150 Feet Tall—

Residents Marshal Opposition To Dinglebrook Lane Cell Tower

By Andrew Gorosko

Some residents living near the 24 Dinglebrook Lane site proposed for a freestanding 150-foot-tall monopole-style tower for cellular telecommunications say they do not want the facility in their residential area and vow to oppose the project proposed by AT&T.

AT&T, doing business as New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC, has filed an application for the proposed tower and related electronic equipment with the Connecticut Siting Council, a state agency. The council is expected to hold a public hearing on the application in Newtown sometime in May.

On the day of the hearing, a tethered helium balloon would be flown at the site to indicate how tall the tower would stand in relation to its surroundings.

People interested in reviewing the cell tower application may do so on the council’s website on the Internet. The application’s docket number is 376. The Internet address for the application is www.ct.gov/csc/lib/csc/pendingproceeds/docket_376/376state_of_connecticut.pdf.

AT&T is seeking a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need from the siting council for the construction and maintenance of the proposed telecommunications facility.

Resident Rufus Ayers of 20 Dinglebrook Lane said this week he moved to his eight-acre property about ten years ago and has physically improved it, spending considerable money to do so.

Mr Ayers said the presence of a cell tower near his home would damage his property’s value. “It’s devastating,” he said. “It’s financially devastating and demoralizing,” he added. The structure would amount to an eyesore, he said.

“We’re scared stiff,” he said of the prospect of living near such a telecommunications facility.

Having installed cell towers in more densely developed areas, telecommunications companies are now seeking to locate their facilities in rural places, he said.

Mr Ayers raised concerns about the possible harmful effects of microwave radiation that the antennas on cell towers receive and transmit.

Mr Ayers urged that affected residents write letters to the siting council in New Britain to express their concerns about the proposal.

The Dinglebrook Lane resident said he would be researching whether the nearby Upper Paugussett State Forest would be a legally permissible site to install a cell tower, instead of the residential area where he lives.

My Ayers added that opponents of the tower proposal are considering hiring a lawyer to represent them.

Resident Robert Dahm of 184 Hanover Road said this week, “The opposition is starting to grow.” Residents in the area are upset about the prospect of having a cell tower in the neighborhood, he said.

Not only would a cell tower be an eyesore, its presence would cause property values to fall, he said.

Mr Dahm raised concerns about the possible adverse effects of the microwave radiation associated with cell towers.

“To have this [here] is a real kick in the teeth,” he said.

“Have alternatives been considered?,” he asked.

Mr Dahm suggested that a cell tower be installed on some town-owned or state-owned land in the area as an alternative to positioning it in a residential area. No one lives in the nearby state forest, he noted.

“It’s a lot to ask people to put up with,” he said. “We are going to oppose this and fight this to stop this in its tracks.”

Resident Sheila Cole of 9 Scenic View Drive has also raised concerns about the problems posed by the presence of a cell tower in her neighborhood, including damaged property values.

In its application to the siting council, AT&T states that a “gap in [telecommunications] service exists in the northern portion of the Town of Newtown and eastern Brookfield along Dinglebrook Lane, Obtuse Rocks Road, State Route 133, and surrounding areas.” The antennas positioned on the proposed tower would provide cellular service at nearby Lake Lillinonah, as well as to surrounding areas in Newtown and Brookfield, according to AT&T. The site is near the Brookfield town line.

Town emergency service personnel have long complained that two-way emergency radio communications are unreliable in the general area near the site proposed for the tower. Under the siting council’s rules, a tower owner would be required to offer free antenna space on a tower to a municipality, provided that such space is available and provided that the municipality’s antennas are compatible with the tower’s design.

AT&T proposes leasing a 7,000-square-foot area at an approximately 25-acre site at 24 Dinglebrook Lane that is owned by the estate of Paul R. Lundgren. A 150-foot-tall metallic freestanding tower, which would hold racks for radio antennas, would be constructed there. The site lies generally east of Driftway Drive. That general area holds single-family houses and undeveloped land.

 A 3,750-square-foot compound surrounded by a chain-link fence would enclose a 230-square-foot radio equipment structure and the tower.

The average height of the tree canopy in the area proposed for the tower is about 75 feet, according to AT&T.

To build the complex, the firm would need to cut down about 20 trees, according to the application. AT&T would install up to 12 antennas on the tower and might have other telecommunications companies locate their antennas on its tower.

According to a tower visibility study performed for AT&T, about 200 acres of the adjacent 8,000-acre area would have a view of the tower. Some areas would have a view of the tower with the terrain, not the sky, in the background, it adds.

The land where the tower would be built has no unique scenic, natural, historic, or recreational characteristics, according to AT&T.