Ordinance change for Bridgewater College?
On the radio I heard about Bridgewater College working with AT&T to get a zoning change. That would allow the college to put up antenna towers by right on its property, if I got it correctly.
Why should we want to amend the ordinance in that way? Then if Bridgewater College and AT&T wanted to put up a huge ugly antenna tower we wouldn’t even have any negotating power. On the other hand, if the town required a special use permit, then they might be pushed into making aesthetic changes or compromises when they did propose their antenna.
As I see it, antenna towers are totally outside the spirit of the enclave zoning business that the town did with Bridgewater College. Basically, the college gets to do what it wants inside its boundaries. I think we all assumed that it would do college-type things for its students on its property. Antenna towers are well beyond that and I’m glad that they have to have a public hearing before going in this direction. I hope a lot more information comes out about this before the hearing.
Loading ...
August 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I don’t get it. What’s the payoff for the citizens of Bridgewater to give blanket approval to towers in advance of seeing a site plan and proposal? I can see why AT&T would like that, but what’s in it for the locals?
August 8th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
How did you get from “working with AT&t to get an ordinance change” to “blanket approval to towers”?
Bridgewater College is zoned business because thats what it is, a business.. Most of their buildings have a B1 classification (business use). Even places of business have to adhere to town rules and regulations. Just because they have that zoning doesn’t mean they can arbitrarily do as they please any more than Bob-a Reas or IGA could. Lets not panic yet. Personally, I fail to see whats so horrible about cell towers.
August 9th, 2008 at 7:20 am
> How did you get from “working with AT&t to get an ordinance change” to “blanket approval to towers”?
From the Town’s website. “The proposed amendment, which was submitted by AT&T and Bridgewater College, would allow telecommunication towers and antennas within the Town’s college campus enclave, as a matter of right.”
And it adds “In lieu of accepting (or rejecting) these proposed changes, the Council could allow such antennas and towers only with a special use permit after a case by case review.”
That’s “case by case review” vs. “blanket approval.” I’m sure others would use different words but I think the principle is the same. I’ll ask again - what do we get in return for giving up case by case review?
The Town’s notice is at http://town.bridgewater.va.us/v.php?pg=132 and it says additional details are available at the Superintendent’s office.
August 9th, 2008 at 10:31 am
i would encourage folks to go out to the public hearing and see what this is all about. we do not have much to go on right now.
August 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I wonder if the the FAA would have an opinion on this?
August 10th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
It’s a communication tower. Whats the big deal? I suppose this is just another NIMBY episode. Does anyone realize that the water tank north of town is a communication tower? The FAA would probably require a light on top.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I have to agree with some of the others here, what is the big deal about this tower? I wish I lived a little closer to Bridgewater, they could put it on my land. It would give me better cell and internet reception as well as some income. I can imagine that Bridgewater College could use the money coming from AT&T for this tower.
At&t is a GSM technology and there is little coverage in the county and surrounding counties for this type of signal. I would think that a lot of visitors to the college would appreciate a decent cell signal when coming to see the campus or their kids.
People need to get over this NIMBY thinking. This type of thinking keeps our areas behind the rest of the country. This hurts everyone in the area. Kids graduate and move away, companies hesitate moving in the area - bringing good paying jobs and benefits, etc. Now, no one wants to see the area destroyed but there is a happy medium that can be found with good planning and open mindedness. Cell phone towers, power lines, and even wider roads are just a few requirements of progress. You fight basic 21st century technology and you will end up with nothing. What would happen to Bridgewater if the college moved? Do you realize how many jobs and how much money comes into town because of one college? Today you fight a cell tower, tomorrow what will the fight be? Maybe eventually it will be easier for Bridgewater college to move to Harrisonburg in order to stay current with technology. Where would Bridgewater be then?
I think that if clear thinking people will get together and look at this they will find, first that a cell tower is no big deal, second the cell tower will benefit the college and the surrounding residents and businesses, and thirdly that the college is continuing to expand its horizons which in turn greatly benefits the community.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:41 am
> Does anyone realize that the water tank north of town is a communication tower?
Perfect example. The water tank was sited there after full public disclosure and review. We did not pass an ordinance that said, “The Town will put a water tank anywhere it wants with no further public review of the design and site.” The communications antennas on top are a great example of minimizing the impact by using an existing structure on a naturally sited high piece of land.
To me, the success of the Wayland tower is an argument for case-by-case review rather than an argument for sweeping advance approval of future unknown towers.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Actually the cell tower part of the water tank come much later. It was not part of the original deal. It’s still a cell tower. Room presented a common sense statement and did it much better than I could, so to Mr. Room I say….amen.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
So far I haven’t see a “NIMBY” response in the above discussion. Several posters have referred to the need to carefully consider an ordinance that does give a significant property holder in town an unrestricted priviledge that could impact the rest of the town and surrounding community significantly. None have opposed the proposed ordinance just expressed caution pending further information on why it is being requested.
And NIMBY is not wholely an inappropriate response when one’s interests may be impacted by the proposed action of another . If we discount NIMBY as inappropriate, then we must also discount YIMBY (Yes, in my back yard) responses. Economic progress can be a good thing. But it needs to be tempered by careful consideration of its nature and other impacts. This is one of those circumstances that requires careful consideration by the community.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
The FAA may not have anything to say about the towers, but I bet the Bridgewater Air Park would. The planes that land over there fly right over the college all the time landing or taking off.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:47 am
[...] Bridgewater Buzz thread based on the original public hearing notice [...]
August 20th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I have worked in the telecommunications industry as a consultant for many years, siting towers, submitting zoning, etc. This is a good idea and one that is used over and over again in Northern Virginia, DC and Baltimore. Would you rather have the antennas on the smokestack or a tower? Either way, do you not want to be able to connect with your friends and relatives, whether it is an emergency or just to converse? Do any of you realize that when 9/11 occured that AT&T, Verizon Wireless and numerous other carriers sent “portable” towers to New York, DC and PA so that EMS providers could communicate. This was essential in New York as the public telephones, cell phone systems, emergency commuications systems and any thing else that you could think of were all jammed. Let’s also look at the trajedy at Virginia Tech, I am sure that there are citizens out there that were happy they could contact their children to ensure they were safe!!! As far as the FAA, it is not necessary to notify them of the installation. Before you start screaming about cell phone towers, you should do your homework.
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:49 am
> Would you rather have the antennas on the smokestack or a tower?
I think the people who posted on this board favored existing structures. That is why the original proposal, apparently giving broad rights to put up towers without further review, caused the concern. I did not see anything I would consider “screaming.”
August 25th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
As a previous resident of Bridgewater AND a previous employee of the airport, I will say that the tower is a good thing!! As an AT&T customer, I was always very aggravated with the reception in Bridgewater (and I do not have issues else where with coverage!!) Standing outside the airport or at home, I had many many times where my signal was so lousy, I could not get a call out. It was so frustrating. Probably the only downside of the tower is that the airport is going to have to reprimand a lot of employees for using their cell phones during working hours because they didn’t have signal before there!