State OKs

Dinglebrook

Cell Tower

By Andrew Gorosko

The Connecticut Siting Council has approved a controversial proposal to erect a 150-foot-tall freestanding monopole-style cellular telecommunications tower in a residential area on Dinglebrook Lane, near the Brookfield town line.

Siting council members on August 27 approved the application for cell tower construction from AT&T, doing business as New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC.

In a draft decision, the agency granted AT&T a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the cell tower and related telecommunications equipment, which would be contained within a fenced compound on residential land at 24 Dinglebrook Lane.

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 tower would provide cellular service at nearby Lake Lillinonah, as well as to surrounding areas in Newtown and Brookfield, according to AT&T.

Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, also wants to place cellular antennas on the tower. The tower also would have sufficient mounting space on it for some third cellular telecommunications firm’s antennas.

Also, AT&T would provide free mounting space on the cell tower for municipal emergency communications in a section of town that is known for its unreliable radio communications.

Opposition

Dinglebrook Lane area residents, speaking at a May 28 public hearing, acknowledged that cellphone service is unreliable in that area, but stressed that 24 Dinglebrook Lane is an inappropriate residential location for a tower.

Residents cited the unsightly appearance of a tower and decreased property values as their prime reasons for opposing that location. About 15 Dinglebrook Lane area residents raised objections to the tower proposal at the public hearing.

AT&T representatives, however, said they consider the location to be well shielded by the surrounding forest and well away from adjacent properties.

At that May hearing, First Selectman Joe Borst urged that some alternate nonresidential location be found for the tower, suggesting instead that the structure be erected in the nearby Upper Paugussett State Forest. He also suggested that the tower’s height be reduced.

Responding to a siting council query on the possibility of erecting a cell tower in the state forest, a state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) spokesman said that such towers are not allowed in state forests.

Rufus Ayers of 20 Dinglebrook Lane, who lives next to the tower site, organized opposition to the construction proposal.

“It’s all over,” Mr Ayers said this week. It would not be a problem for a cell tower to be built in the state forest, he said.

“It’s all about money. It’s all about how many services [AT&T] can deliver,” he said.

“Even though we fought against it, I thought [the tower proposal] was a done deal,” he said. “I have to take a deep breath now and move on…That’s progress.”

Mr Ayers said he has heard workers laboring in the area, clearing the land in preparation for cell tower construction.

Ruth Ayers, of the same address, said, “I’m very disappointed that they are doing this [project] in a residential neighborhood. We did the best we could [opposing it], but obviously, money talks,” she said.

“We’re disappointed…I’m really disappointed,” she added.

Robert Dahm of 184 Hanover Road strongly opposed the cell tower project.

“I guess it doesn’t matter that an overwhelming amount of neighbors who have to live next to the tower voiced their opposition. The decision shows that the State of Connecticut does not act in the best interests of its citizens and opts to cater to big business,” Mr Dahm said in a statement.

“I guess we have no say on how we want to keep our neighborhood the way it is, or what we have said does not matter,” he added.

“Shame on the siting council and those state representatives that allowed this to happen despite the protests of the neighbors,” he said. Mr Dahm said he hopes that opposition to tower construction continues.

Decision

In deciding on the tower application, the siting council determined that the tower’s visibility from the area would not be a sufficient reason to deny the construction application.

Land use in the general vicinity of the site consists of undeveloped woodlands and low-density residential development. The 24 Dinglebrook Lane site where the tower would be built holds one house. Developing the property for cell tower use would require the removal of 39 trees with a minimum six-inch diameter, plus other vegetation.

AT&T plans to lease a 7,000-square-foot area at the approximately 25-acre site that is owned by the estate of Paul R. Lundgren. The site lies generally east of Driftway Drive.

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.

Siting council members agreed that the public need for such a tower at 24 Dinglebrook outweighs other factors when it decided to approve cell tower construction, operation, and maintenance.

Those other factors concern: the effects on the natural environment; ecological integrity and balance; public health and safety; scenic, historic and recreational values; forests and parks; air and water purity; and fish and wildlife.

AT&T started searching for a cell tower site in October 2005. It initially sought to build a tower in the state forest, but then shifted its search area after realizing that the state would not allow a tower to be erected in the state forest.

The tower would provide improved cellular communications coverage on Lake Lillinonah, as a well as in northern Newtown, eastern Brookfield, southern Bridgewater, and portions of Southbury.