ZBA Denies Cell Tower At Mount Greylock High School
 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. |
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. |
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.
