Hearing, yes; listening, no: Most feel cell tower 'done deal'

CORNWALL — The Connecticut Siting Council’s decision-making process on a proposed cell tower began here on July 20, with a site visit, balloon float test and two public hearing sessions.

For the two public hearings, the Town Hall meeting room was more than half filled by one long table for the 11 Siting Council members, another table for a contingent of technical and corporate Verizon representatives (led by their attorney), still more tables for those testifying and a dizzying array of recording and audio equipment.

With all those space constraints, it was perhaps a good thing that there was not a large crowd at either the afternoon or evening session.

Those who came, however, were expecting to give impassioned pleas and to make presentations about concerns that, for the most part, centered on environmental impacts.

Most of those who spoke were legally listed as interveners, such as abutting property owners and others who would be potentially impacted by the project.

Verizon says it wants to provide cell phone service to as much of Cornwall and other nearby towns as possible. To accomplish this, the company has secured a lease on a site above Bell Road Extension, on a ridge that looms over Popple Swamp.

When pressed to talk more about those plans, company representatives say that four towers will eventually be needed to do the job; this would be the first of those four. Although one or more could end up in adjacent towns, a big concern here is the impact the tower would have on the viewshed.

Not listening at hearing

Many Cornwall residents came away from the hearings saying they got a sense that no one was really listening to their concerns.

Following the hearing, many told The Journal they felt it was a done deal, with the Siting Council simply going through the motions.

They felt there was a condescending and rude attitude toward town residents and others who took part in the proceedings.

Much of that was due to confusion over how the process  works — although those who attended felt that the process was not adequately explained prior to or during the hearings.  

Most of the afternoon session’s allotted two hours was taken up by a special meeting of the Siting Council and a review of the application.

110-foot monopole

The current plan for the tower is essentially the same as the one presented informally to the town last year; it can be read in its entirety at the Siting Council’s website (ct.gov/csc).

It involves a 110-foot monopole with room for four additional cell service providers; a clearing for equipment and a parking area; and a long, winding road up the side of a steep hillside.

The public portion of the afternoon hearing July 20 began with an evidentiary hearing, during which concerns could be raised. Only First Selectman Gordon Ridgway had time to speak before the hearing was recessed, a half hour late, and council members headed to Kent for dinner.

Upon reconvening, comments from the general public were sought first. There were not many, but there was a five-page letter with a list of environmental concerns presented by Elaine LaBella, director of land protection for the Housatonic Valley Association.

Although she attempted to summarize her letter (as requested by Siting Council Chairman David Caruso), and though the letter will become part of the record, LaBella felt that there was technical information that  needed to be heard.

But she was interrupted time and again by Caruso, who hurried her along.

The plan — once public comment was completed — was to finish the evidentiary hearing. The interveners who testified thought they could speak as the public had. Instead, they were told they could only ask questions.

Many objections raised

Fred Thaler and Kathleen Mooney, whose home is just below the proposed tower site, struggled through it all, trying to figure out how they were supposed to present their concerns. Caruso frequently interrupted them. At times, concentrating on properly presenting their prepared statements, Thaler and Mooney were admonished for speaking over the chairman.

Other public comments included a plea for better cell service for emergency response purposes and the selection of a different site to protect the sensitive swamp and a vernal pool that Verizon noted exists below the site. An engineer described detailed measures planned to protect the pool from runoff.

Cornwall Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members are officially opposing the project because they say it violates zoning regulations. Driveways are not allowed to have a grade of more than 15 percent. Portions of the planned access road exceed 20 percent.

The Northwest Conservation District wrote a letter objecting to the construction plan. Soil Scientist Sean Hayden noted the soils there are rated “severe,†meaning “significant erosion is expected†and roads will need frequent maintenance and costly erosion control.

“As currently designed,†Hayden summarized, “this proposal is not environmentally compatible and will not be protective of the surrounding wetland and water resources.â€

Ridgway noted P&Z’s concerns, and also commented that the final design plan was not provided by Verizon until early that afternoon.

Ownership of roads there is a “legal gray area,†he added. Bell Road was once a town road, but is now “abandoned†— with easements for those who own property on it.

Ridgway said he did not believe an A2 survey had been done for the impacted area.

He also noted the potential for winds higher than the 80 mph for which the tower is rated. He asked if anyone on the council or with Verizon was aware the site was in the path of a tornado in 1989.

The very next day, as if Mother Nature was trying to punctuate his point, a confirmed tornado with winds of up to 100 mph touched down in Sharon and Cornwall before moving on to Litchfield.

All public documents and a continuing schedule for this process are available at ct.gov/csc. A transcript of the hearing will be provided for public viewing in town clerks’ offices in Cornwall and Sharon. Siting Council Executive Director Derek Phelps told The Journal copies will also be provided to those who request them by calling his office at 860-827-2935.