Pittsfield Board of Health Continues Push to Remove Verizon Cell Tower

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Board of Health Chair Bobbie Orsi says the panel is continuing its "thoughtful forward process" in trying to remove the Verizon cell tower at 877 South Street.

The board last week interviewed one of two potential attorneys to assist with a cease and desist order that was approved in early February.  

Since the tower's erection in August 2020, Alma Street resident Courtney Gilardi and her daughter, Amelia Gilardi, have claimed that they are suffering from negative health effects from electromagnetic fields generated by the antennae on the 115-foot pole.

Other residents have joined the protests, holding up signs at February's meeting to advocate for the cease-and-desist order.

Orsi on Wednesday said City Solicitor Stephen Pagnotta gave recommendations on what needed to be presented to the City Council in terms of rates and retainers, relevant experience, and what the attorney would provide for the city.

There was also a recommendation that the attorneys understand the preemption and administrative law, be knowledgeable with the federal government and Federal Communications Commission guidelines, and be sympathetic and really just want to help people in the neighborhood.

When the cease-and-desist order was approved, board members acknowledged that this action is a long shot and would be expensive to the city if it has to go to court, but they said they felt it is their duty to do everything they can to protect the health of residents.

The potential attorneys that Orsi identified were not named and the interview was conducted in executive session.

"The other thing that I did want to bring up with regard to the cease-and-desist order, is that I've done a little more research and did compile some studies specifically that address EHS, electromagnetic health sensitivity," she said to the board.



"There was this whole body of growing information from the science that says that it is a real thing, I thought that was helpful, there is a lot of additional information out there, scientific evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies to support the direction that we're moving in to keep that neighborhood safe."

She also reported correspondence that was received early in the week from Special Projects Manager Deanna Ruffer — former director of community development — and from Pagnotta that recommended the board consider asking Verizon to employ a data system to monitor emissions from the cell tower.

"I think the challenge is that we believe that the FCC guidelines are inherently not protective of people who are sensitive," Orsi said.

"And I'm not sure necessarily that looking at an emission number is going to help at all."

That method is similar to a previously conducted study that found the tower was within FCC guidelines, board member Brad Gordon pointed out, but that measurement is more thermal than biological.

"I just wanted to make you aware that I did receive that communication and that that is an option out there," Orsi explained.

"Having said that, I do think that it's a good next step to continue our thoughtful forward process in doing what we need to do to be successful with the cease-and-desist order."


Tags: cell tower,   

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

SJC: Public Records Petition 'Proper'

Staff Reports
BOSTON — The Supreme Judicial Court in an advisory opinion released Monday found the petition to bring the Legislature and governor's office under the Public Records Law is "proper" as a form of law.
 
"Its principal purpose is not to regulate the internal proceedings or operations of the two Houses," the court wrote. "Instead, its principal purpose is to provide the public with a new right of access to the records of the General Court and the office of the Governor, applying the existing public records law to those bodies alongside the other governmental bodies already subject to the law. "
 
The state Senate asked the Supreme Judicial Court to weigh in on whether public records petition was a violation of the state constitution. The Legislature is required to act on the matter by May 5; if not, supporters plan to put it on the ballot in November. 
 
Auditor Diana DiZoglio has championed the petition as a measure to bring greater transparency to the workings of state government and as part of her own battle to audit the Legislature. More than 70 percent of voters approved the audit question in November 2024. 
 
The Senate asked the court whether, first, the petition was a law or a rule that would interfere with its internal processes and, second, would it create "new and unprecedented authority" to the courts to determine challenges to records determinations.
 
The court offered "that the petition proposes a law and is therefore properly pending before the Legislature" and, for Question 2, concluded "that the proposed measure does not relate to the powers of courts."
 
The court declined to answer three following questions related to intrusions on Senate authority and General Court authority, and violation of rights of  "deliberation, speech and debate" granted to members and staff.
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories