Cell tower approval process flawed

by Kim Tetreault
Grand Island Dispatch, December 3, 2004

After (seeing) my article published two weeks ago, several people suggested that I write a brief summary of the facts related to the cell tower being constructed on Dan Robillard’s residence at 423 Ransom Road. So, here are the facts – as well as my interpretations of the facts – as I know them to be at this time.

As an overview, the applicant’s letter requesting site plan approval and issuance of a cell tower permit was dated Sept. 7, 2004. The project went before the Planning Board on Sept. 13, 2004, and then proceeded to the Town Board on Sept. 20, 2004, where it was immediately approved. Thus, it only took 13 days from the date the project was received in Town Hall to the date it received final approval.

A comparison between the Town’s Zoning Code and every document contained in the Town’s file raised the following issues:

• The code states a special use permit and a public hearing are required for essential public services (cell towers are considered an essential public service under this section of the code.) Yet, the Town Board approved the project without conducting a public hearing. This means the residents on Ransom Road and East River Road who now look out their windows and have no choice but to see this 120-foot cell tower had no prior notification or opportunity for input at a public hearing before the project was approved. Why was this overlooked?

The code says the town must receive a tower permit application form from all applicants with their initial application. There was no permit application form on file when the town approved the project. It was stamped received on Oct. 20, one month after the project was approved, when the applicant finally paid the application fee. Why was this overlooked?

The code says the town needs to look at all existing towers in and out of Grand Island for the purposes of co-locating on an existing cell tower, rather than building a new tower. Yet, both the Town Board and the Planning Board failed to question why the applicant omitted an existing 150-foot cell tower right across the river in North Tonawanda from Mr. Robillard’s house on Ransom Road. Why was this overlooked?

After the last Town Board meeting, Councilman Robillard admitted he knew about that cell tower all along but felt bringing this omission to the attention of Verizon was not something he should do because it would create a conflict of interest. For whom? He was adamant that it was not his responsibility to make sure the application was complete because Verizon was the applicant and he was not. I would suggest that being an elected Town Board official, Councilman Robillard has a responsibility to GI residents to uphold the code and consider it his duty to make sure the application was complete and the process followed correctly. But by his own admission, Councilman Robillard knew about the omitted cell tower and chose to conveniently ignore it.

The code says the town’s citing preference for cell towers from most favorable to least favorable districts shall be a) existing structures suitable for co-location; b) industrial; c) commercial; and lastly, d) residential. Not only did the town fail to look at an existing cell tower, they went ahead and approved the cell tower to be placed on the least favorable district with no documentation in the file suggesting they took the time to look at other more viable properties in the area. For example, two lots over from Mr. Robillard’s, the school district owns 25 acres of vacant land. Across the street, where the High School and Middle School are located, the school is situated on 92 acres. Extending from Bishops Gate to East River, the town owns 208 acres of vacant land. Three lots over from Mr. Robillard, E.H. Enterprises Nursery owns 16 acres of land. Mr. Robillard’s residential property backs up to neighbors on East River.

I could be mistaken, but I don’t believe any of these other lots mentioned have neighbors that would be as negatively affected as those seeing the tower from Mr. Robillard’s property. Common sense says the Town Board should have dug deeper to ensure this cell tower was put in the least obtrusive location. Not to mention that by locating the tower on school or town property, the $9,600 per year paid by Verizon could have benefited all island residents rather than just one. Why was this overlooked?

Further, in the written report supplied by Verizon, their only comments for why the existing WNED-TV/FOX-TV and Sprint sites were rejected were because they missed large portions of River Road and they would create an unreliable hand-off to the neighboring sites in Tonawanda and Wheatfield. Why did the town not ask Verizon to validate these claims before accepting the fact the existing towers (which are the most preferred district per the town code) would not work? Yet, there was nothing in the file to suggest the town asked for any data to substantiate Verizon’s claims. As to why the tower had to be on Mr. Robillard’s property, Verizon stated, “the selected site provides adequate service … and fits in the overall plan of future sites both on and off Grand Island.”

I contend that while it may fit into Verizon’s plan, it does not map into Grand Island’s plan, where the code states the most favorable districts for locating cell towers should be in industrial or commercial locations, rather than on residential property. What type of precedent did the town just set by allowing this cell tower to be located on Mr. Robillard’s residential property?

The code states the applicant must submit a financial security bond in an amount not less than $10,000 as soon as the tower permit has been issued. The tower permit has been issued and the tower has been built; but there is no record of the financial security bond. Why was this overlooked?

Lastly, the earliest dated document in the town’s file for this cell tower project is a SEQR Environmental Assessment Form dated July 26, 2004, and signed by Peter McMahon, our Town Supervisor. SEQR requires all impacts of a proposed project be thoroughly examined to assure that when a project moves forward, all impacts are understood and reduced to the greatest extent possible. How could this form be signed on July 26, 2004, when the applicant did not come forward with their written application to the Town until Sept. 7? How could this form be signed indicating there were no impacts when there was no information in the file on which to base a thorough review (or any review, for that matter)? How could this happen?

This project moved through the system in a mere 13 days without public notification, without a public hearing, and in my opinion without the proper investigation on the part of our Town Board. Why was this allowed to happen? Based on the facts, it is hard for me not to suspect this project was rushed through the system in order to avoid the public from becoming aware of the tower until it was actually built – which now, unfortunately, it is.

Now, weeks later, the town is trying to amend the code to remove the requirement that cell towers need a public hearing under the essential public services portion of the code.

Based on the facts of this case, isn’t it shockingly obvious that more notice, input, and community involvement are required on projects of this type, rather than none at all as the Town Board is trying to see to it?

There is a public hearing at Town Hall on Monday, Dec. 6 concerning the code. If you feel residents should be afforded prior notification and a public hearing for all future cell towers, please come to the public hearing at 8 p.m. or write or e-mail your Town Board members with your comments.