Tower Applicant To Provide Details On Edmond Road Sites

By Andrew Gorosko

The Connecticut Siting Council is seeking technical information from a firm whose controversial proposal for the construction of a 150-foot-tall wireless telecommunications tower in the Exit 10 area of Interstate 84 was the subject of a May 1 public hearing.

Siting council members and others toured three potential sites for the proposed tower near I-84 where Omnipoint Facilities Newtwork-2, LLC, a subsidiary of T-Mobile, USA, Inc, wants to build a monopole-style steel tower as an antenna mast for cellular telephony.

The three tower sites under consideration are at 1 Edmond Road, which is on the east side of Edmond Road, across that street from the Rand-Whitney Container factory; 3 Edmond Road, which lies of the west side of Edmond Road and to the south of the Rand-Whitney factory; and at 79 Church Hill Road, near the Exit 10 on-ramp for westbound I-84. The 1 Edmond Road site also is known as 32 Schoolhouse Hill Road. Edmond Road is a privately owned road.

Omnipoint has withdrawn from siting council consideration a proposed fourth site, which also is located at 79 Church Hill Road. That site lies behind residential properties along the south side of Evergreen Road.

Initially, Omnipoint had proposed that a tower be built near a residential area at one of the two proposed sites at 79 Church Hill Road. But following Walnut Tree Hill Road area residents’ strong opposition to that idea, plus a request from the town that Omnipoint instead build a tower in an industrially zoned area, the firm investigated the two industrially zoned Edmond Road sites as potential locations for a tower.

On May 1, Omnipoint lofted red, tethered, four-foot-diameter helium balloons at the three sites now under consideration to provide an idea of how tall a 150-foot-tall tower would stand.

Through its tower application, Omnipoint is seeking a “certificate of environmental compatibility and public need” from the siting council.

In the past, the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) reviewed and ruled on such tower construction applications, based on an elaborate set of tower regulations that were created by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z). A court decision, however, shifted the jurisdiction over tower construction proposals to the Connecticut Siting Council.

Details

In its January application to the siting council for tower construction at one the two sites at 79 Church Hill Road, Omnipoint provided the typical level of technical detail required for the proposed “prime” site nearer I-84’s on-ramp, and the proposed “alternate” site nearer Evergreen Road.

On May 1, attorney Stephen J. Humes, representing Omnipoint, told siting council members that the firm had received approvals on April 28 from the owners of the two Edmond Road sites to pursue a tower for those properties. Telecommunications firms lease land for tower placement and pay the landowner rent. Tower sites include electronic equipment sheds within a fenced compound.

Rand-Whitney owns the 1 Edmond Road site; businessman James Edwards owns the 3 Edmond Road property; Norwalk developer Carmine Renzulli owns 79 Church Hill Road

Siting council chairman Pamela Katz said the council will allow Omnipoint to modify its application to seek tower construction at one of the Edmond Road sites because the town prefers that a tower be built in an industrially zoned area, not a residential area.

 Mr Humes asked council members how much engineering information Omnipoint would have to provide to them on the Edmond Road sites, suggesting that one of the two Edmond Road sites be eliminated from consideration outright. In light of the engineering costs involved in a tower application, it would help Omnipoint to know which the of two Edmond Road sites the council prefers, Mr Humes said.

Attorney Monte Frank, representing the town, told council members that the town prefers tower construction on Edmond Road rather than Church Hill Road, because Edmond Road lies farther from residential areas. Mr Frank said the applicant should provide the council with whatever technical information the council deems necessary for review of the Edmond Road locations.

Siting council members also told the applicant to provide wetlands information on the two Edmond Road properties. The Edmond Road area has extensive wetlands.

In response to a siting council question on whether a 130-foot-tall tower would be sufficiently tall for wireless telecommunications, an Omnipoint representative said the firm would prefer approval for a 150-foot-tall tower. The ground elevation at 1 Edmond Road, at 370 feet above sea level, is approximately 20 feet higher than at 3 Edmond Road.

Intervenors to the tower application are the town, State Rep Julia Wasserman, AT&T Wireless, and Walnut Tree Hill Road residents Julia Nable and Zoltan Csillag.

Ms Nable and Mr Csillag conducted a petition drive that drew the signatures of more than 700 people who oppose building telecommunications towers in residential areas, such as Walnut Tree Hill Road.

 

Officials Comment

On the evening of May 1, the siting council held a hearing for general comments on the tower construction proposal. About 70 people attended.

Mr Humes told the audience that Omnipoint, so far, had only prepared preliminary designs for tower construction at either the 1 Edmond Road site or the 3 Edmond Road site.

Realizing that there is significant public opposition to tower construction at 79 Church Hill Road, the firm has decided to pursue the alternative sites on Edmond Road, he said. Besides the two Edmond Road sites, Omnipoint, however, still considers the site at 79 Church Hill Road nearer to the Exit 10 on-ramp to be a viable tower location, he added.

Providing sworn testimony to the siting council, First Selectman Herbert Rosenthal said the town prefers that telecommunications towers be located in areas with industrial/commercial zoning, rather than residential zoning. Sites such as 79 Church Hill Road, which are in residential areas, are not desirable places to build towers, he said.

 The 3 Edmond Road site is a suitable place for a tower, Mr Rosenthal said. The 3 Edmond Road location is better the 1 Edmond Road site because 3 Edmond Road lies farther from residential properties, he added. The town prefers that a telecommunications towers be as short as possible, he said.

Mrs Wasserman suggested that the siting council consider land owned by Pitney-Bowes Corp as the site for a telecommunications tower. Pitney-Bowes has a distribution center at 7 Edmond Road, which lies north of the intersection of Edmond Road and Schoolhouse Hill Road.

 

Public Comment

 Dolores Winans of 21 St George Place in Walnut Tree Village told siting council members that Walnut Tree Hill Road is a densely built area. When the Walnut Tree Village condominium complex is completed, it will have 189 age-restricted units, she said.

“We oppose the cell tower being on the Renzulli property [at 79 Church Hill Road]…We strongly object to it,” Ms Winans said.

Mary Burnham of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road asked why Omnipoint needs to build a telecommunications tower. Such towers will become obsolete in the future, she said. When the tower becomes obsolete, who would dismantle it and restore the landscape, she asked. Ms Burnham said she opposes building a tower near residential property. If it is needed, a tower should be built at 3 Edmond Road, she said.

Virginia Gutbrod of 4 Walnut Tree Hill Road said she does not want a tower built near her home. Such towers belong in industrially zoned areas, she said.

Jack Bestor of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road said that if a tower must be built, it should be built well away from residential areas.

George Ferguson of 49 Taunton Hill Road said he has had Omnipoint wireless telephone service for seven years and the firm’s local telecommunications coverage is excellent. “I do not understand why the application is being made,” he said.

Robert Hennessey of 21 Sleepy Hollow Road said he does not understand the need for the application, adding that the project is based on making a profit.

Linda Jones of 16 Walnut Tree Hill Road voiced her opposition to building a tower near the Walnut Tree Hill Road residential area. A tower’s presence there would be ugly, she said. Having a tower near the Iroquois natural gas pipeline there would be hazardous, she said.

Kim Shine of 4 Edgewood Drive noted that her residential street is near both of the Edmond Road sites, adding that she opposes using any of the three sites for tower construction. Ms Shine said she does not believe that a tower is needed in the area, noting that she does not have problems with wireless telephone service. Telecommunications towers pose radiation hazards, she said.

Michael Milona of 6 Miya Lane asked why a new tower is justified, questioning why Omnipoint wants another antenna location besides its facility near Exit 11 of I-84.

Linda Rockwell of 13 Evergreen Road asked what effect the presence of a telecommunications tower would have on her property’s value.

Siting council members adjourned the public hearing to a future session at the council’s offices in New Britain, at which Omnipoint would provide the requested technical details on the two Edmond Road sites under consideration.

A siting council decision on the telecommunications tower application is expected sometime this summer.