This is not the first standalone communications tower proposed for Norwich.
I was Chair of our Development Review Board early last decade when Verizon Wireless applied to build a cell tower above Upper Loveland Road. At the time, cell towers were popping up all along I-91 and I-89 as Verizon sought to create a corridor of uninterrupted cell coverage along both interstates.
To their credit, Verizon knew they would face Development Review Board review in Norwich and they worked hard to anticipate likely points of friction with neighboring landowners.
As required by our zoning regulations, their initial proposal limited the height of their tower to the minimum they felt acceptable to achieve their coverage goals. To further minimize adverse visual impact on neighbors, they sited the tower where few -- if any -- houses could see it even when leaves are down. They also designed the tower as a mock white pine so it would be lost in the surrounding tree cover to those who might view it from afar. They did all this precisely because they knew they had to undergo a permitting process.
The resulting tower -- similar to the tower on the hilltop just southeast of Exit 12 on I-91 -- is difficult to see even when you’re looking for it. It achieves Verizon’s coverage goals with minimal impact on neighbors or those traveling on public roads in their viewshed.
In my opinion, the Verizon cell tower is a positive example of permitting and land use regulation. DRB review under clear, considered regulatory criteria helps smart developers tailor their proposals to anticipate objections, mitigating those they feel they cannot fully satisfy. It gives those most impacted by the proposed development an opportunity to challenge the most offensive impacts under objective standards. A transparent process has the advantage of being recognized to be fair even if some parties don't get everything they want. This leads to a better development plan overall and a politically more acceptable outcome in the end.
In terms of impacts, I see no difference between this tower proposal and Verizon's cell tower built seven years ago. However, the proposed towers themselves could hardly be more different:
Where Verizon achieved their coverage objectives by siting a 82’ tower on a heavily forested height, the current proposal’s only concession to neighbors was the choice to keep it under 200’ so it won’t require a flashing red light on top.
Where Verizon selected their proposed site to balance coverage objectives against the tower’s visual impact upon neighboring properties -- and chose colors and camouflaging to further minimize visual impacts -- the current proposal (admittedly in an effort to contain costs) appears to have limited in-depth site analysis to town-owned properties. They then limited coverage objectives to what would be possible from the public works/transfer station site with a tower just under 200’.
Finally, where Verizon understood and anticipated the regulatory requirements, there appears to be some confusion among town officials whether a DRB hearing is even needed for this proposed tower.*
It appears to me this confusion regarding the need for DRB review has allowed the tower proposal to get ahead of itself, leading to a proposed design that may be penny-wise, but pound foolish; a proposal that might have met less opposition and produced a better result for all had the applicable DRB review criteria been in mind from the start.
-----
* From my reading of our zoning regulations, there is simply no question the proposed tower requires DRB review:
Section 1.02(A) clearly states our regulations apply to “all lands in this community” without exception for town-owned land.
Section 1.03(A) states, “No land development shall commence within the jurisdiction of the Town of Norwich except in compliance with the provisions of these regulations.”
Section 4.11 provides expedited DRB review of “Public Facilities” but explicitly requires those facilities conform to our zoning regulations with respect to “location, size [and] height.”
The extensive location, size and height criteria for “telecommunications facilities” such as the proposed tower are set out in Section 4.13 - - the same regulations we applied to the Verizon tower eight years ago.
I was Chair of our Development Review Board early last decade when Verizon Wireless applied to build a cell tower above Upper Loveland Road. At the time, cell towers were popping up all along I-91 and I-89 as Verizon sought to create a corridor of uninterrupted cell coverage along both interstates.
To their credit, Verizon knew they would face Development Review Board review in Norwich and they worked hard to anticipate likely points of friction with neighboring landowners.
As required by our zoning regulations, their initial proposal limited the height of their tower to the minimum they felt acceptable to achieve their coverage goals. To further minimize adverse visual impact on neighbors, they sited the tower where few -- if any -- houses could see it even when leaves are down. They also designed the tower as a mock white pine so it would be lost in the surrounding tree cover to those who might view it from afar. They did all this precisely because they knew they had to undergo a permitting process.
The resulting tower -- similar to the tower on the hilltop just southeast of Exit 12 on I-91 -- is difficult to see even when you’re looking for it. It achieves Verizon’s coverage goals with minimal impact on neighbors or those traveling on public roads in their viewshed.
In my opinion, the Verizon cell tower is a positive example of permitting and land use regulation. DRB review under clear, considered regulatory criteria helps smart developers tailor their proposals to anticipate objections, mitigating those they feel they cannot fully satisfy. It gives those most impacted by the proposed development an opportunity to challenge the most offensive impacts under objective standards. A transparent process has the advantage of being recognized to be fair even if some parties don't get everything they want. This leads to a better development plan overall and a politically more acceptable outcome in the end.
In terms of impacts, I see no difference between this tower proposal and Verizon's cell tower built seven years ago. However, the proposed towers themselves could hardly be more different:
Where Verizon achieved their coverage objectives by siting a 82’ tower on a heavily forested height, the current proposal’s only concession to neighbors was the choice to keep it under 200’ so it won’t require a flashing red light on top.
Where Verizon selected their proposed site to balance coverage objectives against the tower’s visual impact upon neighboring properties -- and chose colors and camouflaging to further minimize visual impacts -- the current proposal (admittedly in an effort to contain costs) appears to have limited in-depth site analysis to town-owned properties. They then limited coverage objectives to what would be possible from the public works/transfer station site with a tower just under 200’.
Finally, where Verizon understood and anticipated the regulatory requirements, there appears to be some confusion among town officials whether a DRB hearing is even needed for this proposed tower.*
It appears to me this confusion regarding the need for DRB review has allowed the tower proposal to get ahead of itself, leading to a proposed design that may be penny-wise, but pound foolish; a proposal that might have met less opposition and produced a better result for all had the applicable DRB review criteria been in mind from the start.
-----
* From my reading of our zoning regulations, there is simply no question the proposed tower requires DRB review:
Section 1.02(A) clearly states our regulations apply to “all lands in this community” without exception for town-owned land.
Section 1.03(A) states, “No land development shall commence within the jurisdiction of the Town of Norwich except in compliance with the provisions of these regulations.”
Section 4.11 provides expedited DRB review of “Public Facilities” but explicitly requires those facilities conform to our zoning regulations with respect to “location, size [and] height.”
The extensive location, size and height criteria for “telecommunications facilities” such as the proposed tower are set out in Section 4.13 - - the same regulations we applied to the Verizon tower eight years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment