Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews Franklin Park wireless master plan; consultant flags coverage gaps, tower-height trade-offs
Summary
At a pre-meeting, consultant Susan Meeks walked council members through simulated coverage maps, saying county boundary definitions limit certainty on a cited '98% coverage' number, and described trade-offs among tower height, lighting and colocation. Council asked that suggested code language and next steps be added to the final report.
Susan Meeks, the consultant who presented the draft wireless/master plan, told the borough council the study shows persistent coverage gaps even when existing providers are modeled on every site and that the commonly cited "98%" figure depends on how the county defines jurisdictional boundaries. "We're at it's out of our control with regards to the county," Meeks said, noting the team could not further refine that metric without county clarification.
Why it matters: Council members said clearer definitions are important for public-safety planning and for deciding whether to build new local infrastructure or rely on upgrades to towers just outside the borough. Meeks said the plan's simulated maps (figures 7 and 11 in the draft) account for influence from nearby towers but still show areas of poor in-building coverage.
Key technical points and trade-offs: A council member asked whether keeping towers under 200 feet to avoid FAA lighting would require more towers. Meeks said engineers tested taller heights but "there's really not a whole lot of benefit" from taller towers given the borough's peaks and valleys; the draft intentionally stayed below 200 feet in response to resident survey feedback. She also explained FAA lighting: "as long as you stay under 200 feet, it doesn't have to be lit," except where FAA flight-path requirements apply, and described dual lighting systems (white strobe by day, red at night) and options for downshielding lights.
Next steps and policy recommendations: Meeks agreed to add suggested zoning-code language for lighting to the report and recommended outreach to existing service providers once the plan is adopted. She said the borough could use several approaches to implementation — notifying incumbent providers, issuing an RFP for use of public lands or rights-of-way, and including a code preference for colocation (noting the borough cannot require colocation in the right-of-way). Council agreed to collect written comments and use a Dec. 3 work session to finalize changes before issuing the final report.
What remains unresolved: Meeks said the team cannot confirm the county's boundary-based coverage calculation; council members asked staff to assemble clarifying data, vendor contacts and suggested code language so the final document lists clear next steps.
Ending: Meeks will incorporate members' comments after the Dec. 3 work session and deliver a final document for council approval.
