Council delays agreement for proposed telecommunications tower

May 13, 2021 · 0 Comments

Written By Paula Brown

Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

Shelburne Town Council has deferred signing a letter of concurrence for a proposed telecommunications tower, citing visual and location concerns of the tower.

“I’m certainly not opposed to the concept of this, obviously the benefits are there, but from my part this is the first time council has had an opportunity to see what is being proposed visually,” said Mayor Wade Mills. “I wouldn’t mind spending a little more time considering and doing some of our own diligence to see what other options may exist in what the structure looks like at the end of the day.”

Council, at their meeting on Monday (May 10), received a presentation from Land Squared, on behalf of Shared Tower Inc., and a report from town planner Steve Wever on the proposed tower’s location.

The new telecommunication tower is proposed to be built at 713 Industrial Rd., and is designed to be a 50-metre lattice tri-pole style.

As an independent tower, it will be available for co-location of cellular and wireless internet service providers. The tower’s location looks to address the growing need for both cellular and wireless services on the eastern part of Town and the surrounding rural areas.

Located in an urban part of Shelburne, one of council’s main concerns with the tower is the visual impact it will have.

“It is on the threshold of one of the major ways into Town and that is only going to become more apparent as the Fieldgate development goes in. I’m not sure this is the option we want being our welcome sign on the way into Shelburne,” said Mills.

Mills inquired the possibility of moving the telecommunication tower to a different location, including the already existing structure for the old water tower as well as other styles that would look “more appealing” visually.

Prior to the current proposed location, two other areas in Town were discussed but found not suitable. Wever said the existing water tower was explored, but that it was determined that the height and the specific service didn’t line up.

“Seeing as we are trying to keep it to the outskirts as much as possible, and the height is needed this is style that is the least visually impactful,” said Dom Claros, transaction coordinator for Land Square.

Coun. Walter Benotto also questioned the height of the tower.

“The lower the tower the less opportunity there is for co-location,” said Claros. “Our approach is to come up with a solution to have one tower that does the job for all the carriers in order to not have another application in a year or two.”

Wever in his report noted that the questions that council had, were also one’s staff had before making recommendations.

Council deferred signing the letter of concurrence until June 28.