In Re Rinkers, Inc.
190 Vt. 567
| Vt. | 2011Background
- Neighbors appeal a de novo Act 250 Criterion 8 challenge to a 180-foot telecommunication tower proposal in Hardwick.
- Site is Bridgman Hill Road, a rural town setting with surrounding trees, a silo, and a nearby wind turbine.
- Existing equipment at the site includes a 43-foot wooden pole; Rinkers seeks to replace with a 180-foot lattice tower to improve paging, cellular, and dispatch services and to enable co-location.
- AT&T Mobility plans to place antennas at the 160-foot level; other providers may co-locate; Hardwick emergency services and VELCO may also use space on the tower.
- The Environmental Court held the project would not have an undue aesthetic impact under Criterion 8, finding no violation of a clear written community standard and that mitigating steps were generally available and not required to reduce height to meet the project’s purpose and Plan goals; the court approved the permit and the neighbors appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the project violates a clear, written community standard. | Neighbors argue the Hardwick Town Plan’s phrase about a rural and natural skyline provides a clear standard. | Environmental Court found the standard not absolute and balanced with needs for co-location of towers. | No violation of a clear, written community standard. |
| Whether reducing the tower height is a generally available mitigating step that should have been taken. | Rinkers could shorten height while preserving coverage and co-location. | Reducing height would frustrate the project’s coverage and co-location goals; mitigating height not required. | Mitigation not compelled; height reduction not required. |
| Whether the court properly applied the Quechee test and the Town Plan’s co-location preferences. | Height and co-location considerations should yield a shorter tower. | Court properly weighed purposes, co-location policy, and evidence supporting height as necessary. | Court properly applied Quechee test; decision affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Eastview at Middlebury, Inc., 187 Vt. 208 (2009 VT 98) (Quechee-based aesthetic balancing; deferential review of factual findings)
- Shaw, 183 Vt. 587 (2008 VT 29) (environmental court factual findings upheld on deference)