“Criminal”: East/West Meadow Rd. Residents — ‘We Should Have Been Consulted About 5G/Monopoles’

William Martin’s East Meadow Rd. 1930s-era home is a Tudor-style single-family house listed as a historic building. 

Driving up to his driveway, one can see a beautiful fountain in the front of the house. The backyard has a fish pond and an outside fireplace. 

However, less than 40 feet beyond his backyard loom two large, rust-colored monopoles, standing about 130 feet tall. Eversource built these monopoles across Wilton, Weston and Norwalk over the summer as part of its “1637 Partial Line Rebuild Project,” which company officials said included replacing aging electric lattice-style transmission infrastructure with stronger steel monopoles.

The lattice towers were originally erected in 1949 and range from 61 feet to 101 feet tall; the new poles can reach as high as 84 feet to 131.5 feet. The project will impact over three miles in Wilton. All told, Eversource estimated the project will cost close to $160 million.

Martin and his neighbors are frustrated with a process that they said impacts the values of their homes and could potentially impact their health* — but for which they were not consulted by either the town or Eversource. 

“And what they’ve done here is just criminal — that not only can they put a tower so close to somebody’s property line, but they can basically just destroy the entire view,” Martin said as he talked to GOOD Morning Wilton about his situation from his backyard. “And it’s not just the view from my property, right? It’s the view from the street, it’s the view from my neighbors who live across the street.”

Martin purchased his home in 2012. The original tower near that spot was a much shorter, grey lattice-style structure that was further away from his property and blocked from his view by trees. Some time after moving in, when Martin reported a dead tree he was concerned about, Eversource removed it and then struck an agreement with Martin — they would plant a double row of green giant arborvitae to help block the view, and Martin would maintain the trees. Since then, even though the back row of those trees was eventually removed, Martin said the structure did not pose a problem to his enjoyment of his property.

Last spring, Eversource notified him that they would be taking down all the trees due to updated rules surrounding vegetation. Martin maintains that the company said nothing about any other infrastructure maintenance.

Work on erecting the monopoles started in the summer.

Like Martin, Elizabeth and Steve Brown said they could not see the previous lattice tower behind the trees from their Chestnut Hill Rd. property, but now they have a clear view of one of the newer larger monopole towers that also has a T-Mobile 5G antenna on top of it.

The Connecticut Siting Council — the state agency that has jurisdiction over the locations of power facilities, transmission lines, telecommunication sites and hazardous waste facilities — just earlier this month approved another tower share request from AT&T to install more antennas on that same monopole, which the Browns said will make the tower even taller. 

Steve Brown said there are various issues with these projects: the amount of trees, brush and foliage that has been taken down; the increased height of the monopoles; and the increase in height with the 5G equipment.

“I don’t want to make a comparison to anyone else, because some people, it appears to be in their backyard, but it’s essentially in our yard,” Steve Brown said. 

Elizabeth Brown questioned why the poles couldn’t be placed in a more appropriate setting than a residential neighborhood or why the transmission lines couldn’t be installed underground.

Several residents complained about the way the new poles look — rust-colored and hulking — compared to the older grey-painted lattice towers.

The look was a considered choice by Eversource, which noted in the petition that “Visual effects of the proposed structures between Norwalk Junction and Weston Substation are softened by utilizing weathering steel poles, which blend in more easily with the surrounding area’s vegetation than galvanized steel poles.”

Adrian Soars, a resident of West Meadow Rd., said beyond the aesthetics of the towers and their potential impact on property values, there is also a concern about electric and magnetic field (EMF) emissions from the 5G towers.

“I’m pretty sure, in fact, if I put an EMF detector here, we would be feeling it,” Soars said.

Sarah Paduano, an Eversource spokesperson, said the company coordinated with the Town of Wilton and communicated with area residents well in advance to explain the scope of the work. She specified that the company has to follow particular vegetation management protocols for work on transmission lines and rights of way that aim to balance aesthetics with the need for electric reliability. 

“It’s also important to note that upgrading transmission infrastructure is essential to delivering safe, reliable service to millions of customers throughout the region, as well as ensuring that customers have the power they need as electric demand increases in the coming years and making the grid more resilient to increasing extreme weather,” Paduano wrote in an email to GOOD Morning, Wilton. “A power outage on the transmission system can impact thousands of homes and businesses across multiple communities, including critical facilities like hospitals and police and fire stations — which is why this work is so important.”

Steve Brown said his frustration stems from a lack of communication from the town for what is essentially a big infrastructure project. 

“You tell us when roads are going to get paved,” Steve Brown said. “You’re not going to tell us when something like this is going to happen? And the way the houses and the properties are, it affects a lot of people. We’re not an outlier here.”

Soars said that families have made their homes in the area, and should have been consulted before such a massive change, adding a group of around 50 families have banded together to figure out what can be done. 

“The common thread here is why did we not know, right? The impact is so catastrophic,” Soars said.  

Soars said that while his address is not considered within the right of way because he does not back into the construction zone, his property is most definitely impacted and that he and residents like him should have been contacted.

Communication Timeline — Who knew what, and when?

April 12, 2023: In its petition filing to the CT Siting Council, Eversource provided information about how this project had proceeded thus far and what the company said it had done with regard to contacting the municipalities and abutting property owners.

• Eversource Team Lead Deborah Denfeld‘s cover letter stated that company representatives “briefed municipal officials about the Project” before the petition was filed and “provided written notice of the proposed work to all abutters and this Petition filing to Project abutters.” The petition includes maps and addresses of all properties adjacent to the work area.

• According to the petition, Eversource met with officials in Norwalk in January 2023 and Weston in March 2023; also in March, at the request of Wilton officials, the company sent information on the project and “a follow-up meeting will be scheduled if requested by the municipality.” Eversource also informed officials in all three towns with written notice of the Petition filing.

• The company said in January and February 2023, representatives “conducted outreach to property owners located along the Project ROW [right of way].” At the same time Eversource filed its Petition, the company said it notified abutting property owners of the filing and explained how to obtain additional information on the project and submit comments to the CT Siting Council. The petition also stated that Eversource representatives would continue communicating with adjacent property owners, notify them in advance as to the start of construction, and continue to update abutting property owners throughout construction and restoration.

However, other than a notice to update area residents of the changes in rules regarding vegetation, residents say they did not receive any notice about the upgrades from the old lattice towers to the new monopole ones. Both the Browns and Martin said the only notifications they received from Eversource were about vegetation updates.

• The petition also stated that “Eversource respectfully submits that the proposed modifications would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the environment, nor would they damage existing scenic, historical, or recreational values.”

April 13, 2023: The CT Siting Council sent a letter addressed to then-First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice officially notifying the town that Eversource had filed its petition seeking the Council’s permission “to make modifications to existing electric transmission lines in the City of Norwalk and Towns of Wilton and Weston.” The letter informed the town of the option of submitting written comments or questions to the council by May 12, 2023.

May 23, 2023: The Siting Council sent 22 questions to Eversource about the project. Among them, the council asked if Eversource had received any additional comments from the three towns or abutting property owners.

June 9, 2023: Eversource filed answers to the Siting Council.

• The company reported it received no additional comments from the Town of Wilton.

• It explained that the utility conducted door-to-door outreach, and six abutting property owners requested advanced notification prior to work occurring on or near their property. Eversource agreed to provide such notification. The company also said it communicated to “all abutting property owners” that it was committed to restoring any property that was disturbed.

• The answers identified only one Wilton resident who expressed concerns about the location of a pole near his Cardinal Ln. property (and contacted the town about it as well). Eversource met with this property owner on-site to discuss the work as well as “potential visual mitigation measures that may be implemented after standard restoration.

Sept. 14 & 15, 2023: The CT Siting Council approved Eversource’s petition at a public meeting held on Sept. 14 and sent certified letters notifying Eversource and town officials, including Vanderslice, that the project had been approved.

Oct. 10, 2024: AT&T sent a letter and petition to the CT Siting Council requesting approval for shared use of an Eversource monopole at 144 Chestnut Hill Rd. AT&T proposed installing 12 antennas at 132 feet high on the pole, “with the height to the top of AT&T’s antennas at approximately 136 feet AGL [above ground level].” This letter and petition was also sent to Wilton’s First Selectman Toni Boucher and Director of Planning and Land Use Management Michael Wrinn.

Oct. 11, 2024: The CT Siting Council sent notice to the town about AT&T’s request for tower sharing.

Early October 2024: W. Meadow Rd. resident Soars shared a series of emails exchanged (starting in October) with Wilton officials regarding the project, including Boucher and Town Administrator Matt Knickerbocker.

• Oct. 7: Boucher wrote that she “share[s] many of [Soars’] concerns” and includes Eversource representatives in the email exchange

• Oct. 9: Knickerbocker explained that municipalities “have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters pertaining the approval process for public utilities.” He said all approvals to build new infrastructure and set rates are under the authority of the state’s “Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) and decisions related to the specific location of power lines, cell towers, etc. are under the exclusive authority of the Siting Council.” He specified that municipalities have no local authority over the Council’s decisions, which can even override local zoning regulations. “Before any approvals are granted by either of these two agencies are granted, public hearings are held (as required by state law), and municipal representatives and local elected officials may appear or submit testimony, but town governments are not granted the authority under state law to modify or deny the applications,” he wrote. 

• Oct. 12-15: Soars referenced efforts in Fairfield and Bridgeport where residents and municipal officials were working together (hiring attorneys) to leverage a new law PA 24-144 to fight against new monopole construction in those towns and advocating for burying the power lines underground. Knickerbocker responded that Wilton has no similar jurisdiction to intervene on behalf of its residents due to several differences:
  • the utility in Fairfield and Bridgeport was United Illuminating, not Eversource
  • the Eversource petition was submitted and approved in 2023 and the new law became effective Oct. 1, 2024. Because the new law pertains to the application process, it has no bearing on the Eversource project.
  • The UA application was for new power lines on land where none currently existed. In contrast, the Eversource project is considered a modification to existing infrastructure with no transmission capacity change; it also remains within the confines of the current Eversource-owned rights-of-way or easements. That keeps the project within the exclusive authority of the CT Siting Council.

• Oct. 16-18: Soars continued to press for municipal engagement with the Siting Council. Knickerbocker explained that, “In my two decades of municipal experience, plus my extensive work with the CT Conference of Munipalities energy and environment committee (of which I co-chair), I can share with you that municipalities generally do not comment on such projects,” and “there are virtually no decisions that can be affected by the municipality … the authority to place them belongs exclusively to the siting council and PURA.”

Knickerbocker added that in general, municipal officials usually applaud efforts by utilities to improve and upgrade infrastructure, especially after years of criticizing “Eversource’s slow response to recover from storms.”

With new projects, according to Knickerbocker, the Siting Council schedules a public hearing in the community but they won’t for proposals to modify an existing structure. In the case of new cell towers, the provider schedules a “balloon float” at the proposed site for residents to get a visual idea of the tower’s height, followed by a public hearing open to all members of the public.

• Oct. 20: Soars emailed Boucher to express being “greatly disheartened regarding the lack of communication from Wilton” and to ask whether she plans to submit written comments to the Siting Council before Oct. 25 — the deadline for comments mentioned in the AT&T petition. He mentioned that “at least 3 neighbor families abutting the works who are sighting their possible cancer diagnosis’ as potentially relating to the existing telecommunication towers behind their homes.”

• Oct. 23: Boucher responded to suggest meeting with the neighbors via Zoom. That Zoom meeting took place on Oct. 25.

Oct. 25: Following the Zoom meeting with Chestnut Hill/Meadow Rd. neighbors, Boucher sent a letter to the Siting Council to request, on behalf of the residents, that the council schedule a public hearing to allow public input on AT&T’s proposal. The letter noted that residents had reported their concerns about both the monopoles and the cell towers and “have expressed strong opposition to this extension due to visual and health concerns.” 

Boucher also noted that, “…at the very least the electric company should consider returning the mature foliage screening that was in place prior to” the work it did in the neighborhood.

Knickerbocker also emailed the Siting Council about the neighbors’ “strong objections” and requested a public hearing.

Oct. 29: The Siting Council responded in a letter to the town reiterating the state’s policy that the sharing of towers is not a contested case proceeding “whenever technically, legally, environmentally and economically feasible, and whenever such sharing meets public safety concerns, will avoid the unnecessary proliferation of towers and is in the public interest.”

“Unlike an application for a certificate for a new telecommunications tower, a request for tower sharing under the statute does not require a public hearing nor is a public hearing discretionary to the Council for a request for tower sharing as it is for a petition for a declaratory ruling,” the letter stated. “The tower sharing policy was specifically designed by the General Assembly to avoid the unnecessary proliferation of new towers throughout the state.”

Nov. 7: The Siting Council held a public meeting but residents said they were not allowed to comment because the meeting was ‘closed’. 

Melanie Bachman, the Connecticut Siting Council executive director, told GOOD Morning Wilton that open hearings are not held on tower-sharing requests unless the owner of the existing facility or the entity seeking to share the facility can’t agree to terms and conditions. 

At that public meeting, the Siting Council issued its decision allowing AT&T to install antennas on the tower through a sharing agreement with Eversource, noting, “the shared use of this existing tower site is technically, legally, environmentally, and economically feasible and meets public safety concerns…”

What Lies Ahead

State Sen. Ceci Maher, whose district includes Wilton, also met with residents earlier this month to discuss the project. 

“My understanding is the period may have passed for actually doing anything differently and I know people are very upset about it,” Maher said. “My heart goes out to them.”

However, Maher is still investigating a way to move forward, by also reaching out to Eversource to discuss.

She said one way to address the concerns is to look to vegetation management to mitigate the impact of the poles. 

“I said this to the residents and that is where I am focused right now because I think that might hold the only possible solution,” Maher said, adding that while she can’t overpromise anything, she does want to get something out of this for the residents. 

“That is my goal,” Maher said. 

Martin said he had hoped that his house would be his forever home, but he is upset with the impact of this work.

“It is not only disgusting the way it looks but this has now destroyed my property’s value,” Martin said. “I’m extremely upset about that. I am a real estate broker by profession and I know these things can have a negative effect on property values.”

*According to the FCC, exposure levels on the ground that result from radiofrequency emissions from cellular and other personal communication service transmissions “are typically thousands of times below safety limits” adopted by the FCC. The agency states that there is “no reason to believe” these towers could be a potential health hazard to nearby residents.

The American Cancer Society refers to several studies regarding radio frequency (RF), electromagnetic frequency (EMF) and extremely low frequency radiation associated with cellular phone structures, and power lines and electrical transmission in relation to health and cancer concerns. A variety of findings and references are mentioned, including (but not limited to): “inconclusive,” “do not rule out the possibility,” “have not found a link,” “may affect living organisms in some ways,” “possibly carcinogenic,” “insufficient evidence,” and “scientific evidence that ELF exposure poses a health risk as ‘weak,’ but noted that it cannot be recognized as entirely safe, and considered it to be a ‘possible’ human carcinogen.”