The Ancram Planning Board held a special meeting on Wednesday, July 9, to review a visual assessment of a proposed 150-foot cell tower along Route 22, with some residents expressing concerns about the project’s potential impact on the scenic corridor and others supporting it as necessary for public safety.
The meeting, which lasted more than 2 hours, featured a presentation of 22 photographs from Saratoga Associates, the firm working with the co-applicants, Homeland Towers and Verizon. The photos included a balloon test conducted in April and visual simulations taken from pre-approved locations such as Rudd Pond Road, Taconic State Park, and various spots along Boston Corners Road.
The board also announced that it would conduct its own visual resource assessment and had hired CityScape Consultants, a firm that advises municipalities on cell tower proposals.
The project needs approval in part because the town’s zoning law states that all radio, television, and other communications towers shall be restricted to a maximum height of 100 feet.
David Kenny, a lawyer representing the co-applicants, clarified that Homeland Towers would construct the facility while Verizon would operate the cell service. The tower would also allow other carriers, like T-Mobile and AT&T, as well as emergency response services through co-location agreements. Plans include painting the structure brown to “conceal and camouflage it into the background.”
Town Attorney John Lyons guided residents through the board’s responsibilities, “The Planning Board needs to accept that in this particular case, this use is allowed in the zone that it’s been proposed in,” Lyons said. “Their focus is going to be the environmental review and their review of the special use permit and the site plan criteria.”
Residents were deeply divided during the public hearing. Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) Chair Jane Meigs argued the tower would “encourage other kinds of industrial development,” saying, “Let’s look at ways we can improve cell service that are not so viciously intrusive on a premium asset of this town.”
Wally Williamson, also a member of the CAC, criticized the applicant for not photographing sites suggested by the CAC. “The applicant took photos from other locations selected on its own and none from the rail trail,” Williamson said. “The Planning Board should draw the inference.”
Visual artist and Ancram resident Henry Klimowicz described the dramatic difference he saw between balloons at 150 and 100 feet heights during the balloon test: “It’s 50% higher but it’s at least 150% more visible.”
On the other hand, the owner of the site property, Kenneth Beneke, a third-generation dairy farmer, strongly supported the project, citing numerous accidents on Route 22 over the years. “If they had better service, a bunch of those people probably would’ve survived,” he said, adding that rattlesnakes on the rail trail and a growing bear population heighten the need to easily access emergency cell service.
Robert Mathers, a Route 22 resident since 2002 who said he has spent thousands of dollars on new Wi-Fi and network equipment, also noted the hazards of the current communication gap. “If the cell tower went in and one person that was walking the conservancy or one person that was on the rail trail got hurt, and there was nobody there to run and get help, if it saved your life, would it be worth it?” he asked.
Kenny defended the tower’s height by referencing the average daily count of 4,300 vehicles along this section of Route 22. He pointed to residents’ comments about poor cell coverage included a woman who has lived on the Route for 40 years — though her cell service works adequately, she said she often sees drivers pull over near her house to make calls. Mathers too described an elderly woman who had to walk up to his house for help on a winter night after her car broke down.
Board member Tom Brondolo asked about the possibility of using small cell technology that utilizes smaller devices than cell towers to improve service in areas with increased cellular traffic. Kenny explained that it wouldn’t work due to the physically large coverage area needed. “Small cell technology is used to fill in capacity more than gaps in coverage — more useful when there is an increased number of people in a certain area,” he said.
Kenny assured the board and residents that the companies are exploring whether adequate coverage could be achieved with a shorter structure, though he said it might not cover a large enough area, which could necessitate erecting another tower.
To build a communications tower taller than 100 feet, Homeland Towers and Verizon have to first file an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals. They have not done so because they want to confirm the final tower height.
Under the Telecommunications Act, a federal law, the Shot Clock Order requires local authorities to process wireless communications equipment installations within 150 days from when an application is initially submitted. The shot clock began on May 30.
Brondolo suggested suspending the shot clock until the applicant’s next supplemental submission. Kenny agreed to this. “As long as the application is reasonably progressing, we will not force the shot clock for you to make a decision,” he said.
The board will next meet to discuss the project at 7 p.m. on Aug. 7, giving residents another opportunity to comment.