Branford Eagle

Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Five Cell Towers Proposed for Branford

by Diana Stricker | Oct 21, 2009 8:13 am

(12) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

short%20beach%20and%20gould022.jpg About 75 Short Beach residents voiced their opposition to a proposed 120-foot cell tower in the heart of the neighborhood, and are hoping to offer an alternate location. This is the fifth new cell tower proposed for Branford in recent months.

The neighbors met at Orchard House Monday night after receiving notification of a special meeting of the Short Beach Civic Association. No one favored the original proposal at 86 Shore Dr. Nearly everyone supported a suggestion that the town-owned Orchard House property would be preferable. The Orchard House wants it.

One woman said the structure would be like a “monolith” rising above the small community, about one block from the shoreline.

“It’s almost a quality of life issue,” said a man who lives near the site.

“What do we have control over and how can we join together as a community?” asked Barbara DiMauro. “There are many grass roots things we can do.”

First Selectman Anthony “Unk” DaRos said he was contacted Monday afternoon by Florida Tower Partners LLC, the company proposing to build a tower at 86 Shore Dr. behind Shore Automotive.

“I will go with what the public wants. If the public doesn’t want it, I will fight it,” DaRos said to rousing applause.

Dave Perkins, a member of the executive board of the Civic Association, said an application has not yet been filed with the Connecticut Siting Council, which has control over placement of cell towers. The Siting Council typically schedules a public hearing after it receives an application.

“They need to weigh the public good against the public bad,” Perkins said, in regard to cell tower placement. “To see this many people out ahead of it, they may have a rocky road ahead of them.”

Doug Hanlon, a member of the Civic Association and a member of the Representative Town Meeting, handed out enlarged photos of the neighborhood with a depiction of what a 120-foot cell tower would look like.

“The local zoning boards themselves have very little control over these things,” Hanlon said.

The proposal calls for placing the tower behind Shore Automotive on land owned by Albert Petrosino of Glen Street in Branford. Hanlon said the operators of Shore Automotive, who lease the property from Petrosino, are against placing the tower there but could not attend the meeting.

Cell phone usage in Short Beach is problematic, a fact that was acknowledged at the meeting. Dead zones are common in sections of the community.

“Cell phone service is spotty, and we’d like it to be better,” Hanlon said, but added that the community should have some say in choosing a location.

“It has to be done… but the point is where do we as a community want it to be located,” said Barry Beletsky, president of the Short Beach Civic Association. “If we oppose it, we have to have a viable alternative.”

State Sen. Ed Meyer said he spoke with Tom Romano, director of Orchard House, in regard to placing a cell tower on the town-owned land where the adult day care facility is located. He said Romano informed him Monday that the Orchard House Board of Directors voted in favor of placing the tower there.

Meyer said Orchard House is operating at a yearly deficit of $50,000. “The income from the cell tower could make a big difference.”

short%20beach%20and%20gould009.jpg DaRos (pictured) said that since the Orchard House property is owned by the town, the RTM would have to consider allocating the monthly cell tower stipend for Orchard House. Towers typically pay $1,750 per month to lease a location.

“There are so many (proposed cell) projects around town,” DaRos said, adding that the state Siting Council has received applications for four towers that would boost cell phone usage on Amtrak lines. He said the other proposed locations include 84 Thimble Island Road, Pleasant Point Road, 123 Pine Orchard Road, and one near the Branford-Guilford line.

DaRos said the Short Beach project is still in the initial phase. “This thing is a long, long way off. They’ve only scratched the surface of the work they have ahead of them.”

When asked what residents can do, DaRos suggested contacting members of the Connecticut Siting Council. “They do listen to the public. I think this is a very large turnout for a community this size, “he told the crowd. “I know it’s going to be an uphill battle, I don’t think we’re going to beat towers, I hope we can put them where it’s acceptable to the community.”

Warren Gould made three suggestions for the Short Beach community: establish a citizen’s committee: organize a door-to-door educational campaign and petition drive; and prepare for a public hearing.

“Then you can walk in the door with some power,” Gould said, as petitions were handed out to residents at the meeting. There are about 380 families in the Short Beach Civic Association.

The RTM voted last week to enter a lease agreement with T-Mobile in regard to proposed construction of a 75-foot tower on town property near a fire station at 84 Thimble Island Road, in the Stony Creek neighborhood. The Fire Commission has approved the project. DaRos told the RTM last week that if the town didn’t approve the lease, then T-Mobile would place the tower on Amtrak property. DaRos said if the tower is placed on town property, then the town would have some control over design, and would receive the monthly rental stipend.

Dan Bullard, chair of the Stony Creek Association, told the RTM that the community wants a public hearing. “We want to have public input.”

RTM member Joshua Brooks, who lives in Stony Creek, said he would vote for the project, despite his misgivings. “I don’t like cell towers at all,” Brooks said. “But unfortunately, it is coming.”

It is anticipated that the Connecticut Siting Council will schedule a public hearing on the Stony Creek tower. The state council has already scheduled hearings for the proposed tower at 123 Pine Orchard Road. They will be held at the Branford Community House on Dec. 15 at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. Written comments will also be accepted.

The legal notice regarding the Pine Orchard hearing stated: “The purpose of the hearing is to hear evidence on the applicant’s contentions that the public need for the facility outweighs any adverse environmental effects that would result from the construction, operation, or maintenance of a tower, ground equipment and access road.”

According to the town’s Web site, the property at 123 Pine Orchard Rd. is a 3.76 acre commercial site owned by Malvasti Investments LLC. It borders Amtrak property.

###

Comments

posted by: lance on October 21, 2009 4:52pm

bring it on, the service down this way stinks! but to be honest, why does it have to be that big? The dead area runs from the old short beach school roughly to about 40 yards west of the nellie green bridge. and it’s somewhat sketchy out on the sound in that area. perhaps a 75 foot tower would do the trick?

i’ll tell ya, those short beachers are somewhat of an odd bunch. one lady had huge homemade signs in front of her house bashing bush during his entire second term. now we have unprecedented levels of troop deaths in afghsanistan under obama yet there isn’t a sign in sight.

now that I think of it, put a 500 foot tower down there. and for god sakes get those lousy parrot nests off the utility poles! lol.

posted by: scjerry on October 21, 2009 6:15pm

Do we know if the Stony Creek cell phone tower benefits the area’s cell phone users? Our cell phone service along Thimble Islands Road is fine, but service between us and Guilford has dead zones.

My understanding is the proposed Stony Creek tower only benefits riders of Amtrack and could be avoided with repeaters installed along Amtrak’s catenary.

I think the Stony Creek tower should only be allowed if it also removes the area dead zones for all users, not just Amtrack riders.

Oh, Lance, you are offended by a lady’s signs against Bush? So what does your expressed opinion about her signs have to do with cell tower placement? All small communities have varied opinions about most things.

Cell towers, if you have not noticed, Lance, are an aesthetic travesty.

posted by: Norton Street on October 21, 2009 8:48pm

Welcome to sprawl.

posted by: bill on October 21, 2009 10:23pm

Glad to see the civic assn has come together for an issue instead of the usual, them killing each other.

posted by: Mark Simon on October 22, 2009 6:07am

Cell towers can be a visual blight at times, but it surprises me that large numbers of our community get up in arms about them when we have lived in this community for a hundred years with electric lines and telephone poles that are far more intrusive and no one ever seems to notice. Those also require the maiming of street trees to keep falling branches off them during ice storms. They are the real blight.

Some day I hope we can address them.

posted by: Pam Knapp on October 22, 2009 7:11am

I am responding to the post by Lance that states :”....those Short Beachers are somewhat of an odd bunch.” As a resident of this wonderful community for more than 20 years, I must tell you, Lance, that if a community works together to keep their region beautiful, safe, and happy, then I am proud to be considered one of an “odd bunch.”
In Short Beach, we care about our neighbors, and work together to better our community. After a small child was struck by a car a few years ago, this community worked with legislators to secure funding for the STOP signs that now sit on Shore Drive just before the crosswalk, assuring that drivers will allow pedestrians to safely cross busy Shore Drive to avoid another terrible accident.
In reference to your comment regarding one of our neighbors who posts signs in front of her home that declare her political beliefs and desires for a better country, I applaud her. Her signs make one pause and think about her messages - and that is valuable. Yes, Lance, we wear our hearts on our sleeves, on our car bumpers, and sometimes on our front lawns too.
When one of our neighbors is injured or ill, this community gathers to help that individual and his or her family in any way we can. Perhaps you have seen bumper stickers on cars, and even trees, that pronounce, “Think Tom Luckey.” When resident Tom Luckey sustained an injury that left him paralyzed, his friends and neighbors were there for him and his family. When another beloved Short Beacher, Eve Perkins, was nearing the end of her life, about seventy-five neighbors and other friends gathered by Eve’s opened window to serenade her with a chorus of love. And the aforementioned Tom Luckey was the organizer of that special moment for his friend and longtime neighbor. Many of us have a small bumper sticker on our cars that simply states, “Eve.” In Short Beach, we never forget those who left us.
And we Short Beachers do care about what you describe as “lousy parrots” too. Respecting wildlife is important to us as well, and many socially and environmentally conscious groups were founded here, such as Friends of the Farm River Estuary. The Farm River is now a clean waterway, and marine life is thriving due to safeguards and community awareness.
Short Beach is New England at its best - when the historic Union Church on Pentecost Street required major restoration, Short Beachers opened their wallets to donate funds, and many residents volunteered their time and craftsman skills to return the quaint church to its original appearance and sturdiness.
A few years ago, one Short Beach homeowner offered his unoccupied house to a family who had been victimized by Hurricane Katrina. The temporary residents were welcomed with open arms and many gestures of support from their neighbors.
I suggest that you drop in during our wonderful Short Beach Days events that take place every Labor Day Weekend. I want you to see the smiles and enjoy the fun that takes place here in our neighborhood.
I live in an old world community that treasures and preserves the past, while it progressively moves forward to achieve goals that make our Short Beach living style even that much greater. So, Lance, I will happily remain as one of the “odd bunch” here since one would have to look long and far, and still possibly never find, a community as wonderful and unique as Short Beach.

posted by: susan barnes on October 22, 2009 8:19am

Lance - humorless too.

posted by: lance on October 22, 2009 8:49am

pam i was just breaking chops. but as you can tell by my post i’m a republican with an axe to grind. it does bother me that troop deaths in Afghanistan are at an all time high under obama (and he can’t even decide what to do) yet i don’t see the obnoxious multi-colored “bring ‘em home” sign out there anymore.

two of my dear friends live down there and it is a beautiful area. the cell coverage stinks though. :(

No signal, no peace!

lol.

I have some nice blackfish fillets to by the way. hit me on the cell if you want some 203-314-3754. i may not get the call ‘cause the signal sucks down here, do leave a message if I don’t pick up.

posted by: Earl on October 22, 2009 11:36am

I am a Short Beach resident. I am not against a cell tower.
I agree that it should be placed where it will not disturb the view or look out of place. They can even add fake ever-greenery to disguise the top. Aren’t you tired of having friends and relatives visit, and have to run around the yard to look for a signal that isn’t there? I have an acre of woods, I would welcome the rent payed by the company. I am more concerned about the speeders cruising through our village than a tower that will allow us to use our cell phones. Then we could take photos with our phones, and call the police immediately. Progress is necessary, and it is hard to accept change. I hate to pay for cell service I can’t use at home. I hate the speedboats and skidoo’s. I hate the dog owners who won’t pick-up the poop! I am annoyed by the rude teen-agers. I am annoyed by the private property signs. I hate the speeders!! But; I Love my Short Beach neighbors !!! I love you too, Pam!

posted by: peter on October 22, 2009 12:03pm

why not put the tower at Hospice as they can surely use the money.

posted by: Jeff Clark on October 22, 2009 6:12pm

Perhaps someone can explain to me why the non-profit tenant would receive the cell phone revenue, as opposed to the property owner. Are the tenants in the other town owned properties where cell towers may be located receiving the revenue?

posted by: scjerry on October 23, 2009 8:20am

Mark - Cell phone towers and utility lines, while both are visually onerous, we can do something about the former (hopefully), but only spend millions in placing the latter underground.

Only affluent neihborhoods can afford to bury their utility lines, the remainder must continue to live with them.

Many of us do complain about utility poles, but as the Stony Creek Assoc. found out the bill is staggering.

Of course, we could ask that the Stony Creek cell tower be disguised as a pine tree, or some such thing, or even an Amtrack catenary tower, then it would fit right in.

I propose genetically breeding a new hybrid tree that looks like a cell tower, then no one would notice the real cell towers.

New Haven Independent Login Form