The Colonie Planning Board denied Verizon Wireless’ application to build a 60-foot cell tower at the Loudonville Presbyterian Church in a 7-to-0 decision, with one member abstaining, at a Tuesday, May 25, planning board meeting.
Members cited an encroachment on the historic nature of Loudonville as reasons to deny the site plan.
I believe errors were made along the route of this project, said C.J. O’Rourke, planning board chairmen.
John O’Malley, a Verizon spokesman, said `all options are on the table right now,` as far as a lawsuit appealing the decision.
Verizon already filed one suit with the town on Wednesday, May 19, under a Federal Communications Commission guideline that requires action within 150 days of a tower application.
Town Attorney Mike Magguilli has said it is unclear when Verizon completed the application, and the town would be willing to defend the matter in court, but the May 25 decision has likely nullified that case.
Michael Cusack, an attorney with Verizon Wireless, told the planning board the cell tower would be located within a bell tower to be built at Loudonville Presbyterian Church.
The tower architecture would fit architecturally with the church, which he said is part of the area’s historic look. He said the tower would be unmanned, with trucks occasionally coming to the site to service it and existing foliage to mask it.
`It’s something that will indicate the religious nature of their facility for years to come,` Cusack said.
The Rev. Elaine Woroby, who heads the Loudonville Presbyterian Church, said the `attractive` bell tower would be an asset to the community.
`No one looking at it would know that it’s a cell tower,` she said. `It will simply look like a part of our church.`
She said she hopes the controversy has not negatively affected the friendships of the neighbors and area residents.
The Rev. Paul Hart, an Episcopal priest, admonished Woroby for putting the community through the matter and said there is more than one kind of `environmental` harm.
In planning board discussions, O’Rourke said denying the cell tower application would likely end in litigation, but he said, `The project does not integrate into the special character with the area.`
He cited town law stating if the `welfare, comfort and convenience` of residents are jeopardized, a project can be denied.
O’Rourke said in a Thursday, May 27, interview, some resident said they would want to move if the tower was built, and that would adversely affect the tax base and the welfare of residents.
He also said the tower did not fit with the historic overlay district it borders.
Planning Board members and Verizon officials debated how far the tower was from the town’s historic overlay district, a debate additionally muddled by the fact there is a national historic registry to be considered as well.
Director of Planning and Economic Development Joe LaCivita said the town’s map only shows specific houses on the national registry, and the church is not one of them. It borders the town’s overlay district, he said, but it is unclear exactly the distance between the two.
At several points O’Rouke made clear the health risk of radio frequencies did not factor into his decision, in fact, he asked public comment to focus on other issues not related to radio-frequency energy, since federal law states the board could not factor health into its decision.
Cusack asked the board to judge the cite plan on its merits, not on if a cell tower belongs at the church.
`It’s not a function of a site plan review to judge the appropriateness of the structure,` Cusack said.
He indicated the planning board’s scope should be determining where the tower best belongs on the property and contends a bell tower is already a permitted use.
Town Attorney Mike Magguilli later reprimanded Cusack when he suggested the planning board was under public pressure to deny the site plan and protests might have swayed their decision.
`Mr. Cusack’s statements about his feelings are totally out of order,` Magguilli said.
He said the `attack` on the board was `unprofessional.`
`We looked at the law and the board is choosing to look a different way,`
O’Rourke said of the planning board’s decision. `No one has pressured me. I’m my own man.`
Cusack also criticized Tom Nardacci, a member on the planning board, for making comments to the media about the tower not fitting with the area’s historical character.
Nardacci said he has only considered town law and regulations in his decision.
`Consistent with public statements I have made over the past few months, and under no pretext, I am voting ‘no` on this matter because a cell phone tower is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Loudonville is a well-documented historically significant area, listed on the National Register of Historic Places,` said Nardacci. `To my knowledge, commercial/industrial structures of this nature are non-existent on private property in this area. The town’s land use law clearly states that this board must consider the character of the neighborhood. In my opinion, a cell phone tower is inconsistent and should not be permitted.`
Planning board member Peter Gannon said he was not comfortable permitting the tower due to provisions in the zoning code preventing an impact on adjacent land and promoting harmony between a structure and the surrounding community.
`I’m still stuck with the issues,` Gannon said.
Following Gannon’s comments, Cusack told the board that the bell tower, without the cell function, is a permitted use, and he asked Gannon to reconcile his comments, at which point O’Rourke stopped the conversation.
`I’m not going to allow Mr. Cusack to ask the board questions,` he said. `This isn’t Perry Mason.`
O’Rourke said after the meeting, each application has to be looked at separately, and he could not say what would happen if the church had simply applied for a bell tower.
`I can’t comment because I have to see a site plan,` he said.
He also said many bell towers are attached to church structures, and do not stand separately.
A number of residents and churchgoers spoke on both sides of the issue in the three-hour-plus hearing, citing arguments about the historic nature of the area, maintenance truck traffic, the decibel level of the tower’s air conditioner, trees, property values and the health issues.
Gary Mittleman, who has been vocally opposed to the cell tower for months, said it would compromise Loudonville’s historic nature.
His wife, Evelyn, called the proposed 60-foot structure a `monster.`
Gary Mittleman said a 1996 telecommunications law calls for `universal` cell coverage, but 100 percent is not needed for such. He said 97 percent coverage is what Congress considers acceptable, and a tower is not needed at the church, since coverage is good enough.
Amy Fox, of School Areas Free of Emissions, said there are `too many variables that are non-mitigatable,` and urged the board not to approve the application.
Wendy Allen said the site of the tower is the issue for her.
`It is like putting lipstick on a pig. It is a cell tower,` Allen said.
Mark Calicchia Jr., a student at Loudonville Elementary School, said his family does not lose calls in the area, and Verizon does not need a tower there. He said discussions about the tower have made students `nervous.`
His father spoke shortly after also asking the board not to approve the tower.
Cell tower supporters spoke out as well.
A number of other churches, Newtonville Methodist and St. Francis DeSalle have towers, Barbara Eruysal said, and she wanted to know why those were acceptable, but not Loudonville Presbyterian’s.
Diane Lemieur said she is concerned about the gaps in wireless coverage for safety purposes, citing police who use a number of tools like cell phones, laptops and walkie-talkies, which rely on wireless technology.
Although the planning board rendered a decision at the meeting after hearing public comment, other factors could still come into play if Verizon pursues the matter.
Mittleman cited a 1924 deed restriction he said prevents the building of anything other than private dwellings to be used for residential purposes on the land, and further, a release from those restrictions would require everyone whose property is traced back to the deed to give consent. He said there are 24 property owners now.
He said the property was sold by what is now the North Colonie Central School District, and in 1959, when the church was built, the district released them from the deed. He said they may have needed a complete consent, but it is unlikely there will be a suit as action would have had to been taken no more than 10 years after the church was constructed.
Mittleman said, though, the 2007 release from the deed the church required to build a cell tower is still close enough for residents to bring suit, and the landowners could potentially sue the church and Verizon if the tower is constructed, as it does not fit with the 1924 deed restriction.
Planning board member Elena Vaida, who lives on Redy Lane near the church and owns one of the properties purchased in the 1924 deed, abstained from the May 25 vote.
O’Rourke said deed covenants are a matter of property law and do not fall in the scope of the planning board’s decision, and the planning board’s decision did not account questions about the law.
O’Malley said in a Wednesday, May 26, interview Verizon officials are still interested in the site, which would `improve coverage in that area` and will continue to study the issue.
“