GREENFIELD — The Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on Wednesday to approve Viridi Wireless’ application to construct a 170-foot AT&T cell tower on Fairview Street, ending a six-month period of debate involving a group of concerned citizens.

The company first brought forward its application in December, requesting a variance due to the proposed site’s lack of a sufficient fall zone and a special permit to build a tower that exceeds the city’s height limits for construction. Board members expressed satisfaction that the tower’s engineered “pinch point” design, in which the monopole would bend in half rather than fall in the event of a failure, serves as a sufficient safety measure.

Discussing the fall zone variance in their final deliberations, board members said the applicant likely did not need a height variance to comply with the city’s ordinances. According to ZBA Chair David Singer, the wireless ordinance doesn’t contain specifications concerning height.

“The General Commercial District has a 60-foot height limit,” Singer said, “yet there’s nothing in the wireless ordinance that talks about any kind of a height limit. ... The purpose of that [fall zone variance] is for safety. That’s the sole purpose.”

When the proposal was first brought before the ZBA in December, there was pushback from community members who are concerned with its appearance, as well as potential health and safety risks.

Since then, the board has heard testimony from numerous individuals, including Fire Chief Robert Strahan and Dr. Kent Chamberlain, of New Hampshire’s Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. The board has also spoken with peer-reviewed engineers and held multiple balloon tests to determine the tower’s visibility throughout the city.

When discussing the necessary height for the structure, ZBA member Debra Gilkes said she would rather the applicant install a taller cell tower initially, than have to replace the monopole in the future to accommodate additional service carriers.

“We already know that they intend to expand — our ordinance asks that that’s what you do, you allow additional carriers,” Gilkes remarked. “You might as well allow for that height now, [rather] than have somebody have to either replace the pole or go looking for another place to put another cell tower. Let’s make it what it needs to be now and not have to mess with it again.”

Representatives from AT&T and Viridi Wireless have also spoken to the need for a new tower, citing a gap in cellular coverage near the Interstate 91 rotary and along sections of the highway. They have also provided maps and expert testimonials to explain why this specific site was selected over others.

“The proposed communication facility has done its best to minimize its impact,” Singer said. “It’s not going to be built any higher than 170 feet. It’s complied with all the other provisions that are generally application-oriented. We’ve agreed that no other existing approved structure can accommodate [the tower].”

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