Chipper Ashley's post of late last night does an excellent job summarizing the thinking behind Tracy Hall's efforts to place a 198' tower at the Transfer Station. A brief reply.
There's a reason our zoning regulations on tower heights begins:
"The height of towers, antenna, and tower related fixtures in all districts shall not exceed the minimum height necessary to achieve the coverage objective and, in any case, be no greater than 20 feet above the average height of the tree line within 100 feet of the base of the tower." (NZR 4.13(C)(b))
This regulation is meant to strongly encourage developers -- including towns building towers -- to look for sites where a tower reaching just 20' above the surrounding tree line can provide the signal coverage it is designed for. There's really no other purpose for this statement except to encourage tower developers to do their homework before proposing a tower site and design. The proof is in the next sentence which authorizes our Development Review Board to allow higher towers where it's shown a tower just 20' above the treeline won't do the job.
There's no reason to say tower height SHALL NOT EXCEED X and then say the DRB may make exceptions where necessary, unless the regulations meant to push tower developers to look for sites where a shorter tower would suffice.
The town never did its homework on this site.
The engineer's feasibility study only discusses this one site and never mentions why it needs to be 198' -- that's about 130' above the surrounding treeline.
Every time I've raised this height concern, beginning last December, I've been told there's no reason to look at other sites.
I'm told the engineer's study justifies the height, but that's simply not true.
Steve Flander's recent post trooped out another favorite, that any other site would be prohibitively expensive, but his own basis for that assumption has nothing to do with typical tower leases.
Our Town Manager has stated, publicly, that he will not consider other sites where a more compliant tower could work because he thinks it would be a waste of time.
I understand the desire to keep this simple: We have an FCC deadline -- we haven't yet filed for an extension of that deadline -- and we want to get this tower built as cheaply as possible.
But for those who take our town plan and zoning regulations seriously; for those who recognize these regulations attempt to balance telecommunications needs with the visual impacts of building towers the first place it occurs to someone to build them; for those who held Verizon to these very height restrictions when they built their tower five years ago; it's incomprehensible that the town government would feel above the rules.
A lot of assumptions were made to meet the year-end FCC deadline. As the bond vote last week demonstrates, at least some of those assumptions are in question.
We need to make the time to take the time to do this right:
It's time to file for an FCC extension to get this December 31st deadline off our backs.
It's time to authorize a proper engineering study that looks for site options in town where we can achieve our coverage goals without building a twenty-story tower.
It's time to suspend VTel negotiations until we are comfortable with tower site, height and ownership.
We're talking about fundamental town infrastructure that will outlast most everyone reading this post. Let's do it right.
- - - - -
16. [Norwich] My take on the tower
From: Christopher Ashley
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 22:13:51 -0400
Recent postings on the Norwich listserve have raised questions and
contained numerous comments regarding the decision making process and the
decisions by the Selectboard to place a radio tower near the transfer
station to accommodate the town’s fire, EMS, police, and public works
departments’ communication signals.
There's a reason our zoning regulations on tower heights begins:
"The height of towers, antenna, and tower related fixtures in all districts shall not exceed the minimum height necessary to achieve the coverage objective and, in any case, be no greater than 20 feet above the average height of the tree line within 100 feet of the base of the tower." (NZR 4.13(C)(b))
This regulation is meant to strongly encourage developers -- including towns building towers -- to look for sites where a tower reaching just 20' above the surrounding tree line can provide the signal coverage it is designed for. There's really no other purpose for this statement except to encourage tower developers to do their homework before proposing a tower site and design. The proof is in the next sentence which authorizes our Development Review Board to allow higher towers where it's shown a tower just 20' above the treeline won't do the job.
There's no reason to say tower height SHALL NOT EXCEED X and then say the DRB may make exceptions where necessary, unless the regulations meant to push tower developers to look for sites where a shorter tower would suffice.
The town never did its homework on this site.
The engineer's feasibility study only discusses this one site and never mentions why it needs to be 198' -- that's about 130' above the surrounding treeline.
Every time I've raised this height concern, beginning last December, I've been told there's no reason to look at other sites.
I'm told the engineer's study justifies the height, but that's simply not true.
Steve Flander's recent post trooped out another favorite, that any other site would be prohibitively expensive, but his own basis for that assumption has nothing to do with typical tower leases.
Our Town Manager has stated, publicly, that he will not consider other sites where a more compliant tower could work because he thinks it would be a waste of time.
I understand the desire to keep this simple: We have an FCC deadline -- we haven't yet filed for an extension of that deadline -- and we want to get this tower built as cheaply as possible.
But for those who take our town plan and zoning regulations seriously; for those who recognize these regulations attempt to balance telecommunications needs with the visual impacts of building towers the first place it occurs to someone to build them; for those who held Verizon to these very height restrictions when they built their tower five years ago; it's incomprehensible that the town government would feel above the rules.
A lot of assumptions were made to meet the year-end FCC deadline. As the bond vote last week demonstrates, at least some of those assumptions are in question.
We need to make the time to take the time to do this right:
It's time to file for an FCC extension to get this December 31st deadline off our backs.
It's time to authorize a proper engineering study that looks for site options in town where we can achieve our coverage goals without building a twenty-story tower.
It's time to suspend VTel negotiations until we are comfortable with tower site, height and ownership.
We're talking about fundamental town infrastructure that will outlast most everyone reading this post. Let's do it right.
- - - - -
16. [Norwich] My take on the tower
From: Christopher Ashley
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 22:13:51 -0400
Recent postings on the Norwich listserve have raised questions and
contained numerous comments regarding the decision making process and the
decisions by the Selectboard to place a radio tower near the transfer
station to accommodate the town’s fire, EMS, police, and public works
departments’ communication signals.
No comments:
Post a Comment