board that the companies had no other locations available because the School Committee chose the proposed one. |
The nearest resident to the tower, Howard Newman, said hundreds of people stop in front of the school to look at the view and the tower would not only impact his property but also tourist opinions of the town. |
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The grandiose view from Mount Greylock Regional High School will not be ruined by a tawdry cell phone tower. At least, not for now.
The Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously sided with South Williamstown residents Thursday night and denied AT&T's application for a special permit to build a cell tower on the southeast corner of the high school's property.
Residents came out in numbers to fight the tower arguing everything from health concerns to lack of other locations to saying the company did not fill out the application correctly. Yet, the loudest concern was over the view.
"A 200-foot tower would have an extraordinary negative impact on our beautiful property," said abutter Howard Newman. "It would be an insult to the scenic character."
The telecommunications company, however, has no other option. The location — near the school's football field — was chosen almost two years ago by the School Committee. The company signed a contract with the school to put the tower there but when residents' concerns grew, the School Committee urged AT&T and developer Florida Tower Partners to look into moving the tower to Peter Phelps' land on Oblong Road, which they did. The company pulled out of that location because of an endangered species regulations — though Phelps argued the language of those regulations Thursday — and returned to the school.
Another location in the rear of the school was also considered by the school but was also fought by nearby residents. Ultimately, when the decision came to the School Committee on Tuesday, no decision was made.
"At this point, this is the only available site," Edward Pare Jr., attorney for the developers, said. "We're just stuck in the middle between this board and the school. We have no alternatives."
The School Committee took no action because some members believed there would be legal turmoil if they forced the company spend even more money investigating another location. According to Pare, the company has already spent more than $100,000 on engineering work for the two sites it did look at.
.jpg)
Newman said the tower is not intended to look like a tree but the covering that hides the antennas does look like branches. |
"Our understanding is that the alternative site would be equally problematic," School Committee member Carrie Greene said on Thursday. "It would be irresponsible to have them spend thousands of dollars to face the same opposition."
Greene also added that since the contract was signed, there have been multiple changes at the school including new personnel and better finances. If the contract came to the current administration, it would not likely have been signed, she said.
Residents pointed to other locations in town that would better suit their interest and alleged the companies did not even look at them. Cold Spring Road resident Andrew Hogeland said the company could add service to an existing tower near the New Ashford border and that the it did not look at installing stealth towers on other Cold Spring Road properties.
AT&T officials contend those sites were analyzed but since they did not quite fit the project's aims, they never engaged in discussion with the owners.
While the ZBA has yet to write a formal opinion on the denial, some members voiced concern over the view and other locations.
"That the view is relatively unique is an important consideration," ZBA member David Levine said.
However, the denial does not put an end to the issue. AT&T cannot return to the board with a similar project for another two years but there is an appeal process. Knowing the issue will return, Levine pleaded with the both sides to work out a suitable location.
"Whether AT&T gets this cell tower or another one, they will get one," Levine said.
Pare said the companies will wait for the written opinion before deciding on the next action.
|
Your Comments
Williamstown.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary. |
| The Gods of South Williamstown have spoken! | | from: Poor Robert | on: 01-19-2012 11:57PM
I Agree (24) - I Disagree (3) |
|
| Thank you ZBA! | | from: Voice of Reason | on: 01-20-2012 07:30AM
I Agree (3) - I Disagree (27) |
|
| Typical Williamstown NIMBY at its best. These same people will complain about the lack of cell coverage and 4g rollout in the area. If it wasn't for the College nothing would be there and nothing would ever get done. | | from: Looking Up | on: 01-20-2012 08:41AM
I Agree (39) - I Disagree (3) |
|
It's amusing that the residents now look to the cars that stop and take in the views as a positive. Usually they complain about the tourists when they stopped at 5 Corners or Green River Farms or the picnic tables by the orchards. Extra traffic drawn by a non-existent businesses was one of the main reasons they rejected the water line extension to the high school.
More hypocrisy by the wanna-be elites.
This is going to get very expensive for the town and the school when ATT sues the pants off of them and the state steps in with an eminent domain claim. | | from: Nimbys | on: 01-20-2012 08:55AM
I Agree (35) - I Disagree (2) |
|
There's a strong argument that the common good requires good wireless service for our high school and for **all** the residents of South Williamstown. Certainly the view of Mount Greylock from that site is among the most unique and cherished in The Berkshires.
So how do we balance those two things? For one thing, AT&T should be required to provide some kind of permanent 4G connectivity to the school as part of the deal, so that MGRHS can become a center of web-enabled, multimedia learning (where appropriate).
Also, it may make sense soon to lease some of the building to private entities for business services. They are going to be mightily put off by the lack of decent cell service.
What about this for a compromise: Put a much lower tower up, mounted nearby or attached to the school buildings? Thus the detriment to the view would only be somewhat in addition to the existing building, rather than a completely new obstruction. From AT&T's point of view, a lower tower will not be as valuable because the signal won't reach as far, but that location already has good elevation. Perhaps they would want to pay less, but that could be the tradeoff.
But really, do the abutters in South Williamstown want to be responsible for keeping MGRHS and their neighbors in the digital stone age? Some negotiation is needed. | | from: Bill Densmore | on: 01-20-2012 10:40AM
I Agree (20) - I Disagree (6) |
|
|
|
MEMBER SIGN IN
