Can we find a single tower site that might eliminate the West Norwich and Kerwin Hill shadows entirely?
It may be the cost of acquiring and building a tower on a more effective site is too much for town residents to stomach.
It may be a more effective tower site imposes other impacts that make it unsuitable.
It may be there simply is no single site that can achieve a 100% coverage goal.
But we can only find out by trying.
The point is, Verizon did a thorough analysis of coverage and site development characteristics on a number of potential sites before bringing forward a specific proposal. Based on the responses to questions at last week’s public forum, it appears we haven’t.
Verizon understood our regulations limit tower height to 20’ above the surrounding treeline lacking compelling evidence a higher tower is absolutely required to achieve a coverage objective. (See NZR Section 4.13 (C)(b)) As a result, they sought out sites on higher terrain, using topography to achieve better coverage without exceeding the 20’ above treeline limitation. In other words, they achieved their coverage objective -- admittedly more modest than ours -- by siting a smaller tower at a higher elevation.
The proposed tower at the Town Garage site does just the opposite, seeking to overcome a valleyside location at 750’ elevation with 198’ of tower structure -- probably 120’-140’ feet above the surrounding treeline. The potential for delay in getting a tower of this size through DRB and Act 250 review could well mean we miss the year-end FCC narrow-banding deadline anyway.
Based on the propagation maps shared at the public forum, it would appear a smaller tower more consistent with our zoning regulations, sited closer to the Sharon border -- along the ridge that runs between Beaver Meadow and Turnpike Roads where elevations reach more than twice the proposed tower site -- might achieve better -- perhaps 100% -- coverage for town residents with minimal impact on neighbors or viewsheds. The cost involved and other practical considerations can only be determined by a more thorough investigation of these options.
I respect the initial impulse to try to limit costs by focusing on town-owned properties. I understand the sense of urgency to erect a tower before the narrow-banding throttle takes effect at year-end. It’s hard to see how we can meet that deadline if we seriously consider higher elevation and privately-owned sites given the additional acquisition and construction requirements involved.
Nevertheless, if we are making a major long-term investment to improve emergency services communications coverage in town, let’s do the up front work now - - while there’s still time -- to see whether we can achieve 100% coverage for our residents and the emergency personnel we depend upon.
It may cost more at the outset and we may miss the year-end deadline as a result, but these near-term concerns pale, in my opinion, set against even a single fatal incident occurring in one of these shadows that might have been avoided had we taken the time now to eliminate the shadows entirely.
It may be the cost of acquiring and building a tower on a more effective site is too much for town residents to stomach.
It may be a more effective tower site imposes other impacts that make it unsuitable.
It may be there simply is no single site that can achieve a 100% coverage goal.
But we can only find out by trying.
The point is, Verizon did a thorough analysis of coverage and site development characteristics on a number of potential sites before bringing forward a specific proposal. Based on the responses to questions at last week’s public forum, it appears we haven’t.
Verizon understood our regulations limit tower height to 20’ above the surrounding treeline lacking compelling evidence a higher tower is absolutely required to achieve a coverage objective. (See NZR Section 4.13 (C)(b)) As a result, they sought out sites on higher terrain, using topography to achieve better coverage without exceeding the 20’ above treeline limitation. In other words, they achieved their coverage objective -- admittedly more modest than ours -- by siting a smaller tower at a higher elevation.
The proposed tower at the Town Garage site does just the opposite, seeking to overcome a valleyside location at 750’ elevation with 198’ of tower structure -- probably 120’-140’ feet above the surrounding treeline. The potential for delay in getting a tower of this size through DRB and Act 250 review could well mean we miss the year-end FCC narrow-banding deadline anyway.
Based on the propagation maps shared at the public forum, it would appear a smaller tower more consistent with our zoning regulations, sited closer to the Sharon border -- along the ridge that runs between Beaver Meadow and Turnpike Roads where elevations reach more than twice the proposed tower site -- might achieve better -- perhaps 100% -- coverage for town residents with minimal impact on neighbors or viewsheds. The cost involved and other practical considerations can only be determined by a more thorough investigation of these options.
I respect the initial impulse to try to limit costs by focusing on town-owned properties. I understand the sense of urgency to erect a tower before the narrow-banding throttle takes effect at year-end. It’s hard to see how we can meet that deadline if we seriously consider higher elevation and privately-owned sites given the additional acquisition and construction requirements involved.
Nevertheless, if we are making a major long-term investment to improve emergency services communications coverage in town, let’s do the up front work now - - while there’s still time -- to see whether we can achieve 100% coverage for our residents and the emergency personnel we depend upon.
It may cost more at the outset and we may miss the year-end deadline as a result, but these near-term concerns pale, in my opinion, set against even a single fatal incident occurring in one of these shadows that might have been avoided had we taken the time now to eliminate the shadows entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment