Controversial Cell Tower Moves Forward

The cell tower planned for 92 Greens Farms Road moves one step closer to reality next Tuesday.

According to a news release from 1st Selectman Jim Marpe, a “balloon float” test is scheduled for June 3.

Marpe added:

While the formal application to the Connecticut Siting Council has not been filed, nor has the required technical report been submitted to the town, North Atlantic Towers apparently intends to do this preliminary balloon test. I was surprised and disappointed to receive this announcement. I have been in touch with a representative from AT&T, and he was unaware of this particular test.

Working with the neighbors, I will still be pressing AT&T and North Atlantic Towers to pursue other locations and technologies that are better suited for the town and this neighborhood.

Marpe’s press release quoted attorney Julie D. Kohler of Cohen and Wolf, representative of North Atlantic Towers. She said they would float 2 balloons. One is 110 feet high (the height AT&T needs).

The other is 150 feet. That provides “a focal point well above tree line and other obstructions during the field reconnaissance so we can locate the site in those areas where the 110 foot balloon may be at or slightly above/below the canopy (particularly helpful this time of year).”

Whatever that means.

The cell tower is planned for the house on the left: 92 Greens Farms Road. (Photo courtesy of Google Maps)

The cell tower is planned for the house on the left: 92 Greens Farms Road. (Photo courtesy of Google Maps)


12 responses to “Controversial Cell Tower Moves Forward

  1. Sandy Soennichsen

    Do the owners of the house want it on their property? As I understand it, one can get a goodly sum of money for allowing it on one’s property. That was also the case for the tower closer to the Greens Farms RR Station where we, and the town, were suggesting an alternate site, like just above the upper parking lot at the station, on town property. The tower wound up anyway on a piece of Sherwood property that couldn’t be used for anything, not building, nothing, squeezed between the RR and I95; and as I recall it was a very nice piece of change he was getting for a number of years, around 25,000 per year.

    • Elizabeth Thibault

      I believe I previously read it was up to $10k a month… in which case, it could easily pay for the mortgage on this property and an alternative location. This is a significant difference in amounts, so if anyone else can verify which is more likely accurate, it’d be appreciated.

    • Ellen van Dorsten

      There is a tower behind Walgreens/Sherwood. What is the capacity usage currently at that tower?? If unused capacity exists within a certain mile radius then the state should not be able to justify putting another new tower SO CLOSE to an established tower. The only reason for doing so is to make money (on the backs of the neighbors). The two competing towers will end up cannibalizing each others customers. It is similar to having too much leasable real estate in the same location. The State needs to re-evaluate this. Read “range” …. .
      Can they really justify one cell tower less then one mile from another?

      • To be honest, while I hate visual pollution, it must be noted that cell reception around the Compo neighborhoods is terrible, so the cell tower at Walgreen’s isn’t effective.

        There are ways they can make them look like trees. Or how about siting it on the Saugatuck River RR bridge, which is already very tall? – Chris Woods

  2. Pat Pontoriero

    I personally would be opposed to having a tower in town. Cell towers emit dangerous amounts of EMF radiation which is harmful to humans and animals. I’m sure that whatever report received from American Towers will dismiss that notion. I would certainly not want to have a tower in my backyard or in my neighbors. Smart meters on our homes give off enough of this radiation already. Can you imagine what a 100ft cell tower can emit? I hope our selectman is well informed so he can make a sound decision because this effects everyone in town.

  3. don bergmann

    This Cell Tower needs to be stopped. The Westport P&Z, an elected body, adopted many years ago a Regulation that prohibits Cell Towers in all Residence Zones in Westport. (Reg. 32-16). Tragically, Federal law preempts our regulation. This is not a NIMBY issue. It is a Westport issue. Access to data does not require a Cell Tower, only a computer and outside, e.g. at the beach, Wi Fi. Telephone service can also be accessed through the computer. This proposed tower, to be located at the corner of Greens Farms Rd. and Hillspoint Rd. will be an aesthetic monstrosity. Contact the RTM (, Support First Selectman Marpe ( and convey your support, your willingness to help and money for experts and attorneys to the citizens group that has been formed, If you have any influence with AT&T, use it and let First Selectman Marpe or the citizen’s group know.
    Don Bergmann

  4. A more telling test of the visual impact of the cell tower on this area would be to use a solid structure to emulate a tower. A truck with an extendable crane which would reach that height is surely available and would represent what a tower would actually look like rather than a balloon on a much thinner line. Let’s get a look at something which has at least a hint of reality.

  5. Bart Shuldman

    I was shocked to see a local law firm representing the cell tower company. The firm Cohen and Wolf actually has the following on their website. Maybe all Westporters, residents and businesses, should stop using this firm. They appear not to follow what they preach:

    ‘Cohen and Wolf, P.C. prides itself on its level of involvement in the community. The firm encourages its attorneys to become actively involved in academic, civic, cultural, political and religious organizations that interest them. As a result, most of our attorneys are currently serving in leadership positions within various organizations throughout the area.’

  6. Angela Ryan

    For about 4 days all the neighbors had identical signs objecting to the tower on their lawns along greens farms road. Then they were all removed at once, as if someone told them they were not allowed to post them. The only sign that never was removed is the small hard-to-read manifesto that is plastered repeatedly on the fence directly across the street from the proposed site. I found the whole thing rather curious – all the easy-to-read signs taken down quickly, but the hard to read ones remained. Not sure why.

  7. Michelle Benner

    In April, Stamford was able to successfully convince AT&T to withdraw it’s cell phone tower application:

  8. Johanna Rossi

    I am concerned living within half a mile of another cell tower.