25.02.2025 14:31
As we all learn more about the Town Plan, Telecom Bylaws, and tower application process, some important updates/additions to the language for clarity and efficacy are necessary:
- New petition image using newly available, more accurate ballon test based photography.
- Added language on non-compliance with Marshfield town docs & tower application denial in "Description" to better reflect the means/abilities the town has to effect change.
- Added language about Marshfield Protected Viewshed & tower height regulations (#1 Aesthetic and Value Impact).
- Added link to press release about the ACS & NTP acknowledging links to cancer (#2 Health Risks).
- Added prohibitory language per bylaws Re: proximity to wetland. Added link to study about RF damage to trees (#4 Environmental Concerns section).
- Added language and link reflecting the newly available Verizon coverage maps (aka propagation plots) and notes insufficient coverage by the proposed tower (#5 Current Coverage...).
New petition description:
Petition to RELOCATEDeny Proposed Cell Tower Application in Marshfield:
We acknowledge and understand the need for better cell coverage in our town and surrounding towns - particularly in our village and towns to the north and east of Marshfield (Cabot, Danville, Peacham, Groton, etc).
However, we, the undersigned, stand united in our opposition to Verizon's proposal to construct a 140-foot cell tower at 2264 U.S. Route 2. This tower threatens to disrupt our landscape and poses health risks,risks. asThe ittower liesproposal by Verizon is also not within acompliance 0.3-milewith radiusthe town of ourMarshfield's village'sregulatory densestdocuments population.- the Town Plan and Telecommunications Bylaws.
Research indicates increased health risks, including cancer, including increased harm to children, and harm to pets, livestock, and local wildlife. Additionally, the tower's visibility could reduce property values and be significantly injurious to the natural aesthetic beauty of Marshfield, especially our village center. Verizon must find alternative locations that are greater than 3.5 miles from the village center.
Join us in protecting the health, safety, and beauty of our town by signing this petition to demand the relocation of the proposed cell tower.
Neue Begründung:
Key Concerns Regarding the Proposed Cell Tower in MarshfieldMarshfield:
- Aesthetic and Value Impact: The proposed tower location falls within a "Protected Viewshed" zone (Viewshed map: Town Plan pg 88, Telecom Bylaws, Sec. 1.12 C). The 140-foot tower also exceeds height limitations by 60-70ft (Telecom Bylaws, Sec. 1.12 B) and will dominate the landscape, standing 260 feet above US Rte 2 at the village's southern/western entry. Bylaws Sec. 12 states: "Proposed facilities shall not unreasonably interfere with the view from any public park, natural scenic vista, historic building or district, or major view corridor" This
willtoweraffectwould certainly effect the village's visualappeal.appeal,Presencebeing prominently visible from the Old Schoolhouse Common and adjacent public park. The presence of a cell tower can also decrease property values by up to 10%-20%. ARTICLE: cell towers lower property values | STUDY: impact on property values - Health Risks: The proposed location for the 140-foot cell tower places it
withintooaclose0.3-mile radius ofto Marshfield's densest population area. Studies have shown that living withinthisproximity to cell towers is associated with an increased risk of cancer and many other adverse health effects. This raisessignificantcritical concerns for the well-being of our community. STUDY: health risks | PRESS RELEASE: American Cancer Society and NTP acknowledge links to cancer - Impact on Children: Children are particularly susceptible to the effects of cell tower radiation. Research highlights that children are more vulnerable to potential health impacts, necessitating extra caution in infrastructure planning - the tower is too close to the public library and play ground. STUDY: effects on children | STUDY: health risks and sensitivity in children
- Environmental Concerns:
TheOur Bylaws require towers to be more than 140 feet (height of tower) away from streams and wetlands, whereas the proposal places the tower site within 50 ft of a stream on one side and 50 ft of a classified wetland on the other (Telecom Bylaws, Sec. 1.6 A, F). This construction would increase erosion and flood damage effects in a town suffering greatly from flood damages. Additionally, the installation and operation of cell towers can harm pets, livestock, wildlife, and vegetation also. Studies have noted patterns of tree death and declining bird populations near cell towers and other environmental impacts, making RF radiation a form of environmentalpollution.pollution and disproving any placebo effects in humans. STUDY: cell towers harm wildlife | STUDY: RF injures trees around cell towers - Current Coverage & Proposed New Coverage: The necessity of the tower's location may also be questionable, given the existing adequate coverage in areas west and south of town.
AddressingThe additional coverage by the proposed tower does indeed cover the village zone, but is otherwise insufficient. New coverage includes only a narrow band along Rte 2 from the tower site north and east to the Rte 232/Wheeler Rd area - not even reaching the dam or Molly's Falls Pond. Achieving better coverage and better addressing coverage gaps in less serviced areas might be a more effectiveapproach.approach that serves more people with a less harmful tower. MAP: Coverage Maps from Verizon
We urgeask that the Marshfield Selectboard uphold our town regulations and recommend that the PUC deny this tower application. More consideration ofand ansay alternativefrom locationthe totown will help protect our community's health, the environment, and aesthetic appeal.rural qualities.
LINK TO MARSHFIELD TOWN PLANLINK TO MARSHFIELD TELECOM BYLAWS
New deadline: 03.07.2025
Signatures at the time of the change: 82
