Ten days ago, Steve Flanders wrote a lengthy defense of his rationale for supporting the proposed VTel tower. At the time, I responded with two posts.
The first asked Steve to make public the engineering and propagation studies that might substantiate his claims that this is the best site for a tower in town. Of course, that was a rhetorical question as no such study was ever done.
The second asked Steve where he -- and the rest of those who voted for the VTel contract -- got the idea we would need to purchase any land, let alone "multiple acres," to build a tower on a non-town-owned site. It's common practice to lease the land beneath telecommunications towers and, even then, those leases often extend no more than a 100 foot square around the tower base. Verizon did this when they built on Four Wheel Drive Road. VTel is proposing to lease land above our Transfer Station in the same manner. Why keep trooping out this red herring of a costly land acquisition (Steve quotes $100,000 per acre as a potential price) when leases are the industry practice?
Then I got tired.
So now I want to turn to Steve's "What about the Development Review Board process?" (Steve's entire paragraph is quoted in full at the bottom of this post)
First, Steve announces, "Vermont law exempts both municipal communication facilities and cellular/broadband facilities from local review."
This is simply untrue.
30 VSA 248a does not exempt these towers from local review; it simply allows applicants to choose between Public Service Board review or to seek permits through local zoning and Act 250 review. That choice is up to the applicant.
When the applicant is a town you might think the town would submit to the local review the town's voters (and Planning Commission and Selectboard) enacted?
In fact, the Town did initially file an application to proceed before the Norwich Development Review Board. The initial public hearing was warned for early July and some abutters even received legal notice of the DRB hearing. That public hearing was then suddenly cancelled and our Zoning Administrator submitted a written recommendation that the town proceed, instead, through the 248a process before the Public Service Board. The only reason I can see to back out of DRB review and choose instead the Public Service Board process was a determination by someone in Tracy Hall that 248a would be an easier process to get a 198' tower approved.
So let's rephrase Steve's first pronouncement: In truth, "Upon recommendation of our Zoning Administrator and Town Manager, a majority of our Selectboard decided to avoid local review."
Steve's second sentence glides over another whopper:
"Even so, they are subject to review by the Public Services Board, which will seek input from the Norwich Planning Commission and Norwich Selectboard." As far as this goes, Steve is factually correct, 30 VSA 248a gives "substantial deference" to the recommendations of the local Selectboard and Planning Commission. But consider for a moment what that means in this context.
The Selectboard has already chosen to avoid local review via 248a. Presumably, the Selectboard will recommend the Public Service Board ("PSB") approve this 198' tower as consistent with our Town Plan, despite the fact we enacted detailed height restrictions in our zoning regulations pursuant to that Plan. If the PSB then approves a tower of this height as consistent with our Town Plan, how can this town ever again challenge any other tower developer who wants to build a huge tower somewhere else in town? We can't because our Selectboard will already be on record stating that a 198' tower is no problem.
So much for "input from the Norwich Planning Commission and Norwich Selectboard."
Steve's third sentence also sticks in the craw, stating, "[The PSB] weighs the same factors that the Norwich Zoning Regulations would have done . . ."
Two problems.
First, Steve's contention is just plain not true. 248a spells out a clearly abbreviated set of required findings that is far shorter than those required under NZR 4.13, including our zoning requirement that these criteria be reviewed and testimony taken in public hearings. Why else cancel the warned DRB hearing in July unless you're trying to avoid review under the Norwich Zoning Regulations? Why avoid local review unless you think you're getting an easier ride from the PSB?
Second, of course, Steve's contention makes no sense. If Steve were right about the process, why go all the way to the Public Service Board in Montpelier when we could do it all here in Norwich? Our DRB has already permitted the Verizon tower in town, so we know our regulations work and compliant towers survive review. The problem is, if this tower had to go through local review, it would be apparent that our Town Plan and zoning regulations don't rubber stamp 198' towers anywhere in town.
So, Steve, if you really mean what you've said here, please vote tomorrow to submit this tower application to our Development Review Board.
Let Tracy Hall go through the same review process we required Verizon to undergo six years ago.
Let the rules and regulations our voters adopted to govern the development of telecommunications towers in Norwich govern this tower too.
Protect those regulations so we still have some local review authority when the next tower is proposed.
Respect the institutions -- and the hundreds and hundreds of volunteer hours that went into drafting and reviewing our Town Plan and zoning regulations -- that Norwich voters chose to adopt to govern land use development in our community.
This local review process is the proper forum for our town government and townspeople to engage in the difficult work of building essential infrastructure consistent with local values.
- Watt Alexander
19. [Norwich] A towering question
From: Stephen Flanders
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:57:30 -0400
What about the Development Review Board process?
Vermont law exempts both municipal communication facilities and
cellular/broadband facilities from local review. Even so, they are subject
to review by the Public Services Board, which will seek input from the
Norwich Planning Commission and Norwich Selectboard. That Board weighs the
same factors that the Norwich Zoning Regulations would have done, before
being superseded by state law, i.e. the public good achieved by the facility
versus the visual and other impacts on the public at large‹not abutters.
This state review process is the proper forum for concerned citizens to make
their case.
The first asked Steve to make public the engineering and propagation studies that might substantiate his claims that this is the best site for a tower in town. Of course, that was a rhetorical question as no such study was ever done.
The second asked Steve where he -- and the rest of those who voted for the VTel contract -- got the idea we would need to purchase any land, let alone "multiple acres," to build a tower on a non-town-owned site. It's common practice to lease the land beneath telecommunications towers and, even then, those leases often extend no more than a 100 foot square around the tower base. Verizon did this when they built on Four Wheel Drive Road. VTel is proposing to lease land above our Transfer Station in the same manner. Why keep trooping out this red herring of a costly land acquisition (Steve quotes $100,000 per acre as a potential price) when leases are the industry practice?
Then I got tired.
So now I want to turn to Steve's "What about the Development Review Board process?" (Steve's entire paragraph is quoted in full at the bottom of this post)
First, Steve announces, "Vermont law exempts both municipal communication facilities and cellular/broadband facilities from local review."
This is simply untrue.
30 VSA 248a does not exempt these towers from local review; it simply allows applicants to choose between Public Service Board review or to seek permits through local zoning and Act 250 review. That choice is up to the applicant.
When the applicant is a town you might think the town would submit to the local review the town's voters (and Planning Commission and Selectboard) enacted?
In fact, the Town did initially file an application to proceed before the Norwich Development Review Board. The initial public hearing was warned for early July and some abutters even received legal notice of the DRB hearing. That public hearing was then suddenly cancelled and our Zoning Administrator submitted a written recommendation that the town proceed, instead, through the 248a process before the Public Service Board. The only reason I can see to back out of DRB review and choose instead the Public Service Board process was a determination by someone in Tracy Hall that 248a would be an easier process to get a 198' tower approved.
So let's rephrase Steve's first pronouncement: In truth, "Upon recommendation of our Zoning Administrator and Town Manager, a majority of our Selectboard decided to avoid local review."
Steve's second sentence glides over another whopper:
"Even so, they are subject to review by the Public Services Board, which will seek input from the Norwich Planning Commission and Norwich Selectboard." As far as this goes, Steve is factually correct, 30 VSA 248a gives "substantial deference" to the recommendations of the local Selectboard and Planning Commission. But consider for a moment what that means in this context.
The Selectboard has already chosen to avoid local review via 248a. Presumably, the Selectboard will recommend the Public Service Board ("PSB") approve this 198' tower as consistent with our Town Plan, despite the fact we enacted detailed height restrictions in our zoning regulations pursuant to that Plan. If the PSB then approves a tower of this height as consistent with our Town Plan, how can this town ever again challenge any other tower developer who wants to build a huge tower somewhere else in town? We can't because our Selectboard will already be on record stating that a 198' tower is no problem.
So much for "input from the Norwich Planning Commission and Norwich Selectboard."
Steve's third sentence also sticks in the craw, stating, "[The PSB] weighs the same factors that the Norwich Zoning Regulations would have done . . ."
Two problems.
First, Steve's contention is just plain not true. 248a spells out a clearly abbreviated set of required findings that is far shorter than those required under NZR 4.13, including our zoning requirement that these criteria be reviewed and testimony taken in public hearings. Why else cancel the warned DRB hearing in July unless you're trying to avoid review under the Norwich Zoning Regulations? Why avoid local review unless you think you're getting an easier ride from the PSB?
Second, of course, Steve's contention makes no sense. If Steve were right about the process, why go all the way to the Public Service Board in Montpelier when we could do it all here in Norwich? Our DRB has already permitted the Verizon tower in town, so we know our regulations work and compliant towers survive review. The problem is, if this tower had to go through local review, it would be apparent that our Town Plan and zoning regulations don't rubber stamp 198' towers anywhere in town.
So, Steve, if you really mean what you've said here, please vote tomorrow to submit this tower application to our Development Review Board.
Let Tracy Hall go through the same review process we required Verizon to undergo six years ago.
Let the rules and regulations our voters adopted to govern the development of telecommunications towers in Norwich govern this tower too.
Protect those regulations so we still have some local review authority when the next tower is proposed.
Respect the institutions -- and the hundreds and hundreds of volunteer hours that went into drafting and reviewing our Town Plan and zoning regulations -- that Norwich voters chose to adopt to govern land use development in our community.
This local review process is the proper forum for our town government and townspeople to engage in the difficult work of building essential infrastructure consistent with local values.
- Watt Alexander
19. [Norwich] A towering question
From: Stephen Flanders
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:57:30 -0400
What about the Development Review Board process?
Vermont law exempts both municipal communication facilities and
cellular/broadband facilities from local review. Even so, they are subject
to review by the Public Services Board, which will seek input from the
Norwich Planning Commission and Norwich Selectboard. That Board weighs the
same factors that the Norwich Zoning Regulations would have done, before
being superseded by state law, i.e. the public good achieved by the facility
versus the visual and other impacts on the public at large‹not abutters.
This state review process is the proper forum for concerned citizens to make
their case.
No comments:
Post a Comment