Not sure why it shows me as Salem - I live in Mansfield, near the property
D
Darlene
8 years ago
Featured
I oppose the construction of the cell phone tower as it will be TOO close to residential properties. Is there another site more suitable for this tower? I have read research that it is hazardous to our health. It is problematic to the surrounding homes due to the wetlands/vernal pools that surround that area.
R
robert camp
8 years ago
Featured
This tower would be more feasible and desirable on town land. Specifically our new public safety complex where we are going to have to build a tower anyway.
D
Diane McGuire
8 years ago
This took my current location at work - I LIVE in Mansfield
D
Diane McGuire
8 years ago
No tower!
W
Wayne Lampron
8 years ago
I oppose the cell tower being conceded for branch st.
M
Mayela Diaz
8 years ago
I disagree
T
Tad Sherrill
8 years ago
The Mansfield Police station is currently in competition with Foxboro to become central dispatch for the surrounding towns. Foxboro has an advantage with an existing tower on site - this is an opportunity for Mansfield to improve our (current) police station.
D
Deana DeSilva
8 years ago
Please vote no cell tower
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
I oppose the tower in Branch st., Mansfield, MA
J
Julia Camp
8 years ago
delete This certainly is a case of the property owner just looking to make more money, and not a cellular carrier looking to improve coverage. There are plenty of municipal areas in town, including the new police station (which needs some sort of tower anyway) that would not be as visible and would not be near residences. Right now only one carrier is proposed, but the application allows for 2 or 3 more, which would mean this would get higher (and more of an eyesore). Not to mention, they want a variance so that they can go against the local by-law about being more than 500 feet from a residence. By-laws are in place for a reason. If they are allowed to build it on their proposed site, they also will be close to the bike path - and if it did fall over (especially since it would be on/near wetland property with soft soil), it could fall on the path. And neighbors on the back side of the property have already had drainage issues from the property being developed. More could be worse.
R
Robert Mattice
8 years ago
There must be a better site for this to go on.
A
Aaron Nicodemus
8 years ago
Lots of better places to put this 90 pole of ugliness.
R
Ramiro Jara
8 years ago
Featured
Not only an eyesore, but a potential health hazard, and a detriment to our home values. Cell coverage is not lacking - what’s the upside other then making the owner money?
N
Nancy Creedon
8 years ago
Featured
Too close to residences! There have been studies done in other countries that show an increase in cancer of individuals residing within the suggested proximity of these towers.
G
German
8 years ago
No queremos la torre
S
Sergio Martin
8 years ago
Featured
The objective of the owner of the property is not to improve cell coverage but only to make more money out of his property. There are non-residential locations that make more sense, would improve coverage and would not require any ZBA variance.
J
James Farley
8 years ago
Lisa,
We've had a chance to review the public submission to the planning office. If you review the schematics you'll see dates as far back as late December 2017.
Thanks again for your support!
L
Lisa Rawlings
8 years ago
It’s insane. I just heard about it yesterday, but have no idea how long it’s been in the works.
A
Adam Kelly
8 years ago
Featured
This is completely outrageous. There should be plenty of space by the new police station. It would be close by but not on top of people’s houses!
Not sure why it shows me as Salem - I live in Mansfield, near the property
I oppose the construction of the cell phone tower as it will be TOO close to residential properties. Is there another site more suitable for this tower? I have read research that it is hazardous to our health. It is problematic to the surrounding homes due to the wetlands/vernal pools that surround that area.
This tower would be more feasible and desirable on town land. Specifically our new public safety complex where we are going to have to build a tower anyway.
This took my current location at work - I LIVE in Mansfield
No tower!
I oppose the cell tower being conceded for branch st.
I disagree
The Mansfield Police station is currently in competition with Foxboro to become central dispatch for the surrounding towns. Foxboro has an advantage with an existing tower on site - this is an opportunity for Mansfield to improve our (current) police station.
Please vote no cell tower
I oppose the tower in Branch st., Mansfield, MA
delete This certainly is a case of the property owner just looking to make more money, and not a cellular carrier looking to improve coverage. There are plenty of municipal areas in town, including the new police station (which needs some sort of tower anyway) that would not be as visible and would not be near residences. Right now only one carrier is proposed, but the application allows for 2 or 3 more, which would mean this would get higher (and more of an eyesore). Not to mention, they want a variance so that they can go against the local by-law about being more than 500 feet from a residence. By-laws are in place for a reason. If they are allowed to build it on their proposed site, they also will be close to the bike path - and if it did fall over (especially since it would be on/near wetland property with soft soil), it could fall on the path. And neighbors on the back side of the property have already had drainage issues from the property being developed. More could be worse.
There must be a better site for this to go on.
Lots of better places to put this 90 pole of ugliness.
Not only an eyesore, but a potential health hazard, and a detriment to our home values. Cell coverage is not lacking - what’s the upside other then making the owner money?
Too close to residences! There have been studies done in other countries that show an increase in cancer of individuals residing within the suggested proximity of these towers.
No queremos la torre
The objective of the owner of the property is not to improve cell coverage but only to make more money out of his property. There are non-residential locations that make more sense, would improve coverage and would not require any ZBA variance.
Lisa, We've had a chance to review the public submission to the planning office. If you review the schematics you'll see dates as far back as late December 2017. Thanks again for your support!
It’s insane. I just heard about it yesterday, but have no idea how long it’s been in the works.
This is completely outrageous. There should be plenty of space by the new police station. It would be close by but not on top of people’s houses!