CSC: DO 253 Opinion
Opinions

DOCKET NO. 253 - AT&T Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Wireless application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for the construction, maintenance and operation of a wireless telecommunications facility at 151 Young Street or 162 Young Street, East Hampton, Connecticut.

}

 

}

 

}

 

 

Connecticut

 

Siting

 

Council

 

October 29, 2003

 

 

Opinion

 

 

On April 17, 2003, AT&T Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Wireless (AT&T) applied to the Connecticut Siting Council (Council) for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (Certificate) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a wireless telecommunications facility at 151 Young Street (Site A) or 162 Young Street (Site B), East Hampton, Connecticut.  The purpose of the proposed facility is to provide wireless telecommunications service to Route 196 in south central East Hampton. 

 

The public need for wireless telephone facilities has been determined both by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 which has declared a general public need for wireless service, established a market structure for system development, and developed technical standards that have restricted the design of facilities. These pre-emptive determinations by the FCC have resulted in a system of numerous wireless telecommunications facilities in nearly all areas of the country.  Connecticut State law directs the Council to balance the need for development of proposed cellular telecommunications facilities with the need to protect the environment, including public health and safety.

 

Proposed Site A consists of a 150-foot monopole within a 26-acre parcel owned by Kim and Kevin Kiley used as residential property.  Although a 120-foot facility at Site A would provide adequate coverage to the target service area, AT&T is presenting a higher tower for consideration to allow for a greater opportunity for tower sharing.  Development of Site A would require the removal of three trees and is located 1,900 feet from a watercourse.  The access road and tower site is in an open area.  Bands of trees provide screening to residences north and south of the site.  Six residences within 1,000 feet of the site would have year-round views of the tower.

 

Proposed Site B consists of 198-foot monopole on an undeveloped 109-acre parcel owned by Gail Sherman.  The property is mostly wooded but does contain an open field area that abuts a neighboring residence to the south.  Bands of trees provide screening to residences west of the tower site.  Four residences within 1,000 feet of the site would have year-round views of the site.  The access road generally follows an existing woods road and is in close proximity to a Town designated 100-foot wetland buffer zone for most of its length.  The nearest wetland from the tower site is 170 feet to the east.  Twenty-one trees would be removed to develop the site.

 

Although the area in the vicinity of the sites is rural, six residences on Route 198 and Quiet Woods Road would have year-round views of the Site A tower and four residences on Route 198 would have views of the Site B tower.  Both towers would also be visible for three tenths of a mile of Route 198 in the vicinity of the sites.

 

After considering both proposed sites, the Council finds Site A preferable.  Site A would require less clearing and is more remote from wetland areas than Site B.  Although visibility of the two sites is similar, the Council believes Site A offers slightly more vegetative screening than Site B.  The Council is aware that the Town’s Planning and Zoning Commission prefers a stealth monopole design and the Site B location since the Commission believes Site B offers superior coverage.  After reviewing the record in this proceeding the Council determined that Site A offers superior coverage and could do so at a much shorter height than the 198-foot monopole proposed for Site B.  The Council therefore will approve the Site A tower at a height of 120 feet with a foundation sufficient to accommodate a height of 150 feet for potential future carriers.  In addition the Council will order all antennas installed at the facility to be flush mounted or installed on T-arm mounts.  The Council will also require AT&T to present various stealth designs for inclusion in the Development and Management Plan for this facility. 

 

Radio frequency power density levels at the base of the proposed tower will be well below federal and state standards for the frequencies used by wireless companies.  If federal or state standards change, the Council will require that the facility be brought into compliance with such standards.  The Council will require that the power densities be remodeled in the event other carriers locate at this facility.

 

Based on the record in this proceeding, the Council finds that the effects associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facility at proposed Site A, including effects on the natural environment; ecological integrity and balance; public health and safety; scenic, historic, and recreational values; forests and parks; air and water purity; and fish and wildlife are not disproportionate either alone or cumulatively with other effects when compared to need, are not in conflict with policies of the State concerning such effects, and are not sufficient reason to deny this application.  Therefore, the Council will issue a Certificate for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 120-foot monopole telecommunications facility at Site A, 151 Young Street, East Hampton, Connecticut and deny the certification of Site B.



Content Last Modified on 12/22/2003 7:45:34 AM