The Hudson Board of Appeals is considering a permit from Omnipoint Communications for a cell tower at the Murphy Road/Crestview Drive water tower site. The local residents are in strong opposition on the grounds this location houses an existing tower which was built to accommodate three antennas. AT&T and Sprint have antennas on this tower, which leaves an open slot for Omnipoint. The purpose of Hudson's Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) bylaw states, "...minimizing the adverse impacts of wireless communication facilities... promote the shared use of wireless communication facilities." Granting this permit for a second tower, where an existing tower with co-location space, would be contrary to the purpose of this bylaw. The WCF states, "All towers shall be designed to accommodate the maximum number of foreseeable users." Would the governing boards of Hudson require a wireless provider to build a tower that accommodates three antennas then not require subsequent providers to use available space prior to building a second tower? The following list presents additional opposition to this tower: * The Planning Board in a letter to the Board of Appeals stated, "The Planning Board would ask that the Board of Appeals strongly encourage co-location on sites where towers exist and space for co-location is available ... specific to the Crestview site where there is an existing tower with an available location for a co-locator. The Board ...
Anytime
