Co-location At Burke. What Barton Mountain Could Be Like If The Verizon Cell Tower Proposed For Barton Mountain Is Approved! Shown below is the Burton Hill Farm Silo, a superior alternative, a farm structure and simple antenna site since 2004, an uncontested workable solution to the disputed Barton Mountain site. Also shown below are various photos of the radio-frequency antennas and towers on Burke Mountain. Because of co-location, Burke Mountain, like Mountain Mansfield, is near peak radio-frequency safety limits. These pictures show what the approval of one base station and cell tower can do. Once a location is spoiled for industry, that is, once one tower is built on a site, that tower sets the precedent for more towers. That is why Burke and Mount Mansfield have so many towers. Act 250 can look into secondary land use impact, under Criteria 9A, but so far, this important issue has not been addressed by the Commission.
The Burton Hill Farm Silo should be accepted by Verizon for the following reasons:
1. The Burton Hill Farm silo was one of Verizon's original choices, and Verizon's own propagation study shows superior coverage from the silo to I-91 and the Route 5 corridors, including coverage to the population centers of Barton and Orleans villages.
2. The independent engineer concurs that the Burton Hill Farm site is better than the Barton Mountain site.
3. The owners of the farm site strongly desire to provide cell phone coverage to Verizon customers. The silo has been permitted for antennas since October of 2004.
4. None of the citizenry objects.
5. The Burton Hill Farm location would not be in the viewshed of the Old Stone House Historic Properties, Willoughby Lake, the Willoughby State Park Lands, or Crystal Lake State Park.
The Burton Hill Farm Silo offers everyone a win-win solution.
If Verizon chooses not to accept this site, we have to ask the Commission why the citizenry of the Northeast Kingdom should be given a backseat to an out-of-state, multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation? The Burton Hill site would save Verizon money and give better coverage for the Verizon's specific site requirements to cover the I-91 and Route 5 corridors for their mobile users. We can only assume that their sole justification would be avoiding the precedent of listening to the citizenry. It makes only corporate common sense to locate in a site that offends no one, provides better coverage, and costs significantly less.
