Simsbury, CT - BOS Public Information Meeting

The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. Present were First Selectman Anita Mielert, Deputy First Selectman Joel Mandell, William Garrity, John Romano, Madeleine Gilkey and Thomas Vincent. Also present were: Paul Fetherston, Assistant to the First Selectman, William Voelker, Director of Community Planning and Development, members of the Zoning Commission, the Planning Commission, the Design Review Board and other interested parties.

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING TO OBTAIN COMMENTS ON AN APPLICATION OF CROWN ATLANTIC COMPANY LLC AND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS MADE TO THE CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL FOR A CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 123 WEST STREET (PRIME SITE) OR 121 WEST STREET (ALTERNATE SITE)

Ken Baldwin, representing Crown Atlantic Company LLC and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless reviewed the two sites. He stated that the prime site is the Arbur Holding site, which was previously denied by the Zoning Commission, and the alternate site is on the Salter’s Express bus storage facility site. Mr. Baldwin stated that he has been working for over a year to acquire a site in Simsbury and their application to the Siting Council includes the alternate sites considered. He stated that he is aware of the Town’s desire for a site in the Powder Forest, and noted that he had discussions previously with Ensign Bickford regarding a tower. Mr. Baldwin pointed out that the proposed Powder Forest site is only 300-400 feet from the Arbur Holdings proposed site. He distributed a copy of the RFP and map which Ensign Bickford sent out for bid. He stated that Ensign Bickford selected New England Site Management during their bid process.

Mr. Voelker reviewed the map provided by Mr. Baldwin. He stated that the proposed site in the Powder Forest is 800 feet away from the Arbur Holding proposed site and is a heavily wooded area. Mr. Baldwin stated that it appears that he and Mr. Voelker agree on the location, but may differ on the distance.

Mr. Baldwin noted that the primary impact of a tower is visual. He pointed out that both sites are in an industrial zone and tree cover exists, particularly at the Arbur Holdings site. Mr. Baldwin presented photographs of the Arbur Holdings site. He stated that the bottom 50 feet of the tower will be screened. In response to Ms. Mielert, Mr. Baldwin stated that they would consider constructing a tower that looks like a tree. He noted that, given the number of interested carriers, the tower is less likely to look like a tree.

Jim Nagle, 24 Bushy Hill Road, stated that his property is adjacent to the Arbur Holdings site and he is concerned for his children due to the fields which are put out by towers. He noted that the Powder Forest site is quite a bit further from his home than the proposed site. He stated that it will not be good for the neighbors if they are in close proximity to the tower and it will lower their property values.

Jack Sastre, 12 Bushy Hill Road, stated that he lives adjacent to the Arbur Holdings site and he noted that the two sites on the application are very close together and have the same impact. He pointed out that during the Siting Council’s Public Hearing the applicant will have experts providing the answers the carrier wants. Mr. Sastre stated that they do not know the cumulative effect on people from these towers and he noted that children are more susceptible to these effects. He stated that no one is obligated to accept the answers from the applicant’s experts.

Bill Gardner, 53 High Ridge Road, speaking as a private citizen, stated that the draft letter is on point. He expressed his concern with the monopole tower being more visually intrusive than other types of towers. He noted that the tree towers don’t look like trees. Mr. Gardner expressed his concern with the proposed location and the visual impact from Farms Village Road and West Street. He encouraged the Siting Council to deny this application and to find a better site which will maintain the character and aesthetics of the town.

Joel Sevick, 22 Bushy Hill Road, expressed his concern with health issues related to towers. He stated that the proposed sites are too close to residential properties. He stated that there is not enough proven fact that towers are safe for residents. Mr. Sevick suggested that the guidelines for towers, in relation to the location of schools, should be considered with regard to residences.

Jim Gazzola, Briarwood Drive, stated that Simsbury High School students would be at risk from this tower. He stated that high school age children do not have a fully developed immune system and should be considered when choosing a location for a tower.

John Jepson, Up-The-Road, noted that there is little or no signal for cellular phones in the center of town. He suggested that there should be more reasonable sites, than those proposed in this application, which will meet the need. He noted that the neighbors adjacent to this site have been treated poorly and there has been misrepresentation of this site in the past. Mr. Jepson stated that the capacity issue needs to be addressed, as well as local service, but other locations will better serve the town.

Katy Zuliani, Davey Street, stated that she is concerned for the health of her two year old. She noted that there is some commercial businesses in this area, but it is still a rural area. She stated that the proposed site is too visible. Ms. Zuliani expressed her concern that not enough studies have been done on the risk of cancer from these towers. She noted that there are a lot of children between the ages of 2 and 12 in this neighborhood. She urged the Siting Council to consider the Powder Forest site which has less impact on the residents.

Roland Salvatore, 6 Bushy Hill Road, stated that he doesn’t want his grandchildren near this tower. He pointed out that when high tension wires were initially constructed the health effects were not known for a long time. He suggested that a tower be located on the mountain.

Mary Minahan, Davey Street, stated that this treatment of land in a residential area, and which effects the character of Simsbury, is disturbing. She submitted a newsletter “No Place To Hide” which discusses the approach of other countries towards cell towers. She stated that she does not want to see a tower go up at the proposed site.

Mr. Voelker reviewed why the location of cellular towers is the decision of the Siting Council and not the Town. Ms. Mielert stated that the BOS will make a strong recommendation to the Siting Council based on the comments made by residents. She stated that she expects cooperation from the Siting Council and believes that they will seriously listen to the comments expressed by citizens. Mr. Jepson noted that the Siting Council wants to provide service in the least intrusive way.

Mr. Gardner questioned how many towns will be serviced by the proposed tower. Mr. Voelker stated that the coverage of each tower is 2.5-3 miles and the towers are related to each other. He stated that he expects applications for towers on more than one site in town. He noted that the Siting Council has provided a map which shows the holes in cellular service. Mr. Gardner suggested that Town staff assist in locating alternate sites for the Siting Council. Mr. Voelker stated that staff is actively reviewing potential sites in town. He noted that two or more towers will probably be needed for adequate coverage, dependent upon what occurs in neighboring towns. He stated that the Siting Council is aware that an application will be coming forward from Ensign Bickford.

Ms. Mielert addressed the concerns regarding EMS and stated that EMS falls off rapidly from the site. Mr. Salvatore suggested that there should be a minimum footage of towers from residences. Mr. Sastre stated that cumulative emissions is an important issue. Mr. Gazzola questioned whether any members of the Siting Council have expertise in contamination issues. A resident questioned the guidelines with regard to a tower’s location near a school.