Verizon Wireless has proposed a new cell tower to be located at 12 Woodchuck Hill Road. This 160-foot-tall structure would be in violation of Harvard’s zoning bylaw (which allows towers only up to 105 feet), so it requires approval by both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. The Planning Board heard arguments for and against the tower at its Oct. 5 meeting.
A balloon test (in which a balloon will be floated up to the height of the proposed tower to give observers a sense of the visual impact) is scheduled for Oct. 9 and Oct. 10. The ZBA is scheduled to make its decision about the tower by the end of November. The Planning Board will then deliberate during the month of December and aim to come to a decision by the end of the month.
The new tower would be a monopole design with room for five wireless carriers to install equipment on it. Its base would be surrounded by a 6-foot chain-link fence, though this would be set back more than 200 feet from the road.
The property at 12 Woodchuck Hill Road, residence of former Select Board member Rick Maiore, currently has a 130-foot tower of lattice-work design that Verizon attorney Chris Swiniarski described as obsolete. It is adjacent to the location where the proposed tower would be built. According to Swiniarski, Verizon plans to remove the old tower soon after the new one is constructed, though he did not commit to a specific timetable.
According to Swiniarski, the new tower would lose about 45% of its effectiveness if it were to be just 105 feet tall (as specified by Harvard’s bylaw), which would make it essentially useless and not worth building. He admitted that there is probably some height between 105 and 160 feet at which the tower would be usable by Verizon.
Swiniarski argued that it would need the full 160 feet to accommodate the four other providers, and that allowing this is in the long-term best interest of the town, because of how the other providers would respond if there was not room for them on the new Verizon tower. According to Swiniarski, federal law dictates that, to provide coverage to an area, a wireless provider can take one of two courses of action, and that there is nothing the town or the owner of the tower can do to prevent this. The provider can construct another new tower, which would result in Harvard having two new towers instead of just one. Or the provider can increase the height of an existing tower to accommodate its equipment, which would still result in a new 160-foot tower.
Some abutting property owners are unhappy with the proposed tower. Greg Romero, of 4 Woodchuck Hill Road, said the new tower would damage the viewshed from his property. According to Romero, the top of the tower would be visible at all times, and the bottom would be visible during winter months. He argued that the chain link fence would be unappealing and might be a danger to his children. He also stated that the balloon test would not give an accurate representation of the visual impact of the tower, because the top of the tower would become more visually bulky once the four other providers attached their equipment to it.
Jim Saalfield, of 15, 18, and 20 Woodchuck Hill Rd, also objected to the new tower. He argued that the tower’s construction would unfairly financially benefit some people (everyone benefiting from the cell service, and the owner of the property leasing the location of the tower to Verizon) and cost others (such as himself, due to lost property value). He said, “If building this tower is to the benefit of the town, then the town should also pay the costs associated with it.”
The abutters argued that the tower could instead be located on town-owned land at Hildreth House. According to Planning Board member Jane Biering, Swiniarski had previously agreed that the Hildreth House location would offer quality of coverage equal to the Woodchuck Hill location.
Swiniarski responded that the main issue with the Hildreth location is that Harvard would have to vote at a town meeting to allow a tower there. According to him, Verizon has spent years trying to convince Harvard to allow a tower on public land, but has never had any success, so is not interested in spending more time pursuing what it has found to be a dead end.
Biering argued that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased citizens’ appreciation of wireless communication, so they might be more amenable to the idea this time. She proposed that the Planning Board try to encourage the Select Board to back the plan. Director of Community and Economic Development Chris Ryan cautioned that it might be legally inadvisable to stall or reject an existing proposal to encourage the applicant to move to a different location.
