Residents Fired Up Over Proposed Cell Phone Antennae in Watertown


Watertown Town Hall

Residents came out to express their concerns to the Town Council about proposed cell phone antennae in two locations in Watertown.

The concern is not just about possible health concerns from having a cell antenna near homes, but also about the new regulations that make it more difficult for communities to deny new cell phone antenna locations.

Keenan Brinn, representing ExteNet — which is petitioning for the antennae — said the company seeks to put up one antenna on a utility pole at 141 Palfrey Street and one on a pole at 550 Arsenal Street. The company also seeks to put one near the main intersection of Watertown Square, in the vicinity of Charles River Road, but that falls under the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s jurisdiction.

“ExteNet is interested in building out the fifth generation cellular network, otherwise know as 5G,” Brinn said.

The antennae would be on the top of two utility poles owned by Eversource with a brown cylinder around the antenna and a meter, and an equipment box halfway up the pole, Brinn said.

Before the discussion started at Tuesday’s meeting, Town Council President Mark Sideris said that despite being advertised as a vote by the Council, the proposals will first go to the Council’s Public Works Committee for a more in depth discussion.

“I will take responsibility for putting the cart before the horse,” Sideris said. “We should have gone to subcommittee first.”

He added that the Council is limited to what it can do when it comes to health, according to new regulations on cellular providers passed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in September.

“Federal law does not allow us to discuss health issues on cellular equipment, so I am going to ask you, do not go to the health issue because that is not something any of us can deal with,” Sideris said.

Resident Dan Grossman said that most of the people at the hearing came because they have concerns about the safety of cell antennae.

“I just want to say that Federal law does not prohibit you from discussing health concerns. Federal law prohibits you from using health concerns as criteria for making a decision,” Grossman said. “Aside from the legal issue, I think the science is contentious. The reason you are not suppose to use that as criteria is because the telecom industry did not want it to get in the way of putting antennae where ever they want to. “

Resident Paul Lithotomos, who lives a street over from Palfrey Street, said he has concerns about the impact an antenna would have on people living in the, including his children.

“People say not clear that it’s unsafe, but it’s not clear that it’s safe, either,” Lithotomos said. “I am a biologist. I like data. Show us the data that it’s safe. If it is not safe, we shouldn’t put it up.”

Sharon Bauer, a resident, noted that the World Health Organization classifies cell phone towers and mobile phones as possible carcinogens and is considering reclassifying them to probable carcinogens.

The new Federal regulations also seem to get in the way of local and state regulations, said resident Elodia Thomas. She noted that Watertown’s zoning rules for wireless communication facilities do not allow cell antennae in areas zoned for residential use, within 50 feet of a residential zone, or any structure with any residential use.

Thomas added that she is not 100 against improving the cellular coverage in town.

“I will not be totally negative because many people in Town want better cell reception,” Thomas said. “I happen to live in an area where it absolutely stinks.”

Councilor Angeline Kounelis noted that some of the bigger apartment buildings already have cellular antennae on their roofs.

“When you bring up neighborhoods, residents should drive around town and look at apartment buildings and see how they are loaded with cellular antennae. Many of us have been voicing concerns for decades,” Kounelis said. “People are sleeping right under these antennae, it is sad. Many of residents of the properties probably do not even know the antennae are there. Bottom line, the property owners allow this to happen.”

Thomas suggested bringing the issue to the Massachusetts Attorney General, because many communities have concerns. Grossman said Watertown does not have to just go along with the new regulations.

“I am not sure if little Watertown is going to sue the Federal government or is going to try to buck the Federal Telecom Act, but those things do happen,” Grossman said. “Towns say, ‘We have come to this conclusion, and sue us if you want, we’ll take it to the Supreme Court.’ I am not suggesting this is something we should be doing, but I suggest we should be looking into this and see if this is something that Watertown wants, or not, and to act accordingly.”

Town Attorney Mark Reich said that the new regulations do not take effect until Jan. 1, 2019, but he added that under the previous regulations the town has 150 days to act on a petition for a cell antennae. The proposal was made at the end of July, so the time period is more than half over.

Speaking on his own behalf, Sideris said he wants to make the right decision for the people of Watertown.

“I have no concern of the timeline. Separating myself, on behalf of myself, we are going to get this right. We are going to have a policy in place that takes care of the community,” Sideris said. “We are going to get this right for the Town of Watertown, not what is right for ExteNet or other cellular providers.”

The Council voted to send the two proposals to the Public Works subcommittee for more discussion. Keenan said he would attend and would bring others from ExteNet, including a health and safety expert.

The date of the meeting has not been announced.

7 thoughts on “Residents Fired Up Over Proposed Cell Phone Antennae in Watertown

  1. Did you mean to say “2019” in this sentence: “Town Attorney Mark Reich said that the new regulations do not take effect until Jan. 1, 2018…”?

  2. Here is an update from Vincent Piccirilli, Town Council VP & District C Councilor that was recently received. Be sure to sign up for “Notify Me” to receive information about meetings/events.

    November 17, 2018
    Subject: Follow-up – Proposed cell wireless tower at 141 Palfrey Street

    “Hello everyone. Many of you were present at the November 13th Town Council meeting, and I really appreciate having a big crowd in attendance and the thoughtful comments that were made by those who spoke. I’d like to provide a brief update on the next steps.

    There were two petitions by ExteNet Systems scheduled for a public hearing for small cell antennas to be co-located on existing utility poles at 141 Palfrey St and at 550 Arsenal St. With many unanswered questions, those petitions were tabled. We also learned that ExteNet Systems submitted a third petition to DCR for an antenna to be located on DCR property in Watertown Square (I don’t have any details on this one yet.)

    I made a motion that the Council refer the two ExteNet Systems petitions to the Public Works Committee to undertake due diligence including an analysis of the technical issues and the permitting process with this new technology, determine an appropriate application fee and other possible conditions to be imposed, and make recommendations to the Town Council. This was voted unanimously.

    As Chair of the Public Works Committee, I will be scheduling meetings beginning in January 2019. If you haven’t already, please sign up for “Notify Me” on the Town’s website to get notification when these meetings are scheduled (go to Site Tools > Notifications then select Council).

    There are two things that will inform our Committee discussion:

    First: On October 15th, the FCC’s Small Cell Order was published in the Federal Register, establishing an effective date of January 14, 2019. The Order sets nationwide standards under Sections 332(c)(7) and 253 of the Communications Act for the installation of “Small Wireless Facilities” (small cells) in public rights of way (ROW) and the collocation of small cells on state and municipal streetlight poles, utility poles and other facilities in the public ROW. The decision limits the ability of state and local governments to assess charges for processing small cell applications and to set annual rent for small cell facilities, and establishes “shot clocks” for state and local governments to process small cell applications.

    The FCC regulations are located here:

    Second: The Watertown Zoning Ordinance does not apply to the public Rights of Way; it only applies to property parcels; thus the Zoning Board of Appeals is not the Special Permit Granting Authority. A grant of location in a public ROW can only be authorized by the Town Council. Thus, the Committee will be developing a new process for these small cell antennas in the public ROW that is different from the Zoning Ordinance, but will likely use that ordinance as a framework.

    The Zoning Ordinance is located here:–Amended-192018?bidId

    Please feel free to contact me by email or phone if you have questions.

    Vincent Piccirilli
    Vice President & District C Councilor
    203 Orchard St

  3. Most people will be happy to see faster internet speeds that 5G could eventually deliver but without further study the current way of 5G networks implementation is irresponsible to say the least. More study is needed. There are many concerns here
    Concerns about effects of 5G on human health. The 5G technology uses millimeter wave frequencies that deliver much denser levels of electromagnetic energy comparing to 2G, 3G or 4G that are currently in use. There are multiple studies of 2G, 3G, 4G cell phone frequency radiation including the study from the US Department of Health and Human Services that all point out to negative effects of cell phone radio frequency radiation on living organisms even on the levels delivered by 2G, 3G, 4G wireless standards. 5G standard is new and its health effects are not thoroughly studied but it doesn’t seem like higher doses of radiation will be healthier than lower doses.

    Another public concern is that FCC restricted cities’ ability to regulate 5G infrastructure. Now local governments face tight deadlines to approve or reject the installation of new cellular equipment. There are also limits on how much money the cities can charge wireless firms for the privilege of putting their hardware in public places. At $500 for installing on an existing pole and at $270 for an ongoing annual fee. This is far less, sometimes thousands of dollars less, than what Boston and other communities charge.
    What about property values? The nature of millimeter waves used in 5G is that they don’t travel that far and don’t penetrate buildings that well comparing to lower frequency waves used in 2G,3G,4G. So in order to have a fast and reliable connection on 5G you’d need to have much more smaller back pack sized cell antennae on utility poles spread out throughout the town. Two new antennae on Parfrey St and Arsenal St could be the first step but it will not be sufficient to provide fast and reliable 5G coverage in Watertown. Eventually many more antennae would be needed. The current 5G technology suggests approx.. one 5G cell antenna per block. More cell antennae closer to homes will lower the property value of such homes.
    As Tom Wheeler the former FCC chair stated in his press conference “Unlike some countries we do not believe that we should spend the next couple of years studying what 5g should be or how it should operate. The future has the way of inventing itself. Turning innovators (AKA “industry profiteers”) loose is far preferable than expecting committees and regulators to define the future. We won’t wait for the standards!” but many people in Watertown and beyond disagree with this statement. Public discomfort about 5G’s effects on human health and the communities around them has led the state of Hawaii to threaten to hold companies installing 5G systems liable for any resulting health damage. California’s legislature has freed individual towns to write their own 5G rules, and at least three have stopped 5G’s expansion inside their borders until the towns review research and pass more permanent ordinances. At least 20 U.S. municipalities are challenging a Federal Communications Commission rule limiting their autonomy in the rollout of 5G wireless networks. Separate lawsuits were filed in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Bellevue, Wash., Portland, Ore., and several other cities and counties. They ask the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals to review FCC rule changes which include restrictions on municipalities in charging access to public utility poles by wireless companies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *