Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Siting Alternatives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press applicant on why tower can't be sited on existing Dominion parcel
Summary
Commissioners questioned why Dominion did not place the new tower on a separate Dominion parcel farther from residences; the applicant said wetlands, power lines, fiber costs (estimated $5–$10 per foot) and operational considerations influenced the chosen location.
During deliberations commissioners asked why the new 420‑foot lattice tower could not be sited on Dominion's rear parcel (near an existing 400‑foot guide‑wire tower) to avoid waiver requests. Several commissioners said a rear location might reduce visibility and fall‑radius concerns.
Applicant Harold Timmons said Dominion evaluated multiple locations and selected the current site for reasons including ownership, accessibility, proximity to existing fiber and power sources, and wetlands to the north that would complicate construction. Timmons said running physically diverse fiber to a rear site could be expensive—"fiber installations are in the neighborhood of 5 to $10 a foot," he said—and that the chosen site balanced engineering, safety and cost.
Commissioners pushed the applicant to consider whether the rear parcel could eliminate the need for residential‑structure setback waivers; staff said that alternate parcel was not studied in the application and wetlands and other constraints might still require waivers or additional analysis.
