GREENFIELD — As Viridi Wireless’ application for a 170-foot AT&T cell tower near 112 Newton St. enters its fourth month before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Fire Chief Robert Strahan, in his role as emergency management director, spoke to first responders’ need for enhanced cell service at the board’s Wednesday night hearing.

Strahan clarified that he did not wish to speak in support of or in opposition to any particular project, adding that he understood the proposed cell tower has been a controversial subject, with a group of concerned citizens rallying to block it. He noted, however, that emergency services rely heavily on cellphone use and often face gaps in reception near the Interstate 91 ramp or during emergency events when cell lines are overloaded.

“I try not to get involved in any type of politics one way or another, but I have been asked to speak on behalf of facts, and facts that I know as the emergency management director and as the fire chief, and I will say in a broad sense, not specific in support or non-support for this project or any project,” Strahan said. “As the emergency management director and your fire chief, I will tell you that the cell coverage in this town is very much in need of improvement.”

The approximately 90 minutes of public comment during the three-hour meeting was dominated by a majority of residents speaking in opposition to the cell tower. Residents argued that AT&T should consider alternative sites, and that the tower would threaten the character of the neighborhood and potentially decrease property values.

Despite ZBA Chair David Singer’s repeated announcement that under federal law, the board cannot consider potential health implications — since the proposed monopole falls within federal radiation emissions guidelines — residents expressed concerns that the cell tower could cause health complications for nearby residents.

Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as long as the radiation levels fall under the Federal Communications Commission’s maximum of 5%, the board cannot legally deny an applicant over health concerns. Other members expressed skepticism with AT&T’s application for the cell tower as a FirstNet tower — a federal program created after 9/11 to prioritize first responder cell communications when cell lines are inaccessible during an emergency. In response, Strahan explained that FirstNet service is essential to emergency personnel in the event of a natural disaster or other large-scale emergency.

“The federal government is the one that has mandated the coverage for first responders, including their goal to have full cellular coverage no matter where you go,” Strahan said. “The world now, whether we like it or not, runs on cellphones, and the capacity, not just the ability, to make a phone call, is important. … If you’re going to have cellphones and you build out the capacity of the cellphones, whether it’s internet, whether it’s TV or whatever, sometimes there’s necessary inputs.”

After a Feb. 20 meeting in which ZBA members urged Viridi and AT&T to consider alternative sites such as the roof of the Hampton Inn & Suites on Shelburne Road, Michael Rosen, an attorney for Viridi Wireless, explained that the site would not meet any of the fall zone requirements outlined in the city’s zoning ordinances.

“We wouldn’t meet any fall zone requirements,” Rosen said. “The building takes up most of the property. … We would be probably somewhere between 40 feet off the property line, as compared to 90 or 100 feet as we proposed. Our ability to put a tower there and satisfy the zoning ordinance would be the same as we’re dealing with here, but there is some coverage loss.”

Following skepticism raised by opponents to the project at the Feb. 20 meeting that the coverage gap near Interstate 91 was nonexistent, which followed requests that AT&T release its call drop data, Rosen and AT&T attorney Ed Perry both explained that the company, for privacy reasons, does not disclose its call drop data.

A balloon test will be conducted at the site of the proposed tower either Saturday or Sunday depending on the weather, after which the ZBA will hear from Andrew Campanelli, an attorney hired by the residents. After this, the applicant will go before the board again in May for a rebuttal.

Singer, stating at the April meeting that he was concerned with the tower’s 170-foot size and its potential fall risk, asked Perry and Rosen whether AT&T could reasonably build a roughly 140-foot tower instead. In response, Rosen explained that given the price of erecting a monopole, AT&T would like to expand coverage to the widest area possible. He added that constructing a shorter tower would likely lead to the construction of multiple shorter cell towers in the future to fill the city’s coverage gap.

Rosen also explained that cell towers similar to the one being proposed “just don’t fall,” and in the rare event that they do, they fall straight down.

“The last thing we want to do is build a tower and then have to take it down and use a different pole and a different technology and a different structure to build something that’s going to hold two or three carriers two years from now, or three years from now, when we’re going to be out there spending seven figures to build a tower,” Rosen said. “We may not be able to show you one [tower] that successfully snapped at the break point. What we may be able to successfully show you is that these just don’t fall down. ... These things are built to withstand 170 mph winds.”

Anthony Cammalleri can be reached at acammalleri@recorder.com or 413-930-4429.