By Thane Grauel

WESTPORT — Two possible sites to erect a 124-foot-tall cell tower off Greens Farms Road, reviewed by the Conservation Commission at a special meeting Monday, proved unpopular with most neighbors.

The original tower site at 92 Greens Farms Road, just under two acres zoned residential between the road and Interstate 95, was first proposed in 2014. That application, later withdrawn, sparked heavy opposition from neighbors, which reignited after the proposal was filed by Tarpon/AT&T late last summer.

A recently proposed alternate site at 55 Greens Farms Road, between an office complex and Assumption Cemetery, would have direct impact on 600 to 800 square feet of wetlands. The plan would have no impact on wetlands at 92 Greens Farms Road.

Both sites currently are under consideration for the tower, but the location at 55 Greens Farms drew greater concern from the commission because of the potential impact on wetlands.

State agency has final say on tower application

Local agencies, however, do not have the authority to approve or deny cell tower applications. The final decision will be made by the Connecticut Siting Council.

“I would like to make it clear the Connecticut Siting Council has exclusive jurisdiction over cellular wireless communication facilities,” Conservation Commission Chairwoman Anna Rycenga said during Monday’s Zoom meeting. “This commission is acting in an advisory capacity.”

The state agency will take into account Westport’s input, Town Attorney Ira Bloom said.

Wetlands issues cited at 55 Greens Farms Road

At 55 Greens Farms Road, the project would blaze a 600-foot-long, 12-foot-wide gravel road through what is now largely a wooded area. The road would cross a wetland area.

Dean Gustafson, a soil scientist working for the applicant, said that at 55 Greens Farms Road, there will be 10,000- to 12,000-square feet of activity within the town’s 75-foot upland review area, being near wetlands. 

“And there’s a requirement to cross a narrow portion of wetlands,” he said. “So, there will be direct wetlands impacts associated with this project.”

Trees will have to trimmed and some taken down, he said.

The residential site at 92 Greens Farms Road “will not result in any wetland impacts or impacts to the 100-year flood zone,” Gustafson said. “Only a portion of the proposed development, approximately 2,000 square feet, give or take, is located within the 75-foot upland review area.”

Rycenga said she found evaluating 55 Greens Farms Road challenging because there was no environmental assessment or wetlands inspection report.

“That should at the very least have accompanied the documentation that was submitted,” she said.

No tower on office building, landscaping pact

She asked if the tower could be put atop the office building at 55 Greens Farms.

Phil Pires, a Cohen & Wolf lawyer representing the applicant, said that was not viable, and that the northeast corner of the property is the only place the landowner would allow a tower to be erected.

Conservation Director Alicia Mozian said that in researching the 55 Greens Farms site, she found something that might complicate matters. 

“In 1979, in the court stipulated agreement for the building at 55 Greens Farms Road, there was a landscaping plan that had to be abided by,” she said. “According to that, in the area where you want to put the tower, it says that the existing woods are to remain.”

She said she’d have to talk with Bloom to see if the agreement is binding, or something else.

Most, but not all, neighbors opposed

Many neighbors of both properties sent emails to the Conservation Department opposing the proposed locations. Several people, however, sent emails in support.

Jeff Goldenberg of Valley Road opposed placing the tower at 55 Greens Farms because of potential worsening of flooding problems along the brook.

“We’ve been constantly having problems already with flow and backing up, especially with these new unprecedented storms,” he said. “I’m very concerned with any manipulation of the wetlands back there, that it’s just going to get worse.”

Scott Mikuszewski said he’s a direct neighbor of 92 Greens Farms, and that a cell tower should not be erected on residential lots.

“A tower of this nature is much [more] suited for a commercial lot than residential,” he said. “We found out about this months after closing on [our] home and it was very hard to hear this. Gut-wrenching, honestly.”

Leonard Ances, who lives on Guyer Road, adjacent to 55 Greens Farms, supported placing it there. 

“The reason I support the cell tower is because this area gets no cell signal, because of the hills around it,” he said. “So whenever there’s a power failure we’re totally out of communications once the landline and the Internet is gone. 

“I’m looking forward to someone putting up a cell tower someplace so we can maybe get a signal down here in the valley,” he added.

Review of proposals continued to future meeting

Commission members discussed whether to close the session and take a position in favor of one of the proposed sites, or to keep the review open for further discussion, perhaps with more information.

Several commission members said that while they sympathize with neighbors’ concerns, their decision must focus on the wetlands impact. A couple indicated no matter what information is received, it would be hard to disregard the significant impact a tower would have at 55 Greens Farms Road.

The commission decided it would keep open the special meeting, and discuss the matter again at 7 p.m. Feb. 28.

A public information meeting will be held at 7 p.m. Feb. 8 via Zoom to discuss the two proposed cell tower locations.