Due Diligence? (Letter to Valley News 9-25-12)

To the Editor:

Your Sunday editorial "Due Diligence - Norwich and the Cell Tower" oversimplifies what "irks" some residents about the "Fulton Tower" controversy in Norwich.

Since Norwich opted for a Town Manager more than a decade ago, we've struggled to make this administrative arrangement work.  To some degree, our first three town managers all succumbed to a Selectboard and political culture still rooted in the pre-town manager allocation of responsibilities.  To their credit, our current Selectboard has consciously set out to more clearly delineate the duties and authority delegated, by statute, to a town manager and last year hired a very promising new Town Manager in Neil Fulton.  This most recent kerfuffle over Fulton Tower is all the more surprising given the positive steps taken these past 18 months in finding a more mature relationship between Selectboard and Town Manager.

Again, to Neil Fulton's credit, since taking office he has moved quickly and decisively to prepare our public safety departments for the FCC "narrowbanding" deadline at the end of this year which prior regimes had either ignored or misunderstood.    Fulton is highly adept at the grant game and has already justified his salary increase many times over in securing hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants for police, fire and public works communications equipment this past year.  In the event, very few townspeople have seriously questioned the need for significant investment in emergency communications infrastructure.  Nevertheless, a major public safety infrastructure project which should have garnered broad public support has become a significant controversy.  Why?

If you ask me, it's a fairly straightforward -- cautionary -- tale of initial, understandable, oversights compounded by obstinance and a lack of public due diligence.

The controversy was there at the outset.  Fulton Tower is to be built in a valley along New Boston Road.  Due to the low base elevation in a hilly town, the structure needs to be very high to broadcast effectively.  The proposed height of 198 feet is a concession to avoid FAA regulations requiring a flashing red light on towers 200 feet or higher.   198 feet is the height of a 19 story building and about 140 feet above the surrounding tree line. 

This site and design were felt to be the most cost-effective solution to an acknowledged need.  But our Town Plan and zoning regulations don't rubber stamp towers -- even town-owned towers -- on the basis of cost-effectiveness.  Instead, they were drafted to steer developers towards siting towers where they can achieve their coverage objectives, if possible, no more than 20 feet above the surrounding tree line.  Adept tower developers -- like Verizon before they built their tower in Norwich back in 2006 -- research a number of possible sites to locate some with the topographical charcteristics that allow them to achieve their coverage objectives consistent with our height restrictions. 

Repeated public requests for an engineering study to look for sites that achieve our coverage needs in compliance with our own zoning regulations have been ignored.  Instead, we've been given a 2010 draft feasibility study which considers only this one site, suggesting no professional effort was ever made to look beyond this predetermined solution. 

Due diligence?   The initial oversight -- forgetting to consider our zoning regulations in designing a proposed tower -- is perhaps understandable, even for a Town Manager lauded for his engineering expertise.  I find it harder to grasp why our Selectboard felt no need to request siting options, especially once the zoning, height, and coverage concerns were raised last Spring. 

Unfortunately, the initial zoning compliance oversight has knock-on effects. 

Perhaps recognizing the zoning issue, the Town withdrew the original zoning application filed with our Development Review Board ("DRB") last July and decided, instead, to seek fast track review that would avoid local zoning and Act 250.  The Vermont Legislature created the fast-track option for tower developers through the Public Service Board under 30 VSA 248A several years ago in an effort to "juice" broadband infrastructure construction.  For those applicants wishing to avoid local and Act 250 review, 248A offers a cursory threshold to approval which includes a statement from either the town's Selectboard or Planning Commission that the proposed tower is consistent with the Town Plan. 

In our case, this means our Selectboard and Planning Commission will soon be asked to go on record that 198-foot towers are consistent with our Town Plan.  Inconveniently, more than a decade ago Norwich enacted detailed zoning regulations governing tower height consistent with our Town Plan.  In 2006, both our Development Review Board and the Act 250 District Commission, reviewing our Town Plan and zoning regulations, enforced these regulations to restrict Verizon's Norwich tower height to twenty feet above the surrounding tree line. 

Due diligence?  A decision by the Selectboard or Planning Commission to certify Fulton Tower's 198-foot height at the Public Service Board spurns these facts -- rejecting all the work done by townspeople in town plan discussion, Planning Commission review, and DRB adjudication of regulations we all naively thought reflected the conscious democratic will of the Town -- and creates a precedent that will be difficult to reverse. 

What basis will the town have to limit height for any future tower if we wink at this one? 

The only reason we now face this regrettable policy choice is because the original design for Fulton Tower never took into account our zoning regulations so never thought through how this tower would receive DRB and act 250 approval.  Every effort to flag these issues for the Town Manager and Selectboard have been met with dismissiveness and dissembling.

Then there's VTel. 

Whatever individuals may think of VTel's owner or the company itself, the proposed VTel contract is a questionable business deal for Norwich residents.  The idea behind this contract is, again. cost-effectiveness.  In exchange for building us a tower on town property to locate our emergency services transmitters, VTel will effectively own the tower for up to sixty years on this site rent-free. 

Due diligence?  At no time prior to approving the VTel Letter of Intent was the Selectboard or the public provided any information about typical lease rates, similar revenue share agreements, or co-location rates to help us judge the wisdom of this deal.  VTel will be using taxpayer grants to build a tower on town land it leases rent-free.  It will broadcast for-profit broadband signal to Norwich subscribers without paying any co-location rent or sharing any revenue from that service.  And it will keep 97 cents on every dollar any other broadcaster pays them in co-location rent potentially for the next sixty years.  When asked at a Selectboard meeting whether the 97/3 revenue share on colocation seemed reasonable, our Town Manager stated that he felt VTel saw this rate as non-negotiable.  I don't question our Town Manager's motives in trying to get a tower built cheap.  I question his business judgment in thinking a sixty year lease on these terms is cheap. 

As your editorial states, it is certainly within the authority of our Selectboard and Town Manager to act as they have.  However, the failure to do our homework up front has us, as a town, backpedaling into a series of really questionable business, regulatory, and policy decisions that are only being brought to light through the alarmed efforts of townspeople.  It may be "the cogs of local democracy are well-oiled in Norwich," but the administrative judgment of our town government -- and public due diligence made upon it -- is looking increasingly suspect. 

Embracing Fulton Tower (Norwich ListServ)

Well, it looks like Neil Fulton's finally got his tower. 

And make no mistake, this tower, Fulton Tower, will be built almost entirely due to his hard work and iron determination.  For both good and bad, I think it's fitting that his name should be attached to it.

To the good, Neil recognized a real public safety need and aggressively addressed the looming FCC narrowbanding deadline.  At nearly every meeting I've attended on this matter, his department chiefs have spoken honestly and forcefully about the anxious losses in emergency communications that a town of our resources need not tolerate.  As anyone who has experienced a real emergency understands, help either arrives in time or it does not.  Neil's confident this communications system can reach 95% of the town 95% of the time.  That's a real achievement and it's only a matter of time until the next real emergency puts that achievement in its proper context.

Neil's also a very, very effective grant-gleaner and has single-handedly coordinated an effort to retool our emergency communications infrastructure almost entirely through other folks money.  That's a real, practical skill -- with potential to greatly benefit the town and our tax bills -- that we've simply lacked until he took over. 

To the not so good, Fulton Tower has been, without question, a one-man show. 

Every decision about this tower -- from tower height to where it should be built; the how, the when and the where -- has been Neil's.  (Every decision save one -- the failed bond vote a couple weeks back.  For those who didn't attend this last Selectboard meeting, Neil's found a way to avoid risking another bond vote.)  Despite very substantial, sustained, and detailed public input seeking changes, Neil's original design and location for this tower have not changed in any significant way since first made public last December.  It begs the question how anyone with a different opinion was ever supposed to have input on the design and siting of this tower. 

Get used to it Norwich.  Public forums are planned for the new fire/police station at the Agway property.  We, the taxpayers, haven't technically bought the Agway property -- yet -- but the last Selectboard packet includes detailed architectural drawings of the new station on this site, right down to the placement of bicycle racks and wall lights. 

Maybe Neil will let us choose the color? 
Of the bike rack?

The real problem with a one-man show is that no one man or woman can have all the right answers.  The best leaders I've known all possessed the humility to understand better decisions come from active engagement with opposing points of view on the off-chance -- surprisingly common -- one might learn something important by really listening. 

Based on these past nine months, I'd say Neil has little time for our planning and zoning efforts, for the uniquely Vermont principle of institutionalizing the competing public and private interests at play in any land development through citizen-based review. 

Based on my legal experience, both the VTel and Clem/Agway proposals suggest to me Neil may also be out of his depth in development contracts.  Mr Guite and Mr Clem probably didn't achieve their respective business success by accommodating an easy mark. 

In my opinion, these are the inevitable blind spots that come with great talent in the zero-sum world of human intelligence.  A confident, assertive Selectboard might counter-balance these shortcomings without impairing Neil's real talents.  Maybe.  But as I've just learned in spades, Neil's greatest talent is in knowing how to get his way.  That, to me, has ominous implications when we're talking about town administrative staff meant to advise and support our town's legislative body.  Which is really my point. 

This town has an elected legislative body accountable to the voters.  Like it or not, the 3-2 vote to proceed with Fulton Tower, sponsored by VTel, showed tremendous political courage by each of our elected Selectboard members.  To their immense credit, each of the five has spoken openly, honestly, and bravely about why they voted as they did. Those they represent can ask no more than that.  It's our prerogative as voters to choose whether they serve.  It's their right and duty, once elected, to serve as they see fit. 

This town also has a town manager accountable directly to the Selectboard.  In the eleven years we've had a town manager, we're already on our fourth, so it's obvious the relationship between an elected Selectboard and their professional staff is not an easy one.  From where I sit - - and I'll do my best to get used to an eighteen-story albatross out the window across from me - - Fulton Tower represents a new reality in the evolution of our town manager form of government.  With respect to Fulton Tower, my role, as a town resident, has been reduced to a decision whether to sue the town in an attempt to force them (us?) to enforce our zoning regulations upon our own public infrastructure projects.  Whatever other role I imagined I had has been negated, sandbagged, side-stepped or dissembled away. 

I've been on the losing side of many battles, but this one has really gutted me.  Most of it I have to put down to my own unrealistic expectations. 

The reality is three Selectboard members patiently listened to every argument I, and many others, have made against Fulton Tower -- and everything it represents -- yet they were not persuaded. 

The reality is I've personally spent an inordinate amount of time these past two decades hand-wringing over planning, zoning, and how small town democracy "is supposed to work" largely naive to how calculated power actually holds sway.

The reality is I have a day job and the late nights pontificating here and elsewhere -- particularly these last nine months -- have finally caught up to me.

The reality is when we adopted a Town Manager eleven years ago, we created a bureaucracy.  We put in place a paid official who has more time and greater resources to shape town policy than either residents or the Selectboard/citizens who oversee that Town Manager can bring to bear. 

I feel very fortunate to have lived through that transition from an older Vermont to our Town Manager-led town government because, despite the deep sense of loss, I was there to witness the necessity of the change.  Maybe it's the greying hair and our kids beginning to leave the nest, but that sense of loss; the sense that the place we call home exists more and more in the past, has become inescapable for me. 

A friend told me a while back what a relief she felt when she finally unsubscribed from this listserv and let town politics go on without her.  I'm going to try that for a while.

Thanks for reading.

There are Options (Norwich ListServ)

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.

Balloon Test? (Norwich ListServ)

As I wrote to our Zoning Administrator after the May 18th balloon test, it's impossible to effectively evaluate the visual impact of the proposed tower using a balloon test while all the hardwoods are fully leafed out.

At the DRB review of the Verizon cell tower, we conducted the balloon test in early May, before the hardwoods were in leaf.  That way, we were able to assess how the tower would actually appear during the 8 months of the year when most hardwoods are bare.

While the Town Manager's fast track push for a bond vote in August doesn't leave time for a proper test, I hope the DRB will take the time to do this properly come autumn.


Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:58:18 -0400
From: "Phil Dechert"
Subject: [Norwich] Balloon Test for Proposed Communication Tower - Thurs, 7-12-12 - 6:30 AM

Bad Tower (Letter to Capital Facilities Committee)

We have holiday plans (and limited internet access) that prevent me from attending your July 5th meeting so please share this email with your committee as "Public Comment" regarding the proposed tower.

It is my understanding that you all are expected to provide a committee recommendation to the Selectboard ahead of their July 11th.  Based on my inbox and voicemail, I think it would be a mistake to interpret public turnout at 8am following a national holiday as lack of interest in this issue.

As best I can tell, the tower proposal before you was developed to address a technical coverage problem without fully appreciating the regulatory process a tower of this scale would face.  Understandably, the tower proposal reflects the task given the consultant last year.  I think it's fair to say we would be discussing a very different tower proposal had the consultant been asked to identify sites in town where a tower would
a) improve upon existing coverage (or even seek to achieve 100% coverage) while
b) complying with the presumptive height restrictions set out in our zoning regulations.

Based on quotations in the Valley News and what I've seen firsthand, I think Neil's made a decision to forge ahead with this specific proposal feeling it has a decent chance of surviving regulatory challenge.  Given the odds, I assume he feels this route should be pursued before putting any more resources into investigating alternative sites/proposals. 

As a public opponent to this specific proposal, I question the wisdom of this approach.

I doubt there was any way Neil could have anticipated the resistance this proposal has already elicited.  However, now that it's clear there are serious questions being asked about the proposed tower, Neil, and consequently you all, need to make a calculated guess whether to bull forward in the hope this resistance can be overcome, or to slow down and try to accommodate those aspects of resistance that might lead to a better result long-term. 

One risk of bulling forward is that the DRB and/or Act 250 District Commission ultimately require the town to provide consultant analysis of alternative sites where a tower just 20' above the tree line could provide equivalent or superior coverage to the proposed site.  The financial cost of doing this analysis only after bulling forward would be compounded by the political cost to Tracy Hall of having guessed wrong at this juncture.

A second risk of bulling forward is that it hardens everyone's positions.  The Town, acting through the Town Manager, this committee and the Selectboard, would be saying whatever window there might have been to rationally explore whether this is the best use of town resources to address the narrow-banding deadline has now closed.  It's now all about the raw power of the ballot box, a late summer bond vote, and the lawyers opponents can bring to the regulatory process. 

Finally, bulling forward risks perpetuating a basic, understandable, error made at the outset of this process. 

Did anyone ever suggest to the consultant that any tower should be designed to stay within 20' of the surrounding tree line as expected under NZR 4.13(C)(b)? 

There's a reason for this provision and it's not arbitrary.

The entire telecommunications section of our zoning regulations reflects a well-worn national effort to arrive at a balance between the need to improve wireless communications of all kinds and the negative impacts these towers impose.  These model regulations try to influence tower design at the outset to site towers where they can achieve their coverage goals without literally towering over the landscape.  While some may feel these impacts are unimportant in their own judgement, our zoning regulations clearly do not.  And yet this tower proposal appears to have overlooked our zoning regulations from the beginning.  While I sympathize with the sense of urgency regarding the year-end deadline, I find this selective disregard for applicable regulations surprising and disturbing.

Not This Tower (Letter to Selectboard)

I plan to be at your meeting on the 11th, but want to forward these comments ahead of time.

In the proposed communications tower, we are building infrastructure meant to serve us for decades to come.  As a town, we’ve failed to properly plan for this project despite Neil Fulton’s best efforts.  Now, facing an imminent deadline, he’s knocked himself out to balance coverage with cost and has hammered away continuously to secure outside money in an effort to lower taxpayer cost still further.  Nevertheless, I believe we’ve reached a decision point that simply defies his best efforts to move forward.

First, as Phil Dechert will likely confirm when he’s back from vacation, this tower will require DRB review in addition to Act 250 review.  This really shouldn’t surprise anyone. As some of you may recall, the Dresden Route 5 Fields required DRB review despite being a local government entity and despite building only fields and some spectator seating on the site. 

Second, neither the Act 250 nor the DRB review will be rubber stamp reviews despite the fact this is also a local government project.  Under our zoning regulations, even fast-track review under NZR 4.11 requires the DRB to make affirmative findings approving both site and height characteristics.  For telecommunications facilities, site and height characteristics are governed by NZR 4.13.  Under 4.13 the DRB rejected any Verizon tower more than 20’ above the surrounding tree line.  Independent of our review, the Act 250 District Commission also summarily rejected Verizon’s effort to build a tower more than 20’ above the tree line.  Why this occurred and how the proposed tower might fare under similar review are best left to another letter. 

Third, it should be clear from the correspondence and public comment already generated that both the Act 250 and DRB applications will be contested by neighbors.  Whatever the ultimate outcome, it’s unrealistic to believe contested regulatory reviews can be completed by year-end.

Under the circumstances, it seems unwise to press ahead with a bond vote in August.  The proposed tower may not survive regulatory review as designed.  It seems a reach asking voters to start borrowing money when we don’t know what we will ultimately build. 

It’s time for the Selectboard to show political leadership in this matter and take the Town Manager off the hook.  He’s identified a serious public service issue and done his level best to address it, but now his efforts are running up against a deadline that risks placing expediency above good judgment. 

The Selectboard should schedule a bond vote on the communications tower for the March 2013 town elections.  This would allow more time for the DRB and Act 250 reviews.  It would give us time to research alternative sites that may provide better coverage while respecting the presumptive height restrictions set out in NZR 4.13.  It might afford us the time to find a better solution on all counts that would be money better spent and a better decision overall. 

This would also require the political courage to recognize there are potential costs in missing the January 1 FCC narrow-banding deadline: A period of even worse emergency services communications until the tower design and permitting are resolved;  the potential some grant money now available to us may disappear; potentially a higher price tag overall. 

Missing the January deadline and the risks that poses are not the Town Manager’s fault.  All of us who didn’t get on top of this much earlier share that responsibility.  But the alternative is a protracted regulatory and political fight which compounds our current challenges.  In retrospect, it will all seem to have been easily avoided with just a little political foresight applied while there's still time.  

As stated at the outset, we are building infrastructure here meant to serve us for decades to come.  Let’s do it right. 

Another Tower (Letter to Selectboard)

                                                                                                                                                      

   Due to a prior engagement, I cannot attend the Selectboard Meeting this Wednesday, June 27th.  I am submitting this letter -- a slightly condensed version of my recent four-part post on the Norwich listserv -- as public comment to the Town Manager’s presentation on the Emergency Communications Tower proposed for the hill above the Town Garage on New Boston Road.

Based on my attendance at last Wednesday’s public forum, the presentation demonstrates his strengths in abundance:

- Digesting extremely complex data into clear, informative overviews;
- Providing comprehensive, thorough treatment of an issue that doesn’t gloss over difficult issues;
- Strong efforts to minimize infrastructure cost through siting and grant coordination;
- An open demeanor and patience with divergent viewpoints;
- Apparently very good rapport with Fire, Police, and Public Works heads to assess and address their needs.

Indeed, I paraphrase (may not be verbatim because I don’t know shorthand) a statement he made at the most recent Public Forum which illustrates his focus and priorities regarding the proposed tower quite well:

“I have been focused on finding a solution that meets the needs of our three public safety departments.  I think if it meets the needs of those three departments it meets the needs of our 3,400 residents.”

While I ultimately disagree with the statement, I respect the viewpoint behind it and honestly believe we are fortunate to have a town manager in place today who brings such dedication, intelligence, and consciousness of role to the position.

I disagree with the statement’s “what’s good for GM is good for America” conclusion because it defines the problem as a purely administrative/public safety issue.

In fact, a 198’ tower impacts home values and views, individual property rights traditionally governed by land use regulation.  It also requires expanding the town’s bonding authority to pay for the tower, raising political considerations in addition to purely fiscal concerns. 

Finally, it is a case study in how administrative bureaucracy inevitably operates on different criteria -- and responsive to a different constituency -- than elected officials, even in very small towns.

My comments:

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.  


Our Town Manager and the three department heads of our emergency services departments -- fire, police, and public works -- make a very persuasive case for the need to address our emergency communications infrastructure.  At last week’s public forum, they each recounted specific incidents where their people or town residents were in significant danger in areas where existing emergency communications cannot reach today.

One Chapel Hill Road resident echoed these concerns, referring to an incident where emergency medical response was dangerously delayed due to limited emergency communications coverage.

Due to difficult topography and the radio “shadows” cast by the ridges fanning out from downtown, our existing emergency communications coverage cannot reliably reach many houses along the valleys throughout town, most notably Beaver Meadow/Bragg Hill/West Norwich and the Goodrich Four Corners/Route 132 area in northeast Norwich.  

FCC-mandated “narrow-banding" -- first announced several years ago -- takes effect at year-end, throttling down existing bandwidth for emergency services and, if not addressed, resulting in significantly worse coverage than exists today.

Based on the coverage maps provided at the public forum, a proposed 198’ tower above the Town Garage -- together with complementary coverage from towers in neighboring towns -- would substantially improve emergency services communications above existing coverage levels even after the narrow-banding rules come into effect at year-end.

However, due to tower site and height characteristics, two areas would remain in the shadows without some or any emergency services communications coverage.

The biggest shadow falls over old West Norwich comprised of Chapel Hill Road, Mitchell Brook Road, Tigertown Road, Podunk Road, and some parts of outer Beaver Meadow Road including adjacent sections of Tucker Hill and Bragg Hill Roads.

A smaller shadow appears over Ladeau and Kerwin Hill Roads near Thetford.

Given the need to borrow money through bonds to build this tower anyway, doesn’t it make sense to thoroughly research the possibility of finding a single site -- whether publicly- or privately-owned -- that might extend coverage to these two remaining shadows?

As it now stands, our coverage objective is actually whatever we can achieve from a site that is currently town-owned with a tower that is just short enough to avoid a flashing red light on top.  Cold comfort to those in its shadows.

In other words, given its public safety purpose, shouldn’t our coverage objective for this tower be to eliminate all existing shadows and cover 100% of the public within our borders if at all possible?

Can we find a single tower site that might eliminate the West Norwich and Kerwin Hill shadows entirely?

It may be the cost of acquiring and building a tower on a more effective site is too much for town residents to stomach.

It may be a more effective tower site imposes other impacts that make it unsuitable.

It may be there simply is no single site that can achieve a 100% coverage goal.

We can only find out by trying.

The point is, Verizon did a thorough analysis of coverage and site development characteristics on a number of potential sites before bringing forward a specific proposal.  Based on the responses to questions at last week’s public forum, it appears we haven’t.

Verizon understood our regulations limit tower height to 20’ above the surrounding tree line lacking compelling evidence a higher tower is absolutely required to achieve a coverage objective.  (See NZR Section 4.13 (C)(b))  As a result, they sought out sites on higher terrain, using topography to achieve better coverage without exceeding the 20’-above-tree-line limitation.  In other words, they achieved their coverage objective -- admittedly more modest than ours -- by siting a smaller tower at a higher elevation.

The proposed tower at the Town Garage site does just the opposite, seeking to overcome a valleyside location at 750’ elevation with 198’ of tower structure -- probably 120’-140’ feet above the surrounding tree line.  The potential for delay in getting a tower of this size through DRB and Act 250 review could well mean we miss the year-end FCC narrow-banding deadline anyway.

Based on the propagation maps shared at the public forum, it would appear a smaller tower more consistent with our zoning regulations, sited closer to the Sharon border -- along the ridge that runs between Beaver Meadow and Turnpike Roads where elevations reach more than twice the proposed tower site -- might achieve better -- perhaps 100% -- coverage for town residents with minimal impact on neighbors or viewsheds.  The cost involved and other practical considerations can only be determined by a more thorough investigation of these options.

I respect the initial impulse to try to limit costs by focusing on town-owned properties.  I understand the sense of urgency to erect a tower before the narrow-banding throttle takes effect at year-end.  It’s hard to see how we can meet that deadline if we seriously consider higher elevation and privately-owned sites given the additional acquisition and construction requirements involved.

Nevertheless, if we are making a major long-term investment to improve emergency services communications coverage in town, let’s do the up front work now - - while there’s still time -- to see whether we can achieve 100% coverage for our residents and the emergency personnel we depend upon.

It may cost more at the outset and we may miss the year-end deadline as a result, but these near-term concerns pale, in my opinion, set against even a single fatal incident occurring in one of these shadows that might have been avoided had we taken the time now to eliminate the shadows entirely.