Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board debates timing, legal review for proposed water‑tank cell tower
Summary
Board members split over whether to keep a warrant article for installing a cell tower on the water tank on the spring warrant: supporters cited near-term revenue and vendor momentum while others urged legal review and more resident outreach; staff recommended counsel review of easement/ownership issues before proceeding.
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A proposed warrant article to authorize a cellular installation on the town’s water tank drew extended debate at the Select Board meeting over timing and legal readiness. Some members urged advancing the article to capture vendor momentum and the revenue stream for the town, while others pressed to delay to allow resident outreach and for counsel to resolve easement and ownership questions.
Board members and staff explained the property situation is complex: the water tank parcel is under the care and custody of the water commission, adjacent property is under Select Board custody, and an approximately 50‑foot access strip from Hilltop Circle raises questions about whether the recorded conveyance allows utility installation by a private vendor. Staff said counsel review would be needed to determine whether access for a cellular provider is permissible under the recorded deed language.
"There are quite a few details that haven't been worked out yet," a board member said, arguing the select board should not rush a warrant article that town meeting might reject. Conversely, others said the vendor has expressed strong interest and that delaying could risk losing revenue to an alternative site. Staff suggested continuing project work, notifying nearby residents and offering a public forum to avoid last‑minute surprises at town meeting; the board discussed the option of keeping the article on the warrant but passing it over at town meeting if unresolved.
The board directed staff to seek town counsel’s opinion on whether the existing deed and easement language permit the vendor’s proposed use and to increase outreach to nearby residents. No final vote to remove the article was taken at the meeting; board members discussed the possibility of presenting the issue at a future select‑board‑led forum to prepare residents for the debate and to reduce the risk of a town‑meeting defeat.

