Mount Greylock High Again Grapples With Cell Tower

By Andy McKeeveriBerkshires Staff
10:56AM / Wednesday, December 14, 2011Print Story | Email Story

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — Mount Greylock Regional High School is again the possible site of a 190-foot cell phone tower after the town said it could not be built on a neighboring property.

A tower proposed by AT&T and Florida Tower Partners was approved to be built in the southeast corner of the school's property by the School Committee early in the year but then Peter Phelps offered his property. The school asked Florida Tower Partners to look at using the Phelp's property.

However, the company came to a final determination last week that because of wetlands and endangered species habitats the location would not suffice.

The School Committee asked for the change in response to South Williamstown residents' concerns that the tower would ruin the majestic view. When the committee first advocated for Phelp's property, it also eyed a section behind the school as an alternative.

Now, the tower is back near the football field and so is the debate over it. Lawyers representing homeowners of nearby properties argued their points to the School Committee against two possible locations on school grounds, the southeast corner or behind the school. The lawyers also pushed the school district to again ask the company to move it to a location near the New Ashford border.

"There just is no good location on this site," attorney Daniel Finnegan, who is representing an Oblong Road resident, said.

The School Committee expressed concern over making additional changes to the plan because the contract had already been awarded. The school cannot force the company to move to any other location and changing location could open the door for a lawsuit against the district.

"We have an obligation to honor the contract," School Committee member Carrie Greene said. "I don't want to keep dragging this out."

While many may have wanted the School Committee to ask for another location — and many of the members voiced support of moving it behind the school — the board decided that it was not yet time to make that decision. The company is scheduled to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals next week for a permit. That ruling will determine the next steps.

The southeast location was chosen in coordination with a subcommittee's approval because putting a tower behind the school would interfere with the cross-country ski and running courses. However, subcommittee member Larry Bell said it could be worked around if the committee chose to change the location.

Executive Vice President John Stevens of Florida Towers said either location could work. The difference would be in the construction of access roads and underground power lines.

"From my standpoint, it doesn't matter that much," Stevens said.

School Committee member Jack Hickey said he preferred the tower to be in the rear of the school because if the committee received approval to build a new school, it would likely be built closer to Route 7.

While a decision has not been reached yet, the developments are being watched closely by committee members.

"We are being offered and opportunity to change the location," Chairman Robert Ericson said. "This could be one of the larger decision Mount Greylock ever makes."

Tags: cell tower, MGRHS,

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

Save & Earn with Greylock

3.30% APY 6-month certificate. Click to learn more! Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Your Comments

iBerkshires.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.

How many South Williamstown residents use cell phones?
from: Huh	on: 12-14-2011 03:30PM I Agree (2) - I Disagree (0)

umm huh?...why would they put up a cellphone tower where there was already service available?
from: @huh	on: 12-14-2011 08:56PM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (3)

Are you suggesting that South Williamstown resident do not own a cell phone because there hasn't been a cell tower in South Williamstown? If you check the article, the company that wants to put up the tower is AT&T (which admittedly has limited service in the area). My hunch is that most South Williamstown residents have cell phones that use the Verizon network. If true, this means that the residents of South Williamstown are able to take advantage of cell technology at the "expense" of someone else pristine view - nimbyism if you will. Having said that, competition for cell phone users should benefit the customers and as stated in the Williamstown policies on communication towers, should provide room for other types of uses - over the air digital TV perhaps. If all South Williamstown residents came to the school board and turned in their cell phones, I would back the residents 100%.
from: Huh	on: 12-14-2011 11:04PM I Agree (3) - I Disagree (0)

Why any school would want to deliberately put our children at risk, sickens me. Do a little research. Start here: http://tinyurl.com/892kbdh
from: Selling Out Our Children	on: 12-15-2011 06:49AM I Agree (1) - I Disagree (2)
Editor: The link goes to an article about cell phone radiation on Alternet.
I Agree (1) - I Disagree (0)

These boards and committees are supposed to be representing the ENTIRE community. I can appreciate being sympathetic to the surrounding neighbors, but frankly, the neighbors are trying to dictate decisions about property which they don't own. Just because you spent a lot of money for a beautiful piece of property doesn't mean you now own the view.
from: From Here	on: 12-15-2011 07:00AM I Agree (15) - I Disagree (0)

The cell tower isn't for the residents of S. Williamstown alone. It is also for the thousands of visitors that travel through the area seeking services from local businesses, i.e. restaurant and hotel reservations, etc. There is a dead zone in Verizon's service on Green River Rd, Cold Spring Rd, and Hancock Rd. There is no endangered species on the 580 Oblong property, nor wetlands that would impede this project, simply a "species of concern" that the state was willing to work with the Florida Tower Co, but "someone" in the town told them they would not permit it. Additionally, the cell tower on the 580 Oblong Rd property would have been 35% better, according to the coverage maps presented by the AT&T engineers.
from: Concerned Neighbor	on: 12-20-2011 06:29PM I Agree (1) - I Disagree (0)

Keep it up South Williamstown residents, you'll be the first ones complaining about the View Tax that is on the horizon.
from: Watchwhathappens	on: 12-30-2011 01:31PM I Agree (1) - I Disagree (0)
Editor: View tax? We have that in Vermont.
I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

Letter: Vote No on 'Jungle' Primaries

Letter to the Editor02:05PM / Wednesday, September 30, 2026

To the Editor:

They don't call them "jungle primaries" for nothing.

Question 3 on the November ballot would trash two-party primary elections and replace them with California-style, chaotic — and extraordinarily costly — "jungle" primaries that would destroy the very political parties that have kept America stable since Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison created them in the 1790s.

Jungle primaries put all candidates, regardless of party, on one ballot with the top two vote-getters facing off in the general election — even if they're from the same party. That would create chaos, but the real issue is money: Jungle primaries give a distinct advantage to candidates backed by corporate money and the super wealthy. In short, jungle primaries move our primaries from the ballot box to big donor meetings long before campaigning even begins.

When something this radical is proposed, you have to look at who's behind it, who's funding it, and ask "why" they are doing it.

Their philosophical guru is Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor who ran for governor in 2022 but couldn't get 15 percent of the Democratic Convention vote to win the party's endorsement.

The money behind this extreme attack on small "d" democratic politics tells us more. With over $5 million in the bank as of Aug. 28, this is a very well-funded campaign — the lion's share of which came from wealthy Boston-area private equity individuals.

Twenty-two private equity executives gave $3.99 million, or 77 percent of all the money from individuals. Current and former Bain Capital executives contributed $1.92 million, and Berkshire Partners executives put up $1.32 million. In short, 22 rich people put up nearly $4 million to change how five million of us vote. Yes, it seems the ultra-wealthy want to destroy the two-party system that has kept our politics stable for 200 years.

View Full Story