Date: Fri 06-Dec-1996

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

ZBA-Sprint-cell-tower-lawsuit

Full Text:

ZBA Sued Over Cell Tower Approval

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

A South Main Street property owner has sued the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)

and a company over the ZBA's November decision to allow a company to build a

150-foot tall tower for digital cellular communications antennas next to the

property owner's land.

In the lawsuit filed in Danbury Superior Court, property owner Deborah

Schneider of Fairfield, who owns 350 South Main Street, sues over Sprint

Spectrum Limited Partnership's plans to build a freestanding, monopole-style

tower on adjacent land the company has leased at 352 South Main Street.

In the lawsuit, Ms Schneider claims that in granting Sprint Spectrum a

variance to the zoning regulations and a special permit it requested, the ZBA

acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of the discretion vested in it. The

suit alleges the ZBA granted Sprint a zoning variance without Sprint having

offered any evidence of a hardship or without the ZBA making any findings of a

hardship.

The lawsuit also claims that Sprint failed to offer evidence with respect to,

and the ZBA filed to determine whether the communications tower: would

substantially hurt property values in the neighborhood; was inconsistent with

the town's zoning regulations, and won't cause radio or television

interference in the vicinity. The plaintiff adds that Sprint failed to meet

the standards required for the issuance of a zoning variance and a special

permit.

The special permit granted by the ZBA would allow the company to build a

structure taller than 30 feet. The zoning variance would allow the company to

put a second land use on the eight-acre industrially-zoned property.

Ms Schneider claims that the communications tower planned by Sprint would

seriously hurt her use, enjoyment and value of her property.

In its application to the ZBA, Sprint stated it wasn't able to find a suitable

existing structure or building within the Newtown "cell" upon which build a

PCS tower and antenna array other than the Julian Enterprises site.

According to the company, building a tower and antenna array won't damage

adjoining property values, won't cause radio or television interference, and

won't damage the public's health or safety.

On November 6, the ZBA approved construction of a 150-foot-tall steel,

monopole-style tower for a nine-antenna array for digital cellular

communications. The system would provide communications for individuals,

businesses and emergency services located along Routes 6, 34, 25 and 302.

Sprint wants to build a freestanding tower in an M-5 Industrial zone on the

west side of South Main Street, south of Bear Hills Road, just north of the

Monroe border. The company wants to construct the tower to mount antennas for

its Personal Communications Services (PCS) wireless communications network.

The site is currently owned by Julian Enterprises. Sprint has reached an

agreement with Maureen Julian of Julian Enterprises to lease 1,600 square feet

of land. Access to the site would be provided by a gravel driveway connecting

it to South Main Street.

In 1995, Sprint purchased a Federal Communications Commission license to

provide its PCS network in Connecticut. The planned tower would be similar to

the antenna tower in Sandy Hook near Exit 11 of Interstate-84.

PCS is a wireless, digital communications system that transmits voice, data

and images via radio waves within large areas known as "cells." Such a

communications network is used for voice phones, pagers, answering machines,

faxes, modems, call waiting, caller ID, voice mail, and text messaging.

According to Sprint, its PCS network operates at higher radio frequencies and

lower radiated power outputs than previous cellular communications systems.

The installation of a tower and antenna array is especially intended to

improve the performance of hand-held wireless telephones.

The tower will have enough mast space on it to allow two additional

communications companies to build antenna arrays on it, according to Sprint.

The installation eventually may be equipped with an emergency generator to

provide electricity during extended power outages, according to the company.

"The design of the monopole (tower) and the character of the surrounding

landforms will greatly contribute to the lack of visibility within most of the

`viewshed,'" according to Sprint.

In recent years, public concerns have been expressed over whether people

living near radio transmitters face health risks.

"The proposed operation of the antenna on the site will have no impact on the

health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area or the community as a

whole," according to a Sprint study on the topic titled "Human Exposure to

Radio-Frequency Emissions."

The proposed tower won't require a special high visibility paint pattern or

lighting because it won't pose hazards to flying aircraft, Sprint states.

Ms Schneider is represented by Attorney Paul DeGenaro of Southport.

The town and Sprint Spectrum have until December 19 to respond to the

allegations made in the lawsuit.

Next HRRA Household Hazardous Waste Drop-Off Event Scheduled In Newtown

Genealogy Club's Next Program To Dig Into 'Dissecting A Civil War Pension Record'

Choral Society Planning ‘Voices Of America’ Performance

Newtown Earth Day Festival Was A Success

Local Fourth Grader To Host ‘Gaming For Change’ On May 16

The editorial took no position on the budget going up or down so you're reading things into the editorial that simply aren't there. The turnout is tied to the lack of passage, in that people who came out to vote last time did not this time, indicating a lack of support on their part. Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough, but that's what the editorial was driving at, people showing lack of support by not casting a vote. The editorial did address likely concerns among voters that may have led to lack of support and lack of turnout. This lower turnout also follows increasing turnout over the past four referendums in three years (meaning it is an aberration from that), and increased turnout is something that I do push for regularly in editorials. Any disappointment you might be seeing is at the break in that trend, not at whether the budget passed or not. I'd rather see more people come out and vote "no" then not vote at all.

Lower Turnout Results In Two Budget Defeats

Clearly, property owners no longer want to bear the burden of expenses while the state does not meet it’s responsibilities. Rising costs must be addressed by actions that do not include yearly increases of property owners’ taxes. The state of CT must meet its share of the educational costs, and other costs.

Town And School Budgets Fail At Referendum

This feels like an oddly misleading headline and narrative, particularly coming from the Editorial Board. The headline "Lower Turnout Results in Two Budget Defeats" pushes a misleading narrative regarding voter turnout, and then seeks to tie the outcome of the referendum to that misleading narrative. Sure, voter turn out for this year's referendum, 18%, was lower than last year's. However, last year's turnout, 25.4%, represented the highest turnout in the most recent 10 budget referendums. If you take the time to examine turnout percentages between 2017 and 2026 (2017: 19.9, 2018: 15.7, 2019: 17, 2020: 0, 2021: 8.98, 2022: 7.7, 2023: 8.8, 2024: 15.1/17.49, 2025: 25.4, 2026: 18), this year's turnout was actually the third highest in the past 10 cycles. Perhaps the headline of this article should say "Lower Voter Turnout Than Last Year", which is more accurate, rather than creating an impression that this year's turnout is some type of aberration - a narrative that the turnout numbers, in all their binary glory, simply do not support. Further, the headline of this article appears to tie the "lower turnout" to the defeated budgets. Sure, that could be true. But, perhaps, its more likely that Newtown residents are feeling the squeeze of multiple economic influences. In Newtown, we've experienced property revaluations and increased municipal spending. Eversource continues to raise rates. The state legislature gives PURA the authority to impose Public Benefit charges that benefit a tiny percentage of the public (and subsequently burdening the rest of us). At the national level, inflation has run rampant for years and many of those costs remain high to this day. In short, the data tells a far less dramatic—and far more honest—story than the headline suggests. This wasn’t an electorate vanishing in apathy; it was a fairly typical turnout delivering an verdict that, perhaps, some at the Editorial Board didn't like. At some point, it’s worth considering that residents aren’t confused, disengaged, or misled by turnout; they’re simply doing math at their kitchen tables and concluding that “no” is the only responsible answer left.

Enjoyed the forum which only confirmed my support for Brandon Moore as the Democratic candidate to run for the state representative position. Brandon Moore did not waiver about his duty to all the people, if elected, when an issue presents itself that requires that he voice a difference of opinion for the wellbeing of Newtown residents. If Michelle Ku’s 16 years have led to her loyalty being to other elected officials, as she implied, then Newtown is going to continue to witness actions that do not protect its residents. She could not unseat republican, Mitch Bolinsky, during a Blue Wave, and once again, will not do it now. Winning that seat is critical for all. That explains why her previous campaign committee now campaigns for Brandon Moore. It explains all the endorsements he has received from local elected democratic officials. It’s why we need Brandon Moore to be the democratic candidate to run for state representative.

Second Newtown DTC, League Of Women Voters Candidates Event Planned

Appreciated the opportunity to hear from both candidates as we were present for the College Dems forum but only heard from Brandon Moore. It was an opportunity to see who can unseat the Republican incumbent and there is no doubt that Brandon Moore should be the Democratic candidate. One concerned parent posed a question about discrimination unaddressed by the school district and interestingly enough, Michelle Ku, who proudly speaks of her Board membership years, said little, while Brandon Moore passionately addressed the issue along with his experience as an Apache Helicopter Commander. This family is supporting Brandon Moore. We need change and someone who is not afraid to disagree, especially about the rising costs of living in Newtown.

Log In

Date: Fri 06-Dec-1996

Leave a Reply Cancel reply