Verizon Cell Tower Plan Meets Opposition in Clarksburg
CLARKSBURG, Mass. — A second proposal to locate a Verizon cell tower at the former North Adams Country Club came under fire on Wednesday as residents sharply questioned its need.
The telecommunications company wants to place a 140-foot monopole along River Road (Route 8) to increase the coverage and communications quality; residents say the placement of the pole along its most scenic byway will be an unnecessary eyesore on a property that's already gone downhill.
"Go back and take a look. There maybe some other areas in town that could serve your purpose," said Bryan Tanner, an abuttor and outspoken opponent of the proposal.
The Planning Board had initially set a public hearing for Wednesday for the special permit but determined prior to the hearing that an information session was more appropriate. Only a handful of residents attended the meeting at the Senior Center.
The meeting was continued to February, with the likelihood a public hearing will be scheduled for that time. Verizon was also provided with a peer review of the proposal by Tighe & Bond on behalf of the town.
Pittsfield Cellular Telephone Co., doing business as Verizon, has been looking at setting up another tower in the area for nearly three years, according to representatives, had initially proposed a 125-foot pole closer to the treeline but within 35 feet of Tanner's property line. To meet the town's new telecommunications bylaw, the tower would have had to be set back at least 150 percent of its height from the closest property line.
The phone company returned in late November with a new proposal, pulling the tower away from the property line but in more visible location and increasing its height by another 20 feet to compensate for a drop in grade.
Residents said this proposal, too, violated the terms of the bylaw that limited the height to 20 feet above the treeline and being within five miles of another tower as the crow flies.
Jay LaTorre, a radio frequency engineer for Verizon, said the company has been working to fill in "dense" areas across the country to ensure capacity, reliability and redundancy. The need for simple voice coverage has been eclipsed by demand for fast and unbroken data streams he said, and single cell tower coverage can be inadequate in some circumstances.
"The addition of data has increased the need for capacity," he said. "We use our phones to send photos to family members, we use our phones to look up recipes for dinner, we use our phones to send an update on Twitter or Facebook and so as technology has improved and as we've evolved the smart phone, the demand placed upon the network has increased significantly."
The tower on Florida Mountain and antennas on the Holiday Inn in downtown North Adams would be buttressed by the monopole on Route 8, which would provide extra capacity along what he described as a "major highway," and west into Clarksburg and north into Stamford, Vt.
The single tower on Florida Mountain covers a huge geographical area but that can also limit its ability to provide reliable service even with a good connection, LaTorre said.
The River Road location had been chosen because it ticked off a list of requirements — accessibility, availability, environmental concerns, coverage and density.
Residents, however, were not convinced that another cell tower was needed, particularly in that location.
"Who is this serving? .... What is the purpose of this?" asked Carl McKinney, town administrator and a River Road resident, noting the declining population. The company was also involved in a lawsuit, he said, "Are you using Clarksburg as a bargaining tool?"
North Adams Tower Co. has filed suit against Verizon for losses sustained in the collapse of its two cell towers in 2014. The tower company says Verizon added equipment that caused the collapse of one tower, which then toppled its twin. The carrier brought in a shorter, temporary tower that was used for nearly a year before the tower company installed a new monopole.
LaTorre and attorney Ellen Freyman of Shatz, Schwartz & Fentin, representing Verizon, said they had no knowledge of the suit and could not speak to it. Their focus was on gaining a special permit for the cell tower they had proposed.
McKinney, however, asked how the company could be calling for a new tower when it had failed to restore services to the level they had been before the collapse.
LaTorre agreed there had been some complaints but that everything had been done to bring service level back up. "It was hard to mimic antennas that had been up there for years," he said, citing changes in equipment, the move to 4G LTE service and capacity.
Residents also brought up concerns over ice falling from the monopole and its proximity to an already approved solar array; the Planning Board asked for a letter or statement from the solar array owner regarding the proposal.
There was also concern over the tower's visibility since it was no longer near any natural shielding.
"It's going to stand out like a sore thumb," said Planner Gary Pierce.
Daniel Tanner asked if Verizon had considered using the town's capped landfill that is on a higher grade on the west end of town. "It would be in spot where nobody would see or notice," agreed Pierce.
LaTorre said he had only learned of its existence that day so could not speak to it.
Bryan Tanner suggested moving the tower to Stamford. "Verizon took the easy way out, they ignored the rest of the town," he said.
Tags: cell tower, Planning Board, Verizon,
