T O W E R   N E W S . . .


Weston's Tower One (aka "one ugly dude") and how the Town of Weston brought down the CT Siting Council...c.1998

Weston Tower Two:  pictures #1 and #2 from the FORUM;  #3 and #4, Town of Weston, right, from our collection of unofficial Town Plan photos:
 Tower History and Latest...

TOWER NEWS IN WESTON...OFFICIAL OPENING FOR TOWN FIRE DEPARTMENT- EMS...

Second Weston cell tower
Telecommunications tower is complete
Weston FORUM
by KIMBERLY DONNELLY
Jul 26, 2007
 
The new cell tower at the town transfer station is complete. 

It’s official: Weston is now a two-tower town.
 
Tom Landry, town administrator, announced last Thursday that the telecommunications tower at the town landfill site off Godfrey Road East is, “at long last,” complete, and that public safety officials were successfully using the emergency transmitting equipment at the top of the tower.

One of the main reasons for building another cell tower (there is also one located at town hall) was to improve reception for Weston’s emergency communication equipment, which did not work in all areas of town. New equipment has been placed in an optimum position at the top of the new tower.

Mr. Landry said the police will spend the next week or so checking and mapping the range of the new equipment, and checking to see if there are still any dead spots.

The 185-foot three-legged lattice tower was built on town property by Sprint at an estimated cost of about $260,000. The town, however, will take over ownership of it as soon as it receives a final accounting report and an independent inspection report.

In exchange for building the tower, Sprint’s rent — for placing its equipment on the tower — is to be abated until the company recoups the construction costs. Once it has recouped its costs, Sprint will pay $2,200 per month in rent to the town, a fee that will increase 3% annually.

Mr. Landry estimated it will be about six or seven years before Sprint gets its first bill, “but they will have paid for everything and given us ownership of the tower ... It’s definitely a great deal for us.”

Delays

The project, first proposed in the fall of 2005 and originally scheduled to be up and running more than a year ago, has been plagued by a string of delays from the outset.

One of the problems at the beginning of the process was that phone companies kept merging — the town would be on the verge of an agreement with one company when it would be bought out or merged with another, and negotiations would come to a halt.

Ultimately, in January 2006, the town signed a deal with Sprint, in which the phone company would build the tower but the town would own it.

The tower had to go through numerous approvals by the Connecticut Siting Council, which oversees the construction of all telecommunications towers in the state. Also, two easements — one granted to AT&T to run phone lines from the road to the tower, and a separate one allowing CL&P to lay electrical wires — had to be granted by Town Meeting, and each of those votes meant several weeks of procedural hoop-jumping.

When it came time to lay the phone lines in May, AT&T decided to subcontract the work, which meant it was well over a month after the easement had been granted before work even began on that final phase of construction.

Perhaps the most noteworthy delay on the project came last summer, when a deputy tribal historic preservation officer from the Narragansett Indian Tribal Nation walked the Weston cell tower site and determined blasting could not be used during construction.

The officer, Doug Harris, said after visiting the site he was confident it was an “area of significance” to Native Americans; he believed blasting would be inappropriate, both for spiritual reasons and because of the danger of dislodging a stone structure he found.

When digging the foundation for the tower, a mechanical hammer, like a jackhammer, had to be used instead of blasting, which added several weeks to the project.

Additional income

In addition to Sprint and the town’s emergency communication equipment, T-Mobile also has equipment located on the tower. They will pay rent to the town to the tune of $2,500 per month — but not for a while.

As part of T-Mobile’s agreement, for every month after December 2006 that the tower was not operational, T-Mobile gets a free month’s rent. However, the company is required to pay a “six-figure” (approximately $120,000, Mr. Landry said) attachment fee.

“That they do pay right away,” Mr. Landry said. “We should be getting a check very soon.”

The town has also “had conversations with” other communication companies, including Verizon and Cingular, regarding locating their equipment on the new tower, which would bring in additional revenue.

Even though Sprint was responsible for funding the construction costs of the tower itself, the town has had to put out some money for the project.

The emergency communication equipment cost several hundred thousand dollars, and a precast concrete building with an HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) system, built to house equipment and generators, cost about $20,000.

Some of the money to pay for these is coming from an insurance claim from last summer, when a lightning strike briefly rendered inoperable the town’s emergency equipment on the existing cell tower behind town hall.

Revenue from communication equipment located on the town hall tower is covering the rest of the cost for the town’s new emergency communication equipment, Mr. Landry said.

“The real issue for us is not really about getting revenue, but rather having the tower for our public safety equipment, because there [were] so many dead spots in town. The fact that we could do it for no cost is a bonus,” Mr. Landry said.

Despite the fact he has put in countless hours keeping track of the cell tower project, Mr. Landry gives full credit to Weston Police Sgt. Pat Daubert and Mike Leiberman, the town’s communication center supervisor, for overseeing and coordinating the purchase and installation of the emergency communication equipment — the reason behind building the tower in the first place.

“They really, in terms of making sure our equipment would work once it was on the tower, these are the guys who deserve all the credit,” Mr. Landry said.


Discovery stalls cell tower construction
By JEANNE HOFF
Hour Staff Writer

WESTON — A historic discovery at the construction site for the town's Sprint and Omnipoint T-Mobile cell tower, south of Devil's Den, has stalled the already delayed $250,000 project.

Dough Harris, deputy tribal historic preservation officer from the Narragansett Indian Tribal Nation, recently surveyed the ground where the tower is slated to be built and reportedly found a ceremonial stone structure that relates to ancient traditions in the area.

Harris, who toured the site with Sprint Project Supervisor Steven Florio, said because of the historic significance of the structure (located on the northeast portion of the land), instead of blasting in the area, Sprint officials would have to seek alternative measures of site preparation to minimize the level of disturbance.

"The site was said to be a tribal gathering," said Weston First Selectman Woody Bliss, "and they said blasting would be inappropriate." Although the Board of Selectmen approved financing for the project last December with the goal of having the tower fully operational and broadcasting by the end of July, a tribal historic preservation officer — as mandated under the National Historic Preservation Act — had yet to review the site until recently.

The National Historic Preservation Act allows federally recognized Native American tribes to have partial authority in a development that requires federal money or if a project might affect historic properties on tribal lands.

"Harris thought the use of dynamite might be inappropriate, but we can do other types of things like drilling to anchor the tower," Bliss said. "We want to be respectful, and we're going to be respectful to the Indian folks, and I'm sure we'll figure out a way to work it out ... Unfortunately, it's causing a delay to what our schedule was, but we're trying to work with everybody."

Sections of the cell tower, which will be built on Godfrey Road, come prefabricated and require assembly only. However, the structures have to be anchored to the bedrock.

In addition to the Board of Selectmen, Bliss said all other approvals are in place, though before Sprint can go forward with development, approval must now come from the tribal nation.

The cell tower will be paid for by Sprint and is expected to resolve the communication malfunction experienced by emergency personnel and drastically improve cell phone usage for residents that live on the north end of town.

The town sought to acquire a cell tower, roughly six years ago, after first responders brought it to the attention of the first selectman that Weston would need a second tower to improve information exchange.

The only cell tower in the town is owned by Omnipoint T-Mobile and located in the Town Hall complex,

"We're anxious to move ahead with the project," Bliss said. " I think this is somewhat of an unusual glitch, but I've learned that sometimes unusual glitches happen in projects."
SPRINT lease for new tower project (DISTRIBUTED ATJANUARY 5, 2006 Selectmen's meeting):
 
SUMMARY (from Town Att'y's office January 4)
Sprint will lease space (#3) at 174' level;  Sprint will pay $2200 per month increasing @3% annually;  Sprint will construct the tower (189') and related improvements (building, utilities, access);  Sprint's rent shall be abated until expenses recouped (@$260,000--more detail in contract);  town will pay for its own equipment - in 15 days from signing agreement process can start--3 months expected.  TOWN INDEMNIFIES SPRINT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS...
...at Planning and Zoning Commission, Monday, June 20th;  later...Board of Selectmen in Weston discussing a new tower (we think at the Transfer Station) November 17, 2005 in executive session...

P&Z
"Municipal Tower to be constructed at the site of the Town Transfer Station at Godfrey Road,"  come out and hear about and/or speak about the proposal and cell phone service in Town on June 20, 2005, in the Commission Room at Town Hall, Weston, CT at 8pm.   UPDATE:  Since the Public Hearing, it has been reported in the FORUM that this original location did not meet standards for tower construction because it was found that the ground was unsuitable for supporting a structure as weighty and of the proportions of a just-under 200 foot cellular three-legged tower.  Conditions of approval indicated that the Town did not have to return for another 8-24 report if the distance from the property line continued to hold at 300 feet.




News from elsewhere...

Firm trumpets 'less obtrusive' antenna plan
Greenwich TIME
By Hoa Nguyen
Published June 25 2006

An Illinois company wants small antennas and radio equipment strung along 20 miles of utility poles on the Merritt Parkway as part of a plan supporters say will improve cellular coverage without building new telecommunications towers.

"It generally is going to be aesthetically less obtrusive," said Ross Manire, chief executive officer of ClearLinx Network Corp., an Oakbrook Terrace, Ill.-based company that specializes in building "distributed antenna systems" -- which rely on a series of small antennas spread over a reception area. "The quality of the system is going to be of high quality."

The company has been shopping its idea to several land-use agencies in the area, including Greenwich, Stamford and Westport, and is expected to submit a formal application to the Connecticut Siting Council. If the company moves forward with its plans, the distributed antenna system would be the first one built in the state, according to officials.

Initial plans submitted to land-use departments suggest the company wants to place 29 antennas and 37 miles of fiber optic cable along existing utility poles on the Merritt Parkway between King Street at the New York border and Newtown Turnpike, which is just west of Exit 41 in Westport. Some of the visible pieces of equipment are antennas as small as 8-by-8 inches

ClearLinx said the distributed antenna system, which relies on the antennas and other equipment that either already exists or can be hidden in utility structures, will improve spotty cellular service along the parkway without new telecommunications towers.

Though some engineers said they are skeptical that the technology will be better than putting in a new tower, ClearLinx is winning support from cell tower opponents, including Greenwich residents who have hired lawyers and engineers to oppose construction of a new telecommunications tower at the Round Hill Community Church.

"The neighbors don't want it," said Elizabeth Galt Hirsch, a former church trustee who has fought to keep a tower from being built in that bucolic area of Round Hill Road.

Verizon Wireless wants to build two 115-foot towers in the backwoods of Round Hill Community Church and is expecting the siting council to issue a decision on the application as early as August. Hirsch and her lawyer tried to ask the siting council to delay issuing a decision until after ClearLinx's application is submitted and reviewed, saying neighbors prefer the distributed antenna system over the proposed towers.

Though Hirsch didn't succeed, her efforts led Verizon to meet with ClearLinx representatives on the proposed distributed antenna system. If ClearLinx were to build the system, it would have to strike a deal with wireless carriers such as Verizon, which in turn would use the distributed antennas to boost wireless service for its customers.

While Verizon engineers said they are open to evaluating ClearLinx's proposal, they will not abandon plans for the Round Hill towers, said Richard Enright, director of engineering for Verizon in New England

"I'm still pessimistic," he said. "I haven't been told what it will cost, what it will cover and how it mirrors our own proposal at Round Hill."

Verizon's proposed pair of towers would likely provide better service to a larger area than a distributed antenna system tailored specifically for the Merritt Parkway, Enright said.

"I need to know how comprehensive their design is," he said. "I've been faced with other (distributed antenna system) proposal in other places that didn't cover anywhere near as many square miles."

In addition, Verizon's proposal appears likely to receive approval and Enright said engineers have spent years researching the coverage problems and decided the tower was the best solution.

"As it stands, I don't see any downside with the Round Hill site," Enright said. "If we thought DAS was the answer, we would have designed our own and done it."

Manire, of ClearLinx, de-clined to say why the company is pursuing plans to build the distributed antenna system on the Merritt, though he said other wireless carriers have expressed interest in it.

Derek Phelps, the executive director of the Connecticut Siting Council, said that officials see a place for distributed antenna systems in the state, especially in residential areas and historic districts where there is no "suitable site for a macro tower."

"We have every reason to believe that it's a credible technology and we look forward to its application here in Connecticut," Phelps said.

County may restrict height of cell towers

By Jeff Switzer, Everett, WA Herald Writer
Published: Thursday, November 17, 2005

Future cell towers in Snohomish County could face strict new regulations capping their height and keeping them away from key bird habitats. Currently, there are no height limits for cell towers in unincorporated areas of the county. That could change under proposed rules, which, for the first time, would regulate cell towers.

"They're not huge changes, but they give the public more input," County Councilman John Koster said. Praise for the rules was mixed with criticism Wednesday during debate at a County Council meeting. No vote was taken, and debate is scheduled to resume Nov. 30.

"A lot of our input is reflected in the ordinance today," said Richard Busch, an attorney for Cingular Wireless. But Busch said Cingular objects to banning cell towers from being built within 1,000 feet of wetlands used as bird habitats.

"It would bring new sites to a stop in the county" and be a setback for cell phone companies, Busch said. County staff proposed the protection to prevent 51 bird species listed by the state from colliding with the towers, including eagles, herons, cormorants and loons. Towers on hillsides could be required to have blinking lights for airplanes. Those lights can attract the birds, senior county planner Rebecca Perkins said. Thurston County has similar restrictions for bird habitat, she said. Some local governments require that cell towers stay 164 to 1,600 feet away from key bird habitats, she said.

Cell towers built so far in the county have either been approved in-house by county staff or through conditional use permits. The proposed rules would require that almost all new towers go through a public review, Perkins said. However, new antennas added to existing towers would require only a building permit, she said. If approved, the rules would also encourage cell phone companies to build towers in industrial or commercial areas away from homes.

Rural residents urged the County Council to protect the character of rural areas and prohibit new cell towers.

"I'm not willing - nor should I be expected to - give up rural character for better cell service," said Jeff Scholl of Snohomish. Mike Myhre of Monroe encouraged the County Council to create a "fall zone" to protect nearby buildings in case a 180-foot tower falls over. In support, County Councilman Kirke Sievers introduced but withdrew such a restriction, pending more information in the next two weeks. Otherwise, new towers could be built within 50 feet of a property line.

There was no debate over capping the height at 180 feet in rural areas and 150 feet in urban growth areas near cities. Nor was there debate over requiring a 20-foot greenbelt of trees and landscaping around a cell tower and its equipment.