PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The Community Development Board unanimously agreed to continue a public hearing on a petition for new requirements for cell tower constructions. 

 

The City Council petition asks for a setback of 1,600 feet from residential structures and notification to abutters within 1,600 feet through certified mail.

 

Abutters believe that a 115-foot cell tower on 877 South St. was put up illegally by Verizon without proper notice. The address given for the tower in a commercial zone did not indicate it would be constructed only a few hundred feet from a residential neighborhood off Holmes Road.

 

Work began on the tower in spring and once neighbors realized the location, they brought the case to Superior Court in August, hoping for an injunction forcing Verizon to stop. They formed a group called the Pittsfield Cell Tower Concerned Citizens Group to fight this matter. The tower has since gone online.

 

The abutters claim that the address was listed to misleading the public so they would not notice where the actual location was.

 

This petition was made by the City Council as a whole, but was proposed by Ward 5 Councilor Patrick Kavey and Ward 4 Councilor Chris Connell. 

 

It was initially referred to the mayor's office and the Zoning Board of Appeals, but City Solicitor Stephen Pagnotta said the petition could only be moved forward if the council acted as petitioner and if it was first sent to the Community Development Board.

 

In September, the City Council referred a zoning ordinance change to the Community Development Board that would create requirements and standards for the permitting of cell towers as a response to the 877 South Street tower being essentially completed.

 

In this meeting, the board agreed that something should be done about notification, but given the extensive cell tower presentation that was laden with claims that the board wasn't positive were entirely true, they felt like they couldn't make a decision at that time.

 

Additionally, attorney Anthony Lepore pointed out that the proposal was not in compliance with federal law.

 

For both of these reasons, the hearing was continued until the next Community Development Board meeting.

 

Courtney Gilardi of 17 Alma St., a member of the cell tower group, said neighbors and Connell knew nothing about the tower. 

 

She said some in the area refused to believe the tower was being built and told her "we would have known, it's not true, we would have heard about it from someone."

 

As tower construction progressed, the neighbors felt they had been failed by the city, and that the notification process could be updated to create greater transparency for all abutters. This is why one of the group's main goals is to secure certified mail notifications for all abutters.

 

"Through education collaboration and open dialogue, we want to work with the city of Pittsfield," Gilardi said. "We want to honor the nature of our zoning districts that are in place and preserve the residential qualities, the healthy safe and secure aesthetic aspects that we came here for."

 

The group wants to make sure notification is provided to all residents in a 1,600-foot radius of the cell tower because of concerns of health issues, light from the structure, and declined real estate values.

 

Gilardi said the tower group, the board, and Historical Commission's goals are all similar and they are all working toward the same goal.

 

"We are all on the same page," she said. "We all want to honor zoning and honor residential nature of our neighborhoods and make sure we don't have light on landscapes."

 

Gilardi said multiple people had bought dream lots that abuts the cell tower site and will now not build on those properties because of the tower, possibly leaving them to be repossessed by the city because they don't see any value in the property.

 

"Imagine what it is like for those people who saved to build their dream home," she said. "Only to find that a cell tower was installed right outside their window."

 

Gilardi raised concerns over health, the need for 5G, how to choose less invasive locations for cell towers, and possible tower collapse. Two older cell towers had collapse in 2016 in North Adams.

 

"We are not against towers," she said. "We are just pro the better aiting of them."  

 

Magda Havasa, a professor of environmental sciences who studies the health effects of electromagnetic radiation, claims that close proximity to radiation can contribute to cancer, reproductive problems, behavioral issues in children, and electro hypersensitivity.

 

Electro hypersensitivity, or so-called "microwave sickness," includes symptoms such as insomnia, chronic sleep, chronic pain, brain fog, depression, and anxiety.

 

"I looked up the population for your community and you've got about 43,000 people in your community, we believe that anywhere from 1 to 5 percent of the population is severely sensitive to the radiation," Havas told the board. "That means 1,200 people in community are extremely sensitive to this radiation and another 35 percent, which comes to 15,000, are likely to be affected by it but not to the point where they can't continue working."

 

Gilardi also invited technology safety educator Cece Doucette to speak to the board.  Doucette believes that cellar devices are microwaving citizens every minute they are on them and opts to use her landline phone instead of a cell phone, which she keeps on airplane mode.

 

 

"5G simply means fifth generation technology, the industry is spinning it that you are going to get faster entertainment, smart cities, smart highways, and they are not telling us that this doesn't replace all of the current infrastructure," she said. "They need those because they have bigger wavelengths that can penetrate buildings and trees and stuff, 5G is adding a whole new layer of a whole new technology. Mind you there is no safe level of radiation identified in scientific literature."

 

Lepore, who has been representing local governments since 1997 on wireless siting issues, said he could not endorse the council adopting this because it violates 47 U.S.C Section 32.

 

He also claimed that a lot of the information in the presentation was incorrect.

 

"My job is to keep you out of trouble and to keep you in compliant with federal law, and the proposal as it is now will get you into trouble with federal law," Lepore said. "The federal law is the law of the land that you have to abide by and the the purposed text as it is now would violate that law."

 

The meeting had 12 call-ins from the public, 11 of whom were in favor of the petition because of health concerns, reduced property values, and obstructed views.

 

But Lewis Schiller of Laurie Court, who is in favor of the cell tower, claimed that the neighborhood's concerns are not supported by bonafied research.

 

"I am a direct abutter of the cell tower at 877 South St. and it is located approximately 500 feet from the kitchen window. I believe that sending out certified letters to abutters regarding zoning issues is a good idea but I don't think that's the focus of this petition,"  Schiller said. "I believe that the siting concerns that have been expressed are excessive and I am opposed to this petition which I believe will unreasonably restrict development and growth in the Berkshires."

 

Jocelyn Chapman of Wendell Avenue was offended by Schiller's comment.

 

"It's kind of irritating that this person who is an architect that lives in the neighborhood is not thinking about and maybe doesn't have small children in the home," Chapman said. "He is not taking into consideration the concerns of all the people are him and I find that sort of offensive."