Dodgingtown Center—

Waldorf School Vows To Fight Cell Tower Proposal

By Andrew Gorosko

The trustees of a private school in Dodgingtown Center, which is located near the site where an industrial firm wants to erect a 150-foot-tall cellular telecommunications tower at 61 Dodgingtown Road, are opposing the tower project and say they will fight to keep it from happening.

Spokesman David Freedman, the treasurer of the board of trustees for the Housatonic Valley Waldorf School of 40 Dodgingtown Road, said May 4 that the site for the proposed cell tower is “a completely inappropriate location” to construct such a telecommunications facility, considering its proximity to the school. The school has about 100 students in kindergarten through grade 8, he said.

AT&T, doing business as New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC, of Rocky Hill, is proposing the construction of a freestanding monopole-style metallic tower. The tower would be built behind Dodgingtown Garage, a gasoline filling station and automotive repair facility.

Attempts to reach attorney Daniel Laub, who represents AT&T, for comment on the cell tower proposal were unsuccessful.

Mr Freedman, a Newtown resident who has two children attending the Waldorf School, said the school has hired an attorney to represent it in its opposition to the cell tower proposal.

“It’s particularly harmful to choose a site so near a school,” Mr Freedman said of AT&T’s proposed tower project.

The spokesman questioned the need for a cell tower in that particular location, saying that both he and his wife receive strong cellular signals in that area.

Constructing a cell tower there raises the issues of children’s health, considering the closeness of the school to a cell tower that would handle electronic communications signals, he said.

Also, the economic impact on the school would be “tremendous,” Mr Freedman said, noting that the presence of such a structure near the school would deter parents from enrolling their children at the Waldorf School, as well as potentially cause existing students to withdraw from the school.

Having a cell tower at 61 Dodgingtown Road would have negative economic effects on both the school and the community, he said.

“We are definitely fighting this [proposal] to the very end,” Mr Freedman said. “It’s just not the right place for it,” he added.

“We’re strongly opposed,” he said, adding that the school prefers that such a facility be built elsewhere, out of sight from the school.

Mr Freedman said he expects that AT&T will face “an uphill battle” in getting a cell tower approved for 61 Dodgingtown Road. The school is contacting legislators in seeking to prevent the construction project, he said.

A cell tower located near the school would be an eyesore and also would damage the school’s image and desirability as a place for children’s education, thus economically damaging the school, he noted.

Mr Freedman said the Waldorf School has received for its consideration a copy of a petition being circulated by a group residents who live near the 61 Dodgingtown Road site who oppose cell tower construction.

In a technical report submitted to the town, AT&T states that a new cell tower is needed to improve cellular communications in that area. The technical report states, in part, “A gap in reliable [cellular telecommunications] service exists…along Route 302, Brookwood Drive, Flat Swamp Road, and other local roads.” The proposed tower would be constructed so that antennas could be mounted on it to improve cellular service in the area, according to the firm.

As of the morning of May 5, AT&T had not yet submitted an expected application for the project to the Connecticut Siting Council, the state agency that is charged with reviewing such cell tower applications. Through its permit application, AT&T would seek a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a telecommunications facility.

George Benson, town director of planning and land use, said the town’s zoning regulations on cellular telecommunications towers would not allow the applicant to erect the structure it proposes at the location.

But, Mr Benson added, those local zoning regulations long ago were superseded by the authority of the siting council, which is the state agency that reviews cell tower construction applications.

Mr Benson observed of proposals to construct cell towers in residential areas, “No matter where you [want to] put it, you’re going to get opposition to it.”

He added that concerted opposition to a location for a cell tower is likely most effective when that opposition occurs before a firm submits a formal application to the siting council.

Quiet Protest

A group of Dodgingtown residents upset at the prospect of a 150-foot-tall cellular telecommunications tower being erected in their neighborhood lodged a quiet protest on April 30, across Dodgingtown Road from where the tower would be erected.

Those attending included William Hine, Christine Hine, Sylvianne Carbone, Michael Carbone, Holly Kocet, Joe Kocet, Fred Baumer, Diane Baumer, Robin Hickson, and Joan Rothfuss.

Holly Kocet noted that she has worked closely with the Baumers in spearheading local opposition to the cell tower proposal.

Ms Kocet of 2 Karen Boulevard said that approximately 200 people overall have signed petitions opposing the project. More than half of those petition signers live within a ten-mile radius of the cell tower site, she said. Some of those petition signers, who are from other parts of the country, put their names on an Internet-based petition.

The residents who have circulated petitions said they have three main concerns about having such a tower located nearby. They charge that such structures are unsightly in a residential area, would damage nearby property values, and would pose possible health risks to those nearby, especially children, in terms of the electromagnetic signals processed by the electronics equipment associated with cell towers.

The Dodgingtown cell tower opponents have sent letters to state and federal government officials registering their opposition to the project.

In a response to a letter from the Dodgingtown cell tower opponents, State Representative Christopher Lyddy wrote, in part, “We have every right to be concerned with the health and safety of our citizens, as well as the result of the siting of these towers can potentially have on the values of the homes near the tower…I will certainly continue to monitor this application and will voice my concerns when necessary.”

The representative adds that he has introduced a bill in the state legislature that addresses many of the concerns listed by Dodgingtown cell tower opponents.

After the siting council receives a cell tower application from AT&T, the council would schedule a public hearing on the matter. The first session of such a hearing would be held in Newtown, with any additional sessions held at the council’s offices in New Britain.

The site at 61 Dodgingtown Road lies in a B-1 (Business) zone. It is owned by Harold Dunleavy and John Dunleavy. The property holds an auto repair garage and gasoline filling station.

According to AT&T, 21 residences are located within 1,000 feet of the site, with the closest residence located about 250 feet away at 54 Dodgingtown Road.

In its technical report, AT&T states, “The proposed monopole will be seen year-round [from] 16 residences within the study area.” The report provides a set of statistics on the proposed tower’s visibility from various locations.

AT&T had considered three other possible locations in the Dodgingtown area for a cell tower, but dismissed them as being unsuitable to meet its telecommunications coverage goals.