Proposed Millbrook cell tower draws public, tax concerns

WASHINGTON — On Tuesday night, April 1, the town of Washington Planning Board held a public forum at the Millbrook fire department to discuss an application by Homeland Towers of Danbury, Conn., which wishes to erect a 105-foot-tall cell phone tower within a 75-foot by 75-foot fenced-in area at 4377 Route 44. Representatives from Homeland Towers and the public each had an opportunity to voice their comments regarding the matter. Approximately 50 members of the public attended. Some brought with them hired professionals, who gave presentations to the board. The meeting lasted some three hours and 15 minutes. Other Planning Board businessBefore the Homeland Towers matter was discussed, however, two motions were both carried unanimously by the board. The first motion approved a donation of one acre by Christian Lang-​Assael to St. Peter’s cemetery that adjoins her parcel on the south. The second motion approved Scott and Alison Meyer conveying 15.94 acres from their existing 30.84-acre lot which will be merged with a 134.80-acre lot owned by Erich Mauff and Adele Griffin-​Watson. Land surveyor services were provided by Brian Houston of Bly and Houston LLP, Millbrook.Cell tower basicsThe cell phone tower discussion then commenced. One of the earliest speakers was Homeland Towers President Manny Vincente. Vincente brought up various features that a cell tower could provide such as:• Enhanced 911: tracing the location of the 911 caller to within a few feet.• Reverse 911: a system that allows the government to broadcast critical information and instructions to wireless phones in the event of an emergency.• Wireless Amber Alerts: an alert throughout your community when there is an abduction with information updates.• New phones geared toward children: they offer location, tracking, two button combination for 911, one-​touch dialing to parents and GPS tracking devices for additional safety.Tower impactsVincente went on to address the visual aspect of a 105-foot tower and presented to the public a printed handout that showed simulations of a mono-​pine style tower designed to resemble a pine tree. Other representatives for the company discussed environmental and wildlife issues and the negligible impact they believed a tower would have. One example presented was the noise predicted to be generated by the tower, estimated to be approximately 24 DBA (“A” weighted decibels). To put this environmental noise measurement figure into context, typically the quiet needed in a recording sound studio is about 20 DBA and quiet rural nights are generally observed to be around 30 DBA. (Figures quoted from www.dot.ca.gov/dist2/projects/sixer/loud.pdf.) Tower detailsPlanning Board member Paul Schwartz questioned why the tower needed to be 105 feet tall, when there seemed to be industry evidence that a 75-foot-tall tower would suffice. It was agreed that Homeland Towers would be given until May 6 (the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting) to fully respond. Homeland Towers provided the following specific measurements regarding the proposed project: • Tower height: 105 feet • Tower pad: 2 feet by 25 feet• Equipment shelter: 12 feet by 28 feet• Generator: 11 feet by 5 feet• Access road, unpavedMillbrook School in the mixOne of the more pointed remarks made by the consultant put forth the argument that Homeland Towers was not so much interested in providing service to town of Washington consumers but really had its sights set on Millbrook School, a coeducational high school of 210 boarding and day students (possible cell phone customers) located in the town of Stanford. It was around this time in the evening that a round of applause broke out among the public spectators. Indeed, while much of the meeting seemed to focus on the visual impact the tower might create, there was also a concurrent discussion that centered on the dollars and cents of the matter.One area not touched on regarding the Millbrook School was while it is true that the actual school is located in Stanford, many of its employees do live in Washington. One might easily argue a technological boon to a major employer in the area could only help Washington and its residents. Tax impactsPaula Redmond, a local Millbrook Realtor, presented some specific data. She gave the land circling the proposed tower location a general assessed value of approximately $52 million, generating around $800,000 in tax revenue. Her opinion was that a cell tower would lower the value of the property thereby lowering tax revenue. The flyerOf course, determining exact consequences of infrastructure development is not an exact science nor are the consequences solely economic, hence the public debate. Things got a bit dramatic when Washington resident Alec Pandaleon rose and aired his views. One was his opinion of a flyer he received in his mailbox. The flyer’s headline “Do you want this in historic Millbrook?” showed a photograph of a wooded hillside with a cell tower superimposed, with: “Let your voice be heard at the next Town Planning Board Meeting …” in writing. Pandaleon’s displeasure focused not so much on what the flyer had to say, but the fact that the flyer did not identify who sent it. He said that if its creator(s) couldn’t take ownership, then its value was negligible, at which point he tore the flyer into pieces. Before the meeting adjourned, this reporter stood and asked if the creators of the mysterious flyer would identify themselves, upon which time Claudia and Jonathan Heunis, Millbrook residents, eagerly raised their hands and declared that they had sent the flyer out. Ms. Heunis later discussed the issue of the flyer privately. She explained that she felt that identification of an individual or a group attached to the flyer would have predisposed segments of the community whether to attend the meeting. By keeping the flyer “resident neutral” she hoped residents from both sides of the issue would attend the meeting and get involved.