Balloon Test Comments (Letter to ZA and TM)

Phil, et al.,

Another balloon test came up at last night's forum. 

The DRB hearing on this tower will involve sorting out how much of Section 4.13 "Telecommunications Facilities" applies to Section 4.11 "Public Facilities" review.

From my reading of the regs, 4.11(A) requires the DRB to making findings and conclusions regarding tower location and height.  Both location and height of telecommunications facilities are specifically governed by 4.13.  Section 4.13(K)(1) authorizes the DRB to require a balloon test to assess the likely visual impact of the proposed tower with specific criteria for how that test should be conducted.

If you are planning another balloon test, I'd suggest you conduct it as part of the DRB proceedings -- consistent with their requirements -- and that it be done after the leaves are down in late September. 

Communications Tower Public Forum Comments (Norwich ListServ)

Good news and bad news.

The good news is our Town Manager, Neil Fulton, is a very smart guy who takes his job and the concept of public servant very seriously.  Together with the three emergency services department heads, he's brought forward a convincing case for siting an emergency communications tower in Norwich. 

The bad news is that the proposed tower site, despite the significant effort and expense to construct it, leaves out two neighborhoods: 

Old West Norwich -- upper Beaver Meadow including Chapel Hill, Mitchell Brook, and Tigertown residents -- will remain beyond reliable emergency communications for fire, police and public works personnel under the current proposal.   All three department heads spoke up last night regarding the real dangers that confront both their personnel and residents in these areas without reliable emergency communications.  The omission of these residents from reliable coverage is entirely due to the difficult topography of town.  The decision to site the proposed tower at the town garage is, in this respect, a compromise between cost and comprehensive coverage. 

The other neighborhood left out is those homes which fall within a half mile of the town garage.   Residents on Turnpike Road, New Boston, Tilden Hill, Brigham Hill, Douglas, Olcott and Old Coach Road -- may have this tower added to the view out their window or back porch.  I've already written about the potential impact on property values for these residents.  Those who attended last night's public forum heard several people raise their own concerns.  In particular, two residents who spoke up were very alarmed by the potential risk from EMF radiation.  As I've said before, I personally have no idea whether these risks are real, but I think there can be no question the concerns are real to those who believe them. 

Over the next few months, the proposed tower will undergo Act 250 and zoning permitting review.  Under the current plan, town residents will be asked to approve a bond to fund tower construction later this summer.  There is some urgency in getting all this approved and a tower up by year-end.  

Considering the costs to the town of this entire process and the legitimate concerns about coverage gaps and property values, I urge the Town Manager and supporting committee to thoroughly research an alternative location for the tower on significantly higher terrain where a single, significantly lower, tower might be able to extend coverage to West Norwich and minimize visual impact without diminishing the real and important improvements a tower located in Norwich can achieve. 

I have no doubt there would be additional incremental costs involved in this alternative.  Those additional costs may be outweighed by resolving the coverage gaps and disproportionate impact on those homes near the proposed tower site.  The only way to make that assessment is to run the propagation models and research the infrastructure necessary to site a smaller tower on higher terrain.