Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State easement offer for AT&T tower prompts landowner pushback; board hears update
Summary
Agency counsel described plans to convey conservation easements tied to an AT&T tower certificate; a landowner at the meeting said negotiations have stalled after revised easement terms and requests for additional land prompted owner and neighbor opposition.
Get email alerts on the Conservation Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Select Board heard an update May 12 about proposed conservation easements tied to an AT&T communications tower certificate of public good; the town’s role was informational and board members expressed concern that negotiations have stalled.
Catherine Gessing, representing the state agency working on land acquisitions, said the Department of Fish and Wildlife planned to receive conservation easements on two parcels — a small parcel of roughly 2 acres and a larger parcel composed of two SPAN numbers totaling about 32 acres — as part of the conditions for approving the tower project. "The land acquisition in this case is related to the AT and T Communications Tower," she said, describing the easements as measures to ensure community access to cell coverage and emergency communications.
Landowner and Select Board member Mike Garamo said the negotiations had become contentious. He told the board that one neighbor (Gagnon) backed out, that AT&T/state negotiators were seeking more land than the owners expected, and that language allowing a seasonal residence was recently removed from the proposed easement. "They wanted all the property…On top of that, they don't want us to have a seasonal residence there either," Garamo said, and added that nearby landowners were unwilling to join the easement arrangement.
Catherine responded that she would follow up with AT&T counsel and other state staff to clarify the recent changes and attempt to resolve the issues. Board members noted the importance of transparent interagency coordination and requested updates as the matter progressed. No formal vote or board authorization was taken at the meeting; members treated the item as an informational update pending further negotiation.

