An Oak Bluffs resident has filed an appeal against the town’s select board over their approval of a small cell wireless facility set to be installed in front of his historic house.
Last month, Oak Bluffs select board members greenlit a proposal by AT&T to install electrical equipment on a utility pole nearby 53 Pequot Ave., despite some town residents expressing concern over the addition.
In a petition to appeal the board’s decision, filed with the Dukes County Superior Court this week, John Neuhoff claims that at the proposed installation location, the AT&T attachment would threaten the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood, and potentially impact home values.
An Oak Bluffs resident has filed an appeal against the town’s select board over their approval of a small cell wireless facility set to be installed in front of his historic house.
Last month, Oak Bluffs select board members greenlit a proposal by AT&T to install electrical equipment on a utility pole near 53 Pequot Ave., despite some town residents expressing concern over the addition.
In a petition to appeal the board’s decision, filed with the Dukes County Superior Court this week, John Neuhoff claims that at the proposed installation location, the AT&T attachment would threaten the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood, and potentially impact home values.
The appeal argues that the 24-inch-high, 10-inch-wide, side-mounted antenna and associated equipment boxes, which would be attached to an existing telephone pole, ought to be installed in a commercial district, rather than a residential area. “The cottagers and locals deserve environmental respect,” the filings argue.
Despite preliminary plans to mount the facility on a pole on Circuit Avenue, which had been approved by Cottage City Historic District Commission, AT&T’s presentation to the select board in August recommended that the equipment be installed on Pequot Avenue.
“Putting [the wireless facility] in a designated historic residential neighborhood would be a stark contrast to the quaint, noncommercial area, and will negatively affect its disposition and appeal,” the appeal says, adding that a wireless cell facility “will stain Pequot Avenue with unwanted industrial technology, and may affect home prices. . . Renters and visitors who come to the [area’s] park are enchanted by its history and traditional intrigue. All of this would be lost because of the [wireless cell facility] WCF.”
The appeal also claims that the select board “intentionally ignored” relevant zoning bylaws when reaching its decision to approve the installation, specifically regulations concerning wireless communications facilities, which state WCFs require a special permit to erect.
Neuhoff’s petition, which seeks to have the select board’s approval vacated, was filed on Sept. 11, and has yet to be responded to in court by the town of Oak Bluffs.
“Putting these telephone poles in a designated, historic residential neighborhood would be a stark contrast to the quaint, non-commercial area and will negatively affect its disposition and appeal,” the appeal says, adding that telephone poles “will stain Pequot Avenue with unwanted industrial technology and may affect home prices. . . Renters and visitors who come to the [area’s] park are enchanted by its history and traditional intrigue. All of this would be lost because of these telephone poles”. Same argument from the late 18/early 1900s. Renters and visitors would rather have better cell service.
Does Mr. Neuhoff not use a cellphone?
Does Mr. Neuhoff realize that he lives in a cell dead zone? The person who goes to call 911 to save Mr. Neuhoff’s life or property some day won’t be able to get through to 911.
Did he also forget to include the “potential health impacts” of the cell site in his frivolous lawsuit?
I hope the lawyer who filed this for you is a friend or a relative, because if there are not, you have been sold on an empty case that you have filed in court.
“Potential impacts to property values” can’t possibly be a way of stopping any project that comes along that is going to benefit the general public and public safety. And at 24inches X 10inches, you’ve got to be kidding me. That’s smaller than a sewer manhole cover.
I look forward to this case being summarily dismissed. It should send notice to all the other would be plaintiffs in silly cases like this that they ought to shut up and keep their powder dry (and money in their wallet).
It’s all about life safety. The neighborhood lacks safe cellphone connectivity
I would like to encourage anyone interested to look up the Mr, Neuhoff’s property record at masslandrecords.com, 53 Peaquot Ave.
His property was in non compliance with the local ordinances in 2007. He went hat in hand to the local boards and asked for them to give him special permissions to allow rules to be bent so he could have and enjoy his home in the manner he likes.
Fast forward 16 years and he wants a court of law to bend the rules and give him special treatment so that they rest of us can go in the dark and not be able to communicate with public safety, call our families, conduct our business and work from home in his entire neighborhood. All in the name of not having to look at a box that is smaller than the average manhole cover hanging from the top of a telephone pole that is across the street from his home.
Please neighbors, write the court and demand that this case be summarily dismissed.
Please Mr. Neuhoff, withdraw your appeal before you find yourself or your family in need of good cellphone service and find your own court actions biting you in the a__.
Withholding the ability to call for help by cellphone in 2023 is as much of a crime as the act of making someone feel that they need to call for help in the first place. If your case succeeds, you will be an accomplice to every and any crime that occurs in your neighborhood when the victim or witness pulls out their phone and sees no bars on their screen.
Comments are closed.