HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 122 FOSTER STREET 9/22/2017 �m tir
otrope
WIRELESS %
Thinking outside the sphere
1
Coverage Assessment of Alternatives
to Proposed 122 Foster St Tower
Isotrope was tasked to evaluate potential alternative locations for a wireless communications
facility near Foster Street in North Andover. Four locations were identified by planning staff for
consideration. One of the locations is an alternative location on the proposed parcel. The other
three locations are large New England Power parcels easterly of the proposed site. Coverage
modeling was performed for each of the four sites and compared to the coverage from the i
proposed site. In addition, coverage modeling was performed for the Verizon utility-pole-
mounted antenna nodes (GRANs).
Isotrope was also asked to review the applicant's alternative sites matrix to identify sites that
might be worthy of further consideration as alternatives. This report contains a new alternatives
matrix and considerable discussion of the alternatives reviewed and rejected by the applicant.
Executive Summary
Viable Alternatives: Substation
This report shows that placing a 1.25-foot tower at the power substation at 409 Foster Street
would substantially replace the coverage from the proposed tower. The primary shortcoming is
that coverage from this site might leave a small coverage soft-spot on Salem Street and Boxford
Street. This is not a large enough or a deep enough coverage hole to exclude this alternative.
Service should be available there,if not at full quality,and small-cell solutions could be employed
in the unlikely event that there is a major gap in service on this short stretch of road.
Compared to the proposed site,a tower at 409 Foster Street substation would be set back twice
the distance from property lines and almost twice the distance from nearest residences, while
being embedded in a wooded site already developed with a utility use.
A major advantage of using the 409 (Foster Street (parcel 104.13-0028) alternative is that this
location delivers, in total, much more coverage to residents of North Andover in the residential
area near Foster Street than the proposed facility.The site is already developed and accessible by E
driveway from Foster Street.
www.isotrope.im lsotrope, LLC a 50:3 Main Street® Medfield, MA-02052 508 359 8833
I
i
� |satmpe, U[
Viable Alternatives: Bruin Hill
A second alternative, placing a tower on the NE Power parcel north of Foster Street(parcel 104.13-
10036 on Bruin Hill) has the potential to visually screen the tower from the surrounding area
becooseufthe |arCewuodedareeityvouldbevvithin. CuxemgefromthisdLem|sosubo1mnUaU|y
replaces coverage from the proposed site and provides substantial new coverage tounderserved
areas of North Andover. It leaves o small coverage soft spot at the beginning ofBoxford Street
that does not material detract from the viability nfthis alternative.Among the proposed site and
all alternatives, this site would provide the best overall improvement to coverage in the Foster
Stn*uL area and yurroundin0u. This site requires access across the electrical easement over town
land from Foster Street.
Viable Alternatives: On Saine or Co-owned Parcel.
With respect to relocating the proposed tower off the summit by 122 Foster Street, two
alternatives were considered. One is deep into the proposed parcel, a substantial distance from
Foster Street, with potentially |mso visibility tmthe street and neighbors, despite the need to
increase the tower height by some So feet. The second, and more interesting alternative is to
move the tower north off the summit onto the adjacent parcel. The adjacent parcel is owned by
the same person as the proposed parcel, It is heavily wooded,The combination of the woods and
the visual blockage created by moving the tower away from Foster Street and behind the h|||
should reduce the visual impact substantially.
Viable Alternatives. Other Sites that Could be Vetted if Desired
Other sites dismissed by the applicant may be viable for development with further due diligence.
Coverage from some of these alternatives is likely to be comparable to that of the proposed
facility. If there is interest in pursuing any of these parcels, coverage analysis and other
assessments should beconducted.
Setbacks
None of the sites that were considered by the applicant or Isotrope were able to satisfy the 600-
foot setback from residentially zoned parcels. Some of the sites have the potential to satisfy the
two-ti mes-tom/epheight setback. Among these are the NEPower parcels tothe northeast.
Small Cells Can Supplement, but Not Replace
Coverage from small-cel| solutions can only beobtained along the through-streets where above-
ground utilities exist,Coverage modeling confirms that penetration of residential side-streets with
underground utilities is not possible using only through-street utility po|es. Smo||'ce|| solutions `
include Verizon's use,of C-RAN equipment and the alternative use of distributed antenna systems.
Z
ww/vx.isotropa.im
J
Inotrope, LLC
1
Next-Steps
If certain alternatives are interesting to the town, the best alternatives should be vetted for
property owner willingness, access, development roadblocks, permissible use, coverage and
visual impact.
Coverage from the Proposed and Four Selected alternative Sites
Isotrope modeled existing coverage using the existing site information provided by Verizon.The t
results were mappedand compared to the existing coverage map provided by Verizon. While
different computer models are never the same, there is enough consistency between Isotrope's
and Verizon's results to generally confirm the adequacy of both.'
Coverage was modeled from each of the alternative locations, using antenna heights that t
provided useful comparisons. Below, a map with parcel overlay shows the four locations of the
alternatives evaluated for coverage in this report. In a following section, a review is presented t
showing which of the alternatives on the applicant's alternatives list may be worthy of further
consideration.
The sites are summarized in the table below. To compare the setback characteristics of the
proposed tower with the alternatives,the table is accompanied by a graph of the tower distances
from streets, residences and lot lines.
A first-approximation of potential visual impact is obtained using distances from features such as
streets, residences and property lines. Each site is a unique situation; increased distance from
these land features implies, but does not guarantee, decreased visibility.
Relocate on Parcel
The alternative on the proposed parcel is much more distant from the nearest street and
residence than the proposed site,however it is lower in elevation.A taller tower would be needed
to achieve similar coverage. The question remains whether the visibility of a 509 taller tower is
significantly diminished by the 300%increase in distance from the nearest street and residence.
1
i
' There have been concerns expressed by residents regarding the accuracy of the applicant's coverage
mapping. Looking at bars on a cell phone is not a substitute for coverage analysis. There will be places 1
shown as having substandard coverage on the maps where people well be able to use their cell phones.
Within the precision constraints of the computer modeling,these mapped areas of deficiency will have
substandard coverage because of such factors as link reliability,area availability,and capacity.
3
www.isotrope.im
� |sotmpe, ULC
Table ofCharacteristics ofthe Proposed and Four Alternatives
Distance from nearest street 173 570 268 562 740
Distance from nearest 230 540 412 620 480
residence
Distance from nearest 135 220 257 218 184
property line
Ground elevation(approx.) 185 130 145 155 255
Latitude 42.669214 42.673298 42,671021 42.678069
Longitude -71068839 71.058492 -71.058420 -71.061889
Access Stonecleave
or via RoW RoW from
Foster St Foster St Foster St from Foster over
Boxford St Town land
Tower Site Distances for Five Sites /
800 - - --- -- ' ' - -- - ---- -- ---- '---- - - -- --�--- --- �
700
600 -
500
*uv �
300
200 --'-
100
0
Proposed Alternative on Parcel Lot28 |m29 Lot 36
.
0 Distance from street MDistance from nearest abutting residence �
u�Distance from nearest property line |
NE Power Parcels
The three New England Power parcels(184.Q-U028,29&36)offer greater distances tothe nearest
street and residence than the proposed site. Lot Z* is most accessible, with an existing utility
substation nestled among wooded areas,and mdriveway connecting toFoster Street.
Lot 36 is at the summit of a steep hill (Bruin Hill) above Vest Way residences. The residences are
at least 90 feet lower in elevation,at the foot of the steep,wooded hill.A tower on the summit is
not likely tobevisible tmthe residences directly below.
4
wmmv.isotrope.im
Isotrope, LLC
Lot 29 is similar in character to the abutting lot 28,but 29 has greater separations from street and
residence. Access is more difficult to establish than to the substation lot 28.
These alternative locations are likely to be visually more remote than the proposed location.To
determine if any of these sites offers a substantially less objectionable visual impact, more
detailed visibility analysis is required.To establish theirviability to provide coverage,the following
sections provide coverage analysis.
Coverage Analysis
Appended to this narrative is a series of coverage maps.The maps show:
• Macro Facility Coverage Analysis
• Existing Verizon Coverage at 700 MHz
• Existing Plus Proposed Verizon Coverage at 700 MHz
• Existing Plus an Alternative(150 ft tall)on Same Lot Verizon Coverage 700 MHz
• Existing Plus Lot 28(409 Foster St)Verizon Coverage at 700 MHz at 125 ft
■ Map/Lot 104.13-0028-0000.0
• Existing Plus Lot 29 Verizon Coverage at 700 MHz at 125 ft
EMap/Lot 104.11-0029-0000.0
• Existing Plus Lot 28 Verizon Coverage at 700 MHz at 125 ft
mMap/Lot 104,B-0036-0000.0
• C-RAN (Cloud Radio Access Node)Coverage Analysis
• Coverage of Existing and Approved C-RAN Nodes at 2100 MHz
0Same, plus Existing Macro Coverage
• Coverage of Existing,Approved,and 3 Additional C-RANs on Foster Street
" Same, plus Existing Macro Coverage
• Coverage of C-RANs: Existing, Approved, 3 on Foster St, and 4 Additional; plus
existing macro coverage
5
www,isotrope.im
� rr-
z• �
AIME Pourer 104.€30036
.a
� o e
AIi 409 Foster 1{}4 B 0028
W
e
It NE Powe 04.B-0023,.
jA
AIC 122 Foster -
— o
ti
r-
2000 ft
r •.p r• 1
isotrope, LLC
Existing Coverage
The Isotrope existing coverage map above shows a pattern of below-threshold coverage that is.
life the applicant's 'Verizon coverage map. The same general sections of Salem Street, Boxford
Street, Foster Street, and connected side streets fall within the below-threshold areas on 'both
sets of maps.
The maps in this report are based on the Verizon network, for which detailed information was
available in the application. AT&T's submission shows similar coverage characteristics, because
the same existing cell sites are used with minor differences in antenna height. Because Verizon's
maps were supplemented and collectively are more thorough than the AT&T coverage analysis,
the Verizon coverage is being used as the model.The 700 MHz coverage is modeled,because 700
MHz coverage is always greater than higher frequency coverage in suburban Boston
environments.
Existing Pius Proposed Coverage
Salein and Boxford Streets
The proposed Verizon 700 MHz coverage improves coverage along portions of Salem and Boxford
Streets.This coverage improvement is based on the assumption that there are no C-RAN nodes
along these streets. When adding the C-RAN nodes to the existing coverage,the coverage issues
for Verizon along these portions of Salem and Boxford Streets are eliminated,and there is no need
for the new tower to provide new coverage on these two streets.The proposed tower provides
coverage benefits in other directions from the site where the use of C-RANs is not practicable.See
the discussion of C-RANs in a section below.
AT&T has no C-RANs in the area, because AT&T is not widely deploying C-RAN technology as
i
Verizon is.The proposed tower would provide a substantias improvement to AT&T coverage along
Salem and Boxford Streets in this area near the tower. See the discussion below on C-RAM's for
this area, and the companion report on the relationship between distributed antenna systems
and C-RANs.
1,
Coverage on Boxford Street from the Boxford line, westerly for about t. mile is shown as being
very close to the desired threshold.The green coverage color is spotty and irregular on this portion
of Boxford Street. However, this last mile of Boxford Street would probably be tolerable in the
near term,as there is likely to be a level of service that may be adequate, if not optimal.
a
1
7
www,isotrope.im
Isotrope, LLC
Foster Street and Adjacent Residential Streets
The residences on the following streets obtain coverage from the proposed facility.
• Foster Street from Salem Street nearly to Winter Street
• Vest Way and Bridges Lane.
• Many residences south of Foster Street from Winter Street to the Boxford line, in the
neighborhood of Lost Pond Lane and Tanglewood Lane, but falling short of Ogunquit Road
and most of Rocky Brook Road,
• Stonecleave Road, Lancaster Road and Blue Ridge Road.,
Existing Coverage Plus Alternate Location on Site
An alternative location was chosen to illustrate how coverage would be with the tower
repositioned toward the rear of the 122 Foster Street parcel.2
A spot was selected in the wooded
area along the rear (see table below for specifics). Further site analysis would be necessary to
select the exact spot for a tower in this area, to ensure that the selected spot is accessible,
constructible, and of the least visual intrusion to the area.
The proposed tower is on ground at 185 ft AMSL.The alternative location is some 55 feet lower
in elevation. To compensate for the loss in elevation, the alternative was modeled with the
antenna height 150 feet above ground. A taller tower is not necessarily a more visible tower, if it
is located in a more visually remote spot. Visual impact analysis would be necessary to establish
whether this location has substantially less visual impact on the community.
The coverage provided from this alternative location is almost the same as from the proposed
facility.There is a slight reduction in performance to the east and southeast,but it does not appear
to be significant.
Existing Coverage Plus Alternative at Parcel 28
(409 Foster Street substation)
This location is about Yz mile northeast of the proposed location. With a 125-foot tower in the
wooded area next to the substation, this site provides more coverage, overall than does the
proposed facility, with a minor exception. All the residential streets listed above are covered.
There is a'/8-mile diameter area ("pocket")around the intersection of Salem and Boxford Streets
that is shadowed from Verizon's preferred level of coverage.
2 Note that another alternative near the proposed site is discussed in the alternatives section below. This
second alternative is directly north of the proposed site on an adjacent parcel under common ownership
with the proposed parcel. Its ground elevation is between that of the proposed site and the alternative
modeled here.
8
www.isotrope.im
Isotrope, LLC
Service would still be available in this pocket either from the existing cell site to the west,or from
this alternative site, although it is below the desired level of performance. At worst, if this small
pocket of substandard service were not tolerable, it could be filled in with small cell solutions.
Verizon does not have any C-RANs installed or approved in this section of road.This suggests that
despite the weak service shown by the lsotrope and Verizon coverage maps,this is not presently
an area of critical need for Verizon,or Verizon would have already supplemented with a C-RAN in
this short stretch of road.
Coverage from parcel 28 also extends to locations missed by the proposed facility:
• Saw Mill &Hay Meadow Roads neighborhood off Winter Street
• Approximately a half-mile total of Winter and Foster Streets where they intersect
• Christian Way(which extends from Bridges Lane and is partly missed by the proposed)
• Duncan Drive, Rocky Brook Road &Ogunquit Road
• Most of Boxford Road between Stonecleave Road and Boxford town line
Existing Coverage Plus Alternative at Parcel 29
This location is approximately 800 feet south of the parcel 28 location described above, Its
coverage is not materially different from that of the facility modeled at parcel 28.Access is much
more difficult.
Existing Coverage Plus Alternative at Parcel 36
This location is about 2000 feet north of the parcel 28 alternative. It is about 3f mile north-
northeast of the proposed location. This location is about 70 feet higher in elevation than the
proposed spot.
Coverage from this site is dominant. Not only does it provide coverage to almost all of the
proposed coverage area and to the locations gained by using parcel 28 or 29, but it also fills area's
not reached by the proposed facility that are shown as having substandard service to the north,
including Winter Street, the northeastern reaches of Dale Street, Meetinghouse Road, Russet
Lane and Bruin Hill Road,
The only shortcoming of coverage from this,site is minor and is on the west end of Boxford Street.
A Xmile stretch of Boxford Street just east of Salem Street is in a small pocket of just-below-
threshold coverage.This is like the pocket left by the parcel 28 and 29 coverage maps,but shifted
easterly off of Salem Street. In other words, the parcel 38 coverage fills in coverage on Salem
Street near Boxford Street, but shifts the pocket easterly to Boxford Street.
9
www.isotrope.im
isotrope, LLC
This alternative at parcel 140.13-0038 is the best, by a substantial degree, in improving wireless
coverage in the area bounded by Boxford Street,Salem Street, Dale Street and the Boxford town
line. The availability and constructability of the site would have to he verified. The visual impact
of the facility would have to be explored.
C-RAN Coverage
Verizon operates C-RAN technology in North Andover. Isotrope has prepared a separate report
on small cell solutions. In this report, coverage analysis of C-RAN nodes on utility poles was
modeled.This analysis confirms the conclusions in the separate report.
Coverage obtained by adding C-RAN nodes on Foster Street will not adequately serve the area.
An estimated 4 or more additional C-RANs would need to be installed in neighborhoods that lack
overhead utilities. It is assumed these neighborhoods would not be agreeable to the installation
of utility poles to support C-RANS where no utility poles exist today.
The C-RAN coverage mapping relies on Isotrope's experience in other situations where small cell
antenna nodes are installed at utility pole heights. The, impact of vegetation and buildings
(residences and accessory buildings, mostly) is estimated with a high resolution "clutter" layer on
the modeling system. This kind of modeling is not as precise as the general macro area coverage
modeling because of the very small footprints of each antenna node, and the fact that the
antennas are often below the nearby tree level. Nevertheless, they give a rough estimation of
what the nodes can cover.
The first C-RAN coverage map begins with a simplified view, more complexity is added with the
two following steps. The first C-RAN coverage map shows the coverage from existing and
approved C-RAN locations along Salem and Boxford Streets, among others. Coverage rarely
extends more than 1000 feet from the street, except where there is,open terrain (clearings,often
associated with undeveloped wetland areas). There are places where the coverage is truncated
much closer to the street due to terrain or other mapped obstacles.
Residential areas on and around Foster Street are not served with the existing and approved C-
RAN nodes. The second image adds two things to the map. First, more map detail is provided.
Second, three hypothetical locations on Foster street have C-RANs added. In this first
approximation,no effort was made to verify the availability of utility poles at these locations along
Foster Street.As noted in the other report, Foster Street has above-ground utilities. It is assumed
poles are available or could be added along Foster Street where necessary, and that the data
connections required for C-RAN operation can be installed at each C-RAN location on Foster
Street.
10
www,isotrope.im
r.
isotrope, LLC
The three hypothetical C-RANs on Foster Street fail to extend coverage away from Faster Street
fully to the extents of Stonecleave Road,Vest Way, Bridges Lane,Christian Way, Lancaster Road,
Tanglewood Lane,and Rocky Brook Road.These streets lack above-ground utilities.
The third C-RAN coverage map adds the base layer of existing coverage from the macro cell sites
to the coverage from existing,approved and three Foster Street GRANS.
To provide coverage to the missed locations, an additional four C-RANs were imagined. They
appear on the fourth C-RAN coverage map. if four C-RANs could be installed in these
neighborhoods,the replacement of the proposed tower's coverage would be nearly complete.
From the perspective of AM's coverage needs, whether AT&T were to use IFAS topology or C-
RANs, the same issue occurs. Even if there were adequate pole space on existing utility poles,
utility-pole-mounted antenna nodes (DAS or C-RAN or both), are unable to reach into the
residential areas where the utilities are underground.
Review of Applicant's Clonsidered-but-Rejected Sites
The application included a table "Supplemental Alternative Site Analysis for North Andover
8/9/2017." it is appended to this report. Among the 20 parcels the applicant considered, 8 are
listed as conservation land.With one exception, Isotrope confirmed conservation status using the
North Andover GIS mapping website.The exception is the parcel the applicant labeled"G,"which
is addressed further below.
Open Space?
Four parcels are listed as Open Space, which was confirmed with the GIS map. The use of open
space for wireless facilities is not expressly prohibited in the bylaws.There appears to be no broad
definition of open space in the bylaw. Useable Open Space is defined for the purpose of
calculating Usable Open Space ratios for PRD,PDD and OSGOD districts.These definitions include
this language:
Usable Open Space shall be defined as the part or parts of land within the PRD,
which are reserved for permanent open space or passive recreation use. The
usable open space shall be open and unobstructed to the sky. Trees, planting,
arbors, flagpoles, sculptures, fountains, outdoor open-air, passive active
recreational facilities and similar objects shall not be considered "obstructions".
The open space parcels identified in the applicant's alternatives review are Town-owned
and designated on GIS as open space. We leave it to others with knowledge of these
parcels to determine if they are restricted from wireless facility use because of their open
space status. In the event they are developable,these parcels are included in the remarks
11
www.isotrope.im
lsotrope, LLC
below, Note, however, that because these are Town-owned parcels, there is a public
process necessary to make them available for leasing.
NE Power
Three parcels are the three that lsotrope was asked to review,which belong to NE Power
(marked by the applicant as National Grid) — parcels 104.13-0028, 29 & 36 listed by the
applicant as N, M & Q, respectively. Among the reasons for dismissing these sites, the
applicant claimed they were 'too far east to meet the coverage objective."Above in this
report, evidence to the contrary is provided, Other issues relating to these sites are
addressed below.
Private Property
Of the five private properties listed by the applicant, isotrope agrees that 224 Foster
Street'is an unlikely candidate because a tower would need to occupy land very close to,
and loom over,the existing residence on site (although it would be up to the resident to
decide whether to do so — there is a cell tower in a similar situation in Stow,
Massachusetts). This site has elevation and wooded cover in its favor.
Among the applicant's comments,the three NE Power parcel sites are described as,being
too far east of the coverage objective and being of such elevations that a taller tower
would be required. These coverage and tower height assumptions of the site acquisition
agent are incorrect. These kinds of generalizations work when a tower is moved off a
hilltop to adjacent lower ground.Such assumptions become less reliable as an alternative
site is moved farther from the original high ground.As the coverage analysis shows,tower
height did need to be increased with alternatives at lower elevations close to the
proposed site.
Also bear in mind our remarks above that the context of a site is at least as important in
mitigating visual impact as the absolute height above ground of the tower. It is not correct
to assume that a 150-foot tall tower will always be more objectionable than a 125-foot
tower somewhere else.
3 Technically, 224 Foster is the front parcel containing a driveway connecting street frontage to a rear lot
on which the residence is built.224 Foster is parcel 104.D-0067,while the developed parcel is 104.13-0123.
The applicant calls this combined site"J".
12
www.isotrope.im
•r a
r•; ='•a
Isotrope, LLC
Fable of Some of Applicant's Alternatives
6
s
T vsn=o-knee#
Location is on the west edge of the"coverage objective." 305' 240' 108' 280'
Huckleberry Lane Cather sites to the east would be preferable. If this site is
B 065.0-0224 D Wooded.ooded. e" available and desirable, coverage analysis can be
provided.
8-acre X X X X
D 1110 Salem Street residential The back area is almost completely wetland.There is no
1O6.A-0055 lot with large suitable space for a facility.
back area
Site has large undeveloped clear area and a developed 438 533
T,6)3 owrrecfi area with two soccer fields and parking lot. if wireless
200 Boxford Street
E �O'Ien pace use is permissible in this open space, a location next to \\
104,D-0038 .56crJ1efds the parking lot was identified as a potential spot for a
tower. Not much tree cover on site. vimy
The ground elevation here is like the ground elevation 700 606 134
Foster St(abuts west of
F proposed parcel)
�������� near the rear of the proposed parcel, where a
alternative was evaluated.Coverage would be similar to
104.D-0047
that alternative if using a similarly tall tower(e.g. 150 ft)
945 783 129
Landlocked but accessed by driveway to adjacent parcel
Foster St(2nd abutter to � ������� off Lancaster Rd.Farmable soil area could host a wireless
G proposed parcel) facility. Elevation is similar to the rear of the proposed `
104.M014 `\ ��� parcel where an alternative was evaluated (above).Tall
tower required.
13
www.isotrope.im
• !i
Isotrope, LLC
224 Foster St and Private 816 674 126 174
abutting lot with residence at Location farther from Foster St than proposed location,
J residence top of hill. and heavily wooded.Tower must be close to residence.
104.D-0128&-0067 Wooded. Has been done elsewhere, but not common.
Residence 268 355 142 151
and barn on Wooded area near rear of lot seems in wetlands.Tower
135 Foster St 6 acres Would be on open land near rear.Some vegetation along
K street screens views to rear. Ground elevation lower
104.D-0044 across Foster than proposed but higher than alternative considered on
St from
proposed site proposed site.—200 ft from soccer field,in plain view.
Town-ownedAccess required via electric RoW from Boxford St, if 709 791 :` 159
available. Locate in wooded area well back from Foster
open space`
Foster St 22 acres, St. Open wetland area along Foster St may fail to screen
L views from Foster St. Coverage would be like that from
104.D-0043 Marked as the nearb substation
possible y parcel 104.6-0028. Utilities must
habitat. be brought in from Foster or Boxford Streets. Parcel
marked as potential critical habitat.
Foster St NE Power. Included in study above.Access from RoW via Boxford St 562 620 218 155
M 104.6-0029 Possible (avoids marked wetland), or from end of Stoncleave
habitat. (narrow slot between wetlands),Wooded.
ISE Power. 268 412 25,7 145
Foster St Included in study above. By substation.Small wetland in
N 104.8-0028 Possible wooded area,with room to avoid wetland.
habitat.
Foster St Town-downed
This site is lower in elevation than the adjacent NE Power X X X x
P lot 36(see Q. below). It would be more effective to use
104.13m0037 0pen, ace this site as the access to lot 36 than to put a tower on it.
740 480 255
Foster St Included in study above. High ground. Access from
Q 104.6-0036 �E Power Foster St via utility RoW over Town open space parcel.
379}
14
www.'isotro pe.i rn
i •i
lsotrope, LLC
533 205 162 154
�������° This 3.2-acre parcel is heavily wooded and abuts the
Easter St �A�� 434 335 110 151
o \
104.D.0024proposed parcel to the northeast. Two spats were
��t;�€�s
Z D.0Q24 ���� identified, with one favoring maximum property line
<not amongthe
setback and the other maximizing distance to nearest
applicant's sites>
residence.
Color Key
Color
indicates NE
Power lana
already
evaluated
above
Color
i dicates
desItgnat6d
(}peri Space
use,
15
www.isotrope.inn
Isotrope, LLC
Selections froin Applicant's Altemative Site List
In the table above, the sites reviewed by the applicant that we consider worth further
comment are presented. Estimates of likely distances from street,off-premise residence,
and property line are provided for general comparison.These values may vary if an actual
spot for a tower is chosen on one of these parcels.
The ground elevations are provided to illustrate how the terrain in the area varies. They
are not indicators of tower height differentials.
To put a wireless facility at any of the sites, a variance to the 600-foot setback would be
necessary. None of these sites is compliant with the 600-foot setback from properties
zoned for, or in, residential use. Note that the residential distance, "Res,", in the table
indicates distance to a residence building,which is not the measure used in the 600-foot
setback requirement. Also note that the Res. distance ignores the residence on the
selected parcel.
The bylaw also calls for new towers to satisfy a two-times-height ("2X") setback from
property lines. Assuming a tower of at least 90 ft height, those cells in the "Lot Line"
column that have a setback-compliant 180 feet or more are highlighted green.These sites
could require one less variance than the others.The spot selected on the NE Power parcel
39 was at the apparent summit. By moving a facility north into the parcel, a property line
setback of as much as 379 feet may be viable.
Among the sites reviewed by the applicant, the, table above shows that if certain sites are
available, they may have characteristics that would be less objectionable to the board. The
limitations discussed above could prevent a site from being available, including questions about
developing wireless facilities on Open Space or on land registered as Pasture. Land owners would
have to be willing,which has not been evaluated in the production of this report.Site conditions,
access from the public ways,and access to utilities have to be evaluated.Three sites have critical
habitat designations on GIS, which does not necessarily preclude construction; more
environmental analysis is needed to verify ability to comply.
The most promising sites among the applicant's alternatives are shown in the image below. Also
shown are alternatives on the proposed property and on the co-owned property adjacent to the
proposed,
16
www.isotrope.im
I
i
•,h .W,�
.r •• Isotrope, LLC
S. w l
f
f;
� r
n
i a of MMA 2 . �
1 B
i
i
{
i
1
Alternative Locations of Greatest Interest
I
Viability Overview1
E +ewer°
The coverage analysis for the three NE Power sites (M, N & Q) northeast of the proposed site
shows thatthe coverage objective can be substantially served from 125-foottowers atthese sites.
In fact, these sites have been shown to provide more new coverage in North Andover than the
i
proposed.
Of the three NE Power sites (M, N &Q),site Q is most interesting. It provides substantial wooded
screening,employs higher ground elevation,provides the most coverage among the alternatives,
and is not indicated as potential critical habitat.The primary difficulty with this site is negotiating
I
17
www.isotrope.im
Isotrope, LLC
access. While the utility has access to the transmission lines running from Foster Street, across
town land, to the parcel,the right of the wireless facility operator to access the site would have
to be established.
Among the three NE Power sites, site N (parcel 104.13-0028) might he the easiest to develop.
Assuming any habitat and wetland issues can he handled,this site hosts an active substation,and
has driveway access from Foster Street. Coverage from site N will be better for North Andover
than the proposed site, but not as complete as coverage from site Q.
Alter-natives in the Middle
It stands to reason,without burdening the process with even more coverage maps,that sites (E,
K, L&Z) between the proposed and the northeasterly alternatives would largely address the same
coverage area. If any of these sites is of interest,further coverage analysis can be performed.
Aftey,natives to the Left
Sites F and G are to the west and north of the proposed location,and will l'ikely be able to replicate
most of the proposed coverage. Like the alternative on the rear of the proposed site, these two
alternatives would require taller towers to clear the hill and reach Foster Street to the east. If
either of these sites is of interest,further coverage analysis can be performed,
Alter-natives Close to Pr-oposed
The alternative at the rear of the proposed parcel has been reviewed for coverage, requiring a
taller tower then at the proposed spot.Selecting an exact location and assessing the visual impact
would be required to proceed with this alternative. The location (we are calling "Z") on the
adjacent co-owned parcel could be vetted for viability, necessary tower height and for reduced
visual impact. Location Z has the advantage of being fully wooded,ensuring substantial screening
from residential and public views. Since it involves the same owner as the proposed site,
negotiation to potentially relocate there would be simpler. The primary question is how the
current status of the parcel as 71.8 Pasture use affects its viability for wireless development.
77own Open Space
Locations E and L are town-owned open space. Three hurdles reduce the probability of success
with these sites. First, it must be determined if open space is eligible for wireless tower facilities.
Second, the Town must be agreeable to such development and make the property available,
typically through Town Meeting vote and a formal Request for Proposals process, Third, both
locations are on parcels with large areas of unforested growth,which could amplify visibility of a
tower to residents and public areas. Of the two locations,it is likely that site E is more compatible
with a wireless facility, because of the existing development of soccer fields and parking lot.
Access to site L would have to be from the rear of the parcel, and a substantial driveway would
be needed to penetrate the wooded area of the parcel.
18
www.isotrope.im
isotrope, LLC
Acr-oss Stj*eet
Site K is the farmhouse and barn property across the street from the proposed site. A tower on
this site is not likely to be materially less visually obtrusive than the proposed facility.
Conclusions
A summary of observations is contained in the Executive Summary at the beginning of this report.
In short, while a new ground-mounted facility is needed in the general area, there appear to be
viable alternatives not only for addressing the coverage needs established by the applicant, but
also for providing more of the area with improved service than the proposed facility would
provide. Some of these alternatives might not require variances to the 2X setback from property
lines. All would require variances from the 600-foot setback. Perhaps top on the list of
expectations,the visual impacts of at least some of the alternatives are conceivably substantially
less than the proposed facility. Further analysis of visual impacts(balloon tests,for example) and
site availability would be necessary for an applicant to pursue these alternatives.
www.1sotrope.im
Isotrope, LLC
Coverage Comparison of Four
Alternative Sites
20
wwwAsotrope.im
ELI�ttnir�d?ns�:I��EF�ac��<,.s�-�=�star��� 3
1,
---
.,�
To of La-s
Fast r,
w PF
zotiope
10
y .
r
i
ii{
m
a
P
t
rLOLt ism.,
�i--0-7mo-W4 AA ItAfim l
Existfrig AID Mt Li Ccn.wargo�pi�%
c 0 p
) cr
F;�°rte
`. 122 Foster Street-VZW
'i Nvs 20 rrta: ? I:;r
I
1
a
a _
.. C117t'Q vry F si r-:`A A0
rte¢
_.
ti [I5 €€' LTE RSRP
y
Ti lm n
N(?m.
sun A
' # g
a � lip
o
� 51C: s
+m
n Y
ra{
122 F08*r'Streef-
" 4 H'k ir'1.Fc
Pts P.;y.i-fir l r"J
;
3•
i'd'' 1•
e
r 4y, yt u
Y e
i
t
w
e
it I rPlx Ossa lone Nam"&I lav_ Fes[arg rad
�i
r_ 5_ft uatv" ATE Srlp
rt �5 f)TMA,
Iiks Ti ci-�,:.tvM-, koT tAl firim
Rv`s
Ex:iter.,Ar?M1.= pu== t,e
�* _ a
Pag-ct 1L1 n =a
INS
,
p e
T _ 3
m
2 Foster Street-VZVV
o
a
E�ttk i4mlgvex•FcAEvr4'ri��
RXIN
LTE I%_q P
;CJ
(11131MV
V
tfvs -dtate:AMrtAI?r A,
Emlinglot",TO
r
trope ,
1 _ ,
3
1
3
} .Foster tri-et—A
€Dr41$
t.
x-
3
1 I
1
t
e
M
4 s
Enasoma MO?AilCe.,F-aw ows 01nm7en
Pmmel 114 v,-w36
r r
'Ape
o
a
3
12-2 Fnster Street-VM(
;OwIri"of
it
y � i
C
y
F:\ so\
I
•. „rMV
YM•�M�r.•
Isotrope, LLC
C-RAN Coverage Models
J
i
i
1
i
1
i
21
www.isotrope.im
\\ \ O C[Jk i :'r kt :a ... :star row
di;TiV41
\may �A
b ,mly lhehcij 4^ -12�J[l A-,IS%'$'
\ \
yo vA
\\�
trop
I
122 Faster Street s ZW
I
I
\� \� \
i
I
i
bury;
Z a
lath Amtk 2r
RIX R5igiLtdPrt0' 1%
;.+_0 d:,3rmv� LSE
420,00
mW
\\
Twmu Lar'
Lx>,faafr `Lrpt� M)�= I1e;, �
s�Vta�i4rttx 44°-.M
v � R
�.�
16IECS
a s
URF, tro
pe
l
IFS J
2 Faster Street- Z
a� ,
- s
1
�\ I
i
VIRM
qw \m�-"-
vmm aa,
E M rsa'
y c _
\� 1-0 _
AM
\ n 11 -a, �I o it d `f�rr rale �r
3new 5r P Ir ems;
a,
,MLPs
It
A �� lkk -
AlumIff
isotro
MR
`' ~
\ \\ \ \
AV-
122 Foster Street VZW
-
`�\ 1.Arr
�4. \
MEW,
\ \...
d r
y
IMMR
-41
\., 0
}
�a
—M, Oft �m
. .
z � a
— --North
[7X' tgffal*r rJa
4� y
o {
m
a
-T20 llftm%t
UE R(SRP
Tnn
dall
ti
_-
trope`\ a is 4 •�dN
Wit 'Street-vz
,
NVw IT 18_43:21Zfl7 I
E �
r
s
R a -
2P
_
a
FIA Nath
�a
Q RM
OE RT
�\� \
� \ `
\\ =
— r
0--a-lqr= �Itr
T
am
-C WN504
e=Y•—
\�
Jzx�
Otrope
Faster Street-1VZW
NV !h Ard
' is Kill V I 5il-1 n1j
0
s
s
4
a
•, n r
ra� r .wr
,,
r�p' r
1
lsotrope, LLC
Isotrope Markup of 409 Foster Street Parcel t
i
1
r
I
I
t
� • t
o I
Key:
Light blue lines—parcels from assessor's database
Dark blue Vines—approximate boundary of wetland near Spot 2(wetland markings for Spot 1 are
not added.See (SIS wetland map above)
Yellow line—approximate riverfront area for Mosquito Brook fi
Red lines--Nearest transmission lines to Spat 2
Red circle-280-foot radius from spot 1
3
www.isotro eJrn
�
@ |yotnmpe, LLC
The location, marked "Spot I" appears on the image above. Spot is
0 130 feet from the nearest marked wetland, and outside the 2004bot RiuerfrontArea of
Mosquito Brook, which suggest the Spot 1 site can, comply with river and wetland
protection.
w more than 20Qfeet from the marked wetland o|mnA Foster Street that the applicant is
concerned |soprotected stream.
�
280 feet from the nearest property line(at the street),so a 140-foot tower would comply
with the fall zone.
�
more than one tower-height from the driveway and from all utility infrastructure, which
might satisfy the property owner.
� 395 feet from the nearest residence and 320 feet from the nearest residential property
line,which is substantially greater than the proposed tower at 122 Foster Street.
w
more than 300 feet from buildings,which enables the use of the camouflage exception in
the General Height regulation.
w
surrounded by more than 2OOfeet ofwoods, which should satisfy the camouflage-by-
vegetation requirement.
arnnuf|aOe by-
ve0etatiumreqwirernent.
There is plenty of "wiggle ruorn° within the area of Spot 1 to adjust the position to adapt to
wetland sizes,accessibihty issues,visual im,pact concerns, and constructability constraints.
The dimensional relief that Spot 1 requires from the Zoning Board of Appeals (°Z8A") might be
limited to the height-above-tree-canopy rule and the 600-foot giant setback rule. Ifthe landowner
is willing,this site could be furthervetted for visual impact and constructability.
Spot 2 is more constrained than Spot 1. It is sd|| more than one tuwer'huightfrom utility
infrastructure. It is harder to fit near the marked wetland and its drainage, probably encroaching
on the 100'fuotvvet|and buffer. This typically can be accomplished with reasonable protections
in design and construction. Fall zone setback should be achievable. This spot is heavily wooded.
There are no buildings within 300 feet. In the table below, the distances for each spot are
compared.
Ground Wetland(ft) Infrastructure Street House Property Residential
elevation (ft) Wt) (ft) line(ft) Property line
Spot 1 155 135 241 255 395 280 320
Spot 2 142 65 135 295 429 281 318
Latitude Longitude
Spot 1 42.674305' 71.05736r
Spot 2 42,672948' -71.058742*
4
wxvw.isutmpe.|m
Isotrope, LLC
The applicant has expressed concern about .some potential visual impacts from atower on the
substation parcel. Indeed,these questions would need to be answered if this site is considered a
potentially desirable alternative by the Planning Board. This site has several dimensional and
visual screening advantages over the proposed 122 Foster Street site.Also,as evaluated in other
reports, this site will enable a new tower to provide substantially more new coverage in North
Andover than the proposed tower.
David Maxson,WCP
December 14,2017
I
1,
1
1
r
I
i
1,
5
www.isotrope.im
t
� |sotrope, LbC
. Appendix I _ Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act Excerpts
Selected definitions An the Rivers Protection Act:
The term "Rh/mr', as used in this section, shall mean a natural flowing body ofwater that empties
toany ocean, lake, orother river and which flows throughout the year.
The term °R|vmdiontanao"' anused |nthis section, shall mean that area ofland situated between
a river's mean annual high-water line and a parallel line located two hundred feet away, measured
outward horizontally from the river's mean annual high-water line. This definition shall not create a
buffer zone, so- called, beyond such hw:rfrmntarea.
The main requirement ofthe Rivers Protection Act:
Section 20. In the case ofrivarkontareas, no order issued by oonaammUon uummiauium, board
of selectmen, mayor, or the department aheD pmnn|t any work unless the mpp||munt, in addition to
meeting the otherwise applicable requirements of this section, has proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that (1) such work, including proposed mitigation mneaour*a, will have no significant
adverse impact on the hverfnoni area for the following purposes: to protect the private or public
water supply; to protect the ground water; to provide flood oontno|� to prevent storm damage; to
prevent pollution; to protect land containing shellfish; to protect wildlife habitat; and to protect the
fisheries, and (2) there is no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternative io the
proposed project with less adverse effects onsuch purposes,
For other activities inc|uding, but not limited to, the creation of roe| estate mubdk/imimn, the area
under consideration shall be the subdivided lots, any parcel out of which the lots were created, and
any other parcels that are adjacent to such parcel or adjacent through other parcels formerly or
presently owned by the same owner at any time on c,r after August firut, nineteen hundred and
ninety-six or any land which can reasonably be obtained; provided, that an ownership interest can
reasonably be obtained after taking into consideration: cost, and whether such cost is reasonable
mrprohibitive twthe owner; existing technology; the proposed use; and logistics in light ofoverall
project purposes.
6
m/ww.isotmpu.im