Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Communications Tower topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board hears detailed pre-application for 110-foot monopole near public safety compound
Summary
At a March 9 pre-application review, representatives for EIP Communications (an Everest affiliate) described a proposed roughly 110-foot monopole to replace capacity from existing lattice infrastructure, accommodate Verizon and two colocators, and host municipal antennas; the board requested peer review, clarified sight-line testing (balloon/photo sims), and flagged drainage and backup-power questions.
The Hamilton Planning Board on March 9 heard a pre-application presentation for a proposed communications tower at a municipal site near the town’s public-safety facilities. "My name is Brian Gman. I'm an attorney at Strang Scott and Drew. We represent the applicant EIP Communications One LLC," the applicant's attorney said, identifying EIP as an Everest Infrastructure Partners affiliate that holds the site lease.
Representatives described a monopole design with a top-of-tower height measured above ground at about 110 feet — a figure the applicant and staff contrasted with an AMSL (above mean sea level) notation on the plans that reads about 159.5 feet. Board members pressed for clarity on which measurements applied to bylaw limits; a town staff member explained the AMSL number is unrelated to the bylaw height limit, which is measured above ground level.
The applicant said the project would relocate municipal antennas to the top of the new tower, accommodate Verizon as an anchor tenant and provide capacity for two additional colocators. The proposal would allow municipal communications equipment to sit above the 110-foot tower height so that police and fire systems would gain additional elevation while other carriers would locate below them.
Board members raised technical concerns about stormwater and drainage near a storm-water infiltration area, the compound’s roughly 2,200 square-foot ground disturbance estimate, and backup power. The applicant said battery backup would be the primary approach and that a permanent generator would not be proposed by the applicant at this stage; carriers could later pursue permanent generators if needed.
Members also focused on visibility testing. Under the bylaw’s on-site demonstration rule the board expects a balloon test and photo simulations; the applicant said vendors typically propose multiple photo points and prepare photo simulations based on the balloon test. Councilors suggested scheduling the demonstration to maximize public visibility (examples discussed included Friday–Sunday or extended two-day windows) and to publicize dates in advance.
The board and applicant agreed a town-funded peer reviewer paid from an applicant escrow will be necessary to examine RF coverage and technical submissions under bylaw section 7.2. Planning staff outlined the typical escrow process for peer-review costs and urged early engagement of a reviewer so hearings are better informed.
Next steps: the applicant will prepare a full application with RF reports and proposed peer-review scope; the planning board expects the balloon test and photo simulations to be scheduled and publicized before the first public hearing.
