Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 10/27/2021
EAST LONGMEADOW - A new cellular tower was the main topic of consideration at the East Longmeadow Planning Board meeting on Oct. 19.
Before Verizon began its presentation, Director of Planning and Community Development Bethany Yeo explained to the board that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 pre-empts the Planning Board’s authority in certain aspects. The board may not deny the request if it is not based on substantial evidence, act as a prohibition on wireless towers in the area, or prevent closures to coverage gaps. In an appeal, it would be the responsibility of the petitioner to prove these situations are applicable and that there were no other avenues it could take, such as another location.
Attorney Elaine Freyman, representing Verizon, said that the tower would be 640 feet from the nearest residences, and therefore the height of 125 feet would not cause a fall hazard. When Denver asked why it needs to be that tall, Sykier told him that it was at Verizon’s request. Engineer Kip Divito explained the height was decided upon because it was tall enough to improve service but not higher than needed. In fact, he said, no existing towers in the area were tall enough to serve Verizon’s needs, which is why they requested to build their own.
Sykier described the lot as an “open field.” The tower would be located in a 50-foot by 50-foot fenced area, surrounded by a vegetative buffer. Access to the tower would branch off an existing driveway, negating the need for an access road.
Planning Board member Peter Punderson asked whether a fire truck could fit down the access road and turn around. He was told the hard-packed gravel and 12-foot-wide road would allow for movement. Yeo told him that the Fire Department had reviewed the plan.
The tower would be visible at a distance of roughly a quarter-mile, said Mike Libertine, a licensed Environmental Professional at All Points Technology. He presented line-of-site depictions in which the tower was mostly hidden by trees when viewed from residential streets. Freyman added that, like electricity transmission lines, the tower would become part of the background.
Freyman told the board that there is a “dead zone” with “poor and unstable” service in the area of East Longmeadow around 16 Meadowbrook Rd., where the tower would be located. Greg Sykier, of Chappell Engineering Associates, explained that the coverage that is available in the area of town is provided by one tower in Hampden, one near the Longmeadow line and another one across town. The signal from the existing cell sites is degraded since it must cover such a wide area. Adding the tower on Meadowbrook Road would boost the quality of the signal from the existing towers.
Divito explained that at the 700 MHz level, which “gets you on to the service,” there is “less than adequate indoor service.” At 2,100 MHz, which “allows you to stream,” there is “very little capacity.”
While Verizon would be the first carrier to use the tower, Sykier said that other carriers would be able to add their service to the structure in the future.
Planning Board Vice Chair George Kingston questioned why the coverage maps used in the presentation were different from the maps Verizon has on its website. “I don’t see any coverage gaps.” He added that T-Mobile shows that it offers 5G coverage throughout the area.
“The issue is critical service gaps. None of their publicly published coverage maps on their website is showing that there is a coverage gap.”
Divito said the maps on the website were marketing materials and not the technical information he submitted.
“I’ll be blunt, that’s not much of an answer,” Denver told him.
Another Verizon representative said that the coverage map online showed “in-vehicle” service, which is weaker than “inside” coverage.
Resident Daniella LaBarre said the view from her backyard would not be obscured by trees and mentioned that her service was fine. She said she was concerned about the health and safety effects of the tower and cited a tower in Pittsfield that residents wanted to be taken down because of health issues they believe are related. Resident Philip Abair also asked about health effects, especially since the tower would be located near a school.
Freyman explained that the tower would have to comply with federal regulations, including the level of radiofrequency radiation that can be emitted. Regarding the Pittsfield tower, Freyman said the town and Verizon had each done studies and found the radiation was one-50th the allowable limit.
“It’s been deemed by the federal government that the towers do not present a health risk,” Freyman said.
Abair responded, “We all know that the federal government has their regulations and that many times the Verizon towers have exceeded it.” He said it was “well known.”
Freyman pushed back on that. “Verizon’s do not,” she said, adding that there is 24/7 monitoring.
Divito agreed with Freyman. “Most of our sites operate at a fraction on the power allowed by the FCC,” he said referring to the Federal Communication Commission, the agency that regulates telecommunications.
Punderson offered that coverage at his home on Pease Road was “terrible. Anyone that wants to dial 911 and can’t, will be very glad that this coverage is going to happen.”
The public hearing was continued until Nov. 16 at 6 p.m. Denver asked the petitioner to present information regarding the map discrepancy and health concerns at that meeting.