Westport rejects Masquesatch cell phone tower
Plan had angered and concerned residents for months; zoning board votes 4-1 against
Members of the Westport Zoning Board of Appeals on Wednesday evening overwhelmingly rejected a telecommunications company's request to build a 150-foot cell phone tower at 67 Masquesatch Road, voting 4 to 1 against the project that had galvanized much of lower Westport against it.
After more than an hour and a half of discussion, chairman Roger Menard, vice chairman Gerald Coutinho, Peter Borden and Constance Gee voted against a motion to approve brought to the table by Mr. Menard. Member Raymond Elias was the only member in favor of the plan, and Barbara Pontoillo was absent.
Members also voted later, to the same 4-1 count, to approve a findings of fact that gave nearly two dozen reasons why the plan presented by Municipal Communications LLC and its prospective leasee, AT&T, was inadequate.
"It was not an easy decision," Mr. Menard said following the vote. Still, members said throughout the meeting, the plan was wrong for Westport on many counts. Though it would have improved AT&T cell service in the area and other carriers would likely have used it to bolster their own service as well, members said the amount of zoning relief sought — a special use permit and five variances from zoning bylaws — was just too much.
Members also said they met stone walls whenever they asked company officials to consider other sites, lower heights and other factors that they believed could have mitigated the tower's visual impact on the historic area.
Mr. Menard said he was particularly concerned about what could happen if the tower ever suffered a catastrophic structural failure, as it would have been built just yards from Route 88 at Drift Road.
"It is an emergency evacuation route. One thing that you can't do is block an emergency evacuation route."
"I think what needs to stand up very clearly, was that there was just no willingness by the applicant to consider the board's suggestions on anything, really," added Ms. Gee.
The town tried, several members said. A host of property owners, including Tripps Marina and other private owners, had offered space for a smaller tower that some residents thought could be adequate for cellular coverage.
Yet, "I have to go back to the original concern, that is that we seem to be hamstrung by only one site within a quarter mile radius (of Drift and Masquesatch) as being even considered for this," Mr. Coutinho said.
"I just think that we have not had enough information. We have not had the engineering for different (height) levels and so forth. It's been, 'all or nothing.'"
Members said they were also disappointed that Municipal Communications, according to Ms. Gee, "adamantly refused" to listen to the board in early meetings, when members and residents asked for independent peer review to analyze the science and engineering data the firm provided.
"I asked ... at the very first meeting," Mr. Coutinho said. It was not until late in the game that Municipal relented and agreed to pay for a town-commissioned study on the application. That study, released about a month ago, determined overall that Municipal Communications did not include enough details and facts in its application to justify its request for five variances and a special use permit. It also did not include any information on changes in coverage that would have been brought by lower tower heights and the like, the report noted.
By then, "that only left us a couple of weeks," Mr. Coutinho said.
"I think that it's way too many variances ... without convincing me that it has to be there, without any consideration of any of these alternatives. And I think that's just wrong."
The only board member to speak in the project's favor was Mr. Elias, who at a recent meeting said that while he had questions, he tended to favor the plan as it would improve emergency communications in south Westport. Though he did not speak to that point Wednesday, he said prior to his vote that he had been impressed in recent days of Municipal Communications' work installing similar towers in the Atlanta, Ga. area, and at one golf course in particular.
"After looking at them I have to say, they don't look bad," he said. "You said check them out, so I did."
Only a few audience members were on hand for the vote, and while commenting on how the site would look once built, one responded indirectly to Mr. Elias:
"This is a historic area and not a Georgia golf course," said Betty Slade.
In recent meetings, board members have expressed concern that a possible rejection could put the town in legal jeopardy, as federal law gives telecommunications carriers wide leeway in establishing infrastructure where it's needed. Following the vote, members spent close to half an hour carefully reviewing a list of approximately 20 points that illustrate their reasons for the rejection.
By then, Mr. Corey had pulled out his chair, picked up his briefcase and walked out. He could not be reached early Thursday morning to comment on whether an appeal is forthcoming.
