Cell Tower on Church
Sparks Controversy
By Martha Slater

Well over 30 residents joined the Rochester Zoning Board of Adjustment for a more than three-hour public hearing Tuesday evening, April 1 at the town office.

The purpose of the hearing was to gather opinions about an application from the Rochester Federated Church and Unicel for permission to install a cell phone antenna in the steeple of the church on Main St. This winter, church members voted 35-9 to approve a proposal from Unicel to do so. The company’s stated goal is to provide cell phone coverage for the town and for as much of Route 100 as possible.

Will Dodge, an attorney representing RCC Atlantic (dba Unicel), said Unicel was proposing to put a total of three antennas of just over two feet in length in the belfry, as well as operating equipment in the basement. Cables would run through the building to connect the equipment with the antennas. Dodge pointed out that, "technically, there are two applications, the first one for a small-scale facility application and the second one is a full conditional use application."

Brian Fraser, a radio frequency engineer for Unicel, said the stretch of Route 100 from the center of Hancock to Route 73 "is a 3,000 count per day road and that’s why Rochester got chosen."

He spoke about three other locations in town that he had considered and said the church building was chosen because it is a central point in town, and it would be easy to make the antennas invisible to passerby by installing them in the belfry.

Representing the town, Atty. Jim Dumont said it was his understanding that while the town could not say no to cell coverage, it did have a lot of say as to where that coverage could be located. The town was allowed to hire an independent reviewer to say if other locations might be suitable.

In reply, Fraser referred to the study he had done of a spot on top of a wooded hill at the land south of town on Route 73 and said that location, (just in terms of actual square mileage covered), delivered "more complete coverage than the location at the church." However, a tower at a height of 70-120 ft. would have to be built at that site and so it would be more expensive.

Dodge said that regulations stated that alternate locations could be used only if an existing structure could not be used to accommodate an antenna. He said no lease contract had been signed with the church.

The board did not make a decision about the application at Tuesday night’s meeting, but did spend a lot of time at the end of the meeting going over each portion of the application and asking Fraser and Dodge for more information to clarify a number of points. Board chair Sandy Haas said a written decision would be forthcoming after the board held a deliberative session to assess its findings.

On the topic of the amount of radio frequency emissions from the antennas, Unicel rep Marty Blatz spoke about the electromagnetic field analysis he had conducted. He said that, "at a maximum, the exposure would be 3.2% of what the FCC states as a maximum exposure rate to radiation for the general public."

There were questions from the board about exposure dangers for anyone performing building maintenance, and Blatz said the most concentrated exposure takes place within a six-foot radius of the antenna.

Dodge said Unicel had hired a historical consultant from the state of Vermont, who had concluded that the antenna would not interfere with the historic value design of the building. If the project is approved, Unicel would replace the existing belfry structure with one that would appear to be identical, but would be made of materials easier for the cell signal to pass through.

Church trustee member Marvin Harvey said the church had not solicited the proposal and the church "only wanted the public good."

Ray Harvey of the Rochester Vol. Fire Dept. said he was in favor of bringing cell phone service to the valley since there was a need for improved communication abilities during emergency situations.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, health concerns about the effects of radiation emitted by the tower were uppermost in the minds of most of those who spoke, urging the board to use caution before agreeing to the proposal.

Board member Joan Pontius read a letter from the Deb and Richard Mathiesen who own the property next door to the church, and were unable to attend the hearing. The letter explained their daughter’s past problems with seizures, which they worry will be exacerbated by the radiation from the antenna.

Travis Shores gave his opinion that "what we’re talking about here in town is a danger to the residents in this area. It also opens the door to anyone who wants to stick an ugly cell tower on one of the ridgelines."

Kathryn Schenkman spoke for a group of 50 voters who had signed a petition asking the commission to consider setback requirements for telecommunication towers, and read the wording of the petition. She submitted a packet of information in support of their request.

Midge Scanlan said "the church has made an assumption that the community as a whole would like to have this service and yet I feel like we as a community haven’t been asked if we want it or not. We all should have a say about something that will affect all of us. It would be prudent for us to be cautious about this, and explore other alternatives."

Resident Bruce Marshall spoke angrily about his problems with sensitivity to cell phones and said he was sure a "brain cancer holocaust" would result from the proliferation of cell towers across the country.

When resident Carrie Burkard said she felt the cell service was "more for people who don’t live here than for people who do," Fraser said three of the 11 complaints received about no cell service came from local residents.

Burkard said she had read a lot about the dangers to the human brain from constant exposure to cell phones themselves, adding, "I think we don’t need to be in a major rush. Our children’s health is at risk and people under 20 are most susceptible to radiation dangers."

Selectboard member Doon Hinderyckx asked Fraser if the FCC was obligated to make companies re-consider and investigate complaints, and local attorney Susan Disbrow said the FCC does not supersede the local board’s ability to investigate and decide an issue.