Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 122 FOSTER STREET 9/22/2017 (2) i gyp. wo 0", t r pe WIRELESS J Thinking outside the sphere f i 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 j modeling was performed for each of the four sites and compared to the coverage from the proposed site. In addition, coverage modeling was performed for the 'Verizon utility-pole- mounted antenna nodes (C-RANs). 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 125-foot tower at the power substation at 4019 Feaster 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 j 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. o using the 4019 Foster Street (parcel 10)4.8-010128 alternative is that this A major advantagef g (p � 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 1 driveway from Foster Street. i www,isotrope.im Isotrope, LLC-503 Main Street Medfield, MA a 0120152 5083598833 botmpe, ULC Viable Alternatives: Bruin Hill A second alternative,placing a tower on the NE Powerparcel north of FosterStreet(parcel 104.13- 0036 on Bruin Hill) has the potential to visually screen the tower from the surrounding area because of the large wooded area it would be with|n. Coverage from this site also substantially replaces coverage from the proposed site and provides substantial new coverage to underserved areas of North Andover. It [eaves a small coverage soft spot at the beginning of Boxford Street that does not material detract from the viability of this alternative, Among the proposed site and all alternatives, this site would provide the best overall improvement to coverage in the Foster Street area and surroundings. This site requires,access across the electrical easement over town land from Foster Street. ��ableAlternatives: On Same or Co-owned Parcel. With respect to relocating the proposed tower off the summit by 122 Fuser Street, two alternatives were considered. One Vsdeep into the proposed parceK, a substantial distance from Faster Street, with potentially less visibility tothe street and neighbors, despite the meed to increase the tower height by some 50 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 hill 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 bmconducted. Setbacks None of the sites that were considered by the applicant or Isotrope were able to satisfy the 600- footyetbackfronorayident|a||yzomedparue|s. Someofthesiteuhzvethe potential tosatisfy the two-ti mes-towe r-h eight setback.Among these are the NE �ower parcels to the northeast. Small Cells Can Supplement but Not Replace, Coverage from small-cell solutions can only be obtained along the through-streets where above- ground utilities exist.Coverage modeling confirmsthat penetration of residential side-streets with underground utilities is not possible using only through-street utility poles. Small-cell solutions include Verizon's use of C-RAN equipment and the alternative use of distributed antenna systems. 2 wwvv.isutrupe.im � � Usotnope, LLC 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 fro�m the Proposed and Four Selected Alternative Sites Isotrope modeled existing coverage using the existing site information provided by Verizon.The results were mapped and compared to the existing coverage map provided by Verizon. VVh|ie different computer models are never the same, there is enough consistency between Isotrope's and Ver|zom'uresults Lugenerally confirm the adequacy ufbuth.' Coverage was modeled from each of the alternative locations, using antenna heights that 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 showing vvh|oh 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, Af|rst-appmzximoatimnofpotential visual impact isobtained using distances from features such ws streets, residences and property lines. Each site is m unique situation; increased distance from these land features implies, but does not guarantee, decreased visibility. Relocate mi 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.Ataller tower would be needed to achieve similar coverage. The question remains whether the visibility of 50Y6 taller tower is significantly dim!inished by the 300%increase in distance from the nearest street and residence. I There have been concerns expressed by residents regarding the accuracy of the applicant's coverage mapping. Looking at bars uno oe|| phone is not asubstitute for coverage analysis. There will be places shown as bav|mQ substandard coverage on the maps where people will be able to use their cell phones. Within the precision constraints of the computer modeling, these mapped areas /f deficiency will have oubstan6ardcovemgehecouseofsmch,tactoom»||nkre]|ab||ity,aveaavml|abi|ity,ondcapedty. 3 wm/w.iootrope.inn lsotrope, LLC Table of Characteristics of the Proposed and Four Alternatives MOMMOMM 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 -71.068839 71.058492 -71.058420 -71.061889 Access Stonecleave RoW from Foster St Foster St Foster St or via Row Foster over from Town land Boxford St Tower Site Distances for Five Sites 800 700 600 Soo 400 300 200 100 0 Proposed Alternative on Parcel Lot 28 Lot 29 Lot 36 In Distance from street M Distance from nearest abutting residence Is Distance from nearest property line NE Power Parcels The three New England Power parcels(104.8-0028,29 &36)offer greater distances to the nearest street and residence than the proposed site. Lot 28 is most accessible, with an existing utility substation nestled among wooded areas,and a driveway connecting to Foster Street. Lot 36 is at the summit of a steep hill (Bruin Hill) above Vest Way residences, The residences are at Ileast 90 feet lower in elevation,at the foot of the steep,wooded hill..A tower on the summit is not likely to be visible to the residences directly below. 4 www.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 their viability 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 N Map/Lot 104.13-0028-0000.0 • Existing Plus Lot 29 Verizon Coverage at 700 MHz at 125 ft Map/Lot 104.B-0029-0000,0 • Existing Plus Lot 28 Verizon Coverage at 700 MHz at 125 ft ■ Map/Lot 104.8-0036-0000.0 • C-RAN (Cloud Radio Access Node) Coverage Analysis • Coverage of Existing and Approved C-RAN Nodes at 2100 MHz ■ Same, 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 . e � _ q m y — t �uer lld'B (Jp35 - t _ NO! .. e. t " JVx a e s tee FQ� B e r c� 'jAlt NE aF €sure t�� 2 - e n w \\\\ SO �� JAR 1 22 Fos' t�r ---------- CIF-, 4tts� \ m s s MCI \\ \ \. \ \ \ \\ \\ j \ a 'W i 0. y«• * Isotrope, LLC f Existing Coverage The Isotrope existing coverage map above shows a pattern of below-threshold coverage that is like 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 i 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. t Existing Plus proposed Coverage a ern and Boxford Streets The proposed Verizon 700 MHz coverage improves coverage along portions of Salem and Boxford 1 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 Verizon is.The proposed tower would provide a substantial improvement to AT&T coverage along Salem and Boxford Streets in this area near the tower. See the discussion below on C-RANs for this area, and the companion report on the relationship between distributed antenna systems and C-RANs. Coverage on Boxford Street from the Boxford line, westerly for about 1 mine is shown as being I 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 j near term,as there is likely to be a level of service that may be adequate,if not optimal. t f i 7 1 www.isotrope.'im |sotmpe, ULC Foster Sti,eet and Adjacent Residential Streets The residences on the fuU|owingstreets obtain coverage from the proposed facility. � Foster Street from Salem Street nearly tmWinter Street � Vest Way and Bridges Lane. • Many residences south ofFoster 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 ufRocky Brook Road, • StonedemveRoad, Lancaster Road and Blue Ridge Road. Existing Coverage Plus Alternate Location on Site An alternative location was chosen to illustrate how coverage vxnu|d 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 *e|ect the exact spot for a tower in this area, to ensure that the selected spot is accessible, constructible,and of the least visual intrusion tothe area. The proposed tower is on ground at 185ftAKXSL.The alternative location is some 55 feet |mvver in elevation. To compensate for the K*cs 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 n more visually remote spot Visual impact analysis would be necessary toestablish whether this location has substantia[ly 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 tobesignificant. Existing Coverage Plus Alternative at Parcel 28, (409 Foster Street substation) This location is about % mile northeast ofthe proposed location. With a 125-foot tower in the wooded area next tethe substation, this site provides more coverage overall than does the proposed facility, with a minor exception. All the residential streets listed above are cmvered. There is a'/8-mile diameter area ("pocket") around the intersection of Salem and Bo,xford Streets that|sshadowed from Verizun'xpreferred level ofcoverage. ' Note that another aULerwaL|ve near the proposed site is discussed inthe 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.isotmpo.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 Isotrope 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 m 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 Y4 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 areas 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 Y4 mile 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 t � |sotmpe, ULC This alternative at parcel 148.8-0038 is the boot by o 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 be verified. The visual impact ofthe facility would have tobeexplored, C-RAN Coverage Verizon operates C-RAN technology in North Andover. |sotrnpe 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 imthe 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 ofutility poles tosupport C-RAN3where moutility 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 |oxeK. Nevertheless, they give a rough estimation of what the nodes can cover. T6efintC'RANcoveragemnapbmgimsvvithmuimpUfiedview, murecmmp|ex|tyisaddedvviththm 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, exceptwhere there is open terrain(clearings,often associated with undeveloped wetland areas). There are places where the coverage is truncated much closer tothe street due toterrain urother 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 tuthe map. First, more map detail is provided. Second, three hypothetical locations on Foster street have C-R4Ns 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 namassoq\ and that the data connections required for C-RAN operation can be installed at each C-RAN location on Foster Street. 18 www.isotmopn]m Isatrope, LLC The three hypothetical C-RANs on Foster Street fall to extend coverage away from Foster 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 C-RANs. 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 AT&T's coverage needs,whether AT&T were to use ETAS 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 Considered-but-Rej ected 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, passivelactive recreationalfacilities 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 � � |sotnope, LL[ below, Note however, that because these are Tovvm'uvvmed parcels, there is u public process necessary tomake them available for leasing, NE Power Three parcels are the three that Isotrope was asked to review,which belong to N E Power (marked by the applicant as National Grid) — porcdu 104.13-0028, 19 & 36 listed by the applicant as N, M & Q, respectively. Among the reasons for dismissing these sites, the appUcantdaimoedtbeym/ere °LoofarewsttmmeetthccnveraQeubjectixe."Aboweinthis 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, |sotpope agrees that 224 Foster Street' is an unlikely candidate because a towerwould need to occupy land very close tm, and loom over, the existing residence on site (although it would be up to the resident to decide whether to do so — there is o cell tower in a similar situation in Stow, Massochwsetts).This site has elevation and wooded cover|mits 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 assumiptions become less reliable as zn alternative site|ymoved farther from the original high ground.As the coverage analysis shows,tower height did meed to be increased with alternatives at lower elevations dose to the proposed site. Also bear inmind our remarks above that the context nfasite |uatleast asimportant in nniti%atingvisua|impactastheobyo|utehe|ghtaboveKruundofthetovver. |t|*motoorremt to assume that a 150-foot tall tower will always be more objectiuma:bUe than a 125-foot tower somewhere else. ,Technically, 2Z4Foster is the front parcel containing a driveway connecting street frontage to a rear lot unwhich the residence isbuilt, 224Foster iuparcel 1&4.D-0O67,while the developed parcel is104.D'O123. The applicant calls this combined site"J". 13 wxvvv.ismtropa.im s!r • Isotrope, LLC Table of Some of Applicant's Alternatives Town�Pwneo Location is on the west edge of the"coverage objective." 305' 240' 108' 280' Huckleberry Lane Other sites to the east would be preferable.If this site is B 065.0-0224 tppac . available and desirable, coverage analysis can be Wooded_ provided. 8-acre x x x x D 1110 Salem Street residential The back area is almost completely wetland.There is no 106.A-0055 lot with large suitable space for a facility. back area Site has large undeveloped clear area and a developed 438 533 '5� 200 Boxford Street To -owned area with two soccer fields and parking lot. If wireless \\ E Opeo 104.b-0038oceds. the pae. use is kinglo permissible� ii s open was identified alslocationace, a a potetia[ pot forte tower.Not much tree cover on site. l\\~ \ The ground elevation here is like the ground elevation 700 606 134 Foster St(abuts west of \\\ \ao near the rear of the proposed parcel, where an F proposed parcel) \\ \\\\ alternative was evaluated. Coverage would be similar to N 104.b-0047 that alternative if using a similarly tall tower e. . 150 ft 945 783 129 Landlocked but accessed by driveway to adjacent parcel Foster St(2"d abutter to \\ \ \ � ��\\\�� off Lancaster Ind. Farmable soil area could host a wireless C proposed parcel) \\ \\\ facility. Elevation is similar to the rear of the proposed ` `\ 104.M014 \\ \ parcel where an alternative was evaluated (above).Tall s\\O\\ tower required. 13 www.isotrope.ir t! s Isotrope, LLC 224 Foster Stand Private _- 616 674 - 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-0123&-0067 Wooded. Has been done elsewhere, but not common. Residence Wooded area near rear of lot seems in wetlands.Tower 268 355 142 151 and barn on would be on open land near rear.Some vegetation along 135 Foster St 6 acres K street screens views to rear. Ground elevation lower 104.D-0044 across Foster St from than proposed but higher than alternative considered on proposed site proposed site.—200 ft from soccer field,in plain view. Town-owned Access required via electric RoW from Boxford St, if 708 791 159 available. Locate in wooded area well back from Foster open space. St.Open wetland area along Foster St may fail to screen Foster St 22 acres. L views from Foster S . Coverage would be like that from 104.D-0043 Marked as the nearby substation parcel 104.6-0028. Utilities must possible habitat be brought in from Foster or Boxford Streets. Parcel marked as potential critical habitat. St - NE Power. Included in study above.Access from RoW via Boxford St 562 620 X18 155 Foster M Foster St (avoids marked wetland), or from end of Stoncleave habitat. (narrow slot between wetlands).Wooded. NE Power. 268 412 2 145 Foster St Possible Included in study above. By substation.Small wetland in N 104.8-0028 habitat. wooded area,with room to avoid wetland. Foster 3t Tvnwned his 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-B-0037 Open S'pace 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 �° 104.6-00.36 NE PowerFoster St via utility RoW over Town open space parcel. 14 www.isotrope.im lsotrope, LLC 583 2A5 162 154 ` This 3.2-acre parcel is heavily wooded and abuts the \�\ \\\\ Foster 5t a\�� � 434 335 110 151 proposed parcel to the northeast. Two spots were 104.D.©024 Z \ identified, with one favoring maximum property line < ot among the ` setback and the other maximizing distance to nearest applicants sites> V ` `������������o��� residence, Color Key \\ JL- Calor indicates NE Power land already evaluated alcove Color l dllcates c fg-rrated Coen Space ize 15 www.isotrope.im botmpe, UI Selectioris ft-oiii Applicaiit's Alternative Site LiSt In the table above, the sites reviewed by the applicant that we consider worth further comment are presented. Estimates oflikely distances from street, off-premise residence, and property line are provided for general comparison,,These values may vary if ain actual spot for atower iychosen unone ofthese parcels. The ground elevations are provided to illustrate how the terrain in the area varies. They are not indicators oftower height differentials. To pmt a wireless,facility atany ufthe sites, m variance to the 6UD-fuotsetback would be necessary. Nome of these sites is compliant with the 680-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 requiremnemt. A|uo note that the 0cx. distance ignores the residence on the selected parcel. The bylaw also calls for new towers to, satisfy m two-times-height (°2X") setback from property lines. Assuming a tower ofat least 90 ML height, those cells in the "Lot Line" column that have a setback-com pliant 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 ofasmuch ms]7Qfeet may beviable. Among the sites reviewed by the applicant, the table above shows that U certain sites are available, they may have characteristics, that would be |aos 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 uumstruxzion; more environmental analysis isneeded tnverify ability tmcomply. 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 tothe proposed. 16 wm/w.isotrope.inn I w f I Isotrope, LLC IM 1 04 i r' i i i I i I 0 r ®a aI ii Alternative(Locations of Greatest Interest Viability Overview E Power The coverage analysis for the three NE Power sites (M, N & Q) northeast of the proposed site 1 shows that the coverage objective can be substantially served from 125-foot towers atthese sites. In fatty these sites have been shown to provide more new coverage in North Andover than the proposed. r 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 7 1, 17 www.isotrope.im 1 I I 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 be the easiest to develop. Assuming any habitat and wetland issues can be 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. Alternatives 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. Altei�natives to the,Left Sites F and G are to the west and north of the proposed location,and will likely 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,n(itives Close to Py-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 718 Pasture use affects its viability for wireless development. Town Open 51,)ace 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 cj'o s. r°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 facillity. Further analysis of visual impacts(balloon tests,for example) and site availability would be necessary for an applicant to pursue these alternatives. i i i i i i i I I i 1 l i l f 19 www.isotrope.im i y . Isotrope, LLC Coverage Comparison of Four ,Alternative Sites 20 www.isotrope.i m EPS.Ma o ! o s Town#—nn t o � - :.;. \ — s _ s g MTES �kMN w NNW sotro e 1-22 Fos %� u-Aimtm = y Ait _n 41, "ID �R Tows I vi es # su� i�6 ge Pig._ i`> du Y s SoLrope 4 4 - f 2 Fste r Street-'Zv Norm ..,Inef Von*z_2D t th V ZO.' f P F 3 e- m RIX Sqpm;¥ � F tie _ E s w t vAil L_ s ml SOME I , ,. \\ m IN ON - -- 3 a R Isotropl.- 122 tilt Street-VZW { WN a w 12-010 e "'_s ilsotrOD WIELLM A e 122 Foster Street ` � G E \\ - \\e PDX est,a!'r Nc-h e � _ 3 s�a�rLrrr£s- dam+i�irs-'e`R'-- ! NK vw - cCl 3 s) LaF Istatrope 129 Foster Street-VZVV Nult, � �- cr:Nm 20 Tri t r-0_-` w 77 a a tea_ .� a_ s 911 111-Iqrnw . . 16 o _ eE ° P , O ....rope Foster Street-VTAI I ` E,N 20 Wl 43 _ _ t � Y e Inotrope, LLC j C-RAN Coverage Models 1 21 www.isotrope.im OX \\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ INI \\ a qq- \ MIA as 0 dams- OF RSRP \` EN E IS -0 s C q-lc:li:lpco: pe L -ft Ar MM \ \p \ \ \\ 2 1'COMz...E RS.RP \ - 41 122 Foster Street-VW \` otrot-3,= rd-.v -1 213'7 e FF ma 9 5 s- 4 C*1 \\ \\ A 11 err Aff Loa taA _, Eve_Gr�g�' 1 To \\,: _mss'=` i..r'C { M E rc 3f Sfs AM' nos, AW 122 Fcster three! \ \ _ \ \ SIR \\ a -el y , o s e > _ t-wW - 7DO Fez-RISIRP ., �O new ORAN mg ISOLro ' e 0 \ \ 122 r trot-Val � Tr P a ti. i rs e C :� �.i4 0 F Xt v.' ti \\\ lIF a r, \\ \ \ sElmling and app----=nl ma '-s" o t 0 \\ 122 Fostle Street- "V e °A nu -y .t y - AN g �\