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

Greylock Quick Cash Loan

More month than money? Get help right when you need it most with Quick Cash. Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

Whitman's Crystal Clean

Janitorial Maintenance, Commercial, Schools, Offices, Banks & Retail Properties-Insured 413-441-6002

www.whitmanscrystalclean.com

Summer Camp LIST

Summer Camp 2024! Click to Music, Dance, Theater and more. Summer FUN!!

www.iberkshires.com

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)

Hancock Town Meeting Votes to Strike Meme Some Found 'Divisive'

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
10:40PM / Monday, May 06, 2024

Hancock town meeting members Monday vote on a routine item early in the meeting.

HANCOCK, Mass. — By the narrowest of margins Monday, the annual town meeting voted to strike from the town report messaging that some residents described as, "inflammatory," "divisive" and unwelcoming to new residents.

On a vote of 50-48, the meeting voted to remove the inside cover of the report as it appeared on the town website and in printed versions distributed prior to the meeting and at the elementary school on Monday night.

The text, which appeared to be a reprinted version of an Internet meme, read, "You came here from there because you didn't like it there, and now you want to change here to be like there. You are welcome here, only don't try to make here like there. If you want to make here like there, you shouldn't have left there in the first place."

After the meeting breezed through the first 18 articles on the town meeting warrant agenda with hardly a dissenting vote, a member rose to ask if it would be unreasonable for the meeting to vote to remove the meme under Article 19, the "other business" article.

"No, you cannot remove it," Board of Selectmen Chair Sherman Derby answered immediately.

After it became clear that Moderator Brian Fairbank would entertain discussion about the meme, Derby took the floor to address the issue that has been discussed in town circles since the report was printed earlier this spring.

"Let me tell you about something that happened this year," Derby said. "The School Department got rid of Christmas. And they got rid of Columbus Day. Now it's Indigenous People's Day.

View Full Story