By Scott MacKeen
Staff Writer
7/23/09
Several residents are opposing the proposed construction of a cell phone tower built on land near the Blue Hills Reservation.
Though the tower would actually be built off the reservation, it would be visible to hikers and walkers, leading some to worry of its potential intrusion on the region’s natural settings. The structure would also be about 50 feet from the nearest state highway, Interstate 93, on the Route 1 interchange.
“I have never seen a tower that would be located so close to a highway,” said Planning Board Peter Jackson, who said at a July 13 public hearing held by the Board of Appeals that he is against the location of the tower for several reasons.
The site – on a MassHighway-owned parcel of land off Blue Hill River Road – reportedly is in a “dead zone” of town, where as many as 3,000 of every 100,000 cell phone calls are being lost.
“I think we have established there’s a need,” said Robert Sheffield, an attorney representing New Hampshire’s Green Mountain Communications, which has filed an application to the Board of Appeals for a special permit.
However, Jackson said the potential location, while not Blue Hills-owned, is “still right in the heart of the reservation.” He also said he is opposed because the proposal doesn’t meet with the town’s bylaw for telecommunications structures, which favors non-intrusive constructions.
Other residents, about 10 in all, voiced their opposition at the Board of Appeals hearing. The board is considering whether to grant a special permit for the tower, which at 140 feet would be four times the town’s height restriction.
“We have a million people coming to the Blue Hills each year. They come to walk and enjoy the view,” said Chris Link, of Greenleaf Road. “They don’t know that the next time they climb the Blue Hills, they’ll see this tower.”
The proposed cell tower would stand at least 140 feet, although some models introduced at the hearing indicated it could be as high as 160 feet. It could provide coverage for up to five mobile carriers, including Verizon and T-Mobile, a Green Mountain representative explained.
Set back at least 500 feet from the nearest residence, it would still be noticeable to residents but produce no noise, Sheffield said. The town could also gain a small tax benefit.
Some at the hearing questioned Green Mountain’s data-collection methods. The company has researched various sites for the tower in and around the Blue Hills, much of which is wetlands, Sheffield said. They have relied largely on crane tests and photo simulations to show how the tower would appear.
Joseph Sloane, speaking for the group Friends of the Blue Hills, said when the latest crane test was conducted in late June, neighbors weren’t given enough time to take their own photos of the site.
“It was a slapdash effort at best,” he said of residents’ ability to collect their own data. “We were in the middle of taking pictures when they started lowering the crane back down.”
But some photos taken by residents during that period suggest a more strikingly visible tower than from views shown by Green Mountain, Sloane said.
“It’s a question of, whose information do you trust?” said one resident, who said his own research of cell phone coverage in that area of town suggests the tower may not even be necessary.
“Nowhere have I found evidence of this dead zone. The proponents have not provided that sufficient case,” said Jackson.
Jackson noted that MassHighway has leased the land to Green Mountain, something he said it is doing all throughout the state in order to acquire new revenue, without thought for how developments will impact communities. “There are hundreds, if not thousands, of these sites. It’s totally revenue-driven … nothing more than ‘here’s a place to make a few bucks,” he said.
And since Green Mountain has presented various models of how a cell tower could be designed, Sloane said, residents have “a lot to take in” in a short span of time. “It’s a little bit of a moving target still. We’re seeing some of these things for the first time,” he said.
“You should certainly have as much time as you need,” John Leonard, chairman of the Board of Appeals, told residents. “We want to make sure everyone has a full understanding of what has been said. It will be very helpful to us if we have informed opinions.”
The board took no action. The hearing was continued to Aug. 19 at Town Hall.