Mt. Kisco Planners Continue to Weigh Issues on Cell Tower Application
Two Mount Kisco residents have asked the village Planning Board to issue a positive declaration for a proposed cell tower as attorneys for the applicant and board clashed over the issue of whether the tower can be sited elsewhere on the property.
A more than two-hour public hearing last Tuesday evening on Homeland Towers’ plan to erect a 140-foot monopole antenna tower on about a 3,000-square-foot portion of the 25-acre property at 180 S. Bedford Rd. addressed a wide range of technical issues related to the project, including a preliminary visual analysis of the Nov. 21 balloon test that occurred at the site.
However, the hearing grew testy at times when Village Attorney Whitney Singleton repeatedly asked the applicant’s lawyer, Robert Gaudioso, to provide the village with a copy of Homeland Towers’ leases with property owner Skull Island Partners providing evidence that it is limited to building the tower at one specific spot on the land.
In Homeland Towers’ submission to the board, Singleton and a couple of board members had pointed out that a document stated that the company can site the tower elsewhere on the property to help reduce negative visual impacts on neighbors or the environment, among other factors. The tower is proposed to be located to the northeast of the roughly 5.7-acre ground-mounted solar farm that is also being considered for the property.
“I’m going to continue to ask you for a copy (of) any and all leases and if you don’t like that, that’s just too bad,” Singleton told Gaudioso. “You have a lease that you submitted to us that’s a memorandum of lease that (states) you can go anywhere on the property.”
But Gaudioso responded that pursuant to an agreement with Skull Island Partners there is no ability to change the location of the tower. Furthermore, he said there is nothing in the village code that requires his client to provide that information to the village.
“There is no conspiracy here, there’s nothing that we’re hiding other than the fact that we have a contract, it’s a proprietary contract, we have fairly represented that this is the only location where we’re permitted to place the facility,” Gaudioso said.
Singleton said that it’s highly confusing that the village was provided with a document that refutes Gaudioso’s claim.
“I think you can appreciate the fact that the landowner is not going to allow the lessee to go anywhere they want,” Gaudioso said.
Board member Ralph Vigliotti responded that calls for copies of all leases between the two parties is based on what had originally been submitted to the village, which clearly supports Singleton’s argument.
“It’s not anything that was made up, and we stand by our village attorney,” Vigliotti said.
The recurring spat came before comments from a handful of speakers during the public comments portion of the hearing. Mount Kisco Chase resident Maryann Tarnok and village Conservation Advisory Council Chairman John Rhodes called on the board to issue a positive declaration for the cell tower and solar farm under the state Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
Tarnok said the clearing of 600 to 700 trees next to Marsh Sanctuary and dozens of neighbors is just one of many environmental factors against the twin proposals and would transform the site into a “commercial-industrial zone.”
Rhodes said a positive declaration is necessary to allow the Planning Board access to the information it needs to make an informed decision.
“We need the ability of the Planning Board to create a scope to decide what information and what documents you need in order to make a proper decision here,” Rhodes said.
Another speaker, attorney Anthony Campanelli, who is representing nearby homeowner Rex Pietrobono, said it is up to the board to determine whether the applicant’s proposed location and height are the least intrusive site and height possible.
“It doesn’t matter what the applicant or its attorney says, it’s up to you to make that fact-finding determination, and the reason that’s critical is that if you find the applicant has proven both of these things,” then you must approve the application, Campanelli said.
The Planning Board may be faced with a difficult decision regarding timing. In September, it determined that the environmental review for the proposed solar farm and cell tower be conducted in tandem. However, under federal telecommunications law, municipalities have up to 150 days from the time of submission to make a decision on the application, Gaudioso has previously stated.
Meanwhile, Sunrise Community Solar, the applicant proposing the solar farm, has canceled multiple appearances since the summer. Therefore, the cell tower application appears to be advancing ahead of the solar farm review.
Homeland Towers is looking to build the tower to enable Verizon, the anchor carrier, to improve coverage gaps along the Route 172 corridor. It is expected that up to three additional carriers would be co-located on the tower.
The hearing was adjourned until the board’s Dec. 8 meeting.
Martin has more than 30 years experience covering local news in Westchester and Putnam counties, including a frequent focus on zoning and planning issues. He has been editor-in-chief of The Examiner since its inception in 2007. Read more from Martin’s editor-author bio here. Read Martin’s archived work here: https://www.theexaminernews.com/author/martin-wilbur2007/
