For those of us unable to attend the December 12th forum, the Valley News coverage left some questions I hope someone can illuminate here.
Specifically, as I posted on December 10th: 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 a tower sited to cover several communities?
The consultant's report makes reference to the 120' 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 perhaps 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, aren't we about to see a bunch of 180' hilltop towers popping up around the Upper Valley? As Greg DeFrancis points out in his December 23rd post the consultant's report defining the current proposal doesn't mention whether alternative sites or multi-town co-location to a single site were ever considered.
Widespread local displeasure with the proliferation of cell towers led to federal and state regulation limiting the visual impact of cell towers. These rules forced cell companies to coordinate tower construction to maximize co-location, resulting in fewer, smaller towers overall. Most towns, Norwich included, exempt government facilities from all but the most basic land use regulations on the assumption these facilities are created for the common good and are accountable to a political process.
In this instance, while I do not question the motives of those advocating the consultant's recommendations, I think it's up to us to press the committee to explore co-location both in the interest of sharing costs among several towns and in limiting the inevitable negative visual impact these towers have to all upper Valley residents. I would encourage anyone who knows more about this to reply via the listserv for the benefit of all resident-readers.
Specifically, as I posted on December 10th: 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 a tower sited to cover several communities?
The consultant's report makes reference to the 120' 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 perhaps 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, aren't we about to see a bunch of 180' hilltop towers popping up around the Upper Valley? As Greg DeFrancis points out in his December 23rd post the consultant's report defining the current proposal doesn't mention whether alternative sites or multi-town co-location to a single site were ever considered.
Widespread local displeasure with the proliferation of cell towers led to federal and state regulation limiting the visual impact of cell towers. These rules forced cell companies to coordinate tower construction to maximize co-location, resulting in fewer, smaller towers overall. Most towns, Norwich included, exempt government facilities from all but the most basic land use regulations on the assumption these facilities are created for the common good and are accountable to a political process.
In this instance, while I do not question the motives of those advocating the consultant's recommendations, I think it's up to us to press the committee to explore co-location both in the interest of sharing costs among several towns and in limiting the inevitable negative visual impact these towers have to all upper Valley residents. I would encourage anyone who knows more about this to reply via the listserv for the benefit of all resident-readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment