A decision on the 150-foot cell tower proposed for a ridge in north central Ridgefield is expected from Connecticut Siting Council in mid-August.
“The public hearings have been closed, and briefs are being submitted, and a decision whether to move forward or not would be around the second week of August,” First Selectman Rudy Marconi said Tuesday morning.
Mr. Marconi, who supports the tower project as a means of improving cell coverage and potential emergency responses in northern parts of town, spoke to The Press after being updated on the project’s status by Ray Vergati of Homeland Towers, the firm that is seeking to build the tower.
The structure is proposed off Old Stagecoach and Aspen Ledges roads, on the ridge overlooking Ledges Road below.
Although approval of the tower isn’t certain, Mr. Marconi said he thought the Connecticut Siting Council — created to take the approval of communications towers out of the hands of local authorities — would likely support the plan in some from.
“I don’t know of too many that have not been approved,” he said.
“There’s no question the government is certainly pushing the installation of these towers, given the number of cell phones today, and how people rely on their cell phones.”
Attorney Keith Ainsworth, who represents Ridgefield Against the Cell Tower, the neighborhood group fighting the plan, also expects the council to act in a month or so.
“The siting council has told us they expect to issue a decision sometime in August, whether that’s early August, late August or maybe early September,” he said.
He also agreed that it seemed likely the siting council would approve a tower on the ridge — although he was hopeful that recommendations for limiting the visual impact would be given consideration.
“I think we’ve made some very cogent points about visibility and visual impact,” Mr. Ainsworth said.
“They had some questions about its impact, but I don’t get the sense the siting council is looking to deny this one,” he said.
“The real question’s whether they’ll require any stealthing elements, whether they can reconfigure the structure of the tower to lower its visual impact.”
While the tower structure is designed at 150 feet tall, he said, there are “whips” expected to be affixed to the top that would bring it up to 161 feet.
They are less substantial than the tower, but there are also 12-foot wide antenna platforms that are more visible.
“The point is, it’s a lot of visual mass at the top of this antenna. They talk about a pole, as if it’s a telephone pole. It’s much more than that — it’s a 12-foot wide mass, with a lot antennas and infrastructure hanging off it.
“If it was just like a large flagpole, it would kind of blend in.”
But it will have the 12-foot platforms, with eight-foot antenna clusters — and the whips, adding height.
“It would be a visual intrusion. These facilities, as most people are aware, they look industrial. That’s why they stick out.
“And this particular ridge has no other structures sticking out above the tree line, and there’s a very panoramic view,” he said.
“One of the things we tried to argue to the commission, you’ve got an unspoiled view and you’re putting a lot of infrastructure on it.”
Mr. Ainsworth said the tower as proposed was expected to be about 85 feet above the tree line.
“The trees are estimated to be 65 feet in the area, and this one is 150 — or 161 with the whips,” he said.
Other approaches are possible, although they would have involved acquiring additional sites.
“They could build three smaller towers which would be on wood poles, just above the tree line, and they could space them out so they’d cover the coverage area they’d need to — and those, being just above the tree line wouldn’t be visually intrusive.”
He thought it was a question of economics.
“While putting up a single tower is most cost effective for the company, because you have economies of scale, it’s the most visually intrusive way to do it,” he said.
First Selectman Marconi sees the tower more as a solution than a problem.
“From an emergency response point of view, which is how we look at it, it is critical that this tower be built, because there are many areas in the north end of the town, especially Ridgebury, that are without coverage,” Mr. Marconi said.
“And with well over 60% of our 911 calls coming from cell phones, that elevates the priority.
“Do I like the tower? No. No one likes to look at a skyline and see a tower. But, given our society today and the demands that we all have, we need to have this constructed,” he said.
“And that lesson was learned very clearly during the Irene and Sandy events, plus ‘snow-tober.’ ”
If the tower site is approved in August as anticipated, Mr. Marconi said, Homeland Towers would then proceed with getting specific construction plans reviewed and approved by state authorities, and then the town building department.
This could leading to possible construction of the tower in the winter.
“Expect tower construction between January and March of 2015, with an approximate timeline of 60 days to do the construction and have the tower up,” he said.
Mr. Vergati told Mr. Marconi that once the tower’s up, the next step would depend on the cell communications companies.
“It would be up to each of the carriers at that point to install their equipment on the tower, and he doesn’t have an anticipated timeline on that,” Mr. Marconi said.
“We’re looking at probably a year from today, on the outside, assuming it’s approved,” he said.
“If it’s not approved, then it’s back to the drawing board.”