Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Visual Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant says balloon test shows limited visibility; residents say tower would be prominent
Summary
Industrial Tower & Wireless presented a July 11 balloon test and photo survey; the applicant said visibility was limited to a few spots within two miles, but multiple abutters, especially from the historic district, said the balloon and photos show the tower would be visible and an eyesore.
Industrial Tower & Wireless presented the results of a July 11 balloon test as evidence the proposed 150‑foot lattice tower would have limited visual impact. Kevin Delaney, the applicant's site acquisition vice president, summarized 38 photo points around the proposed site and said the company found visibility at only a handful of locations within a two‑mile radius.
"Based on the balloon test results, the proposed site demonstrates a very low visibility within the surrounding area," Delaney said, describing most appearances as "partial" or obscured by trees. The applicant's slide set showed specific locations where the balloon was visible, partially visible, or not visible; Delaney emphasized careful site selection and acknowledged that a tower cannot be made invisible from every viewpoint.
Residents disputed that assessment. Multiple speakers from the historic district and abutting properties said the balloon (3.5 feet in diameter) was plainly visible at village vantage points and argued that antenna arrays or larger panels at full tower height would be substantially more obvious. "If a 3 foot balloon is clearly visible, what are 4 white 8 foot by 7 foot panels located at a 146 feet high?" asked Pat Payne, an abutter, summarizing a frequent line of public comment about relative scale and visibility.
Why it matters: Visual impact and historic‑district views are a central part of the town's telecom regulations and are considered in the separate Section 106 consultation; disagreement over photo simulations and balloon tests is a core point of contention for the board to reconcile.
What's next: The board acknowledged the differing accounts and directed a continued hearing; it also noted the Section 106 consultation and a formal peer review on separate technical issues (property valuation) but did not close the record on visual impact evidence.
