PUTNEY — Residents at a special meeting of the Selectboard and Planning Commission came out strongly against a 135-foot cell tower AT&T has proposed erecting on Shag Bark Hill, and the town is waiting for the telecommunication giant's latest tweak to the plan.
The meeting, held Jan. 30 at the fire department, was concerned with AT&T's intent to petition the Public Service Board for a required Certificate of Public Good to build a “mono-pine” cell tower on land owned by Michael Mecheski at 20 Shag Bark Hill.
The installation reportedly would improve AT&T-delivered cell reception in Putney and along a stretch of nearby Interstate 91. The company also could use the infrastructure to rent transmitters to other carriers.
AT&T representatives are seeking Putney's support for the CPG, and say their firm is hoping to earn it through reasonable compromise. Nevertheless, the town's permission is not required for the application, and its protest, if any is lodged, would have little apparent weight in the state's decision.
An AT&T spokeswoman at the meeting said the company was trying to find a site that would please all abutters, and in the meantime asked the town to delay its vote on whether to support the project.
This was the town's third meeting on the Mecheski land proposal. One resident, apparently distraught that locals have such little ultimate control over what the PSB will approve at a carrier's request, reportedly left the meeting in tears.
The Selectboard and Planning Commission said they would schedule another meeting in the next week or two, after which they'll decide whether to support the CPG.
At the Jan. 22 Selectboard meeting, Town Manager Cynthia Stoddard explained AT&T requested the town not decide then “because they are exploring their options.”
Board Chair Josh Laughlin said at the time that he has heard “from large quantities of people that they want better cell service in Putney. 'We need better cell service, we need cell towers; this is a good thing.'”
Then he asked rhetorically, “Are there other locations within Putney that could accomplish what this is accomplishing that are economically viable for AT&T? ... I don't know of anywhere else in Putney that would accomplish that.”
Many residents have objected.
One resident, whose name was not given with BCTV's stream of the meeting coverage, said she disputed the notion that the tower is needed here.
“What is this about people in our town saying we want better cell service, when in fact we can get better cell service with other carriers? And why are we willing to give up our residential area for this? ... One guy, one company wants this, and the rest of us suffer. And we don't even get compensated,” she said.
“I don't have a good answer,” Laughlin said. “I feel the best we're going to get here is to gain as many concessions as we can, and at least we've gained that. And that might be off base; I don't know.”
In other action Jan. 22, the Selectboard:
• Met in a closed executive session to discuss a legal matter concerning the fire station roof.
• Heard from Town Manager Cynthia Stoddard that the town is unable to sell hunting/fishing licenses, as these are conducted electronically nowadays and the town is not set up to facilitate electronic banking.
Stoddard said the town is looking into such improvements for a variety of transactions, but that for the time being she would help put together a pamphlet advising residents how they can buy licenses from a home or library computer.
• Held off on buying a replacement used truck for the Water and Sewer Department, figuring to stretch repairs for the current vehicle while a search turns up more options.
Board Chair Josh Laughlin joked of the current vehicle, “How many times can we duct tape it together?”
Selectboard member Scott Henry was optimistic: “There's a deal out there. There's a deal to be had.”