Northborough planning board continues hearing on proposed 130-foot Verizon monopole at 409 Green Street

The Town of Northborough Planning Board continued a contentious public hearing on May 19 over a proposal to build a 130-foot wireless communications monopole and equipment compound at 409 Green Street.

Attorney Michael Fenton, representing co‑applicants Celco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless) and Tower Co., opened the applicants’ presentation and described the proposal as a 130‑foot galvanized‑steel monopole with a 5‑foot lightning rod and a 70‑by‑70‑foot fenced equipment compound. The team introduced consultants who presented engineering plans, radio‑frequency coverage models and photo simulations to justify the site as a solution to a long‑standing coverage gap north of Route 290.

"We were left with this parcel as our proposal and the site that will achieve the requested and needed radio frequency objectives of the carrier," Fenton said, and requested waivers from the board for the town’s 75‑foot height limit and for required setback distances. He told the board the applicants signed a lease in February 2025 and had responded to the town’s peer review (Isotrope) on May 12.

Engineer Stephanie Molharn of Collier Engineering described the site layout: the compound is proposed at the rear of a 2.5‑acre property, accessed via a 12‑foot gravel drive off Green Street, with a locked gate, an 11‑by‑7 concrete equipment pad, an ice canopy and a 50‑kilowatt diesel generator. She said no trees were proposed for removal and that screening is planned along the southern side of the compound.

Keith Valente of CS Squared, Verizon’s RF engineer, displayed before‑and‑after coverage maps in lower‑band (700 MHz) and mid‑band (2100 MHz) simulations. Valente said the proposed site fills documented signal and capacity gaps along Green Street and nearby secondary roads, and that switching on the site would also ease load on nearby towers by redirecting traffic to the new facility.

"The gap within Northborough is predominantly north along Green Street north of 290," Valente said. "When we turn the proposed site on you can see it does fill in a substantial portion of north Northborough and provides capacity relief for surrounding sites." He noted the RF modeling included alternate heights (70, 95 and 115 feet) and a hypothetical installation at an existing TV tower; the team concluded those alternatives would not serve the same coverage need because of topography and redundancy with existing sites.

The applicants also ran a crane test and provided about 300 verification photographs and photo‑simulations. Russ Dasta of VSS testified that year‑round views of the tower would be constrained to a roughly quarter‑mile radius and a few extended vantage points; he said foliage and topography limit visibility from many roads and properties.

Residents pressed several themes in public comment: the tower’s height and location on what speakers described as a scenic road, potential impacts on property values and character, health and safety concerns and whether the primary beneficiaries would be neighboring towns. "My biggest concern is the location of the tower ... it’s a residential area surrounded by farmland," Parisa Freshman said. Several other speakers echoed those points and asked the board to enforce scenic‑road protections.

Board members focused detailed technical questions on alternatives and on data the applicant could provide. Members asked about the feasibility of smaller cells, alternative candidate sites, the effect of the new site on neighboring towers, and objective congestion/capacity metrics. "It would be good to have some data to support" claims that the site is needed for capacity relief, one board member said; the applicant agreed to add congestion/usage data to its follow‑up materials.

The applicant offered several concessions on the record: to provide all letters received (the applicant said it had nine letters of support; the board said it had received a larger set of opposition letters), to model and provide additional maps (including single‑site coverage overlays), to show simulations that include hypothetical collocators and town public‑safety equipment, and to work with local emergency departments on rent‑free collocation if desired.

On safety issues, the applicant confirmed its structural design assumptions and offered a decommissioning condition that would remove the tower if it were no longer used. The applicant also submitted a noise study for the generator and said weekly short tests are typical.

After several hours of testimony and public comment, the board voted to continue the hearing so members and the town’s peer reviewer could review the additional data requested. The board set a continuation for June 9, 2026, at approximately 6:15 p.m.; a roll‑call motion to continue carried.

What’s next: the applicant agreed to submit the supplemental materials discussed — additional coverage/congestion data, full lists of support and opposition letters (with addresses where provided), alternate visual simulations, and responses to Isotrope’s outstanding questions — in advance of the June 9 continuation. The hearing remains open; the board did not vote on waivers or the permit during the May 19 meeting.