Balloon Test? (Norwich ListServ)

As I wrote to our Zoning Administrator after the May 18th balloon test, it's impossible to effectively evaluate the visual impact of the proposed tower using a balloon test while all the hardwoods are fully leafed out.

At the DRB review of the Verizon cell tower, we conducted the balloon test in early May, before the hardwoods were in leaf.  That way, we were able to assess how the tower would actually appear during the 8 months of the year when most hardwoods are bare.

While the Town Manager's fast track push for a bond vote in August doesn't leave time for a proper test, I hope the DRB will take the time to do this properly come autumn.


Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:58:18 -0400
From: "Phil Dechert"
Subject: [Norwich] Balloon Test for Proposed Communication Tower - Thurs, 7-12-12 - 6:30 AM

Bad Tower (Letter to Capital Facilities Committee)

We have holiday plans (and limited internet access) that prevent me from attending your July 5th meeting so please share this email with your committee as "Public Comment" regarding the proposed tower.

It is my understanding that you all are expected to provide a committee recommendation to the Selectboard ahead of their July 11th.  Based on my inbox and voicemail, I think it would be a mistake to interpret public turnout at 8am following a national holiday as lack of interest in this issue.

As best I can tell, the tower proposal before you was developed to address a technical coverage problem without fully appreciating the regulatory process a tower of this scale would face.  Understandably, the tower proposal reflects the task given the consultant last year.  I think it's fair to say we would be discussing a very different tower proposal had the consultant been asked to identify sites in town where a tower would
a) improve upon existing coverage (or even seek to achieve 100% coverage) while
b) complying with the presumptive height restrictions set out in our zoning regulations.

Based on quotations in the Valley News and what I've seen firsthand, I think Neil's made a decision to forge ahead with this specific proposal feeling it has a decent chance of surviving regulatory challenge.  Given the odds, I assume he feels this route should be pursued before putting any more resources into investigating alternative sites/proposals. 

As a public opponent to this specific proposal, I question the wisdom of this approach.

I doubt there was any way Neil could have anticipated the resistance this proposal has already elicited.  However, now that it's clear there are serious questions being asked about the proposed tower, Neil, and consequently you all, need to make a calculated guess whether to bull forward in the hope this resistance can be overcome, or to slow down and try to accommodate those aspects of resistance that might lead to a better result long-term. 

One risk of bulling forward is that the DRB and/or Act 250 District Commission ultimately require the town to provide consultant analysis of alternative sites where a tower just 20' above the tree line could provide equivalent or superior coverage to the proposed site.  The financial cost of doing this analysis only after bulling forward would be compounded by the political cost to Tracy Hall of having guessed wrong at this juncture.

A second risk of bulling forward is that it hardens everyone's positions.  The Town, acting through the Town Manager, this committee and the Selectboard, would be saying whatever window there might have been to rationally explore whether this is the best use of town resources to address the narrow-banding deadline has now closed.  It's now all about the raw power of the ballot box, a late summer bond vote, and the lawyers opponents can bring to the regulatory process. 

Finally, bulling forward risks perpetuating a basic, understandable, error made at the outset of this process. 

Did anyone ever suggest to the consultant that any tower should be designed to stay within 20' of the surrounding tree line as expected under NZR 4.13(C)(b)? 

There's a reason for this provision and it's not arbitrary.

The entire telecommunications section of our zoning regulations reflects a well-worn national effort to arrive at a balance between the need to improve wireless communications of all kinds and the negative impacts these towers impose.  These model regulations try to influence tower design at the outset to site towers where they can achieve their coverage goals without literally towering over the landscape.  While some may feel these impacts are unimportant in their own judgement, our zoning regulations clearly do not.  And yet this tower proposal appears to have overlooked our zoning regulations from the beginning.  While I sympathize with the sense of urgency regarding the year-end deadline, I find this selective disregard for applicable regulations surprising and disturbing.

Not This Tower (Letter to Selectboard)

I plan to be at your meeting on the 11th, but want to forward these comments ahead of time.

In the proposed communications tower, we are building infrastructure meant to serve us for decades to come.  As a town, we’ve failed to properly plan for this project despite Neil Fulton’s best efforts.  Now, facing an imminent deadline, he’s knocked himself out to balance coverage with cost and has hammered away continuously to secure outside money in an effort to lower taxpayer cost still further.  Nevertheless, I believe we’ve reached a decision point that simply defies his best efforts to move forward.

First, as Phil Dechert will likely confirm when he’s back from vacation, this tower will require DRB review in addition to Act 250 review.  This really shouldn’t surprise anyone. As some of you may recall, the Dresden Route 5 Fields required DRB review despite being a local government entity and despite building only fields and some spectator seating on the site. 

Second, neither the Act 250 nor the DRB review will be rubber stamp reviews despite the fact this is also a local government project.  Under our zoning regulations, even fast-track review under NZR 4.11 requires the DRB to make affirmative findings approving both site and height characteristics.  For telecommunications facilities, site and height characteristics are governed by NZR 4.13.  Under 4.13 the DRB rejected any Verizon tower more than 20’ above the surrounding tree line.  Independent of our review, the Act 250 District Commission also summarily rejected Verizon’s effort to build a tower more than 20’ above the tree line.  Why this occurred and how the proposed tower might fare under similar review are best left to another letter. 

Third, it should be clear from the correspondence and public comment already generated that both the Act 250 and DRB applications will be contested by neighbors.  Whatever the ultimate outcome, it’s unrealistic to believe contested regulatory reviews can be completed by year-end.

Under the circumstances, it seems unwise to press ahead with a bond vote in August.  The proposed tower may not survive regulatory review as designed.  It seems a reach asking voters to start borrowing money when we don’t know what we will ultimately build. 

It’s time for the Selectboard to show political leadership in this matter and take the Town Manager off the hook.  He’s identified a serious public service issue and done his level best to address it, but now his efforts are running up against a deadline that risks placing expediency above good judgment. 

The Selectboard should schedule a bond vote on the communications tower for the March 2013 town elections.  This would allow more time for the DRB and Act 250 reviews.  It would give us time to research alternative sites that may provide better coverage while respecting the presumptive height restrictions set out in NZR 4.13.  It might afford us the time to find a better solution on all counts that would be money better spent and a better decision overall. 

This would also require the political courage to recognize there are potential costs in missing the January 1 FCC narrow-banding deadline: A period of even worse emergency services communications until the tower design and permitting are resolved;  the potential some grant money now available to us may disappear; potentially a higher price tag overall. 

Missing the January deadline and the risks that poses are not the Town Manager’s fault.  All of us who didn’t get on top of this much earlier share that responsibility.  But the alternative is a protracted regulatory and political fight which compounds our current challenges.  In retrospect, it will all seem to have been easily avoided with just a little political foresight applied while there's still time.  

As stated at the outset, we are building infrastructure here meant to serve us for decades to come.  Let’s do it right.