Cell tower plan needs better data
Sherman residents have very real concerns about the proposed Coote Hill cell tower, and opponents to the tower site are equally concerned about the safety and welfare of the Sherman community. The characterization of opponents to this tower site as a group of people who do not care about reliable cell service and safety for south Sherman residents is disingenuous. We are south Sherman residents. There is not a single member of this group of opponents, SCRTS (Sherman Citizens for Responsible Telecommunication Sites), who is uncaring for the safety and welfare of their neighbors.
If the safety and welfare of Sherman residents is paramount, the most obvious, immediate solution would be to lease from the New Fairfield/Patterson tower. Albeit costly, this solution would not be forever. Telecommunications advance at quite a pace. Cell phones get better. Technology improves exponentially year to year. Cell towers don’t need to be as tall. Before we know it, cell towers will be obsolete as signals will be transmitted from much shorter transmission facilities and even satellites. Gov. Ned Lamont just announced a proposed bill aimed at providing all Connecticut residents with access to highspeed, wireless-supporting broadband internet by September 2022.
AT&T and Homeland Towers have submitted their own telecommunications study which is included in the application with the Siting Council. It shouldn’t need to be said that AT&T and Homeland Towers are telecommunications businesses — so an objective town (or private) study is absolutely necessary to protect our interests. Since Sherman has not updated the obsolete 2013 study (a study that had AT&T dropping Coote Hill to the bottom of the list of viable sites because is was the least optimal of the bunch), Coote Hill homeowners and SCRTS members are attempting to cobble together the funds for a telecommunications expert to represent all concerned Sherman residents themselves. Without an updated telecommunications study, we don’t have data supporting alternative sites which might be significantly better by offering greater coverage, and possibly a shorter, less obtrusive tower.
I’ve been told repeatedly that the majority of Sherman residents want this tower. I understand the need to get rid of dead zones and spotty service — to be better connected to emergency services when they are required. Everyone can agree on that. What proponents of the Coote Hill tower and Sherman representatives don’t mention in their letters, articles and interviews, are the options to this tower site. It’s as if Coote Hill is the last and only hope for cell service coverage in south Sherman. Homeland Towers has entered into a private deal with a Sherman resident who lives in a community of houses that share boundaries and fund and maintain the private Coote Hill Road to access their homes.
The folks that should get the major vote on this tower site are those who will be looking out of their windows at a 180 foot cell tower for the entirety of their remaining residency in Sherman. Homes that will feel the effects of the removal of 124-plus trees on Coote Hill which will undoubtedly have structural ramifications to properties downslope of the the tower as a result of runoff and erosion — not to mention the adverse ecological effects to the surrounding wetland. And those who value the historical, beautiful Lake Mauweehoo’s viewshed, which will certainly be blighted by a looming cell tower well above the tree line. None of these residents will be compensated for the disruption to their homes, property, views ... lives. Homeland Towers is not leasing their land.