By JEFF MORRIS
The Bedford Planning Board heard and discussed questions about a proposed cell tower in Katonah and use of an outdoor pizza oven in Bedford Village at its meeting Dec. 9, but did not come to any permanent decision on either one.
Maple Avenue cell tower
The board opened a public hearing on a proposal by Homeland Towers LLC, to erect a 130-foot cell tower at 1 Maple Ave., Katonah, adjacent to the Cross River Reservoir and near the Cross River Dam.
The proposal was first introduced at the town board meeting Nov. 7, and then brought to the planning board Nov. 12. It is intended to fill a coverage gap that exists along Routes 35 and 22, and is to be located on land owned by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, on an easement offered by the DEP to be controlled by the town. Chairwoman Deirdre Courtney-Batson said because of that town easement, 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.
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.
While the planning board issued notice Nov. 12 of its intent to serve as lead agency for the state environmental quality review, Courtney-Batson said that since the required 30 days had not passed since that notice for other agencies to recognize it as lead agency, the board could not yet formally declare itself as such. However, it was able to open a public hearing.
Courtney-Batson said at the outset of the hearing that they would probably be continuing it past that meeting, so questions that required research to provide answers would be appropriate to ask.
Only one person spoke at the hearing, Dylan Lynch, who described himself as a lifelong resident of Katonah. Though he was the only speaker, Lynch was persistent in challenging the statements of Robert Gaudioso and Manny Vicente of Homeland Towers. He spoke multiple times, questioning various aspects of the application and engineering reports, including whether the tower needs to be 130 feet high, whether the location actually sits in a “bowl,” whether there aren’t many other sites around the reservoir that would be less visible, and whether a 2100 MHz installation is really necessary in that area.
Lynch’s main objection seemed to be that he had spent many peaceful hours as a youth boating on the reservoir, and that having a cell tower visible on the shoreline would ruin that idyllic experience for anyone in the future.
Board member Diane Lewis was most concerned with whether the base of the tower would be visible from Route 35. She noted when a balloon test was conducted back in April — a test she was not even aware of at the time — there were leaves on the trees, and it did not seem to be a problem.
“If the base is visible and makes Route 35 seem more industrial, that’s a huge problem,” she said.
Lewis indicated she was most concerned about visibility of the tower or the support facilities at the base from the residential area along the roadway.
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. “I think if you go out to the site it will become clear to you.” Courtney-Batson agreed, saying, “I think the best way to deal with this would be to visit the site.” She also pushed back against some of Lynch’s challenges to the technical reports, pointing out that the town has a wireless committee that is not connected to any carriers and has looked “very carefully” and brought “great expertise” to the proposal, and that they are not “rank amateurs.”
The public hearing was adjourned until the next planning board meeting Jan. 13.
“If between now and the next planning board meeting you put questions in writing, they will be addressed,” said Courtney-Batson.
oHHo pizza oven
The board was asked to consider a site plan extension for “the continued use of an outdoor pizza oven in connection with a previously approved café and retail establishment.”
On July 22, the board had granted approval to oHHo to temporarily continue operating a portable pizza oven on the outdoor dining patio of its location in the Ivanhoe Firehouse building located at 34 Village Green, Bedford Village, the former Bedford Firehouse.
That approval allowed the oven, owned and operated by Pizza Girls NY, to continue functioning on the site — where septic restrictions do not permit a kitchen or food preparation — after the expiration of a temporary event permit that had been granted by the building department.
The board’s approval was set to expire Dec. 31.
The request triggered a series of questions from the board that architect Joseph Thompson, appearing in the absence of owner Nicola Stephenson, who was said to be away, was seemingly not prepared to answer.
Courtney-Batson and Lewis immediately expressed concerns about the burn ban and restrictions that had been in place because of the drought in the area, with warnings about using anything that might produce sparks.
“You’re in an historic district with clapboard houses,” noted Lewis.
While that concern was not as urgent because of the wet weather this week, Courtney-Batson indicated there were other issues, and pressed Thompson about whether there had been a series of events held at the business, asking if there were charity events where a charity is paying a fee to use the premises. Thompson said he did not know.
“If they’re having events for hire, that would probably be outside the purview of what was approved,” said Courtney-Batson.
“We’ve been led to believe these events have been going on on a weekly basis. We need a positive statement of what the events are and what past events have been.” Board member Michael Tierney affirmed that the board needed “quantification of what’s been going on,” and Courtney-Batson asked if the café use was still an accessory to the retail store, or “is the tail wagging the dog?”
Questions continued about what the number of seats were indoors, now that the pizza will be consumed there; board members noted they had not been counting the number of outdoor seats toward the total, but once those are moved indoors they would be violating the terms of the special use permit. Questions also arose about possible parking problems if customers are going in to buy and consume food rather than just to purchase retail items.
The board agreed to a temporary extension for an additional two weeks until the next meeting Jan. 13, saying that in the meantime, they will need answers to their questions.