Cell tower hits more resistance

By Matthew Bernat
Turley Publications Staff Writer

STURBRIDGE – Another day, another delayed hearing for a proposed cell phone tower on municipal land.
For the third time, a town board has waited to make a decision on a cell phone service provider’s request to build a tower on Department of Public Works land near Interstate 84.
On June 29, members of the Planning Board opened a public hearing that saw representatives present information on behalf of cell phone company Metro PCS and more opposition from residents of the Sturbridge Hills Condominiums. The tower would be visible in portions of that neighborhood if constructed.
Board members voted to continue a site plan review public hearing to Aug. 24, at 6:30 p.m., to be held in the Senior Center.
Chairman Sandra Gibson-Quigley noted her board was unable to vote on the site plan review pending a decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals, who continued their public hearing to Wednesday, July 14 at 7 p.m. in the Senior Center.
“Whether we do a site plan review is contingent upon whether all of the zoning requirements are met,” Gibson-Quigley said. The zoning board would need to issue a special permit before the tower can be built.
The zoning board continued their hearing because additional information requested by the board was received late. Board Chairman Adam Gaudette said members did not have enough time to properly review the new material, which included a report from a radio frequency engineer.
The engineer, Aquilino (Ben) Orichi, was present for the Planning Board. One question posed by condominium residents at the previous hearing regarded whether or not the tower could be located elsewhere in town.
A number of locations had been suggested, which were researched by Orichi. Last week, he concluded the DPW site met Metro PCS’s needs best. The location would generate reliable coverage on a two-mile service gap on I-84 as well as stretches of Routes 20 and 131. Other sites were hampered by wetlands, or geography, which did not allow for coverage.
Another suggestion from the previous hearing, using the tower at the state police barracks, was nixed, as police officials said in a written letter to the town they had no interest hosting an additional cell phone carrier.
Speaking on behalf of the Sturbridge Hills Condominiums residents was Edward Heywood, the condominium association’s treasurer.
Heywood read a letter, similar to ones he read before the Board of Selectmen and the zoning board detailing the associations reasons for opposing the tower.
“(The tower) does violence to the town’s ambiance,” he said, adding it would be an “ugly and intrusive structure.” He also cited a possible drop in property values for residents and other negative affects.
Representing Metro PCS was Arthur Kreiger, of Anderson & Kreiger LLP located in Cambridge, Mass. He opposed the notion the tower would be detrimental to the town.
“This whole application, I think, would be a no-brainer for both boards. I think it would uncontroversial if not for the visibility of the condominiums to the north,” Kreiger said.
He presented photographs with a mock-up of what the tower would like from various locations in town, including New Boston Road, Colonial Drive, Haynes Street and other sites.
One issue residents raised was a clause that would allow for Metro PCS to add more carriers to the tower, which could change its appearance.
Kreiger and Town Planner Jean Bubon were unsure what the bylaws allowed. Both said they would research the question and find answers before the continued hearing.