Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hampton residents and Select Board wrestle with cell-tower debate as legal fights continue
Summary
Residents urged a no vote on Article 8 over health and regulatory concerns; the town manager said a federal court largely upheld the town but nevertheless allowed the Vertex cell tower under federal law, illustrating limits on local control.
Residents urged the Hampton Select Board and fellow voters to oppose a proposed Article 8 about telecommunications at the board’s March 9 meeting, and the town manager updated the board on an ongoing legal battle over a proposed Vertex cell tower.
During the public-comment portion, Dolores Messner of 18 Barbour Road asked voters to “vote no on Article 8,” saying the article “replaces the current policy” and alleging negative medical impacts from cell towers on neighborhoods. Ellen Hyatt of 2 Dalton Lane warned of health effects and said the Federal Communications Commission “is a captured agency by the Cell Tower Companies.” Camilla Fransson of 154 Woodland Road echoed those concerns and emphasized potential risks to children.
Town Manager Jamie Sullivan told the board the Zoning Board of Adjustment had denied the Vertex application and that the applicant appealed. “The applicant filed an appeal to overturn the town’s denial decision,” Sullivan said, and while a federal court “on almost every count ruled in the town’s favor, the court still allowed the tower under federal law,” a ruling Sullivan said illustrates the limits on local authority under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Sel. Carleigh Beriont asked what, if anything, the town would have to do about construction of the tower if Article 8 passes. Sullivan said the Telecommunications Committee drafted Article 8 based on public comment and legal advice but reiterated that the Federal Telecommunications Act constrains local regulation of wireless facilities. He said the committee’s guidelines would be the town’s approach if voters approve the article.
Why it matters: The exchange highlights a recurring tension in local governance — residents’ health and aesthetic concerns about wireless infrastructure versus federal law that restricts local authority. The board’s discussion and the federal court outcome indicate that even where local boards deny permits, federal preemption can allow construction.
What’s next: Article 8 will appear on the town ballot; the board also received notice of related litigation (including a separate appeal filed with the New Hampshire Supreme Court in an unrelated 2024 assessment case) and invited residents to share concerns with the town’s legislative delegation at the March 23 meeting.
The meeting record shows no board vote on Article 8 at this session; public comment and the town manager’s updates were the primary developments.
