Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technical Analysis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts dispute balloon tests, 3-D simulations and RF maps in Ankrum tower review
Summary
Consultants and residents disagreed over the accuracy of photo simulations and propagation maps for the proposed Route 22 tower; applicant's visual team relied on 3-D modeling and updated rail-trail photos while critics and a telecom lawyer called for drive-test data and leaf-off analyses.
At the Sept. 4 meeting the board heard sharply different technical views about how to assess visual impact and whether the applicant's RF maps prove a coverage gap.
Matthew Allen of Saratoga Associates explained that the project's visual assessment was updated to reflect a lowered 100-foot design, and that his firm added 16 vantage-point photographs from the Hudson Valley Rail Trail that had been omitted from an earlier submission. "We walked the entire rail trail within the 2 mile study corridor and took photographs from 16 different locations," Allen said, adding that the firm overlays a 3-D model into the photographs to illustrate where the tower would stand.
Board members and commenters pressed on methods. One member asked why a balloon test was not relied on as a field check; Allen said balloons are weather-dependent and that 3-D modeling aligned to ridgelines and benchmarks produces more accurate photo simulations in many cases. "We don't rely on the balloon for accurate photo simulations. We build the 3-D model with enough detail that we can overlay our 3-D model into the photograph," he said.
On RF coverage, the board's consultant Cityscape said it independently reviewed the applicant's propagation maps and found a service gap along substantial stretches of Route 22. Cityscape's Anthony Lepore told the board his engineers reviewed alternate sites and concluded no existing structures in a five-mile radius would provide the necessary coverage. "Our engineers reviewed the materials provided by the applicant and ... determined that there were no existing towers or other structures suitable for colocation within a 5 mile radius of the post site," Lepore said.
A telecommunications attorney with decades of experience challenged desktop propagation maps as insufficient evidence without drive-test data documenting minimum usable signal levels. "By simply providing a map showing 700 megahertz, that does not show a gap in service," he said, urging the board to require probative drive tests to demonstrate where Verizon customers cannot reliably complete calls. The attorney recommended the board demand objective, recorded measurements before making a final determination.
