Key Concerns Regarding the Proposed Cell Tower in Marshfield:

1. 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 tower would certainly effect the village's visual appeal, being 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
2. Health Risks: The proposed location for the 140-foot cell tower places it too close to Marshfield's densest population area. Studies have shown that living within proximity to cell towers is associated with an increased risk of cancer and many other adverse health effects. This raises critical concerns for the well-being of our community. STUDY: health risks | PRESS RELEASE: American Cancer Society and NTP acknowledge links to cancer
3. 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
4. Environmental Concerns: Our 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 environmental pollution and disproving any placebo effects in humans. STUDY: cell towers harm wildlife | STUDY: RF injures trees around cell towers
5. 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. The 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 effective approach that serves more people with a less harmful tower. MAP: Coverage Maps from Verizon

We ask that the Marshfield Selectboard uphold our town regulations and recommend that the PUC deny this tower application. More consideration and say from the town will help protect our community's health, the environment, and aesthetic rural qualities.

LINK TO MARSHFIELD TOWN PLAN
LINK TO MARSHFIELD TELECOM BYLAWS