Cell tower OK could be in near future

By JEFF MORRIS 

In a reversal from past experience at Bedford Planning Board meetings, a cell tower application quickly passed through a public hearing without controversy.

The proposed tower was initially brought to the public’s attention at the Nov. 7 town board meeting, where Supervisor Ellen Calves explained it was intended to fill a coverage gap that exists along Route 35 and Route 22. 

She said the town’s Wireless Working Group had studied possible sites, one of which was on the property of the Katonah American Legion Post, and determined that a location at 1 Maple Ave., on New York City Department of Environmental Protection land near the Cross River Dam, provided the best coverage.

The proposal by Homeland Towers calls for a 130-foot stealth monopine type tower, designed to support up to four antenna levels. The applicant had conducted a balloon test on the site last April, and included photos from the test in the application.

Homeland had previously constructed a cell tower adjacent to the Lewisboro Volunteer Ambulance Corps in Cross River, and is attempting to provide continuity of cell coverage along Route 35. That is not possible without an additional installation because of the geography of the area to the east of the Cross River tower.

At the planning board’s Nov. 12 meeting, the board declared itself the lead agency for the environmental quality review, and scheduled a public hearing on the proposal for Dec. 9.

When the hearing was opened, Chairwoman Deirdre Courtney-Batson said because of an existing town easement on the property, Homeland Towers is not required to obtain a special permit, but that the planning board will decide on site plan approval and conduct an environmental review.

Courtney-Batson said at the outset of the hearing that they would probably be continuing it past that meeting, which proved to be correct. Only one person, Dylan Lynch, spoke at the hearing, and he was persistent in challenging the statements of attorney Bob Gaudioso of Snyder & Snyder and Manny Vicente of Homeland Towers. His main objection was that having a cell tower visible on the shoreline would ruin the idyllic experience of sailing on the reservoir.

Board member Diane Lewis was most concerned that equipment and the base of the tower not be visible from Route 35, which she said would make the road and the residential area seem more industrial.

The applicants gave assurances that none of the structures would be visible from Route 35, both because of the geography and because of tree cover. 

“We chose this site because it is not visible,” said Vicente. 

With the resumption of the public hearing Jan. 13, Gaudioso introduced some changes to the plans that were made as a result of issues raised by the board at a site visit and at the last meeting. He said there was a typo in the application, clarifying that there would be a propane generator, not diesel. The distance to Route 35 was delineated as 365 feet, which he said is “well within” the required setback. A full erosion and sediment control plan has been added, and seeding will be according to DEP specifications. There will be an evergreen planting area in front of the compound; an 8-foot wood fence will be added in place of a chain link fence; and the parking and turning area, with a turning radius in compliance with the fire department, has been specified.

Lewis said, “Given the fact that we are required to have these facilities and have coverage, I think it’s a reasonable site to do this.” She made two requests: that the vines on the trees that shield the site from Route 35 be removed so those trees are not lost, and that they clear some of the invasives and plant some native shrubbery between the road and the fence. She hoped that would create a visual buffer so that the road “remains a country road.”

There were no comments from the public, causing Courtney-Batson to remark, “I’m not used to cell tower public hearings ending quite this quickly.” She closed the public hearing, with the provision of leaving a 10-day period for written comments.

Noting that the board’s intention to declare itself lead agency for environmental review had been recognized by all relevant parties, Courtney-Batson had board member Michael Tierney begin going through Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form. While finding no adverse impacts of the proposal, the board did not sign off on anything pending any additional comments that might be forthcoming. Discussion was closed, with the expectation that Homeland Towers would be returning in the near future.