WEST SPRINGFIELD – The West Springfield Town Council met Sept. 8 to rehash a resolution regarding the Holyoke Soldiers’ Home and the installation of a cellular tower.

John Paradis, a former communications director and deputy superintendent at the Holyoke Soldiers’ Home supported a joint resolution by the council, West Springfield Mayor Will Reichelt and Veterans’ Service Officer Anthony Ciollaro. The resolution implores the state “to provide safe care and to expedite the design of the New Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke.”

However, Paradis urged the council to reinsert language into the resolution that championed the addition of a 250-bed, fully compliant adult day healthcare (ADHC) facility in the new Soldier’s Home. The language had been removed from the original resolution draft after objection from Councilor Anthony DiStefano, a former chief financial officer (CFO) at the Soldiers’ Home.

“We’re asking the state to acknowledge the necessity of a self-sustaining ADHC program at the home,” Paradis said. He made the case that veterans’ families have requested access to an on-site ADHC, that it would take pressure off other veteran healthcare providers and delay the need for long-term care.

DiStefano later challenged Paradis’s assertions, and said, “My position hasn’t changed since the last time.” He asserted that a small group of people were pushing for the ADHC, while there were better uses of taxpayer money.

Ciollaro said that, while he supports the current resolution, he would like to speak further with Paradis to be thorough in hearing out all sides on the issue. Ciollaro previously spoke with DiStefano after the latter objected to the language in the resolution’s previous incarnation.

A vote on the resolution was continued to the council’s next meeting on Sept. 22 to allow for all sides to be heard.

The second issue taken up at the meeting was a request by AT&T to install a cell tower atop a utility pole near 273 Main St. The issue first came before the board at an Aug. 17 public hearing, in which Main Street resident Carol Brocka, a cancer survivor, expressed concern that 5G cell towers cause cancer.

Councilor Michael Eger described a tower within 100-feet of a home as “way too close” and said a vote to approve the tower was “the most insensitive thing” to Brocka. Eger also stated that a tower on Union Street had yet to be installed, despite approval nine months ago. “If there was a need for that bandwidth in that neighborhood, that project would have been completed by now,” Eger asserted.

Michael Dolan, an attorney representing AT&T in this matter, explained that there were several “regulatory hurdles” and scheduling with the utility to be worked out before installation could be completed on Union Street.

DiStefano stated that there is misinformation regarding the tower, and emphasized that the technology to be installed is not 5G, which refers to the minimum data transfer speed. Telecommunications radiation expert Don Haes explained at the previous meeting that the antenna for which AT&T is seeking permission would run on the 5GHz unlicensed frequency band, what AT&T refers to as 5G Evolution. Dolan agreed and stated that the tower was not a “millimeter wave antenna,” the technology about which people have expressed cancer concerns.

Haes again addressed the council with more information on cellular radiation. He said that as recent as April of this year the FCC updated its limits for exposure to cellular radiation. He also noted that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently reviewed data on whether cellular radiation causes cancer. He said they found “absolutely no evidence” that it does. In fact, cancer rates have decreased over the past 30 years while cellular technology has proliferated, he said. Haes offered the council a compilation of 82 reviews from health agency and government officials affirming the adequacy of the safety guidelines.

Eger suggested creating future regulation on how close to a residence a cell tower can be placed. Councilor Edward Sullivan approved of this idea and the two said they would be more comfortable voting for the project with an ordinance in place. Councilor Kelly asked that telecommunications companies work with the town to create an ordinance in order to balance business needs with health and safety.

“So because we don’t have an ordinance that is going to make some type of set policy for the future, this petitioner is going to have to be held off doing any work?” DiStefano asked. “That seems a little unfair.”

Town Attorney Kate O’Brien-Scott clarified that the vote must be made on the standards that are already in place. Any future ordinance cannot be applied to a petition before the council before that ordinance is passed.

“I will always try to air for the individual,” said Councilor Daniel O’Brien. “I don’t want Mrs. Brocka to feel that she is alone and that she hasn’t been heard. I don’t want her to be afraid.”

Fellow Councilor Nathan Bech made the argument that a fear of radiation is not the same as a danger of radiation. “It’s not going to be dangerous at all, and so that’s my best understanding of the science,” he said.

Council President Brian Griffin objected to voting on the issue before the council could read the reviews presented by Haes. “I’m not sure if it will change minds or not change minds, he said, but felt all pertinent information should be considered. The vote was continued to the next meeting.

Aside from the placement, questions had been raised at the Aug. 17 meeting by Eger as to why a pole had already been erected at the site without a permit. DiStefano explained to the council that the pole is not owned by AT&T, but instead by Eversource. Eversource was made aware of the absence of a permit for installation of the pole, and has since rectified the paperwork.