Mount Greylock Could Face Cell-Tower Lawsuit

By Andy McKeeveriBerkshires Staff
08:35PM / Wednesday, February 29, 2012Print Story | Email Story

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The company hoping to install a cell tower at the high school sent the district a warning shot, suggesting that a lawsuit could be coming.

Florida Tower Partners sent a letter to the Mount Greylock Regional School Committee saying it wants the $150,000 it spent so far and claiming that the school district has not made "good faith efforts" to fulfill a lease the two sides agreed upon.

"In the end, without a wholesale change in the efforts of the school district to fulfill its obligation under the lease we will have no alternative but to take next steps to recover our investment in this project from the school district," the letter reads.

The letter, dated Feb. 1 and signed by the company's Vice President John Stevens, alleges that "instead of support" school officials have "frustrated, at every possible turn, the terms of the lease."

After two years, the project is no closer to being completed and the company has spent more than $150,000 trying to appease school officials, residents and town officials, the letter reads.

The letter does not specifically state a lawsuit is imminent but that is what school officials are concerned about. The School Committee was expected to discuss the tower on Tuesday night but tabled the conversation.

The company and AT&T have spent the last two years in negotiation with school officials. The district signed an agreement with the company to locate the tower near the football field after numerous conversations about possible sites.

Nearby South Williamstown residents jumped into the fray and fought the tower over concerns about the view. The School Committee then urged the companies to look at moving the tower to Peter Phelps' land on Oblong Road. The company did but later pulled out of that location because of endangered species regulations. The School Committee took no action on allowing another site located behind the school, which was also contended by neighbors.

The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the company a permit to build the tower at the agreed-upon location, near the football field — siding with the residents' concerns about the view and the lack of other options. However, the company officials say they had no other options than the football field site because that is what was agreed to by the school.

The letter is available below.
Florida Towers Letter to School Committee 2012

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

Care Closer to Home!

North Adams Regional Hospital is North Berkshire's choice for healthcare services - Your Hospital!

www.berkshirehealthsystems.org

Peak Rate CD

Lock in your savings now with our 6-month CD. Click to learn more! Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

CRUST PIZZA Williamstown

We keep our menu simple and let the dough and other high-quality ingredients speak for themselves

www.crustpz.com

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Your Comments

iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.

I don't suppose the people who wanted their view preserved are willing to pony up the $150K. When you buy a home, you don't own the view.
from: FromHere	on: 03-01-2012 06:49AM I Agree (33) - I Disagree (0)

Just charge the South Williamstown residents.
from: As ye sow	on: 03-01-2012 07:40AM I Agree (30) - I Disagree (1)

The US, and many other countries need protection from corporations because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The laws need to be updated, and real tests need to be done on cell tower radiation without connections to the telecoms who want to make big bucks. There are dozens(?) of towns presently undergoing this cell phone tower issue (and other environmental travesties), like deers caught in the headlights, they feel powerless. There needs to be a national and international movement to find out exactly how the radiation of the cell phone towers is effecting us. Also, there needs to be more education on how to protect every community from big corporations, such as writing new ordinances and protecting communities and environment because they are what matter. In some sense we are responsible because of the new 3G and 4G smart phones, which is a big reason the companies are putting up the new antennas. How can our behavior change so we can save our communities and environment?
from: Alison in MA	on: 03-01-2012 09:19AM I Agree (3) - I Disagree (24)

I agree with some of the other comments. Let the rich NIMBY's in South Williamstown pay this. It's not like they can't afford it. They can look at it as a one time "condo fee."
from: NotASnob	on: 03-01-2012 10:05AM I Agree (23) - I Disagree (1)

To whatever bitter person who always comments whenever there is an article about something happening in Williamstown, knock it off with the 'rich south Williamstown' bs. Take a drive down Rt 7 and the adjacent roads and you might notice that the area is mostly normal, older houses, along with several motels and restaurants. Just because a few have some fancy digs and doesn't mean that everyone does. And most of us would like to have cell service like the rest of the civilised world.
from: some dude	on: 03-01-2012 11:07AM I Agree (2) - I Disagree (10)

some dude, I agree totally. However, it is specifically those few with the fancy digs that are screwing it up for everyone else.
from: NotASnob	on: 03-01-2012 11:49AM I Agree (12) - I Disagree (2)

First, a disclaimer. I live in South Williamstown and have for most of my life. Second, I am not against the cell tower. Third, I am not for it; my cell service is just fine (Verizon) and if I didn't have any service, that would be just fine with me! I disagree that the problem is South Williamstown residents and NIMBY's, at least not entirely. The School Board, and elected group, voluntarily signed a contract to generate income for the school. At public hearings, some spoke against the tower. Other avenues were pursued but the Conservation Commission and ZBA, appointed town boards that serve at the pleasure of the Selectman, threw up roadblocks, again after publicized, open hearings. My point is that many are quick to point the finger when people speak out, but where is the support? Why aren't a multitude of residents speaking in favor of the tower and the income it will generate for the school? I don't know -- maybe everyone is ambivalent like me and prefers to make anonymous posts rather than actually geting involved and being constructive...
from: Hold on	on: 03-01-2012 12:14PM I Agree (3) - I Disagree (1)

a tower will go up in that area eventually... better that the school benefit from it than an individual... move forward
from: ssh	on: 03-01-2012 12:30PM I Agree (10) - I Disagree (4)

The South Williamstown residents seem to think they can control everything. Well the few things they have have controlled by complaining at board meetings have all turned bad for the town. Those being the free water, line then the school had to import bottled water,then the playground on Green River Road, now the farm is sort of abandoned. Now we have the cell tower, and there also trying to save the Store at Five Corners, Subsidize a local business. it is about time the local boards understand that town roads and town land belongs to all town tax payers and not a few Johnny come late rich people. I wonder if board decisions would be different if people for projects would attend meetings instead of just the "not in my back yard people" with there scripts.
from: Long Time Wmst. Resident	on: 03-01-2012 02:08PM I Agree (15) - I Disagree (1)

from: Hold on "I disagree that the problem is South Williamstown residents and NIMBY's, at least not entirely." -- Maybe not entirely, but they are the root of it. The sames ones who were actually AGAINST a free water line going to the high school. A high school that at the time had jet fuel contaminating their water supply. --- --- from: Hold on "My point is that many are quick to point the finger when people speak out, but where is the support? Why aren't a multitude of residents speaking in favor of the tower and the income it will generate for the school?" -- Are there that many brain dead people that don't realize this on their own? That's the very reason the school agreed to a cell tower.
from: NotASnob	on: 03-01-2012 02:32PM I Agree (1) - I Disagree (0)

I wonder why the MRHS board would ask The Phelps to do a RFP and they would share the revenue with them from the tower instead of building on the school grounds, only to turn the tower down after words. maybe the answer might come from a secret donor contributing to the school and I really don't want to think that would happen in Williamstown, but? maybe the same donor should pony up 150,00.00 to Florida Tower partners or allow the tower.
from: long time Williamstown resident	on: 03-01-2012 02:46PM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)
Editor: The company pulled out of the Phelps property. Not the school. -Andy McKeever.
I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

Ahh, the water line fiasco; I was waiting for someone to bring that up. That one still shocks me. Blaming that on South Williamstown residents doesn't quite work, though, as the numbers don't add up. There are not enough residents of South Williamstown to outvote everyone else. Many were vocal in the support against the line, but everyone in town was free to vote, for or against. Unfortunately, the wrong side prevailed. For the record I voted for the water line, twice. I think it was incredibly short-sighted to vote it down, and mark my words, instead of a free water line, we will be paying for one very soon.
from: Hold on	on: 03-01-2012 03:01PM I Agree (3) - I Disagree (1)

Putting the blame for the water line fiasco at the feet of South Williamstown is totally appropriate. The numbers add up just fine. It doesn't matter how many residents there are of South Williamstown, it matters how many showed up to town meeting to outvote the waterline. S.Williamstown mobilized enough voters to vote down a good idea. The story is no more complex than that.
from: adds up	on: 03-01-2012 07:43PM I Agree (5) - I Disagree (2)

To keep things in perspective I believe we are talking about a 2 mile strip of deadzone cell covereage. When you brag about Fort West Hoosac what do you bragg about? the cell coverage and high speed internet?
from: former southy	on: 03-02-2012 09:15AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

The ZBA is in favor of voting for the cell tower at the Phelps property, because the species of special concern -- Hitchcock's sedge -- does not apply to the bylaw that prohibits building of towers on areas of rare or endangered species. If the FL Tower realized this, they could get the approval to build it there. The visual impact would be much less at the Phelps than on the school property, and you can see it if you go to the ZBA website which shows the photo simulations. So what is REALLY going on?
from: Concerned Neighbor	on: 03-03-2012 01:37PM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

Only $150,000 K Chump change for Williamstown . Someone make out a check and get this over.
from: $150,000	on: 03-05-2012 10:23AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

The South Williamstown residents are entitled to their opinions, but at the end of the day, the Zoning board of appeals rejected the location. We hear in these comments sections from South Williamstowners who were not against the tower. If Williamstown, its zoning and planning boards and others are going to be against all these developments, the taxpayers should get used to increased costs. Poor Lanesboro would get to pay a significant percent of the charge as an innocent bystander.
from: Concerned Citizen	on: 03-06-2012 10:17AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

Vice Chair Vote Highlights Fissure on Williamstown Select Board

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
05:46AM / Wednesday, November 20, 2024

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — A seemingly mundane decision about deciding on a board officer devolved into a critique of one member's service at Monday's Select Board meeting.

The recent departure of Andrew Hogeland left vacant the position of vice chair on the five-person board. On Monday, the board spent a second meeting discussing whether and how to fill that seat for the remainder of its 2024-25 term.

Ultimately, the board voted, 3-1-1, to install Stephanie Boyd in that position, a decision that came after a lengthy conversation and a 2-2-1 vote against assigning the role to a different member of the panel.

Chair Jane Patton nominated Jeffrey Johnson for vice chair after explaining her reasons not to support Boyd, who had expressed interest in serving.

Patton said members in leadership roles need to demonstrate they are "part of the team" and gave reasons why Boyd does not fit that bill.

Patton pointed to Boyd's statement at a June 5 meeting that she did not want to serve on the Diversity, Inclusion and Racial Equity Committee, instead choosing to focus on work in which she already is heavily engaged on the Carbon Dioxide Lowering (COOL) Committee.

"We've talked, Jeff [Johnson] and I, about how critical we think it is for a Select Board member to participate in other town committees," Patton said on Monday. "I know you participate with the COOL Committee, but, especially DIRE, you weren't interested in that."

View Full Story