Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Monopole Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pearl Hill residents urge Milford to join legal fight over UI monopole project
Summary
Multiple Pearl Hill residents told the Board of Aldermen they were not adequately notified about United Illuminating's Millvaughn monopole project and urged the city to seek mitigation, restoration and to join litigation that neighboring towns have filed.
Residents of Pearl Hill Street and downtown Milford urged aldermen on July 6 to oppose United Illuminating’s (UI) Millvaughn monopole transmission project, citing health, aesthetic and property‑value concerns and asking the city to join litigation taken by nearby municipalities.
Speakers from Pearl Hill described large monopoles and associated construction (access roads, chain‑link fencing and cleared embankments) that they say have altered backyards and views. Colin Lane, a 32‑year resident near the tracks, called the proposed towers "monster poles" and said the community had been "duped" by vague public notices that left many residents unaware of the project’s scope.
Several residents emphasized health and property‑value risks. Catherine Curley and Shannon Buckley cited concerns about electromagnetic fields, potential links to childhood leukemia raised in public testimony, and local real‑estate assessments that suggest proximity to high‑tension lines can depress nearby home values. Joan Lane asked the board to seek mitigation (landscaping, improved fencing) and to join legal action Westport and Fairfield have pursued; Mike Beetham noted that the siting council denied UI’s application and denial was affirmed on reconsideration in February 2026, and that UI is appealing to superior court.
Neighbors also raised transparency complaints: several speakers said they received no direct notice from UI or the city, that construction was presented as Metro‑North work, and that temporary access roads and clearing have become permanent changes without adequate outreach. Jane Bonanzio distributed a plan image and asked why Pearl Hill had been excluded from earlier easement discussions.
No formal board action on the monopole project was recorded at the meeting. Speakers asked the board to consult the city attorney about joining existing litigation, demand restoration and landscape mitigation from UI, and press for alternatives including undergrounding of certain segments.
"If the truth were understood, this Millvaughn project would not have been allowed as is," Colin Lane said. "Milford should be pushing harder for the underground option."
