Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. We are continuing testimony on h five twenty seven, an act relating to extending the sunset of 30 BSA section two forty eight a. Donna, we're gonna go around the room and introduce ourselves really quickly. Then we always like everybody in the room to introduce themselves. Then I'm going turn it over to you to introduce yourself for the record. But before we get started, I just wanted to clarify one thing for folks out in YouTube land. I know a lot of people have been watching these hearings, which is fantastic, and it's generated a lot of interest. And I know that a lot of Vermonters have been submitting public comment, which is equally great. So I just wanted to make sure folks understand when a public comment comes in, we're posting them all on our committee webpage. You can't post them yourself. You need to send it to me and to our committee assistant. We'll make sure it gets posted on the webpage and we'll make sure that every member of the committee also sees it in their inbox so that people's comments aren't getting overlooked. The only other thing I wanted to mention, and I've clarified this with a few folks, but the role of the legislature is to take a look at the statute that established the 248A process. So we are taking a look at how 248A works, how it works for the PUC, utilities, towns, for Vermonters, and whether we might consider extending the sunset on that process or maybe setting in motion a process to change the way to change how it works. We do not have the authority or the jurisdiction. We are not intervening in any particular cell tower case. So it's really important that people understand that we are not looking into a specific cell tower siding. We are not meddling

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: with

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the PUC's jurisdiction over to those current cases or any appeals. That's not our role. And I just wanted to make sure everybody was clear on that. So, I'm representative Kathleen James, and I am from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I am Scott Campbell from Saint John Ferry. Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, and we'll get you. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Bram Bram Kleppner, Kleppner, Chittenden Chittenden 13, Burlington. Burlington. Laura Sibilia, Sibilia, Windham Two.

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: In In the room. Room. Allison Allison Descathes Descathes from from Myers Myers for a Clean Environment. Environment. Daley Dara Perry, Newkreissinger. Right. Can you see where you're from? Danville Vermon. Oh, I mean, what? Oh, Vermonters for a Clean Environment. Oh, a MEDS group. Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Alright. Revant, Regulatory Affairs Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And Martine Victor, Manchester. Great. Alright. For the record, thank you for joining us.

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: I'm Donna Dzuga Smith. I live in Westmore. I chose to to become a resident. I found my happy place in Westmore 10 ago when my son got married in Westmore, And that's how it all began. And I'm sure everyone here has the story of why they choose Vermont. So first of all, I wanted to thank everyone for giving us, because I'm representing the engineers. I represented them per se through the PUC process. And so when this opportunity came up, they said, Donna, come back out of the shadows. And believe me, this is like PTSD. The p the PUC process for interveners is a horror show. It we didn't we were not given our due process. You need to know that. I listened to and I, Kathleen, I have to give you so much credit for how you run these. It's it's upbeat. It's neutral. You invite everybody, and that's important. And when I listened was listening to the sessions last week, I was shocked with some of the things I heard by some of the people that I crossed paths during our case because it did not what they were saying was contrary to what we experienced. Even the I get it wrong. Vermont cities, leagues, and towns, I get confused. When they said that they don't hear much from municipalities, that's because municipalities are so overwhelmed by the time that they're just like, we're not going to get involved, and they don't go to go for them for guidance or help. We experience that with our own town. So, first of all, once again, everyone for your time, your effort. Thank you for your public service, because we wouldn't this wouldn't work without you. And with our experience with two forty eight a, the statute may appear on paper and in theory to be a viable, well meaning process for citing applications for telecommunication facilities. But in reality, in Vermont in particular, it is the exact opposite. Shouldn't call it certificate of public good. They should call it something like certificate for profit and greed because that's what it ends up being in the end. And you'll see why. I know I can't have you relive what we lived for two and a half years cause that's how long the process takes. Doesn't take a few months. Doesn't take a half a year. Two and a half years. This has been $24.07 for citizens that wanna live in a beautiful area of Vermont. The two forty eight process is cumbersome. It's confusing. It's inconsistent in its applications and statutes depending on who speaks up. We we we experienced that MSK attorneys, whenever they spoke up at the hearing, the hearing officer would change his direction on his decision. We would we were limited to aesthetics and town plan by the PUC. We weren't allowed to address anything else. And if as soon as I said something that mister Seth thought that was in was beyond it, he would say, oh, I object. And mister Faber would say, oh, yeah. That that's right. You you can't go any further. And I'll give you an example. Aesthetics. I feel that 10 towers in a 10 mile radius is and that was their that was their base. 10 towers in a 10 mile radius is different than 20 towers in a 10 mile radius. So I wanted ITW to explain those 10 towers and why this one should be added in. And I was told, no, it has nothing to do with aesthetics. Well, if you look at Vermont mountaintops and Vermont Valleys, if you saw a tower there, a tower there, and a tower there, that's aesthetically different than just seeing one tower there. So you've got to make sure it's serving a purpose and take the aesthetics in. And I'm sorry if I jump around because I've lived this for two and a half years, and it's like, oh my god. My head just keeps spinning. And so what I noticed for over a week now, you've patiently and intently listened to others attempt to explain and describe the two forty eight process from their point of view. And that's excellent. It was impressive that your minds don't just explode or shut down in agony, especially when Annette Smith's presentation showed how confusing, overwhelming, and lengthy the actual process is for all parties. She she like she said, she is an excellent she's an excellent advocate, and she's a she has great secretary of skills, organizational skills. And even with those, everything she has to offer is overwhelming no matter who she speaks with. The telecommissions applicant is the person that benefits most from the 248A process. And that's why I'm a proponent that in the least you need to keep the three year sunset. Don't don't extend it. Don't do away with it. One of the biggest problems in Vermont, and this is a good example, is lack of enforcement and lack of oversight. You put all this effort into making rules, regulations, and statutes. They're there. Nobody checks on them afterwards. And the Westmore Tower application is a good example. There is it is it is rife with errors already. And even at the evidentiary hearing, I brought up to them who's going to oversee it once the building process starts. That dirt road that they're going to go down, that's a town highway. Who's going to make sure that it doesn't get chopped up? How many trees are going to be knocked down because of these big pieces that have to go down that? And then the private right of way driveway that belongs to, not the landowner, belongs to the adjacent neighbor. Who's going to see that, make sure that's not chewed up, that his, that, you know, if he pays to maintain that and he has the gullies and he has the right things, who's gonna make sure those remain in place? There is there's nothing in the process nor was it demanded of the tower company to spell that out. When I asked that question at the evidentiary hearing, you're going outside your bounds. Really? The aesthetics they leave behind. No. That's not relevant. So the next thing I'm saying so most Vermonters like myself, we choose to live in Vermont for a particular quality of life, which very often includes the enjoyment of the of our beautiful natural area around us. Lake Willoughby is a national natural landmark. I've I've forgotten the numbers. There's like 28 in the country, and I think we have five in our state, but we're the biggest one. The glacier former formed lake. ANR is the steward of that. ANR is the caretaker of the National Natural Landmark. They remain completely silent during during this two forty eight a process. They were a mandatory party. When you get that packet from the applicant, ITW, the very first application of which my slides show the timeline, which was December 2024. That's when PUC got it. But the ubunters and everyone else didn't get it until January. And they had that sixty days to work with the town, supposedly communicate with the town and have an informational meeting, which they didn't have until about day 70, 75. And it was exactly what Annette had already said. It's a horse and pony show. They didn't come to the town. They participated through Zoom. They've never put foot in the town. And this is when Brian Sullivan was working for MSK. So it was Kevin Delaney from ITW and Brian Sullivan that represented them. We did not have anyone else from Vermont. There was no one from ANR, no one from Department of Public Service, and they're supposed to be the public's advocate. And it was just our planning board, approximately half of them, the the two chairs and two other members. And believe us, our little town hall was stocked full. And and we had a little screen like this that they had at the front of the table because we don't have great hybrid meetings that we had we tried to have other people, especially, as you know, it's a cool old town because we have more second homeowners than we do have full time residents. So there were quite a few of those that tried to participate. The sound was terrible. People got frustrated. And to tell you the truth, Brian Sullivan really managed the meeting. It was disappointing that our planning board chair did not manage it. There were a lot of good questions asked by the residents, a lot of a lot of inquiries. One of the first things was everyone kept calling it a cell tower. And one of the one of the residents that live on the East Side Of Lake saying, but from the application that we don't get, the application that only the abutters get, she took the time to look through it. And her her husband has an IT job that he works from home, he needs services And says, from that application, you're not gonna improve my service at all because it's only it's a 140 feet tower with an additional 13 feet per antenna to serve only two way service for a private company, ITW, two way radio service like you do for landscapers, commercial operations. And as you know, we're a purely residential community. And the only other one on the tower would be Glover EMS. Interestingly enough, they submitted a letter which showed quid pro quo. They said, oh, we'll accept the free space on the tower. We can use it. And, yes, it would serve EMS. Well, if you look at the Northeast Kingdom, you know what it's served by? You know, all the other EMSs. You know what they use? They use the big tower on top of JPEG, and they bounce it to where to their locations on little, little antenna by their buildings, by things. They do not need these big 153 feet towers for those two reasons. There are no cell providers signed up for this. Doesn't that question, doesn't that make you question why no cell providers during the application process? If there's none now, if there's not Verizon, T Mobile, or any of those AT and T, why not? Because we have AT and T coming from Lowell. You have some Verizon Verizon could be improved. I'll be honest about that. But you have some Verizon coming from the two Barton Towers. Mister Seth even admitted during what was that? During overall arguments. He brought in new new evidence that he thought was gonna help the case. He he goes, oh, what about the incident down to the South Peak? Blah blah blah blah. That happened. It was with a gun or something. Nobody got hurt. Nobody died. It did take a little longer for the police and EMS to get there. But they had already admitted that the tower that they're proposing is at the north end of the lake by the North Beach, and they would have to install one or two towers to serve that end of the lake down by down where that incident happened. So you just in common sense, if you listen and look at the case, and I know you can't live the case, and I know you can't go through the whole thing. But if you what I'm trying to get across is what what our citizens, residents, and property owners have gone through, and they should never have had to get this involved. And this is why I highly and so the consensus of our group is go to land use. Act do act two fifty. And I can talk from personal experience of that. My son did an act two fifty for his his three tree houses in Hancock, Vermont. Now they had no zoning and no and no permits. But yet he did the act two fifty saying, I'll respect Vermont. I'll respect the statues of Vermont. Cost it was pretty costly, but he did everything, did all the environmental studies and everything. He's a private citizen, and he does that. And you're letting this company do this sighting through February a, which they have down pat. They have manipulated it. They do it in front of every single town the same way. And I can prove that because I was one that did cross examination at the evidentiary hearing. I asked Kevin Delaney from ITW, how come on on this piece of evidence here, you referred to the Chester site? This is about Westmore. You know why? Because they cut and pasted from the Chester site and someone missed it. And they they submitted that to the PUC and that didn't bother the PUC. It didn't bother ANR. It didn't bother anyone else. No one is going through these applications. The towers, the tower companies, they know it. It's all new to us. When it comes to our town, this is all new. We have to study it. We have to research it. We have to reach out to the VCE. We have to reach out to our representatives, of which most of them don't know. I'll tell you right now. Most of them are like, Dear in the headlights cycle, I don't know much about it. I read old cases. I read old cases. I read Enesburg. I read the different cases that came before us, especially with this particular company, ITW. Once again, if I start going off and you have a question, stop me. If I've said something and you're like, oh, I want to hear more about that, please let me know.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And just one thought, make sure you're focused on process and not

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: people, not specific. I'm sorry. Okay. It's only because since I would

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: feel like I want make sure we're just talking about the process.

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: Right. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And I'll say I guess I'll I'll I'll I'll add to that right by saying what what's really of interest here, and as chairs already mentioned this, but we're using the example that you have to illustrate processes issues with with the two forty eight process is really what we're we're trying to get at. You're right. Yeah.

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: Okay. You

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: you see what I mean?

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: I I was hoping I was doing that along the way, but maybe it was too personal.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, it's just it's just specifics of the specifics about about Westmore, you know, are not as relevant as the process issues.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So it looks like you have a timeline.

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: Okay, so we can start with this. I'm not going to go through the whole thing because we'd be here forever. But just in the beginning, so December 23 was the fifteenth, that's when they put in their application. And according to the process on the PUC, at the same time it's supposed to be sent to the budding landowners, all mandatory parties, ANR, historic preservation, or the town, select board of the town planning commission, Just just so you know, everyone else didn't get theirs until after the New Year, around January 15, January 20. The meeting wasn't held until the February, the informational meeting. And that's the first time the public found out about it, found out that an application was before the town. The February is this is about the meeting. I'm not going to go through every single thing, but I'm going to leave this with your committee, so if someone's interested, like, happened at that meeting? The cell tower term was used, most important things out of that meeting, cell tower, constantly that term was used, yet no cell providers going on that tower. The other important thing is that I brought up saying, if you look at 248A, the way it's said, it's they don't want the vistas of I 89 and I 91 to be blemished with with telecommunication structure. And so my question to them was, so we should blemish the Lake Willoughby National Natural Landmark? And what good is it really gonna serve if it's only a two way radio and one antenna? So and what was the other thing? Oh, we requested the balloon test. They did not divulge to us because they they had already done a balloon test, but we requested one that the public could see and part participate. At that time. So you requested February 20 The day of balloon test. And people, it was a meeting with a lot of people, there's a lot of things, don't go through everything, but they didn't feel their answers were being answered and they said, When are we going to be heard? When are we going to have a hearing? And both Bob Kennedy, the chair of planning commission, and Brian Sullivan, the lawyer for MSK, Delaney, Kevin Delaney from ITW, all said, Oh, don't worry, the PUC will have a public hearing. We were misinformed at that meeting because if you read the regulations, PUC does not hold a public hearing for telecommunication structures. They do for utilities. They do for other things. It is not an automatic. You're supposed to go through the Department of Public Service. Did we know that ahead of time? No. And we were misinformed in February. The next time mine would be the balloon test. So that was February. The next thing was the balloon test, was held on April 24. We only got three days advanced notice. It was only blown during it was about approximately three hours, three hours and fifteen minutes. It did not meet the qualifications or the criteria of, we have a 19 page telecommunication ordinance that was passed in 2004, before our first tower. We already have two towers in the community. We have one from 2005, which was put in under Act two fifty, and we have one from 2015 that was done under two forty eight a. We hired a drone, a FCC approved drone operator from Swanton, who we we have a drone thing that we submitted as evidence. The tower company did not. The planning commission did not make prior arrangements to have oversight at the looming site. We know the Barton resident that has his right of way through there. And he gave permission that if anyone wanted to go on the right of way so you could get closer to the points on the site, you could. But the planning commission parked his car right there and said, No, the landowner who's having the lease is not allowing us on it. It's not his right of way. So that was confusing because during evidentiary hearing later on, we got Hodges from ITW to say that he's the one that did the balloon test that day. He he set it up and he left the site to drive around to check to like we were driving around checking it. And that left the landowner there with the with the balloon. And we have it on the drone where it constantly kept changing height. Who knows why that was happening, but we have. We have the pictures. We have the video. But it was an unmanned balloon test. That's my point. So it how is it accurate? Do we know who's flying at the 100 it's two balloons, one at 153 feet, one at 140 feet if the balloon test is done properly and the wind is low and all this other stuff.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: What's the 153? Sorry. 153 I thought the height of the tower was 140.

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: It's 140 plus they get granted under 248a 13 feet for the antenna. Oh, for the antenna. And the antenna at the top, it's the balloon that's only three feet wide. The antenna at the top goes between fifteen and twenty feet wide. You really need a balloon that's wide in order to see it. But I don't have it here, if you see the balloon, the drone photos, you'll see how you can it's the tree line stops at 72 feet, so you're going approximately 80 feet higher. I gotta keep moving a little bit. Now we're up to April part this yeah. The balloon test was in April. Just I wanna backtrack to one thing. Meeting was February. March, we spent getting in touch with from finding out of Annette Annette Smith, reaching out to PUC, their clerk, Holly Anderson, was a little overwhelmed, shall we say. And because every time we reached out, it was like, we're not here to help you. You can't give legal advice. And I'm like, no, we're just asking. So we, we depended on their website, the PUC website to teach ourselves and Annette taught, helped us. Annette attended, offered a meeting. It was a two hour meeting through Zoom with links like she did for you. A lot, a lot of stuff. She offered the select board, the planning board, and any resident that wanted to attend. Two people from select board two people from the funding board attended. No select board members attended. And I'd say approximately 10 other citizens attended to learn to learn about the the the $2.48 a process and what we would have to do. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So the balloon test doesn't stay up there, like, for a week?

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: It's in our ordinance, it says it has to be up for eight hours because you want people going to work, coming home from work, living during the day. And they they did it for three hours and fifteen minutes and about that three three and a half hours the most. And they did it from 7AM to 10:15AM. That was it. And granted, you gotta remember there's weather and you want less wind. So I'm not saying but isn't that ironic? The fact that they left it unmanned too was troublesome. Oh, the other thing to know is that they did a balloon test in February. Their CEO said it was February 19 in his deposition, but in their exhibits, it says it was on 02/15/2024, but the town was never told about it. The neighbors weren't told about it, but that's what they based their exhibits on. Was it this February 15 or nineteenth? They can't tell us which date it really was. And that's, you know, in the winter in Vermont. That makes a big difference on coldness, wind, etcetera. So we're up to April, the balloon test. The meantime in April, we're we're asking the planning board, you know, we're gonna have more meetings. They only meet once a month. We we we gotta do this. We gotta do that. And so I'm I'm going fast only because it's a long process. So April and May, we're we're spending a lot of time communicating with our our planning board, our select board, doing a lot of research, and they even took the attitude of let's wait and see. Wait until they they submit the petition. This is just an application. Okay. So June comes around 06/06/2024. The petition is submitted. If there can be anything that anyone can learn from this today, that thirty day period from the day it is officially accepted by PUC saying it's complete, that thirty days starts counting then. And that's the only thirty days that matters in the PUC process. We did not know that. We missed the boat on that one. We learned and now other towns have learned from that that you can't submit things afterwards unless you have established investigator process, investigator status, or you're a mandatory party. The town was a statutory party, but they had to submit something to keep that status, and they failed to do it in thirty days because they didn't know they had to do it. So, anyway, July 9 comes. That was the thirty day cutoff, and that's when we had submitted a number of us had submitted intervener status paper paperwork. It became a a big mess with the intervener status paperwork. IT w ITW asked for a thirty day extension before we could even address anything because Brian Sullivan, I believe I'm sorry, not supposed to make a personal, their attorney got ill and they didn't assign another attorney. They're affirmed, but they didn't assign anything. And we had to do a thirty day halt. PUC approved it. So thirty days, we lost thirty days there. Then once they restarted, they looked at our intervener things and we were told that what was wrong with them. There's a person that's been there fifty years and their family's been there longer, decades. And they were told that they didn't submit it on time or something. And ironically, she this this resident said, but I have slow Internet. I have consolidated. And so I called the PUC and through the clerk's office, it says that you would submit it for me. And luckily, she did also send the clerk's office an email and had that email and got this confirmation, yes, we will submit it for you. It falls under, you know, you don't have high speed Internet. So that was just one problem with intervenors. The other other intervenors were every every one of us was questioned. Oh, I wasn't a neighbor. I'm across the lake. I'm on the East Side. I love the view of the West Side and the mountains on that side. I have a tree house that I had on Airbnb. Off green tree house. Okay. No no plumbing, solar batteries. I depend on that view. People come to my tree house. They don't come there for connectivity. They don't come there to see a lot of people. They come there for the peace, quiet, and the views. And they say that to me. They don't say, oh, what's your Internet? What's this? What's that? And that's fix I'm not the only one. There's other people that are affected economically by this. Let's see. Lost my train of thought there again. We're up to so Mark Bailey?

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: So the thirty days, that's thirty days business, or is that thirty days right from

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: the We were told July 9 was the cutoff date. Nothing could be submitted after July 9, and they submitted it on June.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: The

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: other thing to know is that what's crucial during that thirty days, one of the things that was submitted was Deb De Quinceo, who's in charge of the Eastern Seaboard for the Federal Government for National Natural Landmarks, she submitted a letter. And it basically I do have it, and I can show it to you. I I did wanna break this up just for this one thing. It's in my

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We do need to wrap by and see 03:25. So

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: Okay. This is a a pivotal thing because I think our whole point is if this tower can go up at Lake Willoughby, it can go up anywhere in Vermont. Anywhere. Deb Queen k. I I wish my daughter was here. She's the one who showed me how to use this, And I'm not that good at it. Okay. Here we go. That couldn't here it is. This is this is an extremely important letter, and I'm I will be submitting this. So she's telling you to come to her attention. You're at the Telecommunication Tower blah blah blah. And she's saying the National Park Service with the National National Landmark program, there's oh, see, there's 12 of us in this in the in Vermont, and there's 600 nationwide. Wow. Is that all from those numbers? And most importantly, in her letter, she she tells you, it's recommended to ensure consultation and sharing of balloon and photosimulation results with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources owner and manager of the NNL. Yet throughout the February a process, ANR remains silent. Even during our arguments in August, that's the only question the three commissioners asked. Is anyone here from ANR? They never the application gets handed in and supposedly ANR has gone over it. I called ANR. I talked to Billy Coster and she and he told me, oh, yeah. There was a discussion. I said, great. Can you send me the paperwork and the decisions that were made about it? Because I'm representing all these intervenors. And he says, there's no paperwork. He goes, we had a discussion about it. I said, a discussion about what? About the application. Yeah. We're fine with it. Nothing is in writing. Once again, that's a lack of accountability because what can we come up against if and if they're the steward and the caretaker of the whole south end of the lake, How can we not how can we proceed without them? So what she included was here's the the the that's the federal designation, and then here's the map. So the National National Landmark falls in in that red area. Those are all your big high mountain tops. So when you're on those mountains, you're looking down towards the North Beach and the tower I don't know if you can see my finger or not. The tower is on that side of the lake. The North Beach is at the end, and it's it's about a mile. It's a mile inward up a little bit uphill. So it is definitely in the viewshed of the National Natural Landmark. And there's there's email emails that follow from from her, you know, telling us, get me and R involved. You know, it's like, they are your steward. They are the keeper. You have to get them involved. And I'm like, they're a mandatory party. They're supposed to be involved, which brings us to the next thing, National Natural Landmark and Historic Sites. Westmore has Foxhall, which is less than a half a mile from the tower site. It's it's downhill, but it's less than half a mile right on the lake. It's a national it's on the National Historic Register. We also have the Coles Barn on Hinton Hill Road on the east side of the lake that's on the state register of historic places. Yet the Historic Preservation Society didn't get involved. They also remained. It was like, where are all these state agents they were supposed to supposed to help us? There were environmental markers, and even in the in the in the application that ITW put in, they, there's a wetland right there. I don't know who's saying, is it far enough? Is it in the in the site? Because here's the kicker. The application submitted in on 06/06/2024. In the meantime, Nate mister Anderson who owns that right owns the deeded right away, had a surveyor come in and survey surveyed that deeded right of way that goes through that piece of property where the land is gonna be leased. His survey showed that they were gonna be on his right of way, not next to it, on it. And that was brought to their attention. And two days before the it was brought to their attention months before that. But two days before the evidentiary hearing, all of a sudden they make a major change in their their exhibit saying, oh, we're going to move it five feet this way and this, and yes, we can be right next to the right of way, but now we'll no longer be on it. It's just mind boggling that, okay, so if our state agencies look at this application, how come they didn't catch that? Why are the interveners and the budding property owners doing all this work and having to prove the point that, wait a minute, there's problems with this application? I did ask at the evidentiary hearing, I did ask mister Hodges and mister Delaney, who were the expert witnesses for ITW, these questions, and they get poo pooed or not answered. Another very, very important thing that was overlooked through this process, you read throughout your forty eight day, co location. If co location was possible in other towers, that was supposed to take precedence. You're not supposed to screw the new tower up. Well, my land is right above La Prosse Farm that has the V Tel Tower at 70 feet. It has been sold to another landowner. She came to that meeting. She did all her homework. She got in touch with the president of VTel and everything. She said, could they co locate with you even if you had to build a build a higher tower? And remember that's addressed in February. And they said, certainly, we'll work with that company. And when I asked at the evidentiary hearing of ITW, it's getting delayed. We're not interested. It doesn't serve our purpose for our two way radio service. Okay. But what about as cell service, as Internet service? What about everything else for public good, not for ITW good? This case, we're only one. I am sure. Here's a good example. Morgan gets their application. They file it away. They don't do anything. Sixty days go by. They put in the petition. Nobody does anything. I think they got their certificate under public good in thirty days because the town didn't know about the town didn't understand it, and the residents didn't know about it except for the two neighbors that touched that piece of land. Two forty eight a is a process that might have meant well, and I I read how people said, oh, it's streamlined and all this and all that. It's streamlined for the for the wrong parties, the ones that are making profit, which are outsiders of Vermont. It's streamlined for the companies that are coming into us and telling us what Vermont's gonna become. And Annette already said it. Leahy was quoted in New York Times. He was quoted by the federal judge on appeal. We don't want to pin cushion our, our mountains. I have, I am not against towers. I'm not against moving along with technology, but we have to make a plan. And that brings me to the next thing. We have a ten year telecommunication plan that gets renewed, I think, every three years about. Just got renewed in June 2024. A lot of effort, a lot of money, I think it was $1,200,000 was put into writing that ten year plan. You look at that ten year plan, they pushed 40. They said it's better for you to have towers of 40 feet height because of our topography with the mountains to have more towers, but only 40 feet high rather than 140 feet and above. Why aren't we following all this work that all these people put in? Why aren't we pulling this together? And I'm hoping that's what the legislature does, saying maybe it's time to revisit this. Maybe it's time to say two forty '8 a doesn't isn't serving the purpose we thought. You cannot let it become a permanent law. You cannot extend the sunset in the minimum three years. Keep doing three years because we need the oversight. All of us do, even us, the learning people that have to learn about it. But I think ideally, it's land use. If I wanna do something with my 43 acres and I bought two adjacent parcels because I believe you don't fragment, you've tried to start bringing land together, I'm not developing the lands next to my house. But if I do wanna develop it and I do want it to something, I have to jump through every hoop. I have to look at the zoning bylaws. I have to I have to go to the planning board. Have to do all that. As a as a tax paying citizen and property owner in Vermont, this tower company does not. Add insult to injury, I asked our our planning board our our lister's office, can you tell me how much money we're gonna get for this for this tower that's gonna go high in the sky, this vertical space that they're buying? Nothing. We do not tax that tower company. I said, well, how much is the landowner gonna be taxed more for now it's a commercial development on this property? Oh, we don't increase that. This this we just decided we're not dealing with it. That just blows my mind. I'm just like, so where is the public good? We're not getting cell service. Our aesthetics are gonna be forever changed. The lease is for a hundred years. So you have to really think about it. And I'm just going go back to that timeline. You have back to

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Donna, just eight minutes.

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: Okay. Thank you. So we're at the timeline. Another interesting, from the March 24 to the June 6, which is after the Evidential Hearing and we hand in the briefs in that, we reached out to NVDA, the regional planning thing, dates, Oh, the director said, oh, you should talk to your select board. We're like, we did. But it's the select man that's property that's going on. So that fell on. They decided they weren't gonna get involved. And once again, that just breaks down everything we did all during each month. And then I wanna bring you to

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: this is And you've submitted this. I know.

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: Yeah. This Right. So this you'll you'll have this to go at your leisure if you say, let's see what this time because you'll see how it took so long. So so we get to the point in August where we had oral argument, and I got half an hour and ITW and DPS, they're the imposing parties, which I found find kind of interesting. DPS is the public servant for us and they're our advocate, but they're opposing us. Okay. So they got they got thirty minutes. Think mister Swain took five minutes, if if not less. Rep. Sibilia, DPS, is it safety or service? Department of Public Safety or No. Service. Department of Public Service. And they're also the they also oversee the ten year communication plan. And that's what I found bewildering. As I'm experiencing this process, I'm going, wait a minute, shouldn't they be on our side helping us or at least remaining neutral, not being on ITW side? That's why the feeling we've gotten from this is that everything gets just rubber stamped and the towers have this down, the towers have this two forty eight system down so well. And I'm not blaming people individually. I think everyone is overwhelmed. I think the PUC is overwhelmed. Remove it from them. Let them deal with utilities and all that other stuff. Remove land management from them. They are overwhelmed. They, it just, ANR is overwhelmed, yet they, they're the keeper of the thing. We have to get them back involved. The historic preservation, they they should have been involved. This once again, I don't wanna go through each one because it'll just the time, but you'll see the timeline and how how involved it is, how we had to keep what's next? What's next? Then you have to research it, and you have to follow through. So when we get into the twenty fifth, that's when the case is moving along, and we have the evidentiary hearing, the briefs are submitted, and then the proposed decision is by the hearing officer. Then we have post reply briefs to that. And then the oral argument in August. So then another thing is wait, wait, wait. This system is okay. We always on their timeframe, Public Utility Commission, wait, wait, wait. We get to that evidentiary hearing and I'm thinking it could be a day, could be two days. I asked for a schedule ahead of time. No, we decided the day of it. I asked Deb from the National Natural Landmark, the federal government. I asked her if she could testify. She says, if you give me when when I have to be there. Well, we show up that morning and Seth and Greg Farber Greg Favor said, we're getting this done today. I was like, okay. Let's go. We started around 09:30. They wanted us finished by one or two. I'm like, this case is too big. And that's why I just felt like we just kept getting cut off, shut down. And I don't feel we were given our due process. And I think that's important to know that you don't see that happen. But if you looked at, if you read the evidentiary hearing, there's a transcript of it. If you read it, you would see that every time, nope, I'm shutting you down here. You need to move on. It was like, oh, good. It would throw you up at times. Okay. So then we we went to the oral argument. We we attended we listened to other oral arguments. The PUC commissioners asked questions of both parties. They asked questions. They listened to things. At hours, the only question was, is where is ANR? No question about anything I presented, no question about anything that DPS or ITW presented. It was like, and that's why I'm, I welcome questions because if I've reached you, hopefully you're thinking about something saying, hey, Donna, This was valid, or can you clarify this for me? There was nothing of nothing of that oral argument. So then September, something that is back in the time frame there. It's wait, wait, and see. Well, IT MSK filed a lawsuit against the three commissioners individually over the Westmore case. Now isn't this ironic? They we had our they filed it December 2024. It would they came to a settlement September 2025. A week later, we get the commissioner's decision from our oral argument saying, oh, we're standing behind the proposal that that the hearing officer gave, even though the hearing officer's decision has very few of our exhibits in it, hardly relates to any exhibit on our side, relies all on their exhibits, some of which which we proved were inaccurate. And then mistakes like, oh, you changed chair people. You changed the chairperson of the planning commission. No. Bob Kennedy is still chair. He always was chair. There's just there's things that is like, well, these are relevant things because he's saying that the letter the planning board and select board didn't submit their their opposition to the tower until until four months after that thirty days. And so it was not considered. Town deference was not given in our case. So all this stuff that February says, oh, don't worry. Town deference, planning board, the planning your town plan, your ordinances, your bylaws are gonna be given deference. It was not in our case, and they claim because it wasn't handed in during the thirty days. Where in the two forty eight a process does the say, oh, it has to come in in the thirty days? It doesn't. It's a the process does not work. Two forty eight a does not protect the mom, does not protect the citizens that choose to live here for a particular lifestyle. So please support us. And now we're at the present where we had wonderful happy holidays because we did we asked them to reconsider their decision, which we got right around Thanksgiving. We handed it in 08:30, 09:00 in the morning. They answered it by 1PM. Never. That never happens. Motions and that usually take four to five days before you get a response to it. And so I guess it was kind of weird thing. Predetermined, whatever. Or they they were worn out as much as we were worn out. They're like, let's just put this to bed. So therefore now we're in appeal in in the Supreme Court requiring citizens now not only get time and quality from their life to to continue this, but also money. We we are we're asking we we have a GoFundMe page. We go door to door. We knock. If you can't give your time in that, we ask, please keep your comments coming. This is this is tough. And if every town in Vermont has to go through this, it's impossible. I seem like some don't, why most don't.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Dara, thank you so much. We have time for one quick question. Okay. So we know we're fine with you. And, appreciate you turning in your timeline. That would be great. And, I especially wanna thank you for taking time to come in and testify in person. It's it's kind of a big deal to be, you know Oh, who that one? To be asked to classify the notes.

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: What do I do? I suppose that you'll It's an active drug deal. Just exit. Thank It's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: a big deal to be asked to come and testify before the legislature. We appreciate your outreach and appreciate you being here. Just for the committee, looking ahead, we are hearing tomorrow from the PUC and the Land Use Review Board to just get a little side by side comparison on Act two fifty versus two forty a, specifically in terms of public engagement. So we'll have time to talk about that. Then tomorrow at 11:00, we are having a committee discussion and markup. There's not much of the bill to markup, but I would ask everybody to be ready to talk tomorrow about where you wanna see this bill go. They not silence around the table. Like, tomorrow is the time to have an open discussion about here's what I'm thinking, here's what I'd like to see us do as a committee. So just you've got fair warning. That's what committee discussion will be tomorrow. I need to hear from everybody about what you're thinking we should do in terms of this bill. We've got a quick testimony of fifteen minutes from the chair of the Danville Planning Commission, Allison tomorrow at one Representative Southworth asked that we hear from the Tinmouth town clerk. She's coming in on Thursday. And I took the vote off the calendar for now until I have a sense of what folks are thinking in our committee discussion tomorrow. So, I can't schedule a vote when I don't know what the committee wants to do. So, if that sounds good to everybody, Donna, thanks again for being here and we

[Donna Dzuga Smith (Witness, Westmore resident)]: are