Officials: Town needs cell tower
SHERMAN — While some residents are strongly opposed to the construction of a cell tower on Coote Hill Road, others in town — including local leaders — consider it vital.
Homeland Towers and AT&T are looking to build a wireless telecommunications facility at 16 Coote Hill Road, featuring a 170-foot tower with six antennas — one of which would be for municipal radio communications — to provide wireless communi
cation services to southern Sherman, where such coverage is currently lacking.
“It’s a dead zone down there,” First Selectman Don Lowe said, describing the lack of adequate coverage south of Cozier Hill and Leech Hollow roads.
The Coote Hill Road tower would give the south end of Sherman service that “most of the north end and other residents of Sherman have had for years,” Lowe said.
Not only is it “unfair” for one part of town to not have wireless coverage, Lowe said, but it’s unsafe.
According to Homeland and AT&T, the tower would provide reliable 4G LTE service to Routes 37 and 39, surrounding secondary roads, residences and other properties in southern Sherman, as well as address gaps in public safety emergency communications coverage in the area. Those opposed say the tower would disrupt scenery and have traffic-related concerns, among other issues.
Lowe said there have been a number of road-related incidents in the southern part of town after which people could not use their cell phones to call for help.
“We had an accident a couple of years ago off of Durgy Lane and Route 37 that was particularly troublesome,” he said. “People were unable to call for help and someone had to run to a nearby house to make the call.”
Lowe said lack of cell service in the south end of town has also affected police work.
“Our resident trooper told me that he stopped someone for speeding on Route 39 and, after pulling him over, realized he didn’t have any connectivity to do the kinds of things he needed to do — so he had to ask the fellow to drive forward until they got to a place where there was service,” he said.
Sherman’s volunteer fire chief, Chris Fuchs, said cell service is critically needed for both residents and first responders.
Not only does inadequate wireless coverage impact people’s ability to call for help, Fuchs said, but it creates difficulties for firefighters and other personnel responding to emergencies.
Sherman’s fire apparatus are equipped with iPads that rely on AT&T’s FirstNet service and which firefighters use when responding to calls, Fuchs said during a November public information forum on the proposed cell tower.
He said the software enables first responders to be more prepared before arriving at the scene of an emergency — but without cell service, none of it works.
“All of this is heavily reliant on cell service,” Fuchs said. “If we don’t have it, we can’t use it.”
Opposition vs. support
During the November forum, a few residents raised aesthetic, health and other concerns about the tower during the recent forum — but a majority said they support it for reasons ranging from safety to convenience and quality of life.
Last month, Lowe said about a dozen letters had been submitted by residents opposed to the tower — but the amount of those in favor remained “overwhelming.”
“There are a lot of people who want this to happen because it would be sort of a game-changer for them,” he said last week.
Lowe said cell tower proposals in the past were met with more opposition than the one currently proposed for Coote Hill Road.
“People look at cell towers differently than they did 10 or 12 years ago,” he said.
Homeland Towers regional manager Ray Vergati said he’s also noticed a change in attitudes toward cell towers over the last 20 years.
“It has become much more accepted,” he said. “I find that people and towns are much more in favor.”
There used to be more pushback from towns, Vergati said, but that’s changed with increasing reliance on cell service and its move from a convenience to “critical infrastructure.”
Vergati said the application Homeland and AT&T submitted to the Siting Council last Friday included letters and comments of both opposition and support for the project — all of which will be reviewed as part of the council’s decision-making process.
“There’s a tremendous amount
of material submitted into the application, and the Sitting Until weighs all of that,” he said. “They will weigh comments from the public — both pro and con — as well as comments from the town. They also look at all the materials to make sure we’ve done our homework and picked a good site. There’s a lot that goes into it.”
In his experience, Vergati said, the amount of opposition or support from residents doesn’t seem to play the largest role in whether or not a Siting Council approves a cell tower application.
“I’ve seen dockets where there’s more opposition to a site and the Siting Council approves the application. There have been times when support outweighs opposition and the council approves it,” he said. “It cuts both ways.”
Location
When it comes to cell tower sites, Vergati said he seeks out ones that will have the least visual impact — but there are also a number of other factors involved.
“I have to have an interested landlord, the site has to work for the carrier’s network and I have to have access to the site,” he said. “It’s a balancing act, and we know we can’t make everybody happy.”
Some Coote Hill area residents have raised concerns about the tower’s visibility from their homes. However, Vergati said balloon floats and visual reports show that views of the tower would be “almost nonexistent.”
“It’s really a great site because of where it’s located and how the terrain is,” he said.
Vergati said the owners of 16 Coote Hill Road agreed to lease land for the tower and will receive monthly payments from Homeland in return.
“That’s standard with any cell tower going on private or municipal property — the property owner receives a monthly rent,” he said.
The owners of 16 Coote Hill Road did not return a request for comment.