Ocean Beach Cell Tower Decision Postponed

A decision on a proposal to put in a at has been put on hold by the City Council while they wait for a referral from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The tower is being proposed as a way to boost public safety communications and cell phone reception in the Ocean Beach area. Several nearby residents speaking at Monday’s meeting said they agreed that a tower would be beneficial, but questioned its proposed location. The steering committee of Save Ocean Beach, a nonprofit organization, voted unanimously that the tower should be placed on property just north of the admission booths at the park. A study by Message Center Management Inc. of Hartford, which is overseeing the project, also identified a site on the northwest corner of the parking lot and near the pool at the beach as possible locations for the tower. 

Chris Gelinas, national sales manager with MCM said the study was deliberately presented to the organization with no recommendation on a site. He said MCM discussed the possible locations with representatives from New London, Waterford, the Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast Utilities, Yankee Gas, and consultants for wetlands impact, engineering, and environmental assessment. Gelinas said 12 factors were considered in weighing the locations, including proximity to wildlife habitats, residential properties, and historic sites; the type of soil in the area; and access to utilities.

According to the report, the site near the entrance had 10 pros and two cons. The site on the other side of the parking lot had nine pros and three cons, while the site near the pool had two pros and 10 cons. Tom Quintin, chairman of Save Ocean Beach, said the latter two sites were too close to the tidal area and structures on the beach and created other issues such as the loss of a picnic area as well as traffic and safety concerns.

Residents who spoke against the proposed location said they were concerned both with the impression the tower would create on visitors and the proximity to their own homes. Elaine Stattler said the tower would be only 220 feet from the nearest home.

“Is this the way we want to present the beach to the public?” she asked.

Ralph Matyas, of Highland Ave., said he wasn’t opposed to a tower on beach property but felt it would be a deterrent at the entrance. Susan Walsh, of Stuart Ave., said the tower could have a detrimental effect on property values.

“Do we really need a cell phone tower?” she asked. “I get great reception. I don’t even have a land line.”

Elaine Shapiro spoke in favor of both the tower and its proposed location. She said police were unable to call headquarters during a July 4 riot at the beach about 21 years ago, and that reception is currently unreliable. She said she was cut off three times while making a call from the area of the park.

“We need to make sure that public safety is number one,” she said.

Quintin said Save Ocean Beach welcomes input from neighbors on ideas related to the park, such as camouflaging it to make less of a visual impact. Quintin was worried that the park may return to a residential area without public access if it cannot earn enough money through the beach season and use of the banquet hall, and said the revenue from the tower will be crucial in propping the park up.

“We want to make this the best tower it can be, the most aesthetic, pleasing tower that it can be at the park and still try to generate some revenue at the park and try to get the park going,” he said. “If they don’t make it upstairs in the park or the banquet area, the beach is going to be nonexistent.”

Dean Gustafson, a senior wetland scientist with Vanasse Hangen Bustlin Inc., determined that the entrance site will be at the least risk from coastal flooding and also have the least impact on wetlands and vistas. Gelinas said that the height of the tower will not change with different locations, but that it will need to be above the treeline on each site. He said that while efforts will be made to reduce the visual impact of the tower, the company needs to take regulatory factors into consideration as well.

“It can look great, but if you can’t get it approved it still doesn’t have value,” he said.

Council members were hesitant to take action on the agenda item, which proposed approval of the project and authorization of MCM to “submit all necessary applications to seek all regular approvals for the tower to be constructed and activated at the selected site location (Site 1 – overflow parking lot near park entrance).” Councilor Adam Sprecace said he felt the other parking lot site would be a good compromise, since its benefits and drawbacks were similar in number to the entrance site.

“Frankly, the information I see now, I think it’s worse than the original site, which from what I understood was replacing the light tower,” he said.

Councilor Rob Pero said he felt the neighbors required more notification during the process. Councilor Michael Buscetto III also said he was worried about the visual effect of the tower.

“My concern is not for the person that comes from Hartford in the summer twice and sees Ocean Beach,” he said. “My concern is the neighbors who see it every day.”

Councilor Michael Passero said he was not convinced that there is a public safety hazard due to the changed nature of communications. He agreed that the other parking lot site seemed to be the better option.

“I think we have an obligation to satisfy the neighbors and taxpayers that surround this park,” he said. “I understand the need for the revenue. I’m not sure I’m sold on the public safety aspect of it.”

The council voted 6-1, with Deputy Mayor John Russell opposed, to postpone action on the matter until it is referred to the council by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Legal counsel Jeff Londregan said that if the commission disapproves the plan, the council may approve it if five of the seven councilors vote in favor.