The New Paltz Town Planning Board has made a positive declaration of environmental significance regarding the Homeland Towers application to site a cellular tower at 60 Jansen Road. A detailed environmental impact statement must be prepared by the applicant to address specific areas of concern, which mostly focus on consistency with community plans and character. The applicant’s attorney maintains that nothing more can be done to mitigate the concerns.
This legal maneuvering is taking place against the backdrop of a 150-day time limit, during which decisions on approval of this project should be completed pursuant to federal law.
The town’s wireless consultant, Mike Musso has determined that the application is now complete, which starts that 150-day timeline. The applicant’s attorney, Robert Gaudioso, has asserted that the clock started ticking weeks ago. Planning board attorney Richard Golden holds a different view. A judge would have to review the timeline, and the applicant would have to decide if it made business sense to litigate the question.
Musso also said that the 150-foot tower could probably be cut down to 120 feet in height and still achieve the service objectives laid out in the application. The Jansen Road site is far from the town’s wireless overlay zone along Route 299, but Musso agrees that no tower in that zone would fill the coverage gaps identified.
A question on the environmental assessment form asks the board to decide whether “the proposed action’s land-use components may be different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s).” Member Jane Schanberg certainly thought so, reasoning that the tower was an industrial site in a residential area, and the use would last for at least 25 years. Attorney Golden wanted Schanberg to articulate the alleged adverse environmental impact. Consultant Musso noted that the site had no noise or significant light or traffic, and that no water or sewer would be used. Schanberg maintained that it would be in the “back yard” of a residential neighborhood. The other board members present agreed.
Was the proposed action inconsistent with local land-use plans or zoning regulations? The planning board again voted six to nothing that this represents a significant adverse environmental impact.
Schanberg spoke about the height being far out of character for the surrounding area, and said that the arrays on the tower could be “the size of a living room” once built out.
Typically it’s only endangered species that are discussed during proceedings like this, but Amanda Gotto was firm in wanting to know how removing trees would impact other species there. The vote was four to two in favor of finding tree loss a significant impact.
The applicant declined an opportunity to undergo an informal process sometimes called an “extended EAF,” during which proposals are offered to change board members’ minds before a vote is taken. The planning board voted unanimously in favor of a positive declaration of environmental significance. The applicant’s attorney, Gaudioso, appeared flummoxed, saying that the only possible change that might be made would be to forgo the access road entirely.
“That’s one option,” said Gotto. “Keep thinking.”
Join the family! 
