ANTRIM -- As tensions around a proposed meteorological tower on Tuttle Hill boiled over Tuesday, the property owner spoke out about the divisiveness of the issue.

Landowner Michael Ott said he didn't see the harm in putting up a meteorological tower (met tower) as a temporary structure to determine if the site is suitable for a wind-energy project. But he did see the harm in the increasingly sharp tone of the discussion.

"The last thing that I ever wanted when I moved here three years ago is to have something like this divide the town," said Ott. "Hopefully, we'll come to some sort of consensus as a town, because I think there's a lot of benefits that could come from this."

The majority of audience members disagreed, as residents challenged the application, the applicants and even the board itself.

"Just do your job and uphold the ordinances," said resident Sarah Gorman, following a denouncement of the application and the board's handling of it.

After Gorman and other audience members repeatedly directed questions and derisive comments at one another, zoning board member Ron Haggett slammed his fist on the table and demanded Gorman address her questions to the board.

Throughout the night, the board attempted to keep the discussion focused on the current application for a met tower and not any potential commercial wind facility. Their efforts largely failed as residents, abutters and applicants repeatedly referenced the supposed pros and cons of a wind farm.

Resident Mark Schaefer echoed the caveat of all other abutters and residents in opposition to the tower by saying he is entirely supportive of renewable energy, but not in a rural conservation district.

"I've raised four children under that ridge," said Schaefer, who said he moved to the area 25 years ago specifically for its rural appeal. "It would take away everything we've moved up here for."

Fellow 25-year resident Wes Enman said he was in favor of the met tower.

"I think it needs to be investigated," he said.

Resident James Hankard said he felt as though the board had already reached a conclusion and that the met tower was a done deal.

"This is my first meeting and I'm kind of dismayed," said Hankard. "I don't think the people are being represented and respected."

Zoning board alternate Don Winchester said he was confused by the repeated allegations from the crowd that the board had already reached a decision or was being hostile to residents.

"I don't feel there is any prejudicial treatment going on," said Winchester, who said he had not been at previous meetings on the matter. "I don't know how anyone could think that we have already made up our minds on anything. As citizens of this town, we take this very seriously and we take your concerns very seriously."

Joel Harrington, director of government relations for the New Hampshire office of the Nature Conservancy, spoke briefly toward the end of the hearing, saying he respected the positions of both the landowner and residents. He said his organization had not taken a stance on this particular project, but it had identified the tract of land in question as an ecologically and recreationally valuable one.

"If you do go through with it," said Harrington, addressing Eolian representatives Jack Kenworthy and John Soininen, "I hope you reach out to some of the organizations who have expended a lot of resources in this area."

Soininen, vice president of development for Eolian, delivered a lengthy presentation detailing the ways in which the application satisfied the five requirements for a variance. He cited a report from the Renewable Energy Policy Project, which reviewed 24,000 real estate transactions before coming to the conclusion that, "there is no support for the claim that wind development will harm property values."

Soininen's presentation had been made available in advance of the meeting, during which resident Richard Block presented a four-page rebuttal to the information. Block took issue with Soininen's claim that "any documentation provided thus far by Antrim residents to suggest a correlation between the erection of a met tower and a decrease in property values is purely subjective and has not been provided by unbiased experts."

Block said the REPP report was largely on data from California, Texas, Wisconsin and Iowa, with only four pages of data from Vermont. Local realtors have a more accurate understanding of local values than any organization of experts from far-away agencies, said Block. He also challenged Soininen's example of a successful project in Lempster, where a commercial wind farm was installed last year, calling comparable projects a source of "utter and permanent devastation" to the character of a town.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Soininen and Kenworthy urged the board to close the public comment portion of the application process and move on to board deliberations.

"I fail to see the need to continue in public fashion," said Soininen, who suggested the board could take as long as it would like to deliberate.

Town Planner Peter Moore said Block's report, as well as other documents that continue to be submitted, deserved review, and cautioned that Eolian might be deprived a chance to rebut the documents if the public comment segment were closed.

"Every citizen in the town needs to be heard," said zoning board member Doug Crafts. "However long it takes."

Public comment has been continued until Sept. 29, when the board will again convene at the town hall at 7 p.m.

To sign a petition in support of the met tower variance, contact Gordon Webber at 588-2122. To sign a petition in opposition, contact Richard or Loranne Block at 588-2552.