Dinglebrook Lane—

Cell Tower Proposal Draws Heavy Opposition From Residents

By Andrew Gorosko

First Selectman Joe Borst has urged the Connecticut Siting Council to approve some alternate location for a 150-foot-tall freestanding monopole-style cellular telecommunications tower proposed for a residential site on Dinglebrook Lane, suggesting that the structure instead be erected in the nearby Upper Paugussett State Forest.

Mr Borst was among those who spoke at a May 28 siting council public hearing on AT&T’s application to build a cell tower on residential property at 24 Dinglebrook Lane.

AT&T, doing business as New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC, is seeking a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need from the siting council for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed cell tower and related telecommunications equipment which would be contained within a fenced compound. Rock ledge would need to be removed from the site for tower installation.

Mr Borst and residents of the Dinglebrook Lane area spoke in opposition to the proposed placement of a cell tower on the almost 25-acre site, which is owned by the estate of Paul R. Lundgren. The owner of a cell tower pays rent to the owner of the land where a cell tower is located.

“We’d prefer that the tower be placed in the state forest, if possible,” Mr Borst said.

Mr Borst urged siting council members to get a definitive answer from the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on whether placing a cell tower in the state forest would be allowed.

Mr Borst said that the town needs a tower in that general area to create an antenna location for local emergency services radio transmissions. “It’s a safety issue. It’s a public safety situation,” Mr Borst said of the emergency radio communications problems which now exist in that area.

If a cell tower is built, the siting council would require AT&T to offer the town free antenna space on the tower for emergency radio communications.

“Put that tower in the [Upper] Paugussett State Forest. It’s huge place,” Mr Borst said. The 794-acre tract is on the western shore of the Lake Lillinonah section of the Housatonic River.

Mr Borst also asked whether the proposed cell tower would need to be as tall as 150 feet, suggesting that 125 feet is a more realistic height for the structure. By comparison, the Main Street flagpole is 100 feet tall.

Dinglebrook Lane area residents speaking at the 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 decreased property values and the unsightly appearance of a tower as their prime reasons for opposing that location.

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

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.

Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, also wants to place cellular antennas on the proposed tower. Verizon is an intervenor to AT&T’s application to the siting council. The tower also would have sufficient mounting space on it for some third cellular telecommunications firm’s antennas.

At 2 pm on May 28, the siting council, AT&T representatives, and members of the public visited the rugged 24 Dinglebrook Lane site proposed for cell tower construction.

The council lofted a tethered, four-foot-diameter red helium balloon connected to 150 feet of line at the spot where the tower would be erected. The forest canopy in that area is about 75 feet tall. Due to winds, haze, and the presence of foliage on broadleaf trees, it was difficult to see the helium balloon aloft. The winds tended to push the balloon downward on a diagonal line above the forest canopy. The balloon flew from 11:30 am to 7 pm.

The distance between the house on the site at 24 Dinglebrook Lane and the tower would be slightly greater than the tower’s height, so that in the event that the tower fell over, the tower theoretically would not hit the house.

The distance between the tower to the nearest adjacent property boundary line is approximately 490 feet, and the nearest neighboring house is approximately 542 feet away, according to AT&T.

Following the site visit, participants went to Edmond Town Hall for a technical discussion of the application in an afternoon session, and then received public comments in an evening session.

Siting council Chairman Daniel Caruso asked AT&T representatives why they had not considered using various “stealth” design features to obscure the view of the tower from the residential area.

They responded that because the tower would “well hidden in the woods” no such features would be needed. The tower actually would be most visible to people who are boating on Lake Lillinonah, according to AT&T.

In some cases, to make cell towers more visually acceptable to nearby property owners, telecommunications companies disguise the towers, simulating a large tree.

Any town emergency services which need antenna space on a tower would be able to obtain such space free, according to AT&T. Town emergency staffers have long complained that two-way radio communications in that general area are poor and need improvement.

An AT&T spokesman said that although erecting a tower with cellular antennas in the nearby state forest would provide better cellphone communications in the area, the state bans such installations in state forests. In response, siting council members asked that they be provided with a formal statement from the DEP stating its policy on such tower placements.

AT&T representatives said that a new cell tower at 24 Dinglebrook Lane would provide improved cellphone coverage for people traveling on Route 133. The elevation of cellular antennas affects the size of an area receiving improved cellular coverage, with higher antenna placements providing broader coverage.

Siting council member Barbara Currier Bell asked whether AT&T had considered erecting a cell tower on the east side of Lake Lillinonah, instead of on its the west side.

AT&T representatives said they had considered placing an antenna near Skyline Ridge in Bridgewater, but found that improving communications coverage in the desired area would be better served by an antenna on the Newtown side of the lake.

 Siting council member Edward Wilensky inquired about the proposed tower’s total height.

AT&T representatives responded that the total height of the structure would be about 153 feet with cellular antennas installed on its topmost rack, or even 165 feet if the town were to install whip-style antennas atop the tower for emergency communications.

Public Comment

At the evening session of the public hearing, attorney Christopher Fisher, representing AT&T, said the firm wants to provide improved cellular coverage to the residential area and also to boaters who travel on Lake Lillinonah. An AT&T consultant performed a search to locate the best location for a new tower, he said.

The tower would have low visibility from the area, when considering three factors — the large size of the parcel where it would be erected, the wooded aspect of the area, and the local topography, he said.

Susan Warburton of 183 Hanover Road said she lives downslope from the site, adding that problems with stormwater drainage, erosion, and wintertime icing exist in that area. New construction would cause erosion problems, she said. Also, the presence of a tower and related equipment would damage wildlife habitat, she said.

“I’m absolutely opposed to this … I don’t know what you don’t get” about local opposition to the proposal, she said.

Robert Dahm of 184 Hanover Road termed the tower as “large, extremely obtrusive.” Such structures should not be erected in residential areas, he said.

Such a tower would be very visible during periods when trees are leafless, he said. Residents on many streets in the area would be visually affected by the presence of a tower, he said.

“Cell towers don’t belong in residential area. It’s unconscionable,” he said in urging the proposal’s defeat. “It’s the most outrageous request that I’ve been witness to,” he said. A tower’s presence would damage property values, he added. “This tower is just too close for comfort,” he said, in urging that it be installed in the nearby state forest.

AT&T representatives had earlier noted that the state forest would be a technically better place for a tower, Mr Dahm pointed out. It would be good to have a formal statement from the DEP on its policy about cell towers on state property, he said.

In a statement issued on May 29, DEP spokesman Dennis Schain said, “DEP policy does not allow for placement of cell towers on state park or state forest lands. We do not view placement of such structures on these lands as consistent with (these lands’) intended use for recreation and preservation.”

Kim Dahm of 184 Hanover Road said she does not want to have to look at a cell tower.

“We like our neighborhood just they way it is,” she said, in urging that AT&T find a more suitable place for a tower installation.

Tony Mascio of 4 Dinglebrook Lane asked why AT&T even searched for a tower site in a residential area.

“The area is full of state land, state parks,” he said.

“Why is the DEP being a NIMBY?” he said, referring to the acronym standing for “not in my back yard.”

A cell tower would be largely unnoticed in the state forest, he said. Mr Mascio added that the state allows the commercial activity of timber harvesting in that forest.

Patricia Campbell of 18 Dinglebrook Lane stressed her opposition to the tower proposal. An emergency  generator that would be used at the cell tower compound would create noise problems in the area, she said.

“It makes no sense. It really doesn’t…There are alternate sites,” she said.

Rufus Ayers of 20 Dinglebrook Lane said that he lives next door to the tower site, stressing his opposition to the proposal.

Having a tower there “would be totally out of character” with the area, he said.

Mr Ayers said he understands the need for improved town emergency communications in the area, but asked whether placing a cell tower in such a residential area was what federal officials had intended when they approved rules concerning the placement of cell towers.

“Would we put a cell tower on top of the [Main Street] flagpole?” he asked. “I think we can come up with some type of solution.”

Mr Ayers, who has lived in his home for nearly 11 years, pointed out that a drainage problem that exists on his land originates at the tower site. He also noted that he may have inadvertently spurred AT&T’s interest in placing a cell tower in the area when he contacted the firm about five years ago to complain about the poor quality of cellular service in the area.

Ruth Ayers of 20 Dinglebrook Lane said that equipment running on the cell tower site would create noise. Nearby residents would hear trucks traveling to the site and would hear service technicians working on the property, she said.

“I implore you to find a different spot for it … I’m sure that there’s a better [telecommunications] answer than these huge cellphone towers,” she said.

Brad Paynter of 182 Hanover Road questioned the value of flying a helium balloon at the tower site in May to indicate the tower’s height, pointing out that during this time of year the leaves on broadleaf trees obscure the view of the balloon.

“The tower is going to ruin the scenic beauty and wilderness of the area,” he said.

Robert Tinkler of 7 Scenic View Drive said, “This will be an eyesore … I don’t think we should be putting a cell tower in this area.” The presence of a cell tower would ruin the view of the area as seen from Lake Lillinonah, he said. There are other locations where such a tower could be erected, he said in urging that AT&T do more research on possible alternate locations before a siting council decision is made.

Peter Muckell of 14 Dinglebrook Lane said, “I’m totally opposed to this site … Nobody wants to look at these things … This is just flat-out wrong … Floating the balloon in May is laughable.”

Such a balloon should be flown in January when broadleaf trees are bare, he said. The siting council typically lofts such balloons at proposed cell tower sites on the day of a public hearing on a tower application.

Nearby property values would be damaged by the presence of cell tower, Mr Muckell said in urging residents to continue their opposition to the proposal.

Gerard Cole of 9 Scenic View Drive, whose property abuts 24 Dinglebrook Lane, said he is concerned that his property’s value would drop due to its proximity to a cell tower.

“I think it’s going to be very unsightly…I think it’s a bad place for a cell tower. Put it somewhere else.” He suggested the nearby state forest as an alternate location.

Sheila Cole of 9 Scenic View Drive asked whether the tower would be illuminated at night. Because the proposed tower is less than 200 feet tall no lighting would be required.

Elizabeth Lincoln of 34 Echo Valley Road said it is unfortunate that property owners need to attend a public hearing to defend their property rights in light of a proposal for the erection of cell tower.

“I don’t like what [AT&T is] doing to affect the neighborhood,” she said. “I wish AT&T would reconsider.”

Gary Tannenbaum of Pond Brook Road said, “It’s a sad day when this tower goes up … I truly don’t understand this application. I think it’s a farce … This is a travesty.” The Lake Lillinonah area does not need such a tower, he said.

Herb Kinsmann of 22 Scenic View Drive asked whether AT&T has formulated plans for an alternate tower location besides 24 Dinglebrook Lane.

In response to the range of questions posed by nearby residents, AT&T representatives said that routine maintenance would occur at the tower site once a month and an emergency generator at the site would be tested once weekly.

The installation would create minimal noise, they added. Also, there would be limited views of a cell tower from the area, according to AT&T.

Stormwater draining off the tower site would flow toward Scenic View Drive, according to AT&T representatives.

Mr Caruso, who is the siting council chairman, said the council would issue draft findings of fact, after which a decision on the application would be made.

The council likely would decide on the tower application in September or in October, according to S. Derek Phelps, the council’s executive director.