Woodbridge Newton Neighborhood Environmental Trust v. Connecticut Siting Council

Citations

• 349 Conn. 619

Syllabus

The named plaintiff, a nonprofit association of homeowners in the town of Woodbridge, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the named defendant, the Connecticut Siting Council, which approved the applica- tion of the defendant telecommunications company, C Co., for a certifi- cate of environmental compatibility and public need in connection with its proposed construction of a cell phone tower in the town. The plaintiff had intervened in the administrative proceeding pursuant to statute (§ 22a-19 (a) (1)), seeking to prevent unreasonable impacts to nearby scenic resources and vistas. At the outset of each evidentiary hearing before the council, the council stated that property values were not included among the statutory (§ 16-50p (a) (3) (B)) criteria that are to be considered in a certification proceeding when determining the nature of the probable environmental impact of a proposed facility. C Co. introduced documents and testimony in order to demonstrate that the proposed tower satisfied its service objectives, namely, improving cell coverage in certain portions of the town, but the plaintiff presented conflicting testimony with respect to the placement of the tower and its effect on that coverage. Specifically, the plaintiff's radio frequency consultant concluded that the placement of the proposed tower would not materially improve service in the area and opined that two alternative locations would provide competitive coverage with less impact to resi- dential neighborhoods. The council ultimately found that there was a need for a new tower to provide necessary wireless coverage to an underserved area, and it expressly rejected the plaintiff's contention that certain alternative locations identified by the plaintiff's witness would provide comparable coverage to the site proposed by C Co. The plaintiff appealed from the council's decision to the trial court, which dismissed the plaintiff's administrative appeal. The trial court concluded that the coun