After seven months the verdict is in: Stoddard's Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) voted on May 25 to grant AT&T a Special Exception to build a cell tower on Melville Hill.
To say it's a disappointment is a major understatement. In fact, it's taken some time even to write about what happened.
For the last seven months we've sat through a long series of hearings to determine whether AT&T should be granted a Special Exception in a Rural Area to build the proposed cell tower. As word got out, area protests grew in size and strength and outrage, as the cell tower would loom over Granite Lake, one of the jewels of the Monadnock region. The townships of both Stoddard and Nelson were affected as well not only by the visual desecration of the landscape but by the property devaluations that would follow and the summer rental businesses that would be hurt.
Petitions against the tower were signed by scores of area residents.
The Stoddard Conservation Commission, who was strongly in opposition to the tower, argued in front of the ZBA that not only would the cell tower not provide cell phone coverage to the majority of Stoddard residents, but that it would cause serious defragmentation to Andorra Forest, the nearly 15,000 acres of wilderness the proposed cell tower would adjoin. (Arguments against the cell tower, by the Commission, can be found here.)
Conservation Commission Chairman Geoff Jones, a respected member of the Stoddard community, appeared before the ZBA numerous times with maps and graphs to show the potential damage the cell tower would cause. He also worked with a Radio Frequency expert to show that alternate sites did exist in the area that would not impact the landscape so negatively.
At one hearing, Native American Dakota tribal member Emmett Eastman appeared, after driving 19 hours from South Dakota, to ask that the board "respect the land" and the history of Melville Hill, which was once owned by noted Native American physician Dr. Charles Eastman, his ancestor (see previous blogs), who was a co-founder of the Boy Scouts of America as well as a prolific writer on Native American issues.
Over the months numerous Stoddard residents appeared at the hearings to voice opposition to the tower as well, but in the end it seemed as if all these efforts had merely been time-consuming exercises in futility. Had the board simply been humoring us? Making residents feel as if they were being listened to?
On May 25 chairwoman Beverly Power opened the board discussion (no one else was allowed to speak) by stating that they'd look through the Stoddard zoning ordinance for Special Exceptions to see if AT&T had complied with everything. "Let's look at the regulations we're limited to," she began. "Is there adequate off-street parking?"
Parking? The proposed cell tower site is in the woods, on the top of a high hill overlooking Granite Lake, on a piece of land that will have to be cleared, land that requires a new road be built to get there. After seven months of discussions and protests the board is beginning by discussing "parking"?
All agreed there was adequate off-street parking for AT&T vehicles in a lot they would create next to the hill-top site.
Power: "Next: how about the issues of noise, smoke, odor, and illumination?"
All agreed there were no problems, that AT&T had complied. Those of us at the hearing looked at each other incredulously. Some were holding "No cell tower on Melville Hill" signs in their laps as they listened.
Then ZBA member Fred Ward brought up the question of alternate sites--had AT&T demonstrated that every reasonable effort had been made to look at alternate sites? "Bev, remember," he said, "it's their responsibility...."
Power (glancing over at AT&T attorney Stephen Anderson): "You have to admit they've done a lot of analysis--I'm very impressed."
(Never mind the extensive analysis done--at great expense and over countless hours--by those who oppose the proposed location on Melville Hill....)
Ward: "Every reasonable effort, Bev....and by the way, we were helping them, but it's not our responsibility, it's theirs!"
Power: "Well, I've reviewed everything and looked through case law and I really don't think we have the right to ask them to do more. You know there's going to be a second tower."
Ward: "That's a given. How many I don't know. But Mr. Bradley (ZBA lawyer) has given us two diametrically opposed opinions about the tower, and we need to be very clear which opinion we agree with."
What followed was a discussion of an April 4 memo from ZBA attorney Sam Bradley that came in two parts, each of which seemed to contradict the other. Ward asked that the board be polled regarding which view the members concurred with. One member, Maureen Meyer, had never spoken up during the seven months of hearings. When asked what she thought, Meyer replied: "I have no idea."
Member Betz expressed concern regarding two conditions--the historical aspects and the issue of conservation. "These issues nag at me," he said, "but I don't see any teeth here in our ordinance to deal with them...."
Ward: "We're lucky we even had an ordinance."
Power: "Two thirds of this town are in conservation easement, which is the highest in the state other than the White Mountains. Of course the installation of that road will cause some disruption with wildlife, but that disruption will only be temporary. Once the road is in place, the animals will go back to just walking over it."
At this point we're thinking about getting up and leaving. The statements are too unbelievable, after all we've been through here.
Ward: Geoff (Conservation Commission chairman) is our expert--how can we ignore him? This is a rural recreational town and we're trying to preserve the character of the town. It's not a strong position, but we can't just pass it off. If we carry what you're saying to the extreme, we could tear down all the trees and put in little roads everywhere! This is a substantial change...."
Ruth Ward: (to Power) "Sometimes it seems like we don't have control, but we do!"
The size of the tower was discussed at this point. AT&T's original proposal had been 150 feet, but at the last hearing they agreed to reduce the height, because of the intense protests, to 110 feet so as not to impact the area as much visually.
Power: "I think we should give AT&T at least 130 feet. That would be better than 110 feet."
Ward: "Why don't you poll the people sitting out there to see what they think?"
Power (ignoring the comment): "Let's do 130 feet...."
A number of us did walk out after this statement, including Conservation Commission chairman Jones. Why had we wasted months of time and energy expressing our views, we wondered, when they could have had this discussion at the first or second hearing and been done with it?
Those who stayed to the bitter end said the whole hearing that night took 3 1/2 hours. When a vote was actually taken, this is how it went:
Voting for AT&T:
Beverly Power
Richard Betz
Maureen Meyer
Voting against AT&T:
Fred Ward
Ruth Ward
We're grateful to the Wards for hearing their neighbors' pleas and, as Geoff Jones via John F. Kennedy suggested, taking the "hard right" instead of the "easy wrong."
The official minutes of the meeting, as recorded by ZBA secretary Patricia Putnam, can be read here.
The law gives 30 days to register an appeal of this decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment