Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

-..-._?EL‘&fioé£é !dd4s§¢Pe§—seem·eH¥'%1?2-¢§ER"1|£r?éd 10/29/2004 Page1 ets @°°3
nsc—22—2ae1, aa=u2 sneer M. muxea. asu. *°·@¢·"‘?’4
Y KENNETHIRA SPIGLE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
687 Highland Avenue, Suit: 1
Needham, Massachusetts 02494
O81)453-3900 v
Fax; (781) 4530510
e-mail: k¤nspigle@¤ol.c¤m
` December 26, 2001
Chester L. Sklodosky, Zoning
Enforcement Officer
Old Saybrook Land Use Department
302 Main street
‘ Old Saybrook, CT 06475-1741
Re: Tower Reconstruction Proposal - 77 Springbrook Road
Dear Mr. Sklodosky: e i
I am writing on behalf of Tower Ventures, Inc., which is
working with Crossroads Communications of Old Saybrook, LLC, on A
the proposed reconstruction of the communications tower
currently located near the western corner of the lot at 77
Springbrook Road} The purpose of this letter is to address
some questions which have arisen relating to the applicability
of certain provisions of old Saybro0k's zoning regulations to
this proposed project-
The subject tower is 182 feet tall, supported by guy ,
wires, two of which extend approximately 120 or 130 feet into
two neighboring lots. The tower is over thirty years old, and
currently is used to support a paging company's antenna
facilities. ID its present condition and configuration, it has
very limited capacity to support other antenna facilities.
i Tower ventures and Crossroads Communications are proposing
to reconstruct the tower. If and when the tower is
reconstructed, the plan would then be to seek approval for the p
I I am admitted to practice in the State of Massachusetts, as well
as in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (sitting in New .
York) and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (sitting in
Boston). Although I am not a member of the Connecticut Bar, I have
appeared OH behalf of Tower VEDELIIEB il'! local ZOZ1.'l!l§ p1'¤C9€d.`lX1g8 il'}
Connecticut, and have appeared as counsel for other clients in both
state and Federal Court proceedings in Connecticut, pro bec vice-
¤E|=EN¤ANT*s
A EXHIBIT _ CHILD0011
We tr-3 as

02/04/°2 Ca%e23:O3-@*00499-PGE Documevawm-¤HR)’1FHed 10/29/2004 Page 2 afs 004
_ DEC—22~2@B1< e@=@2 EUGENE M. MQEIER, ESQ. P-@3/94
Letter to Chester L. sklodosky, zoning i
Enforcement Officer §
December 26, 2001 ?
Page Two · i i
attachment or one or more wireless communications company's j
facilities to the new tower. My letter addresses only issues
relating to the proposed reconstruction; issues relating to
( c possible attachment of wireless facilities would be addressed
in a separate, subsequent, proceeding.
The tower appears to be a pre—existing nonconforming
structure under the old Saybrook zoning Regulations, in that it
does not meet the property line setback requirements, and in
that it exceeds the maximum allowable structure height. Tower
Ventures proposes to reconstruct the tower in one of two
possible ways.
Its first preference would be to move the tower to a
location where it would eliminate the setback nonconformity, ·
and to lower its total height (to about l75 feet) to reduce the
nonconformity as to height. Under Section 10;7.3 (which, in
the version I have reviewed, appears to have mistakenly omitted
the word "No" before the words ”nonconforming building"), such
a move would appear to be permitted, as it would reduce one
‘ aspect of its nonconformity (h6iQht), and eliminate the other _
(setback).: In moving the tower, Tower Ventures would also plan
to reconstruct it as a monopole, which would eliminate the need
for the guy wires. Under section 10.7.1, reconstruction and
structural alteration appear to be permitted, as long as there
is no enlargement or extension of the nonconformity. (Although
the diameter of the proposed monopole would be somewhat larger
than that of the existing guyed tower, the diameter is not a i
nonconformity).
The other alternatiie would be to reconstruct the guyed
tower, in the same location, at a slightly lower height of
about 175 feet, but with a slightly expanded girth of about 30
inches, compared with the present 24 inches. The guy wires
would remain, and the tower would remain quite close to the
neighboring lots. Again, since the reconstruction at a lower
height would reduce the height nonconformity, this would also
appear to be allowable under the Zoning Regulations.
2 The reconstruction of the tower also would appear to be
consistent with Section 10.6.1, in that it would "reduce or ii
eliminate" the setback and height nonconformity.
CHILD0072

i Y i @005 V
02/04/02 ` · —"`¢‘@04‘5‘9-PGE Docume¥HD42-5ER\IFHéd 10/29/2004 Page 3 of 3 {
DEC-22-2%é§é§@9§3® EUGENE M. Mes1E;R. ESQ. P-@@84
C Letter to Chester L. Sklodosky, zoning
Enforcement Officer
December 26, 2001 .
PBgS·ThI9E
I would like to comment briefly on the possible
applicability of Section 68 to this proposed reconstruction.
Although the future of this tower, after reconstruction, may
well involve the type of telecommunications facilities referred
to in that section, I do not believe that the Section 68
provisions are applicable, for two reasons. First, the
reconstruction being proposed does not involve the addition of
telecommunications facilities. second, under the December 17,
2001, ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Sprint
Spectrum L.P. v. Connecticut Siting Council, F.3d. ,
2001 WL 1602713 (2nd Cir. 2001) (a case on which I was counsel
for the prevailing Plaintiff—Appel1ant Sprint PCS), it now
appears that the Connecticut Siting Council has exclusive
jurisdiction over the siting of PCS facilities, as well as
traditional cellular facilities. €"wew_ _¢ _._,. p
Notwithstanding Tower Ventures{§view that section 68 is
inapplicable, the monopole proposaljis intended to conform ins
several respects with the spirit oifsection 68. For example, `
it is proposed as a monopole, and is proposed to be located at
least 90 feet from all gggpgggyilénes, and to be designed to
» have a breakpoint halfway up its 175—foot height, which is
consistent with the spirit of Section 68.3.1c and 68.1.3c. g
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss
these issues further, or to refer these comments to your Town's '
legal counsel if he or she would like to discuss them. .
Thank you for your attention in this matter. Q
. Very truly yours, Q
I Kenneth Ira spigle
CPHLD0013
TUTQL P.@s