Date: Fri 13-Mar-1998

Publication: Bee

Author: CURT

Quick Words:

State-Legislature-towers

Full Text:

SOME TOWNS SEEKING MORE CONTROL OVER TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS

By Diane Scarponi

Associated Press

HARTFORD -- Ah, scenic Connecticut. The rolling hills, the postcard-perfect

greens, the stone walls covered with moss ... the stiletto telecommunication

towers topped with blinking lights.

Connecticut towns, long known for their stubborn independence, are sending a

signal to the General Assembly that they want more power to control the

placement of these towers.

Because federal law does not allow communities to ban telecommunications

towers, some are seeking passage of bills that would at least give them a

little more say over where they are erected.

One bill, set for a vote this week in the Planning and Development Committee,

gives communities the option of drafting their own zoning regulations for

these towers -- rather than relying on the Connecticut Siting Council do the

job.

"There isn't any question the visual pollution caused by (these) facilities is

significant in Connecticut and across the country," said Jefferson Davis,

D-Pomfret, committee co-chairman.

"The concern is the Siting Council doesn't have the sensitivity to local

aesthetic issues -- that their primary concern is the creation of a grid that

will meet the needs of the providers of these services," Mr Davis said.

Some lawmakers, including Davis, also can see the other side of the issue --

that small towns may not have the expertise to make decisions about these

complicated, technical towers.

That's also the argument of telecommunications companies, such as Bell

Atlantic Mobile and Southern New England Telecommunications, which say a

well-informed state office can ensure the most efficient system is built,

using the least number of towers.

But towns that have fought the towers say the issue of local control is a

sacred matter, as old as the hills where the towers are being erected.

"The state Siting Council is a dinosaur left over from when they were taking

things to ever higher and higher levels of government, and taking away from

local authority, which has our tax money behind them to protect us," said Lee

Smith, a who is fighting a tower proposal in his north Stamford neighborhood.

The General Assembly is considering this bill at a time when two mobile

telephone technologies are fighting for dominance: the cellular telephone

system vs. the newer-technology PCS system.

Complicating the matter is the federal government, which decided in the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 that communities cannot discriminate against

cellular telephone towers or enact regulations to completely zone them out.

The law has led to a hodgepodge of state regulations. The Siting Council

controls cellular telephone towers, but the jurisdiction of the new technology

PCS system is undecided. Right now, PCS decisions rest with town governments,

but companies are trying to bring these towers under the control of the

council, too.

Any town that wants to strike out against cellular towers could wind up in a

costly court battle.

That's been the experience of Farmington, where one case was decided against

the town and another case awaits a court ruling, said the town's planning

director, Jeffrey Ollendorf.

Telecommunications companies are also increasing the stakes, by threatening to

make towns reimburse their legal costs if they win, Ollendorf said.

"This is not a simple zoning thing. It puts another sword over our heads," Mr

Ollendorf said.

Rep. Janet Lockton of Greenwich, ranking Republican on the planning committee,

has proposed a bill to let communities decide whether they want to take on the

telecommunications companies or leave the decisions up to the state.

She said if communities want to take on the expense of such a responsibility,

they should be allowed to do it.

Bell Atlantic Mobile, which operates a cellular system, thinks the Siting

Council should continue to have jurisdiction because the towers are meant to

serve a region, not necessarily the towns where they are located, said David

Malko, director of engineering at Bell Atlantic's Wallingford headquarters.

"And it gets the industry out from under 169 different towns' ranging criteria

for the siting of these structures," Mr Malko said, adding that town control

"might not lead to an orderly, logical development of their networks."

The companies, he said, have shown they are sympathetic to community concerns.

Companies are trying to share facilities and install equipment in hidden

places, from church steeples and billboards to the tops of tall office

buildings.

Sprint, which sued Farmington over its rejection of a PCS tower, has also

filed a federal lawsuit to have it treated equally with cellular companies

such as Bell Atlantic. Sprint also thinks the Siting Council is the proper

agency to regulate these networks.

"They are the professionals. They are trained and they have experience, and

they're the only agency that can ensure (sharing of facilities)," said Ernest

Lindblad, Sprint's New England area vice president. "The state has a process

that takes out the emotion and deals with the facts."

Any bill would also have to pass the Energy and Technology Committee. The

committee's chairwomen raised several questions about the idea of giving

communities control over placement.

Such a step could end up putting an unfair burden on the towns, which do not

have the expertise to deal with towers, said Sen. Melodie Peters, D-Waterford.

Ms Peters also said if the state oversees where the towers go, they can

coordinate sites to minimize the number of towers that are needed.