As Doug and Karen Erickson stand in the backyard of their Granite Springs Road home of 28 years, bare winter trees stretch across the frosty ground. In summer, those same trees form a full leafy canopy, enhancing the peaceful setting that first drew the couple to Yorktown. The family often explores the property with their dog, surrounded by wildlife and what Karen calls a “valuable environmental area,” including a wetland buffer that makes the land appealing to many families in Yorktown.
Now, the Ericksons face the reality of losing those trees to make way for a proposed cell tower, a structure they said would encroach on their property and affect the adjacent wetlands. They oppose the plan to construct the cell tower in their Granite Springs Road neighborhood.
They're not alone.
Karen Erickson drew loud applause and cheers after expressing her concerns to the Town Board during a Feb. 3 public hearing at Town Hall. To a room packed with opponents of the Granite Springs tower, she spoke for 25 minutes, sharing what reflects years of research, conversations, and outreach opposing the proposed 130-foot tower.
Erickson – who has shared her views on the proposal to members of the board on numerous occasions – said Yorktown’s comprehensive plan does not call for a "macro tower" on Granite Springs Road, noting the plan only calls for one 110-foot cell tower in the Crompond neighborhood and 10 smaller network extenders on existing or new 50-foot poles scattered throughout town. She argued that, based on the town’s own comprehensive plan, a 130-foot tower in a residential parkland – which would require a wetland permit – is unnecessary.
She argued that an alternative option could provide service while protecting neighborhoods, open space and wetlands.
“So my question to the board is: Did the town make any effort to utilize this information? Was there a request for proposals to either locate cellular infrastructure on existing utilities or to build these small facilities either from Homeland Towers, Crown Castle – who also has infrastructure in the town – or other providers?” she said. “I believe that almost everyone in this room with the exception of the applicant would absolutely prefer small, less intrusive facilities over a macro tower that will reach a height of 130 feet with approximately 50 feet above the tree line.”
Many Yorktown residents agree that cel service needs to improve but question whether a tower on Granite Springs is the best way to do that, or if that tower would even reach other dead spots.
As of press time, the overwhelming majority of written comments sent to town officials oppose the project. Yet some residents have called poor cell service a daily frustration. In her written comments, Walden Woods resident Ali O’Brien described her cellphone reception as “horrendous,” with many dead spots making it “very hard” to work from home.
“Calls are dropped. Calls don’t ring. And words are heard every other word,” she wrote, adding that “a cell tower is needed” near where she lives off of Douglas Drive.
Meanwhile, town officials argue that the need to improve service goes beyond the number of bars individual customers can expect when making calls. They argue that the cell tower would improve communication for first responders.
Yorktown Heights Fire District Commissioner Martin McGannon, who oversees its radio communications, wrote in a letter to the Town Board that “this site would significantly enhance our ability to communicate with response vehicles and other emergency service agencies, while also improving cellular coverage within the surrounding area.”
McGannon said he had previously worked with Homeland Towers and sought assurance that the company would provide the same level of equipment for this project as it had in the past. He said installations would need to include proper mounting hardware, antennas and cabling, and a climate-controlled, stainless steel NEMA 4 radio enclosure capable of housing emergency radio equipment.
“I must note that commitments made have not always been fully honored,” he added of Homeland.
Because the proposed site is in a residential area, McGannon wrote that the tower should be placed at least 1,400 feet from any property line and disguised as a tree to reduce its visual impact.
Maria Ivezic, a 12-year resident and mother of three, told Yorktown News she wants transparency and assurance that town officials are following proper procedures. As for the tower being necessary for first responders, she cited a rollover crash on Granite Springs Road in late January that knocked down a utility pole and noted that EMS records show no connectivity issue. Cell towers are “not the end-all, be-all,” she added.
She told the board its decisions are “being watched more closely than you think.”
Supervisor Ed Lachterman said in a Jan. 8 letter that Yorktown 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.
Homeland Towers and town officials said the proposed location on Granite Springs Road was chosen as the best option among four potential alternatives:
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 potential 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.
Ultimately, the Granite Springs Road parcel adjacent to the Hallocks Mill wetlands was selected because it offered adequate elevation, greater distance from nearby homes and fewer zoning and environmental constraints.
“The question here is: Is there a better site?” Homeland Towers attorney Robert Gaudioso said at the hearing. “We don’t think there is ... If this was simple, it would’ve been done already.”
“There’s a lack of alternative sites in this area,” he added.
Lachterman said much of the material residents shared at the public hearing was new and will help guide further discussion and decision-making. He added that more information is still needed.
The hearing will reconvene March 3 and town officials are expecting a big turnout. Residents who wish to speak or listen should check the town’s website for the most up-to-date information.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here