Chilmark officials said they would be open to reconsidering the town’s longtime cell tower ban at a public hearing on Chilmark’s cell connectivity during Tuesday’s select board meeting.
The Chilmark Select Board hearing focused on the implementation of small Verizon cell facilities on utility poles in Chilmark and Aquinnah. The proposed installation is a part of a larger effort to improve the longstanding problem of slow cell service plaguing the up-Island towns. Fourteen of the 23 facilities planned for Chilmark fall under town jurisdiction, while the remainder are under the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s authority.
Verizon legal representative Michael Giaimo described the cell facilities as “an improvement that will benefit the town.”
“It enhances community safety and enables quick emergency reporting. It supports first responders, ride-share, and people who want to keep track of their kids when they’re off on their bikes or out at the beach,” he said to the Chilmark Select Board.
Cell phone connectivity has been an ongoing issue for Chilmark and Aquinnah. There are dead spots with no service in different parts of the towns, and first responders have previously told The Times that there have been instances when poor connection made it harder to help someone in need of assistance.
Currently, Chilmark does not have any cell towers for general use, due to a zoning bylaw voted on by town residents 15 years ago that prohibits them. The only exception is a tower installed by the U.S. Coast Guard on Peaked Hill, designated exclusively for emergency services.
Instead, Chilmark and Aquinnah share a distributed antenna system, which places facilities consisting of an antenna and cables throughout the two towns to boost signal strength for cell phones.
Verizon’s representatives said that building a large cell tower or “macrotower” in Chilmark has been a longtime goal for the company, despite the town’s restrictions. They estimate that construction would take two to five years.
Marie Larsen, chair of the Chilmark Select Board, admitted that the increased use of cell phones may shift the town’s strict stance against cell towers.
“People had home phones still, and now people have gone to cell phones,” she said about the vote 15 years ago. “The town might have a different feeling about macrotowers.”
Chilmark Town Administrator Timothy Carroll said that the next step to amending the ban would be for the select board to file a letter with the Chilmark planning board about the reconsideration. From there, the planning board would work to gather feedback from residents and possibly hold a public hearing.
“The macro site would create much better coverage for the bulk of the town,” he said. “These small cell [facilities] fill in the blank spots, and so they may serve a role depending on where the macro tower is set up.”
At the hearing, the main concern expressed by Chilmark residents was that the installation of more Verizon facilities would prevent other wireless carriers from setting up on the same utility poles, which could create an unfair advantage for Verizon and its customers.
Larsen expressed her concerns about the potential accumulation of cell facilities from other carriers if Verizon’s plan is approved.
“Once we get stuff on those poles, it’s never coming down,” she said.
However, Matthew Poole, a select board member, said that immediately rejecting Verizon’s proposal could discourage other carriers from making efforts to improve their cell coverage in Chilmark rather than addressing the issue.
“From the perspective of trying to motivate the carriers to improve coverage in town, I’m not sure that denying this application tonight does what we’re thinking it might do,” he said. “We’re heading into summer, business as usual, and we’re going to be cussing on our cell phones.”
Ultimately, the select board ruled to continue the hearing into their next meeting.
I used to have a wireless company and have some experience with cellphone coverage issues. The distributed antenna system approved 15 years ago was ok, but clearly has left coverage gaps. Allowing a commercial tower on peaked hill next to or colocated with the Coast Guard tower would probably cover 90% plus or minus of Chilmark.
So you don’t get three carriers putting up different towers (ATT/Verizon/Tmobile), require them all to share infrastructure.
Have each carrier provide coverage maps for any of their proposals. They all have departments than can calculate the coverage for their proposals. Don’t let them tell you “bars”, get the actual RF expected measurements. Understand that power levels are described in dBm (decibels). Lower dBm numbers are better and anything over 100 or so is trash coverage. Also, have them provide coverage maps with the expected traffic in the summer with demand and tree cover (tree leaves do effect RF propagation).
My summer place has a landline that doesn’t work since the line is just run over the ground and it has been beat up and doesn’t work very well.
Major carriers share antenna space on cell towers all the time. The idea that 3 towers would be needed is simply incorrect. An additional benefit is to the home internet market. Carriers can offer high speed internet in the home via cellular data and a small cell modem for the home. Competition in the internet connection market is a good thing.
Comments are closed.