Cell tower plan draws sharp criticism

By NEAL RENTZ

A plan to place a wireless telecommunications facility for Verizon on the salt dome site located at 81 Spring St., South Salem, drew sharp opposition at the Oct. 26 Lewisboro Town Board meeting.

The discussion at this week’s meeting was about Homeland Towers’ proposal for a lease on Spring Street.

Andrew Petersohn, an engineer employed by the applicant, Homeland Towers, said in an Oct. 15 letter to the board: “Without this proposed facility Verizon Wireless would be materially inhibited from providing its personal wireless service in the Town of Lewisboro.”

He noted that there are already three existing sites for Verizon Wireless, all on Route 35. 

Town Supervisor Tony Gonçalves told the board that he would not act on the lease proposal that evening. 

Several residents spoke against the plan during public comment periods.

Doreen Nastasio said she did not oppose improving cell service in the town.

“I am against choosing a location without the independent facts to justify it,” she said. 

She said the town should have hired an independent telecommunications engineer to study the proposal. 

The facility previously had been proposed for the site of the town’s recycling center, but community opposition and visual concerns played a key role in not going forward there, Nastasio said. 

“Are we choosing the salt tower because it’s the best location or because it’s the path of least resistance?” Nastasio asked.  

She also asked if the town received the engineering report for the project, which was to have been provided in 2025. 

“If so, why hasn’t the public been shown the results?” she asked.

Such information as carrier-specific coverage maps and an independent analysis of the salt dome with other alternative sites in town were needed, Nastasio said. 

Nastasio expressed skepticism about a balloon test. 

“A balloon test shows where a tower will be visible,” she said. “It does not prove where cell service will improve.”

Nastasio questioned the proposed location for the facility, which would be very close to wetlands and a nature preserve without a complete environmental review. “Why risk the natural beauty and environmental integrity of this area before demonstrating that this location is necessary?” she asked. 

Another resident, Valerie Lishnoff, said she and her family moved to South Salem last year. 

“We chose a home at the end of Long View Road because of the lovely neighborhood and the idyllic views of the historic farmland and surrounding woods,” she said. “Imagine our shock and disappointment when we heard of a possibility of a cell tower going up, essentially in our back yard.” 

The family can see the salt dome from their home throughout the year, Lishnoff said. In addition to being an eyesore and a detriment to their property values, “we also have concerns about the health and safety of our family and our community.”

The safety standards for cell towers established by the Federal Communications Commission in 1996 do not address long-term, low-level exposure, she said.

Jana Peterson is another critic of the plan.

“We all agree, reliable cellphone service is a legitimate public safety concern. And we support the efforts to improve it,” she said. “But evidence that a problem exists is not evidence that a cell tower at the salt dome is the right solution.”

The public has not seen data about how many people would benefit from the proposed cell tower, where service would improve and by how much, Peterson said. 

“Without transparency about a binding commitment from cellular providers to both install the equipment and deliver service, even projected coverage improvements are just hypothetical,” she said. “We’re being asked to accept a 160-foot (tall) structure without certainty about who will use it, how it will be maintained, how many residents would benefit, or whether it would meaningfully improve coverage.”

As a real estate professional, Peterson said she also was concerned about potential impact on property values.

Gonçalves noted the Homeland Towers proposal has been in the works since 2019. Westchester County paid for a Wireless Master Plan that included several communities and indicated Lewisboro needed at least three additional cell towers to fill coverage gaps, he said. 

There was a concept of placing a cell tower on the South Salem Presbyterian Church steeple, but the plan did not work out, and Verizon said it wanted to consider the salt dome last year. 

Robert Gaudioso, an attorney representing Homeland Towers, said his client is asking the Town Board if it wants to lease the property, which would need to go through a permitting process and an environmental review process. There have been 18 other sites looked at before his client sought the Spring Street location, he said. About 675 homes, as well as businesses, municipal buildings and motorists driving in the area, would receive cell service if the project was approved, he said. 

A plan to place the cell tower at South Salem Presbyterian Church was not feasible, with the steeple needing to be rebuilt, Gaudioso said.

Viewshed maps have been created to indicate, through computer generation, where the tower might be visible from and where it would not be visible from, Gaudioso said. A balloon test to show the site’s location and approximate height was offered by Gaudioso for the near future, but the Town Board did not act on his request at the meeting.

Gaudioso said the proposed tower would be well within the FCC’s standard for human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields.

Councilwoman Julia Hadlock asked if micro towers could be an alternative to the Spring Street proposal. Micro towers are affixed to existing structures, and she asked if they could be affixed to the town’s existing telephone poles. 

Such towers are a solution in urban areas, with pedestrian and slow-moving vehicular traffic, Petersohn replied. “It lies underneath an umbrella of coverage that is already there.”