Diana Stricker Photo
No members of the public spoke during a public hearing regarding a 109-foot cell tower, disguised as a rustic water tank, that is being proposed for Route 146 on farm property owned by the Medlyn family in Branford.
The town itself was well represented by an attorney who specializes in cell tower issues, and by town officials. The hearing Wednesday was conducted by the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC), which has jurisdiction over cell tower placement. During the two-hour afternoon session, the CSC and Branford’s attorney questioned the three carriers involved in the project: Cellco (Verizon), AT&T and T-Mobile. The evening session was reserved for public comments, but since there were none, the afternoon session was reconvened.
This is in sharp contrast to a CSC hearing in December 2009 when neighbors of a proposed 125-foot tower at 123 Pine Orchard Rd. made impassioned pleas against the tower. About 65 residents attended that hearing, and 170 people signed a petition opposing the location. Public meetings about a Short Beach cell tower have also drawn large audiences.
Their efforts were to no avail, and the tower requested by T‑Mobile for Pine Orchard was approved and constructed. The previous executive director of the CSC told the Eagle that of the past 100 applications reviewed by the CSC at that time, four were denied outright and the remainder were approved with modifications.
Since that 2009 hearing, Branford has become proactive by forming a Cell Tower Advisory Panel and by hiring a consultant and an attorney.
State Rep. Lonnie Reed (D‑Branford) is continuing the fight to update the state’s process for approving cell towers. Reed announced this week that new legislation she introduced this session is headed for the House floor. The proposed legislation would change the CSC process for locating towers and provide towns with more input.
First Selectman Anthony “Unk” DaRos was unable to attend Wednesday’s hearing because of town meetings. He sent a letter which was read by Doug Marsh, who chairs the Cell Tower Advisory Panel. In the letter, DaRos stated that the town does not oppose cell towers, but wants to work with the CSC and carriers to minimize the towers’ impact.
“Like many places in Connecticut, Branford’s identity stems from its scenic, historic and natural attributes, especially as a coastal town,” DaRos wrote. “And while we understand that it is faster, easier and cheaper to construct a basic tower, their angular design and jarring appearance conflict with the characteristics that define our town. As a result, we hope and request that efforts be made to apply design techniques that minimize those intrusions.”
Scenic Road
The tower proposed by Cellco (Verizon) for Route 146 would be located at 723 Leetes Island Rd. on farm property long owned by the Medlyn family. Route 146 is a state-designated scenic road and portions are on the National Register of Historic Places.
State and local entities had some input to the design for the Leetes Island Road tower even before the application reached the CSC. Cellco/Verizon held discussions with both the State Historic Preservation Office, and the Scenic Road Advisory Committee, which represents Branford and Guilford.
“We did not impact an historic building down the road,” said Cellco’s regulatory manager Sandy Carter. “But we did impact an historic district,” she said in reference to the Route 146 corridor.
Cellco consultant Michael Libertine said the tower’s height was lowered from 120 feet to 109, and the stealth techniques were employed to help alleviate the impact.
“Essentially the water tank met everybody’s approval. I think everybody compromised on this one,” Libertine said, adding that several stealth designs were considered. “This structure is bulkier than a traditional monopole, but it seems to fit better with the surroundings.”
When asked by CSC member Philip Ashton what happens if another carrier wants to locate on the pole, Libertine said, “They will have to use a lower height and make some kind of concessions. We have all made concessions.”
As for wetlands and coastal impacts, Cellco’s consultant Dean Gustafson said the proposed facility would be within 450 feet from coastal areas and 1,000 feet from Stony Creek. “There aren’t going to be any impacts to coastal resources,” he said.
CSC member Edward Wilensky asked if Cellco is planning any other towers for that area. Cellco’s engineer Mark Brauer said, “For the foreseeable future, we are not planning any additional sites.”
When asked for a definition of “foreseeable future,” Brauer said “We’re looking at at least three years.”
Branford’s attorney, Keith Ainsworth (pictured) of Evans Feldman & Ainsworth of New Haven, asked the three cell carriers various questions regarding technical issues, coverage and antenna placement.
When Ainsworth stated that the town of Branford never agreed to the 109-foot height, Libertine said that was correct, and added there was “no formal written agreement signed by all parties” in regard to the stealth design or height of the tower. The design and height issues were resolved before Branford’s advisory panel was formed.
Karyl Lee Hall, a member of the town’s Cell Tower Advisory Committee and the co-chair of the Scenic Road Advisory Committee, addressed the CSC during the evening session.
“We spent a lot of time talking,” Hall said in regard to discussions with the carrier. She said although there was no written agreement “there certainly was a tacit agreement” that the tower, disguised as a water tank, would not exceed 109 feet.
CSC Acting chair Jerry Murphy lauded Branford for its involvement in the proceedings. “We really don’t get enough of it,” he said in regard to other towns. “You are to be commended.”
CSC member Barbara Bell asked T-Mobile whether the Leetes Island Road site would satisfy the carrier’s coverage gaps. T-Mobile’s engineer Scott Heffernan said, “It’s not a one-site solution…its part of a multi-site solution.”
T-Mobile has an application with the CSC for construction of a 160-foot tower on property owned by Tilcon at 77-145 Pleasant Point Road. A hearing was scheduled for January, but T-Mobile said they were not able to respond to questions from Branford’s attorney before the hearing date and they requested a postponement. The hearing has not yet been rescheduled.
During Wednesday’s hearing, both Cellco and AT&T said they had no interest in locating on the Pleasant Point Road tower.
An issue at Wednesday’s hearing was a motion by Branford’s attorney to compel T-Mobile to provide written answers to questions he sent prior to the hearing. It is common procedure for the CSC and intervenors to send written questions to the carriers and have answers prior to public hearings. The questions and answers are posted on the CSC Web site, in this case under Docket No. 413.
Ainsworth said T-Mobile’s responses were insufficient.
T-Mobile’s attorney Julie D. Kohler objected, saying it was proprietary information. At the hearing she said the town was apparently trying to learn more about the Pleasant Point tower proposal.
The CSC chair said that T-Mobile should respond by early next week, and that Ainsworth can react. At that point, the CSC can decide if more information is needed.
Following the hearing, CSC chair Jerry Murphy told the Eagle that the hearing may re-convene at a later date at its New Britain office so that Ainsworth has an opportunity to continue to cross-examine T-Mobile.
Ainsworth told the Eagle that Cellco and AT&T provided sufficient information to his questions, but that he is waiting for more information from T-Mobile.
“The only reason we ask for these answers is so we can do our own independent analysis,” Ainsworth said.
He said there are a number of factors to consider: coverage areas, configuration of antenna, height of towers, and how towers interact with one another. He said these issues all come into play when trying to find the least impact for the community.
“It’s a science, but it’s also an art,” Ainsworth said of the process. “We’re looking to balance interests.”
A Short Beach Cell Tower?
Branford residents are still awaiting news regarding a proposed cell tower in Short Beach, which has limited cell coverage. AT&T was prepared to file an application with the CSC in December, but agreed to a postponement at the town’s request.
Town officials Wednesday said that four months later there was no new information regarding the Short Beach proposal, or a previous one for Stony Creek.
####