At the forefront of the meeting was a debate over the proposed cell tower’s height and its implications for both safety and service. The tower, planned to be 170 feet tall, faced scrutiny from residents and council members alike, who questioned the necessity of such height. Some participants argued that a reduction in height could still meet emergency service needs while minimizing potential risks. However, counterarguments highlighted the risk of future coverage gaps, which could necessitate additional towers, thus contradicting the community’s preference to limit the number of such structures.

The discussion also delved into the technicalities surrounding the tower’s engineering, particularly its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions. Skepticism emerged regarding assurances about the tower’s safety features, with one participant demanding evidence that the engineering would function effectively in real-world scenarios.

Public comments during the meeting revealed a community divided on the necessity of the tower. Some residents, like Andrew Vernon and Heather Newell, advocated for the tower, emphasizing the need for improved cellular service across Greenfield, particularly in areas currently experiencing significant coverage deficiencies. They argued that enhanced service would not only benefit residents but also bolster emergency response capabilities, as the community increasingly relies on cellular networks for communication.

In stark contrast, other residents voiced strong opposition, citing health risks and visual impacts as major concerns. Alana Kersbomb and Laura Josephs were among those who criticized the lack of concrete evidence proving a significant service gap, demanding more substantial data, such as drop call statistics, to justify the tower’s construction. These residents also questioned the potential radiation exposure and its impact on property values, particularly in residential areas close to the proposed site.

The debate also touched on broader regulatory and legal considerations, with discussions about the compliance of the proposed site with zoning regulations and federal laws. A member of the zoning board clarified the legal framework, emphasizing that the council’s decision must be grounded in federal statutes, which require proof of a significant coverage gap to justify the tower’s placement.

Further complicating the discussion was the introduction of satellite technology, specifically Starlink, as a potential alternative to traditional cell towers. While some participants expressed interest in exploring this technology as a means to address coverage gaps, a representative from AT&T dismissed satellite solutions as insufficient for regular cell service, particularly for first responders who require reliable and robust communication networks.

As the meeting progressed, the council faced challenges in balancing community concerns with the technical and regulatory demands of the cell tower proposal.

The council ultimately decided to continue the hearing to April 17, with plans for a balloon test to provide a visual representation of the proposed tower’s height. This test was scheduled to allow residents and council members to better assess the tower’s potential impact on the community’s landscape.