A hard cell

With dropped calls and weak signals a common frustration, officials and residents alike agreed cell service in and around Yorktown is a problem, particularly for emergency response. But many homeowners made clear they do not want the solution to be a 130-foot cell tower built near their Granite Springs Road neighborhood.

Parkland alienation for the project at 62 Granite Springs Rd. has already been approved by the New York State Legislature, and Danbury-based Homeland Towers, the company seeking to build the structure, is now seeking final lease approval.

The Town Board held a lengthy public hearing Dec. 16 on wetland, tree and stormwater permits for the controversial monopole on town-owned land. Throughout the hearing, residents questioned how public notice of the meeting was promulgated and raised concerns about transparency. Several of those who made it to Town Hall said many more residents would have attended had they known about the hearing.

After objections were raised at the meeting an in online written comments, town officials have tentatively scheduled an information session for Feb. 3.

Among the objections raised at the meeting and in more than two dozen letters to the town, residents cited potential drainage problems, disputed wetland boundaries, impacts on wildlife, health risks and the possibility of declining property values. Some also questioned whether the technology would actually improve service.

However, in Jan. 8 letter announcing the Feb. 3 information session, Supervisor Ed Lachterman said the town needs a cell tower to improve wireless coverage in the area, which he called "poor to nonexistent" and said those gaps delay emergency services, limit reliable access to public safety communications, and hinder remote work, education and everyday communication. Town officials believe the proposed Granite Springs Road site was identified as the best option among four potential locations.

A site at 2850 Sunrise Street, which contains a water department pumphouse, was ruled out because of limited space around underground utilities. A parcel at 2997 Curry St., adjacent to a townhouse community, would have required significant grading near residential backyards and slopes toward Sparkle Lake. A third location at Sparkle Lake on Granite Springs Road was rejected because of its proximity to a beach and swimming area and its location near the lakefront. The Granite Springs Road parcel adjacent to the Hallock Mill wetlands was selected because it offered adequate elevation, greater distance from nearby homes and fewer zoning and environmental constraints.

"We understand that any infrastructure project can raise questions and concerns, particularly regarding aesthetics, property values, safety, and environmental impact,” Lachterman wrote. “Please know that the Town is committed to ensuring that any installation meets or exceeds all safety standards, is tested for full compliance with FCC limitations, incorporates design elements to reduce visual impact, and is sited in a way that respects the character of our community.”

Karen and Doug Erickson, who own the home directly adjacent to the proposed site, said the plan is “hugely impactful” to their property.

Speaking on behalf ofHomeland Towers, attorney Robert Gaudioso of Snyder & Snyder said that after previous meetings with town officials and the homeowners, the company had already revised its plan so the access road would cross only the wetland buffer, not the wetland itself. The company also proposed planting additional trees and shrubs to offset the removal of 35 trees along the Ericksons’ property line.

The applicant said other options, such as placing equipment on light poles, were not feasible.

The Ericksons said the loss of mature trees, even with new plantings, would not adequately absorb runoff from heavy rainfall.

During Hurricane Floyd, for example, four feet of water was “encroaching up the side of that hill," Karen Erickson said.

“If all of those trees are removed, the impact to my property now of not having something that large to absorb all the water is tremendous,” she added. “They are not removing pines. They're removing mature, beautiful maples.

“But the reality is they're taking down trees that are 70 years old and they're going to give me a six-foot tree. There's no way they're absorbing the same amount of water.”

Yorktown resident Monica Cole asked the board how the town would compensate residents affected by the cell tower.

“Will the town be considering giving any of this money to the homeowners whose property and home values become devalued due to the location of the facility and the tower?,” she asked. “Will they pay for any healthcare bills that may present you to someone getting sick from living near this tower?”

The hearing was adjourned to give the town’s advisory boards more time to review a revised site plan. The proposal is expected to return to the board's agenda in early February.

Meanwhile, residents continue to send written comments to town officials, almost all in opposition to the project.