Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Short Beach Gets A Dose of Cell Tower Reality

by Diana Stricker | Jan 22, 2010 9:32 am

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

Diana Stricker Photo The company planning to build a cell tower in Short Beach is willing to work with the town to find an alternate site. But if that fails, it will build the tower on private property in the center of the community as originally planned.

“If we can’t get an answer here, we’re prepared to go ahead with the other site,” said Keith Coppins, of Florida Tower Partners LLC.

That means the tower would be built at 86 Shore Dr. behind Shore Automotive on land owned by Albert Petrosino of Glen Street in Branford.

Coppins said the company has a technical report ready for the private site, but itslowed down the planning process when the Orchard House site was suggested by neighbors who opposed the original site.

The proposed Short Beach cell tower differs from the other seven cell towers attempting to locate in Branford, which are primarily being driven by Amtrak’s need for continuous cell and WiFi service. In Short Beach there are areas of spotty or non-existent service.  Florida Tower Partners is not currently involved in the other seven towers being proposed.

Coppins fielded questions for about an hour at a meeting of the Representative Town Meeting’s Administrative Services Committee Wednesday evening, which was attended by about 30 people. The meeting was called to discuss a proposed lease to build a tower on town property at Orchard House. However, that site is also opposed by neighbors.

Residents were concerned about how much time they have to find additional sites. “I don’t necessarily have a time frame,” Coppins said. “I feel this is constructive here … everyone is asking pretty good questions.”

Coppins said that comparing various potential sites for cell towers is part of the requirements for approval by the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC), which has overview over all towers in the state.

“I have not filed anything,” Coppins said in regard to the CSC. “I am ready to file it if this doesn’t work.”

Neighbors presented the committee with signatures asking for more time to find better locations.

“Your tower would be 200 feet from my house,” Peter Jackson told Coppins. “While you make millions, my property values are going to go the other way,” he said in regard to the Orchard House site. “Everybody wants cell phone service, me included. This tower is backing up to Killams Point, which is probably the most undeveloped property on Long Island Sound.”

When asked by another resident if the company cares about the amount of opposition, Coppins said they try to find a site that makes the least impact on the area. “We certainly care. I’ve been doing this a long time,” he said, noting that he has built 60 towers in the state. Only one site was rejected by the CSC. “I accept the fact, that with my job, there’s going to be opposition.”

Coppins said if anyone has a location to suggest, they should contact the town and he’ll look at the site. 

At the beginning of the meeting, Gail Chapman -Carbone, who chairs the Administrative Service Committee, made a motion that the lease issue be postponed pending further investigation. She said the proposed site is on a wetland, and the lease needs to be “revised and clarified” before it can be discussed. She also said the town’s new cell tower advisory panel has just begun to study the situation.

“We would be remiss if we did not give them time,” Carbone said, as she explained her reasons for postponing a decision. “At this point, I think it’s important we hear from the advisory panel.”

Coppins said the town property at Orchard House “may be a little bit better” than the private property because it is farther from Tweed Airport. He said the tower could be situated elsewhere on the town property. “It won’t affect the dog park, it won’t affect the garden… It can be anywhere on that property. I don’t want it to be in a wetland.”

“The most important thing is to have it where it will work for you and for the community,” resident Warren Gould told Coppins.

Frank Twohill Jr., the minority leader of the RTM,  asked how much the town would earn from renting out the site. Coppins said the lease stipulates $21,000 a year. When Twohill asked how much the owner of 86 Shore Drive would make, Coppins did not disclose a figure. “I’m not at liberty to say. …I’m bound by a contract. I can’t discuss that.”

Republican Third Selectman John Opie suggested that Florida Tower Partners’ engineers meet with the town’s advisory panel to discuss options.

A motion to re-refer the issue back to the Administrative Services Committee passed by a unanimous vote.

“I really do think this has been a very constructive meeting,” Carbone said.

###

Share this story with others.

Share |

Post a Comment

Comments

posted by: Beverly Zimmerman on January 22, 2010  10:56am

We, in Stony Creek are also having that trouble. It seems anti American and unconstitutional for Americans to be ‘enslaved’ by a large corporation (or a Federal business)without any real recourse or protection

posted by: lance on January 22, 2010  2:33pm

bring on the cell tower!  the branford elite voted for “change”, right?  well let’s change that not existent cell signal to three or four bars.  yes we can!

posted by: Anonymouse on January 22, 2010  5:56pm

Funny, people in the suburbs want the services, but want to put the sacrifices on someone else.  Build the towers, I say!

posted by: scjerry on January 23, 2010  10:11am

The controversy on cell tower locations has increased most recently because of the availability of stimulus money for expanding broadband data transmission capability to all Americans. Many rural and underserved areas in the US will be updated to fourth generation (4G) technology, while Connecticut, burdened by a legacy infrastructure, continues to tolerate second generation wireless service, and the eight towers destined for Branford, only compound the problem.
Branford and the State have been caught with their cyber pants down around their digital knees, with respect to the lack of planning for their citizen’s wireless broadband future. Many municipalities in the US have anticipated this need and have already implemented plans for providing services to their communities, with a resulting wireless broadband and voice delivery infrastructure that has mitigated impact on property values, and environmental, aesthetic, health and historical district concerns.  Yet, their approaches provide upgradeable technology that will survive future improvements. In fact, there are substantial economic benefits for towns that take the lead, since such wireless facilities can attract professional talent and jobs. Think about the entire town center as a wireless hot spot, including the high school, library and train station.

For example, Extenet,  a Chicago company, has already obtained approvals for a distributed antenna system for the first 22 miles of Merritt Parkway, and installed 90 miles of fiber optic cable in Mt. Vernon and Yonkers for a DAS infrastructure there. This system requires small multiple antennas attached to existing utility poles, and can support 4G technology. Sprint is rumored to be negotiating an agreement with Walmart to install small antennas on their roofs in order to facilitate a 4G system.
 
We need to convince the Connecticut Siting Council to wait and listen to Unk’s advisory board and expert consultant before riddling our scenic shoreline with an asparagus patch of cell towers that will be obsolete in five years, if not already.

Events Calendar

loading…

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

smartpill design