Amy (pictured) and Gary Johansson of Pine Orchard Road led the grassroots efforts that attracted 65 people to a public hearing Tuesday night conducted by the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC). At issue is an application by T-Mobile Northeast LLC to build a tower at 123 Pine Orchard Rd. The work could be complete within 13 weeks of approval.
“Branford is losing on this and we are not gaining anything,” Amy Johansson told the 10-member CSC panel. She provided a photo display showing her home in relation to the site, and also presented a petition with 170 signatures opposing the tower location.
A key factor regarding the outcome of such hearings was revealed by S. Derek Phelps, executive director of the CSC, in an interview with the Eagle during a break in the proceedings. Phelps said that of the past 100 applications reviewed by the CSC, four were denied outright, and the remainder were approved with modifications. He said the CSC typically mandates changes to various aspects such as location, height, design or access roads.
Phelps said a decision could be made within six to eight weeks. He also said that no other applications have yet been filed for Branford. Another six tower proposals are in the initial stages in town.
Branford First Selectman Anthony “Unk” DaRos told the CSC panel that he will convene a special advisory panel this week to examine the issue of cell towers in Branford.
DaRos said that when T-Mobile approached him about a year ago regarding the tower for Pine Orchard Road, he thought that would be the only one. “However, since that time, six more tower companies have come into town… and that’s a bit of an alarm,” he said.
The advisory panel will be “doing a lot of legwork,” DaRos said. “We’ll have our own experts.” He later told the Eagle that the Strategic Review Committee will not serve as the panel, as previously indicated.
“We do look forward to what your blue ribbon committee comes up with,” Daniel Caruso, chair of the CSC, told DaRos, who spoke at the hearing.
Two of the local proposals include towers in Short Beach and Stony Creek, where the local associations and residents have already made their voices heard. The Administrative Services Committee of the Representative Town Meeting is reviewing a request to lease town property at Orchard House in Short Beach for a cell tower.
In Stony Creek, the association is in the process of hiring a lawyer to assist their opposition to placing a 75-foot tower near the local fire station.
Dan Bullard, president of the Stony Creek Association, addressed the panel at the CSC hearing. “It seems to me we need an overall town plan or maybe a shoreline plan,” he said.
Most people who spoke Tuesday night questioned the rationale of placing a tower in a residential area, and voiced concerns about the effects of cell towers on health and on property values. They also wanted to know if other technology could be used.
“We are a residential area,” Amy Johansson said, adding that a 125-foot tower is “just outrageous.”
The Johansson’s property is 342 feet from the proposed site. “We will see this tower year-round,” Amy Johansson said. “The neighborhood is going to decrease in home value.”
Residents and officials also expressed concern about the need for cell towers being driven by Amtrak’s desire to have continuous cell coverage along the shoreline.
Branford engineer Donald T. Ballou, speaking on behalf of the Johansson family, presented the CSC panel with charts and data regarding the tower. Ballou said that the Pine Orchard tower will only provide 96 seconds of cell phone connection for Amtrak passengers. He questioned the rational of placing a tower in a residential area that would only offer 96 seconds of rail passenger coverage.
State Rep. Lonnie Reed told the panel Tuesday night that she was very impressed with their questioning of T-Mobile officials during the afternoon session. “Your knowledge and your questions were very informative and probative,” she said.
Reed also said the CSC panel should consider residents like the Johansson family whose lives would be most affected by the tower’s presence.
State Rep. Pat Widlitz told the panel that other states use different technology for trains. “I don’t want to see a proliferation of towers all along the shoreline” Widlitz said.
State Sen. Ed Meyers asked the CSC panel members to exercise discretion while making their decision. “You have an awesome responsibility,” he said.
“We do take all that we hear to heart in making our decision,” said CSC chairman Caruso.
Area resident Christine Lamberton said she is concerned about the long-term effects the tower could have on her four young children. “As technology evolves, there’s going to be better solutions.”
Dr. Norman Dahl also expressed concern about health issues. “My main concern is health risks, he said “Aesthetics are one thing, but health risks are important.”
Michelle Snider, who also lives on Pine orchard Road, said she has done her own research about possible health concerns. “I’m very, very concerned with health issues,” she said. Snider, who is a real estate agent in Branford, said that she estimates property values will decrease 5 to 10 percent because of cell towers in residential areas.
“Nobody would want this in their backyard,” said Bob McNamara, another Pine Orchard Road resident.
Frank Carrano, who lives in the Pine Orchard area and chairs Branford’s school board, asked if Amtrak really needs the towers.
“My suggestion is that you should reject the proposal or put it on hold until some of these questions are answered,” Carrano told the panel. “It seems to me that people who live in Branford aren’t going to benefit from this tower.”
Michael Nardella, a member of the RTM who lives in the Pine Orchard area, asked why that location was chosen. “Just common sense would say putting in this tower makes absolutely no sense,” Nardella said. “There’s no reason for that tower to be put behind Amy Johansson’s house.”
Dagmar Ridgway, who lives near the proposed site, told the panel her cell phone works at home and there is no need for an additional tower. She is the director of the Canoe Brook Senior Center in Branford.
“I see a lot of harm to my neighborhood and my community,” said Ridgway. “It affects us forever, it affects Amtrak for 96 seconds.”
Bill Tower, who lives in Stony Creek, said that property values and tourist trade will be affected by cell towers along the shoreline. “The beauty of the shoreline attracts tourists. We need that beauty,” Tower said, adding that it is possible to build cell structures that are not obtrusive.
During more than two hours Tuesday afternoon, Caruso and the other panel members cross-examined T-Mobile officials and the experts they hired. They asked questions about the need for the tower, the possibility of placing the tower on Amtrak property, and the effects the tower would have on the neighborhood.
T-Mobile wants to place the 125-foot monopole tower on property owned by Malavasi Investments LLC, which conducts the Ace Trucking business at 123 Pine Orchard Rd. T-Mobile would lease 5,625 square feet for an amount which was not disclosed. The access would be from Pine Orchard Road and would require removing one mature tree. The tower site would be enclosed by an 8-foot chain link fence.
T-Mobile officials and their experts, totaling eight people at the hearing, said the tower will fill gaps along the Amtrak line and in the residential area. They said that three other carriers have requested placement on the monopole—- AT&T, Pocket and Clearwire.
According to T-Mobile testimony, the tower would be at least partially visible year round in a 683-acre area. They said that 93 percent of that area would be open water views from Long Island Sound and the Branford River. They said about 50 homes would have partial or seasonal visibility.
Michael Libertine, director of environmental services for Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc., said the primary visibility would be to homes along Pine Orchard Road. “Those are the homes that would have year-round visibility,” he told the panel.
Libertine said there may be “limited views” from the nearby Branford Trail, and that motorists traveling Route 146 would have “fleeting views” for about ¼ mile along the state-designated historic highway. He said the site is about three miles from Long Island Sound.
Colin C. Tait, vice chair of the CSC panel, asked if T-Mobile had considered using “stealth” techniques to disguise the tower as a tree or a flagpole.
Libertine said “a monopine could probably work.” He said a flagpole would be problematic and would look “out of scale” since it would have to be about 5-feet in diameter to accommodate the technology.
Hans Fiedler, project manager for T-Mobile Northeast LLC, said flagpole designs are difficult because the flag would have to be illuminated and would require upkeep.
Panel member Dr. Barbara C. Bell told T-Mobile that maps showing the location of a historic house were incorrect and that the tower placement could impact an historic area.
Several members of the CSC panel asked why the tower is not being placed on Amtrak property.
Raymond M. Vergati, vice president of operations of HPC Development Towers LLC told the panel that he could not find wide enough property along the rail lines. “It was all too narrow, so I had to find private property.”
Scott Heffernan, an engineer for T-Mobile, said Amtrak was not the only need driving the tower. “Amtrak is a large objective, but it is not the only objective,” he said during the evening session. “There are a lot of other reasons to build the site as well.”
Anyone wishing to send written comments to the Connecticut Siting Council (pictured) must submit them within 30 days of the hearing. The mailing address is 10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051. Click here for The SCS Web site.
Marcia Chambers Contributed Reporting
. ##