TMCnet News
East Haven, Branford debate site of cell tower; residents cite aesthetics, home valuesEAST HAVEN, Jul 11, 2012 (New Haven Register - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- The price Shoreline residents are willing to pay for cellphone coverage doesn't include 100-foot towers looming over their residences. The Connecticut Siting Council held a public hearing on the application Tuesday at the East Haven Senior Center. The application comes from North Atlantic Towers and New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (AT&T) to construct, maintain and operate the facility at a location in Branford or East Haven. Only one location is needed, but both options are being explored. The Branford site, 171 Short Beach Road, would feature a 120-foot, self-supporting monopole. It would have year-round visibility above the trees and is visible from 2,025 acres, 2,000 of which are over open water. The current owner of the property is Air Inc. The East Haven site, 82 Short Beach Road, would have a 103-foot, self-supporting monopole. It, too, would have year-round visibility, from 1,446 acres, and the visibility over open water accounts for 1,362 of those. The land is owned by the volunteer fire department. The applicant estimated that it would cost $186,750 to build the facility in Branford, versus $226,750 in East Haven. Residents told the council that the applicant needs to go back to the drawing board and look into other locations, as a huge cell tower in the middle of residential areas just isn't acceptable. A majority of residents who spoke were from Branford, supporting the cell tower being built in East Haven because it is less obtrusive, they said. Branford First Selectman Anthony "Unk" DaRos said the town isn't against cell towers, and has worked with companies in the past to find ideal locations, but he pushed for the East Haven site. DaRos said the East Haven location has the least obtrusive visual impact from both land and water. "We don't want this to be an East Haven or a Branford fight. Branford is concerned about getting this right, so we are fully engaged in the process, and everything we see tells us the best location for this particular tower is at the firehouse on Short Beach Road," DaRos said. "This is consistent with our goal of filling the gap and servicing the most people in our area, as well as preserving the image of our small town coastal communities." In a formal response to the site proposal in Branford, a consultant for the town, David Maxson of Isotrope LLC, also recommended the East Haven site as less intrusive. The East Haven tower would be shorter, and would be visible from 35 homes year-round versus 54 homes in Branford, he said. Others said neither site is an ideal location. Doug Hanlon, a member of the Representative Town Meeting in Branford, told the committee the decision was being made between a bad site and a worse site, and said other locations need to be explored. Hanlon and another member of the RTM, Peter Black, said other sites had been explored and dropped, and they want those re-examined or at least considered. Only Branford residents who spoke at the meeting raised concerns over visual impact and home values. One East Haven resident, Edwin Salmon, said the proximity of the towers to residences raised health concerns. He also questioned whether homes would be in the fall zone of the tower; officials said they wouldn't. But homeowners who live 100 yards or more away from the towers in Branford said they don't want to look right out their front doors and see the tower. Many residents addressing the council agreed with Hanlon, that other options should be explored for the location, or for the need for a tower at all, as there are other technologies available. Short Beach Road resident Paula Perrelli said the proposed site for the tower is too close to her home, the tower would be intrusive, and it would lower the value of their homes and ruin the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Residents were able to see the proposed height of each tower earlier Tuesday afternoon, when a large balloon was used to estimate where the tower would be. Resident Daniel Criscuolo, who lives at 100 Short Beach Road, said he is 150 feet away from the proposed site, and would see the tower from his front door at least eight months out of the year. Residents suggested that Air Inc. just wanted to make money on the deal, as they would supposedly be paid to have the tower on their property. James Berrardi, who lives at 90 Short Beach Road, said the tower would be 100 feet from his back door. After purchasing his home two years ago and putting substantial amount of work into it, he said his home value will suffer because of the tower. Wayne Krasnow, owner of the proposed Branford site, said he thought the tower in that location would be a good idea. He said 15 to 25 people pull into his parking lot each day just to use their cellphones. "It has nothing to do with anything else than a consideration of the safety of the people. ... It's basically for the safety of the people, whether it be 10 feet tall (tower) or 100 feet tall," he said. Concerned residents still have 30 days to issue opinions to be put in the record on the proposed towers. Call Jennifer Swift at 203-789-5615. Follow her on Twitter @nhrswift. ___ (c)2012 the New Haven Register (New Haven, Conn.) Visit the New Haven Register (New Haven, Conn.) at www.nhregister.com Distributed by MCT Information Services |