Buffalo Mountain dominates the skyscape above downtown Hardwick. The forested peak is central in community iconography: It looms in the town logo and is the namesake of a food co-op.
But the scenery of the mountain and its town-owned trail could be compromised, some residents say, if AT&T gets its way.
The telecommunications company wants to erect a 184-foot-tall cellphone tower by the mountain trail, a project estimated to disturb about 78,000 square feet of earth. Company officials submitted a petition to the state Public Utility Commission in October, after a year of planning, and say the tower will expand cell coverage in the surrounding rural areas.
In written public comments and town meetings, members of the Caledonia County community have raised concerns that the structure will tarnish scenic views. Some have criticized the feedback and review process, too, and question whether AT&T has met required steps.
And several residents last week filed for party status in the state commission case, requesting a hearing to stop the project.
“To deface (the Buffalo Mountain) backdrop for a telecommunications tower that would provide a very minimal amount of additional cell coverage and line a big corporation’s pockets seems like an ill-considered decision to us,” wrote Lenore and Wayne Renaud, two residents seeking party status, in a Nov. 22 letter to town officials.
The case pits broadscale policy pursuits against local desires for control. AT&T in 2017 was awarded a federal contract to build Vermont’s FirstNet system — a national project to improve communications for first responders. The Hardwick tower would be one of 36 in the company’s buildout, which is set to finish in 2022.
Hardwick, though, has moved to boost its outdoor recreation identity, a significant source of tourist dollars and new residents in many parts of the Northeast Kingdom. Hardwick Trails, a town entity, runs 6 miles of hiking trails and 5 miles of bike trails; a rail trail connects Hardwick and Woodbury; and the recreation destination Craftsbury is a 15-minute drive away.
“We just hiked up Buffalo Mountain and it is beautiful,” wrote new resident Daniela Dimarco in a Dec. 1 public comment. “I truly would hate to see this place changed.”
‘A critical area’
In records submitted Oct. 21 to state officials, AT&T said the matte gray tower on Cooper Brook Drive will hold six panel antennas. The tower and associated equipment would be enclosed in a 2,500-square-foot fenced compound, and require a 12-foot-wide gravel access road extending about 1,200 feet to an existing drive.
The telecoms giant argues that the project would serve the public. The Hardwick area, the company wrote, was identified by state officials working with FirstNet as a place “where state and local first responders have no reliable wireless coverage.”
“The location was identified by the Vermont Public Safety Broadband Network as a critical area to provide service for first responders due to the relatively high-volume traffic along the highway during certain times of the year,” the company filing states.
According to the company, the tower would expand and improve AT&T’s existing wireless service in Hardwick, especially along Route 14. The company submitted maps to the state, predicting increased coverage — though the company’s FirstNet-related data has been met with skepticism from officials in the past.
And AT&T told the state it will take steps to mitigate any visual impacts of the tower. The company said an average of 78 feet of the tower is covered by foliage, and the provider would consider painting the tower and equipment to better match the surroundings.
AT&T told the state that its project would meet Hardwick’s development bylaws, except for a requirement that a tower not exceed 180 feet in height. The proposed tower goes above that limit by 4 feet, a necessity for AT&T to “optimize its coverage in the area,” the company said.
‘Shocking and offensive’
In the 1990s, Verizon tried to build a 150-foot tower on Buffalo Mountain. The debate was similar to today: “Many residents believe (the project) would ruin the view from the valley below and spoil the ecology of the pristine mountaintop,” The Associated Press reported in 1998.
The effort ultimately failed, a 2008 state Environmental Court judgment noted, and some residents hope the same happens again.
The Renauds, who live on Putnam Avenue in Hardwick, filed a motion-to-intervene form on Nov. 24. If granted, they could have a voice in the Public Utility Commission case.
“Our property looks out at the proposed tower site,” the Renauds wrote in the form. “It would be shocking and offensive to place the cell tower in that location.”
In a letter to the state the same day, the Renauds called AT&T’s petition “woefully deficient” in analyzing the aesthetic impact of the tower on Buffalo Mountain.
“It’s the iconic backdrop of this little town that has fought so hard to thrive,” the Renauds wrote.
In August 2019, AT&T conducted a balloon test — floating a balloon at the height of the proposed tower — to see how visible it might be from different spots around town. But the Renauds believe the results of that test were biased toward points where the tower’s visibility would be minimal.
At a selectboard meeting Nov. 19, AT&T representatives told Hardwick officials they would conduct another balloon test because of the concerns. In an interview, Town Manager Shaun Fielder said the test is still pending, weather permitting.
“Until we see the results of the balloon test and simulations from the locations that were missed the first time, the application as filed by AT&T is woefully deficient,” the Renauds wrote to the state.
An attorney at Downs Rachlin Martin, the Vermont law firm representing AT&T, told VTDigger on Friday that he had contacted the company with a reporter’s request for comment. But the company did not respond that day.
Julie Gregonis, a Dewey Street resident, also submitted a motion to intervene. In the Nov. 27 document, Gregonis wrote that her property is adjacent to Buffalo Mountain.
“The proposed tower would severely compromise the south-facing view from any point on my property,” Gregonis wrote.
Another resident, Suzanna Jones, wrote in a Nov. 24 letter that AT&T’s proposal doesn’t comply with Hardwick’s town plan, citing a section about scenic resources.
Jones and resident Rose Friedman also described confusion about town permissions that AT&T may ultimately need — a point that caused a mixup about the status of the proposal and a deadline rush to file public comments.
“Even though the original deadline for comments to the PUC was Nov. 24, the selectboard believed the project was ‘on hold’ because the applicant, AT&T, had never been granted the necessary access to the site,” Friedman wrote. “As a result, there was no public warning that the project was being considered for approval by the PUC, and that the deadline for comment was imminent.”
Citizens turned out at the Nov. 19 local meeting, where it became clear, according to Jones, “that there has been a misunderstanding and miscommunication between AT&T and the town about the process.”
Access to the Buffalo Mountain trail road, owned by the town, is central in the confusion. Past meeting minutes and documents filed with the state indicate that AT&T needs permission to make improvements on part of the trail so it can more easily reach the project site.
But the town has yet to weigh in on that, Fielder said. That’s partly because it’s unclear yet whether AT&T has met construction standards set by the Hardwick Electric Department — a requirement for running electrical lines to the proposed facility.
“Where this whole process has gotten out of whack is that right along, we have assumed (the standards) would be met,” Fielder said. “We all were kind of waiting for that.”
Once the electric department’s standards are met, he said, then the town will figure out the details of trail use and improvements.
Jones wrote that most people she’s talked to in town “think the project is either on hold or not happening” because of the lack of clarity about the construction standards and trail use.
As the state commission waits for parties to respond to the motions to intervene — they have until Dec. 11 — the public comment period has been extended to Jan. 13. Fielder encouraged residents to comment on the proposal.
Clay Purvis, telecoms director for the Department of Public Service, said cases like this are tricky because policy goals and coverage needs conflict with local aesthetic concerns.
“This is a very important service for residents who need cell coverage at their homes, for motorists on highways, and first responders who rely on it to respond to emergencies,” he said.
He said the statute balances local concerns and telecommunications needs.
Purvis acknowledged the tension between competing goals.
“We frequently hear from out-of-staters who complain that they don’t have cell service here,” he said. “There’s an expectation that, if you’re coming from Connecticut, you’re going to have cell service.
“So I think there is an argument to be made that it will improve the tourist experience,” he said.
The state commission has 180 days from the date AT&T filed its petition to make a decision about the project — meaning the deadline is in April.
Correction: This story has been updated to show the expected completion date for the AT&T buildout is 2022.
