Residents press safety, property‑value and procedural objections to proposed Hancock tower

A recurring theme of the public comment period was concern about safety, property values and process. Several abutters described the tower's proximity to homes and expressed fear of structural failure, ice or falling debris, erosion from construction on ledge, and noise from generators. "The 125 Percent setback is critical," said one resident, and multiple speakers cited specific nearby home distances (one noted a front door 320 feet from the proposed base) to argue the application fails setback tests in the ordinance.

Residents also criticized ITW's property valuation report as containing errors and inappropriate comparables, citing pasted‑in town names and mismatched photos. The town received an ICE Legal submission and additional letters alleging methodological flaws; one public speaker, who identified herself as the author of a detailed rebuttal, urged the board to order a peer review.

Procedural complaints were raised about statutory notice to neighboring towns, the board's prior regional‑impact finding (challenged as the wrong standard), and the statutory 65‑day timeframe for decisions. Some speakers pointed to a National Radio Astronomy Observatory letter and the very long baseline array (VLBA) as technical and regional constraints that could affect carrier interest or interfere with federal research equipment.

Why it matters: The concerns span technical, financial and procedural grounds that the board must weigh separately: ordinance criteria (setbacks, erosion control), evidence quality (appraisal and balloon photos), statutory notice and regional‑impact requirements, and separate federal review processes (Section 106). Residents asked the board either to deny the waivers or to obtain independent expert reviews before acting.

What's next: The board voted to order a peer review of the appraisal and to continue the hearing to Sept. 2; it also discussed (but did not decide) possible procurement and scope limitations for reviewers.