PUTNEY — Over abutters' objections, and with officials not in favor, AT&T reportedly is proceeding with its petition for a state Certificate of Public Good to erect a 135-foot cell tower on residential land here.
Following a nearly four-hour public hearing March 11 at which an AT&T representative once more addressed impassioned public concern about the project, officials denied the company token support it sought with the Vermont Public Service Board.
Nevertheless, the state's section 248a process authorizes the PSB to permit cell towers without local approval, as this service is widely viewed to be in the overriding public interest.
AT&T has appeared here at several hearings to defend its proposal among residents, and to accommodate reasonable concerns - including those of visibility and aesthetics.
The March 11 hearing was the fourth in a what a town official estimated was a total of 13 hours of hearings on the subject.
The telecommunications giant apparently has settled on the idea of a “mono-pine” cell tower at 20 Shag Bark Hill, off of Old Route 5 behind the Putney Food Co-op, within a fenced “compound” including a climate-controlled equipment room.
The well-attended meeting, a joint appearance of the Selectboard and Planning Commission at the fire house, saw the Planning Commission vote “no” over a technical point - the proposed tower's height, which exceeds what zoning allows.
The Selectboard weighed bigger-picture issues on behalf of opponents, and played devil's advocate, before voting 2-1 to neither accept nor reject the tower but rather to register its displeasure with the 248a process - a firm letter to the state.
Selectboard member Scott Henry voted no, saying, “I feel ultimately it's abdicating our responsibility by not coming down on one side or the other.”
Though the Planning Commission left before the Selectboard cast its votes, its chairman, Phillip Bannister, had said he agreed with criticism of 248a: “We have a process in place and it was pulled out from underneath us by the state. That puts into question the rationale for having a planning commission.”
Bannister allowed that he likely would have had issues with the site regardless - that it was not on his list of “better sites” - but the tower's height rendered further commission discussion moot.
“It's one sentence: It's not in conformance with the height requirements of the telecommunications regulations,” he said.
Elizabeth Kohler, the attorney representing AT&T, had explained at the hearing that her client had shifted the tower further south and a little bit east on the property, proposed a 200-foot tree buffer, and revised its plan for the compound to move a generator inside the building to abate sound, and to screen the compound with trees.
She said the tower needed to be at the height proposed to provide adequate coverage for wireless service, both in town and on nearby Interstate 91.
“The objective for this site is to bring coverage to both of those areas. It's a mobile service, and our customers are looking for the service to work as they move around,” she said.
She suggested in published reports that AT&T likely would file its petition with the PSB without the town's support, and imminently.