Turnout for the Planning Board meeting was unusually high.

Attorneys Ellen Freyman and Michael A. Fenton review Verizon's application with the Planning Board.

CLARKSBURG, Mass. — The Planning Board marked the application for the proposed Verizon cellular tower at the defuct golf course as incomplete on Thursday and told the applicants to go back to the drawing board.

The board voted to not accept Verizon's request for a setback variance for the 125-foot monopole.

Pittsfield Cellular Telephone Co., doing business as Verizon, has applied for a special permit under the town's new wireless communications bylaw to install a cellular tower on the 641 River Road property, formerly the North Adams Country Club.

Chairman David Sherman noted that the tower is only 35 feet away from abutter Bryan Tanner's property line. To meet the bylaw, the tower would have to be set back at least 150 percent of its height from the closest property line.

"What you submitted went totally against our bylaw and we need to figure out a way to get past that," Sherman said. "Where we go from here is what we have to discuss."

Attorney Ellen Freyman, representing Verizon with fellow attorney Michael A. Fenton, of Shatz, Schwarz & Fentin PC, said the tower was designed last year under the older bylaws. A decision was made to not adhere to the new setback requirement because it was felt it would be more advantageous to keep the tower where their client originally planned.

"Visually the way it is set back now, it is tucked up against the trees so you don't see it versus being out in a more open area," she said. "If we had the larger setback it might affect the use of the property ... it seemed like the best location."

Tanner, town moderator, said he opposed to granting the variance.

"I am very much opposed to the entire project not only because it impacts my property, but it has an impact on everybody else's property in the area," Tanner said. "There are many other people in the area in this room tonight who are represented that have some other concerns whether they be visual, health related, or whatever they happen to be,"

Tanner said he was concerned about the tower falling onto his property and also the liability he faces if one of his trees falls and damages the tower.

"We know towers can fail and fall ... so my concern is if the tower falls onto my property but also vice versa trees can fall," he asked. "I have trees on that line that could easily fall in that area because they are taller and what will be my liability?"

He added that he was concerned that the tower would negatively affect property values of surrounding homes and will dissuade any sort of development if the area is no longer a woodlot.

Tanner also questioned the height of the tower once the attennaes are attached and the noise of its generator. He also claimed someone would have had to trespass on his property to do the tower's wetlands study.

"Who gave authority to have the study done and who was the company that trespassed onto my property in order to get that accomplished and included it in the plans?" he said. "Obviously, a lot of this transpired in the last week but the project has been under the radar."  

Golf course owner Todd Driscoll said the tower could be moved on his property if it would solve any issues.

"There is really no reason you can't pull that tower in 200 feet if you want," Driscoll said. "We own 80 acres up there ... you could pull that in as far as you wanted and you still would not see it from the road."

Freyman said she would bring this to her client for discussion.

Tanner said he still opposed the project but was glad to hear that Driscoll offered to allow the change.

Planners also questioned the proposed tower's proximity to the one on Florida Mountain, which is 1.7 miles away. A special permit can only be approved if the applicant can prove that installing equipment on an existing tower would not provide acceptable coverage.

Sherman asked if it was possible to place a repeater on the existing tower.

Freyman said the reason why a repeater would not work is included in the submitted narrative. She said specific questions would be better answered by the engineer. She said they tend to go with the least expensive option so there is a reason for an entirely new tower.    

Town Administrator Carl McKinney asked if they could just return the coverage to its previous working order. He said coverage was perfect before the Florida tower collapsed in the ice storm two years ago.

"Whatever they put up there is not anywhere near where it was," he said. "Maybe we should consider asking for the coverage that was there before they did what they did up there."

The proposed tower also violates the height regulation by exceeding 20 feet above the tree line.

Freyman noted this is for better coverage and visibility but added it can better be explained by technical experts at the public hearing.

She asked if it was possible to submit changes to the application.

Sherman said they would most likely run out of time because the application was submitted July 27. He said the Planning Board is following the Federal Communications Commission's "shot clock" rule for cell towers. A 30-day countdown begins when the application is submitted. It  also would not make sense to try to schedule a balloon test in this period when there is talk about moving the tower.

Sherman said by marking the application as incomplete, the "shot clock" stops and they can resubmit for approval.

He did add that the Planning Board does understand the importance of cell towers but wants to do right by the town.

"The board does recognize the importance of cell towers and the ability to provide coverage," he said. "It is a public service, and everyone has cell phones. As we move forward we have to keep in mind without cell towers we would all be in trouble, it is just a matter of finding the right spots for them."

Freyman said technical experts and engineers will attend any to answer questions.

• Most Read

• Most Comments

• All News

• Blogroll

• Photos