AT&T Tower

1/30/2022

Updated 2/5
As one person wrote, this is complex, and my hope is that through the comments we can come to understand it better.

There are two sides to the issue as I understand them.

Stop the tower is a winnable suit and will not cost the town any money.
The tower is inevitable due to the federal government prioritizing cellular communication, therefore we have to get the best settlement we can.

Reasoned comments and opinions are welcomed.

Please no personal attacks on commenters who have a differing opinion. Just state why you disagree with the comment.
Please be factual and try not to judge and be accusatory. It seems unfair to state that input from all parties has not been taken into consideration by the Select Board, and make judgments on that basis, while the Board is not allowed to speak on the matter.

Corrections.
I am happy to correct anything I write that is not factual. Just send me an email at pmcgahan75@gmail.com.

20 Comments

Robin Hill

1/30/2022 10:41:02 am

I understand that this pole may benefit a small group of people who will now have cell service, but it is not what Heath means to me as a potential new home owner.

Nancy Thane

1/30/2022 12:24:55 pm

I am opposed to making the town pay for a lawsuit that we cannot win. This is a waste of taxpayer money.
in addition, and more importantly, while some people in town may have cell service, crucial areas of town do not. This is not a convenience or aesthetic issue, but a safety issue. Imagine yourself or a loved one on one of our many back roads, hitting a deer, and ending up in need of emergency assistance. Houses are far apart and traffic is scant, especially at night. What will you do if you cannot call 911? I would hate for any of us to have to find out.

Douglas Mason link

2/1/2022 10:54:26 am

The Town of Heath would not have paid anything, the citizens of Knott Road are trying to join the lawsuit and pay for it. You might have already read that the legal council that the Planning Board wanted to hire and who was already working on the case for us thought it was winnable, and all he does is work with cell towers. The Planning Board spent literally hundreds of hours studying this tower application and decided that there was not nearly enough new coverage to make up for the property and lifestyle damage that the tower would bring. Please go to the Planning Board web page and read the documents, look at the proposed coverage map and read our findings.

Cathy

1/30/2022 12:39:11 pm

I don't think the Federal Government should be able to force the town into this, but guess there is nothing we can do about it. Reducing the height is good negotiations.

Joe Bag o'Donuts

1/30/2022 06:26:16 pm

Has AT&T considered locating somewhere (such as along existing power lines) that wouldn't destroy peoples' property values?

Douglas Mason

2/1/2022 10:56:55 am

One of the reasons that the Planning Board rejected the application is that our Bylaws and Federal Law specifically state that the applicant must look into other sites, they did not. We asked them to look at 18 Jacobs road so that the town might gain the income from the tower, they did not.

Pat

1/31/2022 09:01:59 am

I don't know the answer to that but it seems to make sense from a placement point of view. There may be info on the Planning board page, https://townofheath.org/g/43/Planning-Board.

Don Freeman

2/1/2022 08:23:39 am

This is a really complicated issue. I trust the BOS and the rest of our town government to make the right decisions about suing vs. settling, etc.

Douglas Mason

2/1/2022 11:01:10 am

Please also trust the Planning Board. The Select Board is making this decision with town council and not letting the Planning Board have a say, or even communicate with the court. Is it complicated? Yes, we had over 8 hours of public hearings, I spent more than 200 hours studying and understanding the impacts to the town. Please ask the Select Board what the Planning Boards role is in this litigation, the answer might surprise you.

Don Freeman

2/5/2022 11:23:26 am

I do trust the Planning Board. I also trust the BOS. The question is what happens when the two bodies come down on opposite sides of an issue like this. In that circumstance I respect the hierarchy that is inherent in town government and, unless I see strong evidence to the contrary, support the BOS. I don't think it's wise to foster a situation in which a subordinate body communicates with a court trying a matter like this one a position contrary to what any court would, it seems to me, support, namely that taken by the ruling body (in this case the BOS). There's no better way to insure a bad outcome for the town than for it to speak with two voices.

Kate Peppard

2/1/2022 11:12:09 am

Pat, and all. The Planning Board put hundreds of hours into this effort to reject AT&Ts request for a zoning variance. They submitted an incredibly thorough rejection to AT&T's woefully inadequate application. The fact is, the attorney specializing in these matters (who the Planning Board consulted with) said this is WINNABLE. The Select Board is trying to settle for a third time with this legal bully on a case we can win. A judge has denied their two previous attempts to settle.

We believe the Select Board is doing this without regard for the Planning Board's work and of the abutters (who are humans, neighbors, taxpayers, citizens). Why? We have sent letters with NO response. The Planning Board has asked to participate and been told NO. They are consulting with town council, not a lawyer who specializes in matters such as these. My neighbors have OFFERED TO PAY FOR SPECIALIZED LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO FIGHT THIIS. They are wasting their time trying to write a THIRD settlement. Let AT&T sue. Get specialized counsel. Follow the direction of the Planning Board. Fight for this.

Pat McGahan

2/3/2022 01:16:40 pm

Hi Kate,
Thanks for your comments. I do have a couple of questions.
(1) If the Select Board has access to the Planning Board's documents and has the letters and emails from concerned parties, but can not speak about the pending legislation how, do we know that the input has not been considered?
(2) How does the town remove itself as plaintiffs so that you and your neighbors can take on the lawsuit with your own lawyer? I admit to having no knowledge about these things.
Thanks for commenting,
Pat

Safety First

2/1/2022 01:52:31 pm

I am in favor of an AT&T Tower being located in Heath primarily for safety reasons. Given the aging population in Heath, the ability to have cell service and call for help if a car is hit by a deer, lands in a snow bank or has an accident could be life-saving, especially after dark in the winter.

Douglas Mason

2/1/2022 09:32:10 pm

I agree that we need cell service in Heath, but this proposal was an 18 story tower in a small neighborhood that will only give us 15% more coverage on 8A. The Planning Board recommended many things, all were ignored. One was to have 2 smaller towers, increasing coverage, another was one tower on Town property, that would bring needed income to the town. This tower is going on a property that is owned by an absentee property owner who has sold off so much of his road frontage that there is not enough left to get a building permit. Further, the fairly useless tower is being paid for by "First Net" a government (taxpayer) funded grant, so ATT is not even paying for it. They will, they told us, sell the permit to a third party who will own and rent out the tower as soon as they get it. Please take the time to read all of the information available on the Planning Board web site before you voice your opinions. PS, I have been on the fire department for 14 years, have been responding to every medical call and 911 call that i've heard on my pager for all of that time. I too care about our aging population, as well as every other citizen of Heath.

Ed Whitaker

2/3/2022 11:12:38 am

In Support of Cell Towers in Heath

After listening to a number of Heath Taxpayers, like me, come out and argue for Cell Towers in Heath, I couldn’t agree more. Heath would greatly benefit from a properly located cell tower facility.

Locating cell towers isn’t very straightforward. This is why the Planning Board, in its wisdom, at some point in the past, created zoning requirements for such towers. This was planned for. This is why they have a process for approval of location of these facilities. These are our town's by-laws. These are our town's laws. Written for a very good reason. Although there is Federal Law that addresses cell tower siting, that law is not an unconditional green light, as AT&T has wrongly suggested. Towns do indeed have a say in the matter. In respect to the Rowe Rd Application, the board rejected the application for a number of reasons. None of those reasons were ‘We don’t want cell towers in Heath’. None. They were valid reasons based on the application and the town's laws. It appears this important detail may have been overlooked by some. The Heath Planning Board, which is the towns’ Special Permit Granting Authority, did an excellent job when considering the application. More than one attorney has made note of this and they have also commented on the well thought out and written denial letter. Please take a minute to read through: https://townofheath.org/f/0/34/

One very important reason the application was denied is that it is a poor location for a cell tower. It sits in a Col or Saddle. The applicant's best ‘presentation’, shows minimal, inconsistent, scattered coverage. I use the term ‘presentation’ intentionally. This is because, as it was revealed by the towns attorney during the special permit application process, these coverage maps that cell tower companies use to display where signal will be found with a proposed tower, are easily manipulated to present the absolute best case scenario, or even unrealistic scenarios.
so much so that the FCC does not recognize these coverage maps as factual data. Let that set in for a minute. The federal agency that regulates communications in the US considers
these coverage maps inaccurate. Yet this was what AT&T presented to our town as a basis for this site.

Now go to https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html and enter “Heath Massachusetts”. According to this map, All of Heath is already covered 100% with 4g LTE. As a matter of fact, there are some locations in town that have access to 5g. We all know that’s not true. As does AT&T. They knowingly and intentionally misrepresent their coverage. They did the same on this Special Permit application. It's what they do.

Another sideways approach AT&T uses was highlighted by the towns attorney; they typically come back to the town after a year or two to install more towers as the prior ones don’t end up really covering what they said they would’. I guess when considering the previous mish mash of coverage data that comes as no surprise.

Some argue, well what do we care, it’s not our money. Well, actually, it is, to the tune of 6.5 BILLION dollars of your federal tax money. You see, they just need to put up towers and check boxes to satisfy their federal contract. They could care less about you, me, and more importantly whether or not this tower has benefits to us. They just need to ram these towers in to satisfy their 6 Billion Dollar Contract. So we should care, a LOT!

This proposed tower would sit a quarter mile from the Rowe town line. Cell Signal might hit the fair grounds on good days, 18 Jacobs on good days. Heath Center and points south and east won’t get any. No one on Avery Brook will get signal, so the cars will continue to pull over at the bottom of the hill to finish calls.

See for yourself on the link below. Note how 8A will only have ‘proposed’ consistent coverage between Branch Hill and the flats above the Dell. The rest is spotty or nonexistent. This does not result in the reliable cell coverage some may be envisioning. Not even close. It’s hard to understand how this patchwork of cell signal will benefit the town as a WHOLE.
Here is the link to the “PROPOSED”coverage map. Remember, this is the absolute best case scenario.

https://centerlinecoms-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jdellicolli_clinellc_com/_layouts/15/onedrive.aspx?id=%2Fpersonal%2Fjdellicolli%5Fclinellc%5Fcom%2FDocuments%2FJD%20CLINE%2F%5FAT%26T%2FNew%20England%2F%5FFirstNet%2F%5FSite%20Folders%2FMA%2FMA4795S%2FHEATH%20ZONING%20HEARING%20DOCUMENTS%2F05%2E%20AT%26T%20RF%20Height%20Analysis%2Epdf&parent=%2Fpersonal%2fj Dellicolli%5Fclinellc%5Fcom%2FDocuments%2FJD%20CLINE%2F%5 FAT%26T%2FNew%20England%2F%5FFirstNet%2F%5FSite%20Folders%2 FMA%2FMA4795S%2FHEATH%20 ZONING%20HEARING%20DOCUMENTS

Having said all this, shouldn&

Pat McGahan

2/5/2022 10:10:55 am

The above link didn't work. Try this:
tinyurl.com/ATT-CoverageMap

Ed Whitaker

2/3/2022 11:16:23 am

Having said all this, shouldn’t we demand a better located cell tower that will more broadly benefit the town? Or are we going to set down a path of poorly sited towers that don’t benefit the town that result in the need for more poorly sited towers, leaving a patchwork of spotty coverage?

Perhaps the Planning Board got it right and the rest of us, including the Select Board, should respect that. Take a minute and read the Planning Boards Mission Statement:

We are looking out for your future. We honor and sustain our natural world; patiently and fairly guide land-use decisions; listen to and learn from each individual with respect for their goals, dreams and ideas; and, continuously strive toward excellence in service and education to the Town of Heath.

These aren’t mere words. They really do strive for excellence. I for one have a lot of respect for the work the Planning Board regularly executes. It’s hard work, but they step up.

So why is the Select Board ignoring the Planning Board’s decision? It certainly appears the Planning Boards extensive work and effort is not terribly important to the Select Board. It also appears the Select Board may have lost some perspective and may be making decisions solely based on finances, perhaps based on poor advice from KP Law, the town’s counsel. Certainly, the lack of communication between the two boards is crippling, ineffective, divisive, and frankly, demoralizing. Certainly, The Planning Board deserves more respect and consultation in this matter, especially considering all the work THEY have done. Let’s not discount that.

Ed Whitaker
43 Knott Rd

Pat McGahan

2/5/2022 08:04:37 am

Hi Ed,
Thanks for providing all that information. It was much more helpful to me than trying to plow through all the documents and videos available regarding the AT&T application. I need the Cliff notes version.

I do have the same question for you that I did for Kate which is:
If the Select Board has access to all the Planning Board's documents and has the letters and emails from concerned parties, but can not speak about the pending legislation, how do we know that the input has not been considered? Is it because they still want to settle? It seems unfair to judge until the Select Board is allowed to speak on its own behalf.

I heard at the past Select Board meeting the legal cost to the town for the lawsuit to date is over $9000, and the budget for legal voted on at the last town meeting was $10,000. And there remains an outstanding bill. Your comment that the Board may be making decisions solely on finances may be valid, but if you have been following all the work of Bill and Jean Gran and their articles in the Recorder, you know we are in a critical financial place. If residents are willing to pay for the lawsuit, what are the logistics for doing that?

As a resident who has been attending Select Board meetings for two full years, I appreciate the incredible hours the members put in on behalf of the town. We are fortunate to have dedicated Planning Board members as well as dedicated Select Board. It would be too bad to lose site of that.
Thank you again for your insight.

Ed Whitaker

2/5/2022 11:51:26 am

Hi Pat,

Many thanks for your help with this forum. Is there any way you can edit the links I posted so they are live?

I agree that ALL the boards, committees, and other civic volunteers in town COMMAND A LOT OF RESPECT for their selfless sacrifice of time and energy. I don’t think anyone discounts that.

I can’t speculate on why the Select Board has amassed such a hefty legal bill. Likewise, others likely know better than I why the town is in a financial quagmire. What I do know is that COST comes in many metrics. Cash is only one. And sometimes, those other costs, such as the downstream costs of potentially poor decisions, are disregarded due to their inconvenience. Or on bad advice. Hind sight is 20/20.

For instance, I might decide to ignore the light on my truck dash to go get an oil change, because my barber in law suggests I can squeeze some more miles out. That might be convenient for me today, but I increase the likelihood that I’ll be getting engine work in a year or two down the line. At a much more significant cost. And I could be without a car for some amount of time. So then I’m broke, AND I’m walking. So now the situation becomes much more costly, and certainly more inconvenient. There are societal costs, there are community costs, there are environmental costs, there are governmental costs. There are participation costs The list goes on and on.

As far as legal logistics are concerned, there aren’t any. EFFECTIVE and CONSTRUCTIVE discussions that would result in such have not happened.

Thanks again and have a great weekend.

Ed.

Pat McGahan

2/5/2022 12:59:39 pm

Hi Ed,
Thanks for the feedback.
The Reply function does not support hyperlinks nor can a Reply be edited.

A Comment does support hyperlinks so I put a link to the coverage map under the "AT&T Lawsuit Links" which is beneath "AT&T Tower." I will add a few more links that should go there later.

AT&T Tower

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories