Shoreline Cell Tower Restrictions Bill Gets Senate Approval

HARTFORD – State Sen. Ed Meyer (D-Guilford) and the entire Senate late today gave final approval to a bill which substantially changes the siting and approval process for cellular telephone towers–a particularly thorny issue for citizens in Branford and other shoreline communities.

“We have been under assault in my district with cell tower applications, and this bill, which I sponsored, is the direct result of those troubling and divisive applications,” Sen. Meyer said. “The shoreline delegation moved decisively to address this problem with legislation that will give communities more advance notice and a greater say in how and where these cell towers can be located.”

The bill comes on the heels of a recent series of bitter public debates regarding Amtrak’s proposal to install multiple cell phone towers in Branford, Guilford, Madison and other shoreline towns order to provide uninterrupted cell phone and Wi-Fi service on its trains.

Some of Amtrak’s proposed cell phone towers—which can be 170 feet tall or higher, equivalent to 20 stories—would be located in historic districts or in scenic shoreline neighborhoods. Residents opposed to Amtrak’s plans appeared at public hearings in Branford and Madison, complaining about the estimated, only 90-seconds of cell phone coverage that an additional tower would provide or about the effect such towers could have on a town’s image to potential home buyers. Sen. Meyer called the towers “visually obscene.”

HB 6250 changes the standard of review for power plants and telecommunications towers seeking a certificate from the state Siting Council. It requires that telecommunications tower developers begin consulting with potentially affected cities and towns 90 days –rather than 60 days–before applying for a state Siting Council certificate.

The bill also limits the circumstances in which the Siting Council can approve a tower proposed for installation near a school or commercial day care center. Under the bill, the council cannot approve a proposed tower located within 250 feet of these facilities unless the location is acceptable to the town’s chief elected official, or unless the council finds that the tower will not have a substantial adverse effect on “the aesthetics or scenic quality” of the neighborhood where they are located.

The bill requires the Siting Council to consider neighborhood concerns regarding the factors it must already take into account, including public safety. By law, the Siting Council can already deny an application for a tower if it finds that it would substantially affect the scenic quality of its site and that public safety concerns do not require that it be built there.

The new bill expands this authority to include cases where the tower would substantially affect the scenic quality of the surrounding neighborhood and where public safety concerns do not require that it be built at the proposed site.