This Monday night the Capital Facilities Planning Committee is hosting a public forum on a proposal to build a 180-foot communications tower, apparently on the hill above the town garage on New Boston Road. Before questioning the proposal, I want to express thanks to the Committee for offering this public forum and providing a copy of the town consultant's report recommending the 180' tower. For those of us not able to attend the public forum, a chance to hash things out on the listserv is a fair second.
First, I think it's important to understand the scale of the proposed tower.
The DRB reviewed and approved a Verizon cell tower back in 2004-2005. The review process for a cell tower is different from that of a town government sponsored project, but the DRB review was instructive.
Verizon proposed a 110' tower disguised as a tree. Both the Act 250 District Commission and the Norwich DRB determined that they could achieve their specific coverage goals with a tower/tree of only 90' and that's what they built. The disguise worked because I never hear anybody other than immediate neighbors ever mention the cell tower in town.
Under state law, a cell tower can be up to 20' above the tree line without any special authorization from the DRB. We found the tree line surrounding the proposed cell tower averaged about 60' in height which is fairly typical in this area. In other words, the proposed 180' tower would be about three times higher than the surrounding trees. Take a look out your window and imagine that height.
As the consultant's report explains, a very tall tower is needed to reach more terrain in such a hilly town. Verizon was primarily interested in establishing cell coverage on I-91 so could live with a tower half that height. Signal propagation maps they provided us showed that to significantly increase cell signal throughout Norwich, they would need a tower in the 160-180' range.
So here are my questions:
1. Putting aside aesthetics, if we want the best signal coverage, shouldn't we be looking at the highest points in town rather than restricting ourselves to town-owned property? The police, fire and town garage are all relatively low-lying properties compared to the heights to the north and west of town. Image the view from a 180' Gile Mountain tower.
2. Has there been any serious discussion of co-locating cell transmitters on the proposed 180' tower? That could provide some revenue to offset the cost of acquiring a hilltop and building the tower way up high. It would also significantly improve cell coverage in many parts of town, allowing more people to drop their landlines and text in the woods.
3. If a 180' tower is a good idea for Norwich, isn't it also a good idea for all our neighboring towns as well? Any chance we could share towers sited to cover several communities? The consultant's report makes reference to the120' tower on Hurricane Hill in Hartford and the Hayes Hill tower in Etna. This seems to me to be a perfect example of the need for a regional planning approach. Could we coordinate communications (and co-located cell coverage) for Sharon, Strafford, Thetford and Norwich in a single site, sharing the cost and limiting the impact of these towers? Otherwise, are we about to see a bunch of 180' hilltop towers popping up around the Upper Valley?
4. If we build a 180' tower, will it have to have one of those red flashing lights that have sprouted up in Etna and Lebanon?
Again, thanks for the forum opportunity and access to the consultants report.
- - - - -
Details from Public Forum Notice:
The Norwich Capital Facilities Planning and Budgeting Committee will hold a public forum Monday, Dec, 12, at 7 p.m. in Tracy Hall on the topic of radio communications equipment used for fire, police and public works and dispatching equipment and apparatus for the Town's public safety (Police and Fire) Departments.
The Town hired a consulting firm last year to examine the departments' communications equipment and identify needed changes, both to comply with a new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards that will take effect Jan. 1, 2013, and to provide better and more dependable coverage in Norwich's hilly terrain, which hampers line-of-sight communications. The cost of implementing the consulting firm's recommendations, which include installation of a new 180-foot communications tower, is estimated at $765,000. The purpose of the public forum will be to explain the need for and impact of the proposed changes and potential approaches to reduce the consequent burden to Norwich taxpayers, as well as to answer questions and receive comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment