When is a cell tower a cell tower?

Hartland residents speak out about proposed 173-foot tower

By Curt Peterson

After the Hartland Select Board and planning commission each received notice that IT&W (Industrial Tower & Wireless) and/or Crown Coastal Inc. (a large NYSE listed corporation headquartered in Dallas) was proposing to erect a 173-foot tower with a 80-square-foot base on leased property next to Town Farm Road, Hartland residents began to ask questions —seeking answers, solutions, and greater details of the plans. 

Resident Gary Trachier pointed out the elevation at the site is 1,319 feet, and others call the proposed tower one of the four tallest structures in the state.

Interested parties have until Jan. 15 to register objections, support or suggestions with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). After that date, the applicants can file their official application to the PUC requesting a “certificate of public good,” and begin applying for an Act 250 permit to construction the tower.

Once the application is filed, certain approved parties, including the Select Board and the planning commission, may provide more input to be considered by the PUC.

On the Hartland Listserv a couple of dozen residents bantered about whether the tower would mean improved cell phone service — the tower would be situated in a rather large “dead zone” where mobile communications are possible only with wifi assistance. 

However, the assumption that the tower will provide any cell service at all is pure conjecture. Even calling it a “cell tower” is a misnomer, as the application is written.

Kevin Reed and his wife live across the road from the proposed tower site and are not connected to any of the parties involved. He said the notification “made no promises of better cell service from the tower,” which will serve their own [the applicants’] “not yet operational network with possibility of leasing use to others.” 

“They are building the tower on spec[ulation],” Reed pointed out, and feel the presence of the tower may someday attract suppliers of retail cell service to seek its use. Even if so, Dukeshire said, benefits may be selective, improving service only for folks using a carrier connected to the tower.

“I know people who live right next to a cell tower who can’t get a signal,” he said.

While the drawings accompanying the notification show cell-service like paddles attached to the structure, IT&W said they will not be installed until there is actual interest by a cell phone carrier. The IT&W documents state that their target customers are businesses, not residential or private cell phone users.

Planning commission chair David Dukeshire is inviting all interested parties to attend the regular planning commission meeting in Damon Hall on Jan. 8, when their comments and questions will be recorded for submission to the PUC on Jan. 15. 

The Select Board is negotiating a joint meeting on Jan. 27 including representatives of the tower applicants and the public. But since that will be after the Jan. 15 deadline for public comments to the PUC, the planners’ meeting is scheduled earlier.

After the application is filed, approved parties, having seen the application in detail, have 30 days to make additional comments before the PUC considers the application. 

Public comments on the listserv in addition to those wishing for better phone service also had thoughts about the aesthetics. The current town plan limits the height of any tower to the level of the existing tree canopy, obviously well below the 173-foot mark, which is approximately equivalent to a 17 story building.

Suggestions include camouflage for the tower (but someone else called that “putting lipstick on a pig”), multiple smaller towers, and satellite connections instead of towers. One poster wondered if the Federal Communications Commission itself might be under threat of dissolution under President-elect Trump. Another worried Elon Musk might arbitrarily shut off satellite service as he admitted doing to the Ukrainian army to inhibit their ability to target Russian ships.

Rob Anderegg summed up his feelings about the tower’s effect on Hartland’s image, saying it would affect the town’s rural character, its blinking light would change the night sky, and that “the town expects aesthetic integrity.” Most of the respondents agreed the tower would change the image of the town, and not in a positive way.