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.
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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?
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Pat McGahan
2/3/2022 01:16:40 pm
Hi Kate,
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Ed Whitaker
2/3/2022 11:12:38 am
In Support of Cell Towers in Heath
Reply
Pat McGahan
2/5/2022 10:10:55 am
The above link didn't work. Try this:
Reply
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?
Reply
Pat McGahan
2/5/2022 08:04:37 am
Hi Ed,
Reply
Ed Whitaker
2/5/2022 11:51:26 am
Hi Pat,
Reply
Pat McGahan
2/5/2022 12:59:39 pm
Hi Ed, Leave a Reply. |
Archives
February 2022
Categories |