First Selectman Barbara Henry told the 25 audience members that the meeting was planned to give residents a chance to voice their concerns directly to members of the AT&T staff.

The meeting also gave the town of Roxbury the opportunity to provide AT&T with recommendations or preferences, prior to the filing of its application with the Connecticut Siting Council.

Connecticut General Statutes, section 16-501c, requires that AT&T consult with the municipality prior to the application being filed with the Connecticut Siting Council.

Mrs. Henry said her office has encountered obstacles acquiring information and updates on the proposed tower because the site is on private property.

Mrs. Henry explained that several months ago Transylvania Road resident John Ambruso came to her office with information on the proposed tower that he received when he questioned surveyors who were near his property.

"I received no information on this," Mrs. Henry said. "I was a little perplexed because I had all of the information on the cell tower in Southbury. I asked what the process was and AT&T informed me that there would be a technical report prepared and forwarded to my office.

"You [AT&T] were also supposed to float a balloon and inform us prior to the float," Mrs. Henry said to the AT&T representatives at the meeting.

"I got the technical report and it says the float was already done. I'm very disappointed. I do want another balloon float done."

Mrs. Henry told the AT&T representatives that she was unaware until reading the technical report, that AT&T has been actively looking for sites in Roxbury since 2005 and searching for a "willing landlord" with acreage for a tower.

The report also said that AT&T has 60 days to file an application with the Connecticut Siting Council once the technical report is complete.

"Does this mean you will file now?" Mrs. Henry asked the AT&T representatives.

Mrs. Henry introduced Attorney Daniel M. Laub, representing AT&T.

"We have been looking for a site for a while and this is the beginning of the administrative process," Mr. Laub said. "We submitted the technical report on the proposed 170-foot tower on private property. This is a consultation period, so we can talk to the town.

"Once we apply to the [Siting] council, the council sends a letter to the town requesting input. Their hearing is always in the respective town and they hold a balloon float and tour the site."

The technical report describes the tower as "the installation of a 170-foot tall monopole with associated ground equipment to be located at its base.

"Both the proposed monopole and ground equipment would be situated within a fence enclosed compound. The proposed project area is located at approximately 822 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL).

"Access to the Facility would be provided via a proposed 12-foot wide gravel driveway."

Mr. Laub confirmed the balloon float was done on a day in August when the weather co-operated. The rain kept delaying the date.

Transylvania Road resident John Ambruso questioned the August date and requested documentation verifying the actual date the balloon was flown.

Resident Charlie Roy of Transylvania Road questioned a tower of this size being placed in one of Roxbury's most populated areas.

Mr. Roy asked if any studies have been conducted on the health effects when this type of tower is placed in a residential area so close to homes and water supplies.

Mr. Laub responded, "The research on the placement of cell towers has not proven negative."

Mr. Roy asked how construction trucks would navigate up the narrow road and wondered how a tower of this size would be brought to the site.

He also questioned the monthly maintenance required on the tower and access to it from the existing driveway.

Kevin D. Dey, construction/site acquisition, SAI Communications, ATT Mobility Project, replied that the construction phases, road limitations and monthly maintenance have been studied and pose no problems.

Mr. Dey said the proposed tower would be brought up the road in phases.

Bill Steers of Transylvania Road expressed concern about run-off and asked how it would be addressed.

Mr. Dey replied that erosion control would be used.

Mark Wilson, Transylvania Road, said the proposed area is extremely wet and questioned how long the area has been studied.

Mr. Dey reported that the ground conditions have been looked at.

Art Connolly, Transylvania Road, noting the proposed site is close to neighboring residential property lines, asked what would happen should the tower fall down.

Mr./. Ambruso questioned the soil studies and the impact the tower will have on vernal ponds.

He wondered if AT&T had underestimated the wet soil and seasonal soil issues the road and area experiences, and questioned how the tower would be anchored and if the soil could handle it.

Mr. Dey assured residents that this has been looked at.

Art Connolly asked about real estate values being impacted and questioned if AT&T has looked into this.

Mr. Laub explained that they have not found a pattern.

Rob Horrigan, Bacon Road, asked why is this tower needed now.

"We are trying to provide good reliable coverage," Mr. Laub replied.

Mr. Dey explained that to have what is referred to as "seamless coverage," requires the placement of towers a certain distance from each other.

Mr. Horrigan asked if AT&T needs to appear before the town's Inland Wetland Commission.

"This falls under public utilities and the Connecticut Siting Council," Mr. Laub clarified.

Conservation Commission Chair Gary Steinman questioned the need for the cell towers to talk to each other, saying that if the seamless coverage statement is true, then there will be a need to have even more towers.

Mr. Dey assured residents that this is the only tower being considered by AT&T for Roxbury at this time.

Mr. Steinman had concerns with the technical report, the facts in the report, the depth of the studies, the bio-diversity study the report mentions and the impact a tower of this size might have on the environment and habitat in the area.

He said he continues to study and research the holes in the application.

First Selectman Henry relayed her challenges in getting information from AT&T and asked Mr. Dey and Mr. Laub to report this back to their office.

Mrs. Henry requested an explanation as to why AT&T could not add to the existing tower at the transfer station instead of building a new one.

Mrs. Henry asked Attorney Laub, "What's the next step? Will our concerns be heard?"

Mr. Laub said he would share the concerns about the environment, habitat impact, soil studies, drainage concerns, driveway access, the existing tower's capabilities at the transfer station and property line distance concerns to the tower with AT&T.

He reassured residents the gathering of feedback is the purpose of this meeting.

He asked residents about setting a balloon float date at the end of October.

Several residents said this needs to be done in mid-November after the trees have fully lost their leaves.

"The concerns brought up at the meeting will cause a delay in filing the application," Mr. Laub said.

Mr. Laub reminded residents that the final decision on the tower lies with the Connecticut Siting Council.

Mr. Laub and Mr. Dey assured Mrs. Henry that her questions and contact obstacles would be addressed.

Zoning Enforcement and Inland Wetland Officer Mary Barton asked that since there were no handouts available to residents at this meeting, that the maps used at this meeting should be made available in the first selectman's office.

Mr. Laub agreed to leave the maps with Mrs. Henry.

Residents can access the AT&T cell tower technical report on the town's website at www.roxburyct.com.