NRPC ratifies committee finding that proposed 120-foot Borderville tower is of substantial regional impact; moves advisory letter to PUC

The Northwest Regional Planning Commission voted to ratify its project-review committee’s recommendation that the proposed 120-foot telecommunications tower at Borderville Road in Enisburg be considered of substantial regional impact while still conforming to the regional plan.

The motion, moved by Bill Irwin and restated to the commission, was put to a voice vote after a lengthy public-comment period in which neighbors and first responders presented sharply contrasting views. The chair declared the motion carried after several members voiced opposition and multiple abstentions and a recusal were recorded; the transcript records named abstentions including Lori and commissioners identified as Bill, Chip, and Jonathan.

Why it matters: the NRPC’s vote is advisory to the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC). If the NRPC finds conformance with the regional plan, that recommendation becomes part of the PUC record; the PUC retains authority to issue or deny a Certificate of Public Good.

Opponents called for more community-engaged testing and independent review. Sandra Bun urged a balloon test and said the tower is “not compatible with the scenic rural character of the Borderville hamlet” and would negatively affect historic resources including the Borderville Seventh Day Adventist Church. Pipa Fury told the commission the project-review committee made a “premature decision” without conducting a community balloon test and asked that any ratification letter require an independent, non-industry-funded assessment and community participation in testing.

Applicant counsel and supporters disputed that a new test was necessary. AJ Lar Roa, counsel for the applicant ITW (MSK attorneys), said prior proceedings included three balloon floats at 140 feet for earlier applications and that a PUC determination previously directed a lower 120-foot height; Roa said the Department of Public Service had engaged an independent consultant on the prior application and found no significant impacts for the taller test floats. “There were three balloon floats,” Roa said, adding that if the PUC requires additional testing the petitioner would comply.

First responders emphasized safety benefits. Ginger Parent, identifying herself as assistant chief of the Bakersfield Fire Department, said delayed EMS communications had produced response delays of over 30 minutes in serious cases and urged approval, describing the tower as necessary for life‑safety communications. Peter, who identified himself later as the landowner of the proposed site and as Bakersfield’s fire chief, said he supported the project for emergency-response reasons but urged additional outreach so neighbors could participate in testing and review alternatives.

Conflict-of-interest concerns surfaced in public comment and in commissioners’ discussion. A public speaker argued that a committee chair previously declared a conflict but remained involved in deliberations; speakers asked that committees handle conflicts more proactively. Commissioners who served on the project-review committee defended the process and staff, saying the committee provided a detailed, technical evaluation and that staff used standard evaluation score sheets.

What happens next: the commission’s letter (the advisory conformance finding and substantial-impact determination) will be sent to the PUC as part of the Section 248A review. The PUC will conduct its own independent review before issuing any Certificate of Public Good.