TOWER ONE - TOWN HALL-FIRE DEPARTMENT
P. Gary, photo, from Town Plan 2000
Tower News...
Board of Selectmen entertains idea of tower three by AT&T at Morehouse Farm Park

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

BY 2010:  Contract for AT&T and Cingular are OK'd to be added to tower two - brings revenue to the town!  Repeater mentioned above for Fire Dept./EMS to be at new Lyons Plain fire station (r.).

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:
 WESTON 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.




RTM passes cell tower restriction near schools
By Neil Vigdor, Greenwich TIME Staff Writer
Published: 07:29 a.m., Tuesday, March 9, 2010

A resolution aimed at deterring the placement of cell towers within 1,500 feet of accredited schools in Greenwich was adopted late Monday night by the Representative Town Meeting.

Three-and-a-half hours after coming to order at Central Middle School, the legislative body voted 124 to 29 in favor of the resolution, with 13 abstentions.  Though the resolution isn't legally binding, its proponents said it was critical for the town to take a stand against locating telecommunications equipment near schools for safety reasons.  The safety measure was borne out of a controversial T-Mobile plan to build a cell tower on a private property next to North Mianus School.

"You have an opportunity tonight to send a very clean and clear message," said Peter Sherr, a school board member and North Mianus parent.

Crafted by the District 12/Havemeyer delegation, which represents North Mianus, the resolution was one of the last items on a jam-packed legislative agenda. The issue drew a number of parents and child safety advocates, some toting bumper stickers saying "No Cell Towers Near Our Schools" and maps, to the marathon session.  First Selectman Peter Tesei addressed the assembly, announcing that the town is forming a task force to look at the broader issue of cell tower siting.

Town officials worked with T-Mobile to identify a small plot of land at the Montgomery Pinetum nature preserve after the wireless carrier's initial proposal to erect an 80-foot tower in the form of a flagpole on Palmer Hill Road next to North Mianus School ran into overwhelming opposition last spring and summer from parents and other residents, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission.  But open space advocates and homeowners have argued that the construction of a cell tower on the property betrays the sanctity of the land, which was given to the town as a gift by Col. Robert Montgomery in 1953.

The 91-acre preserve and park, which is rich in hemlocks and in a watershed, was never intended for a commercial project, they said.  If the Pinetum site runs into resistance, however, the fear in North Mianus is that T-Mobile could resume its original proposal, which would go to the Connecticut Siting Council for ultimate approval. Peter Berg, chairman of the RTM Land Use Committee and a member of the District 8/Cos Cob delegation, said it is a shame that wireless companies can get between neighborhoods.

It shouldn't be a matter of children versus trees, he said.

"It doesn't have to be either," Berg said. "The villain here is T-Mobile."

Some residents advocated for the town to take a much broader-based approach to the issue of cell tower construction.

"I don't necessarily think drawing circles around schools is a way to make this decision," said Matt Armstrong, a former RTM member from Cos Cob.

The legislative body's second meeting of the new term opened as dramatically as it ended.  The head of RTM lashed out when his authority to cast tie-breaking votes on legislative business, including the election of officers, was called into question by rank-and-file members.  RTM Moderator Thomas Byrne said it was his prerogative to break a tie in January's vote for moderator pro tempore won by incumbent Joan Caldwell over Paul Curtis 100 to 99 with one abstention.

"The rules of the RTM were precislely followed," Byrne said. "There was nothing improper."

But when several members tried to amend the legislative body's minutes from the January meeting to reflect that Byrne cast the tie-breaker, things got testy.  Christopher von Keyserling, a District 8/Cos Cob delegate and RTM Appointments Committee chairman, appeared to get under Byrne's skin when he suggested that he recuse himself as moderator during a discussion of the controversial vote.

"I'm wondering if you want to come down and join me in the debate," said von Keyserling, who has had run-ins with Byrne over the years.

The hostilities boiled over when von Keyserling challenged a legal opinion from Town Attorney John Wayne Fox clearing Byrne of impropriety.

"I am not recognizing you, Mr. von Keyserling," Byrne said. "Excuse me, Mr. von Keyserling, you do not have the floor."

Byrne argued that the legislative body's rules and Robert's Rules of Order allow for the presiding officer of such an assembly to vote last if needed to break a tie.  Other than those special circumstances, Byrne has said he rarely votes on the business of the RTM because he does not want to influence the outcome.  Normally, the RTM's 12 district chairmen circulate voting cards among their delegation or fill out the card based on a thumbs up or thumbs down from individual members.

The cards are then brought to the podium for the town clerk or her assistant, who tally and share the results with the moderator, who reads them to the rest of the body.  Byrne maintains that any RTM member can vote right up until the moderator announces the result.

The moderator pro tempore is responsible for presiding over meetings of the 230-member legislative body when the moderator is absent, preparing official documents and background materials and acting as a go-between among committee chairmen.  Byrne's harangue preceded brief discussion of a proposed rule change, brought by Curtis' home district, seeking to close the voting when the cards are turned in.

The RTM voted 144 to 46, with three abstentions, to refer the proposal back to the Legislative and Rules Committee so it could look at the overall issue of voting.
Cos Cob parents stage rail station rally against cell towers
By Colin Gustafson, Greenwich TIME Staff Writer
Published: 09:50 p.m., Thursday, February 18, 2010

Greenwich state legislators are proposing a bill that would prohibit building cell towers within 750 feet of a school or day care, but some parents say that distance isn't far enough to ensure their kids' safety.

Cat Rock Road resident Wayne Jervis believes telecommunication companies should not be allowed to build the towers within an entire mile of a school, saying children's health could be at risk from tower transmissions up to more than 5,000 feet away.

Jervis and several neighbors asked commuters at the Cos Cob rail station Thursday morning to sign a petition supporting their push for greater distances between towers and schools, day cares and elderly homes.

Jervis said the group collected more than 100 signatures.

He believes the 750-foot measure -- proposed by Rep. Fred Camillo, R-151st District, and supported by fellow Reps. Livvy Floren, R-149th District, and Lile Gibbons, R-150th District, as well as Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-36th, -- does not go far enough.

"It addresses the visual impact (of having a cell tower) on the horizon, but it doesn't really address the true health concerns," said Jervis, who cited studies showing a higher risk of health problems due to long-term exposure to the electromagnetic radiation from towers as far as a mile away. The parents' effort Thursday comes as some residents continue to rally against a plan by telecom giant T-Mobile to erect a more than 150-foot-tall cell phone tower at one of a half-dozen proposed sites in Greenwich.

Last year the company's proposal to build a tower in the form of an 80-foot flagpole at 328 Palmer Hill Road drew the ire of neighbors and parents of children attending nearby North Mianus School, who raised concerns about potential adverse health effects of phone transmissions from the tower.

Faced with that uproar, T-Mobile worked with the town to look at other sites, including Montgomery Pinetum, 129 Bible St., but this plan sparked anger from residents there who also opposed the tower.

Allowing T-Mobile to build at a site bordering the Pinetum -- the land owned by the Cos Cob Archers at 205 Bible St. -- has recently emerged as another possibility that has drawn tentative support from First Selectman Peter Tesei.

But even this idea is drawing criticism from parents like Jervis, who noted that at least two schools -- North Street and North Mianus -- fall within roughly a one-mile radius of the archers club.

Cat Rock Road resident Brian Feurtado, who helped gather commuters' signatures Thursday, does not believe a new cell tower is needed in that area, saying the coverage is already adequate.

"I don't know why we have to put people's health at risk when we have coverage," he said. "We don't want to radiate our children."

"Seven-hundred-and-fifty feet is kind of a hand wave," Jervis said of the 750-foot rule being proposed by state legislators. "If it's not for children's health, why are they wasting the ink on the paper?"

Frantz said 750 feet was the longest distance he and other supporters believed they could propose to have a chance of getting a hearing for their bill from colleagues in Hartford.

He said the bill is almost certain to face scrutiny from lawmakers concerned about violating the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. That law prohibits any state or local agency from regulating telecommunications towers on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.

"I have to believe in my own personal judgment that there is no way (a one-mile requirement) would be (considered) permissible, because it would effectively put out of business cell phone providers," said Frantz. "You're better off trying to use a realistic number to get a realistic distance."

Frantz also said there could be an argument to be made for keeping towers at a safe distance to minimize topple hazards.

Gibbons said she, too, believes Greenwich's delegation to the state legislature would get behind a bill calling for a greater distance if members believed it stood a chance of being considered.

A message for comment was left Thursday for Jane Builder, a senior manager of external affairs for T-Mobile.
News from elsewhere...

Does Electromagnetic Radiation In Cellphones Put Us At Risk For Brain Tumors?
Los Angeles Times
Story By DAVID LAZARUS
September 13, 2009
 
People have asked for years whether cellphones can cause brain tumors. And for years the wireless industry has been telling us not to worry.

So that's settled, right? Maybe not.

A group called the International EMF Collaborative issued a report recently warning that cellphones might be more dangerous than users have been led to believe.  The report, titled "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern," says the latest research indicates that regular use of cellphones can result in a "significant" risk of brain tumors. It also says children are at greater risk than adults because their still-developing brain cells are more vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation.

"Cellphones are causing brain tumors," says Lloyd Morgan, the lead author of the report. "Industry-backed studies try to hide that fact. But if you read them carefully, you can see there are risks."

The potential risks of cellphone use have been debated for years. A number of reputable organizations, including the World Health Organization and the National Cancer Institute, say there's no conclusive evidence that using a cellphone is harmful. But many consumer advocates, along with health officials, say the jury's still out.  They say more data are needed. They are awaiting the results of a 13-nation study begun almost a decade ago that was intended to settle the matter of cellphone safety. That study, dubbed Interphone, has been held up for years by squabbling among researchers over how to interpret the data. Some say the findings show a clear link between long-term cellphone use and brain tumors. Others say no such link is evident.

The $24 million Interphone study was funded in part by the wireless industry, which some say has been pressuring researchers to soft-pedal some of the report's more troublesome findings, such as indications that using a cellphone for more than 10 years might increase your cancer risk.  The National Cancer Institute says incidence and mortality rates for brain cancer have remained relatively steady for the past decade. But according to the Illinois-based Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, the leading database of brain cancer cases, there has been an increase in some types of tumors.

Carol Kruchko, president of the nonprofit registry, says scientists are still trying to determine the reason for the increase. She said the question of whether cellphones may be to blame is "controversial" and that more research is necessary.  CTIA-The Wireless Association, a U.S. industry group, insists that cellphones pose no danger to users.

"The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk," says John Walls, a spokesman for the association. "In addition, there is no known mechanism for microwave energy within the limits established by the FCC to cause any adverse health effects."

But Morgan, 67, a retired electronics engineer living in Berkeley, Calif., scoffs at this position. "What does 'no known mechanism' imply?" he asks. "That's an anti-scientific statement on its face. All it means is that we don't know."

Morgan is a member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, a group of scientists and engineers who focus on the effects of electromagnetic fields. He described the International EMF Collaborative as a collection of advocacy groups concerned about electromagnetic radiation.  No outside funding was received for the collaborative's report.  Morgan says the wireless industry and skeptics of cellphone dangers base their claims on research showing that radiation emitted by handsets is too weak to heat tissue in the head and cause tumors.

"But what about nonthermal, biological effects resulting from electromagnetic radiation?" he asks.

Morgan said electromagnetic fields are routinely used to repair bone fractures. Like cellphone radiation, these fields are too weak to heat tissue. "That tells you that there is also a nonthermal, biological effect from this energy," Morgan says.

The National Cancer Institute seems to acknowledge this possibility when it says on its website that "more research is needed to determine what effects, if any, low-level non-ionizing RF [radio-frequency] energy has on the body and whether it poses a health danger."

Similarly, the WHO says that "there are gaps in knowledge that have been identified for further research to better assess health risks."

One conclusion consistent to nearly every report is that there is a higher risk of brain tumors for people who use a cellphone for at least 10 years and who hold it on the same side of their head.

For Morgan, that finding is enough. "That means cellphones are causing brain tumors," he says. "End of story."

Critics of that conclusion say more time is needed to see if this is indeed the case or some odd statistical quirk. They also say the national reports must be correlated to determine whether the findings hold up on a global basis.  The one thing we know for sure is that no one knows for sure about the potential danger of cellphones. But why take chances?

Dr. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, sent a memo to his staff last year urging them to limit cellphone use and to keep handsets away from their heads whenever possible. Herberman is one of more than 40 scientists and officials from 14 countries who have endorsed Morgan's report.

Morgan says he doesn't think the world's 4 billion cellphones will be banned any time soon; they're too convenient. But he thinks speakers should be removed from handsets, requiring people to listen through earplugs and thus keep the phone away from their head.

Morgan also would borrow from cigarette packs and include a warning on all cellphones that long-term use can be hazardous to your health.

"Not everyone who smokes three packs a day gets lung cancer," he says. "Not everyone who uses a cellphone will get brain cancer. But everyone who does is at higher risk."

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

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.

 
Port looks at cell tower above beach
By JEFF VANDERFORD, South Whidbey Record Sports, Port of S. Whidbey
Dec 11 2009, 4:39 PM · UPDATED

FREELAND — Port of South Whidbey commissioners will evaluate a proposal for placing a cellular tower on the hill above Possession Beach Waterfront Park.

Port manager Ed Field told commissioners that AT&T wants to construct and operate a facility that will serve Whidbey Island.

That’s a switch from previous proposals, he added.

“Unlike requests from other cell-phone carriers, AT&T said that the tower would primarily serve South Whidbey,” Field said.

Outgoing Port Commissioner Rolf Seitle noted that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before such an idea can be accepted.

“We need to know the footprint, any clearing needed and required access to the site,” he said. “But overall, it’s a good idea that can generate income.”

Port Commissioner Geoff Tapert agreed.

“Possession Point has a 400-foot hill which is a prime location,” he said. “We’re interested but need to know more, and a presentation from them on the details.”

Port Commissioner Curt Gordon noted that, after the cell tower is built, other carriers will likely want to use the tower.

“Any agreement we make with AT&T would have to take that into consideration, so that as the company’s income rose, so would ours,” Gordon said. “We need to know more.”

AT&T’s initial proposal is for a lease-option to run for five years, with periodic renewal terms over the next 25 years. The lease rate for the initial term would be $750 per month with a 15-percent increase every five years.

AT&T would make a one-time payment of $1,000, which would allow AT&T to get approval of all of its required permits. The facility would need to be approved by both the Island County planning department and the Federal Communications Commission, an effort some say would take six months.

The lease area would be approximately 40 feet by 40 feet. A six-foot cedar fence would be placed around the facility. The 40-foot-high tower can be painted to match existing tree color, and only the top 10 percent of the tower would be seen above the treeline, said site acquisition specialist Steven Berke.

The diameter of the top of the tower would be approximately 2 feet, making the facility almost non-detectable from anyone's view and there would need to be an access route to the tower site, said Berke, whose company searches for cell tower sites.

“A power line and phone line would be buried underneath the access route,” he said. “Once the tower is built, AT&T would visit the site approximately once every two months to perform routine maintenance.”

Berke added that the facility would provide wireless phone service, emergency 911 services and high-speed broadband Internet access for boaters and homeowners in the area.

Port commissioners instructed port staff to arrange a presentation by Berke as soon as possible.

The port’s next meeting is 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 12 at a location to be determined.