Cell tower won't be built

Verizon withdraws its proposal to erect pole with antennas in residential area, By Jennifer Knocha Vernon — After almost a year of battling with Verizon Wireless, the residents of Silver Spruce Drive have finally been able to claim a victory. Attorney Ira Weiner, who represented the residents, said he received notification on Feb. 5 that the cell phone company was formally dropping its application to build a cell tower at 3 Silver Spruce Drive. The tower was intended to fill coverage gaps in the Lake Wallkill area, including along Route 565 and Lake Wallkill Road. While Verizon didn’t cite any specific reason for canceling the application, Weiner commented, “I’m sure that the difficulty of the site and our aggressive opposition were factors in their deciding to look elsewhere.” Verizon had some serious challenges to face in developing the tower, and not just from nearby residents who mounted a vocal opposition to the project. The plan called for a 140-foot monopole with antennas attached to it and an 11-foot, 6-inch by 30-foot unmanned equipment shelter that would be contained within a 24-by 60-foot fenced-in area. In order to move forward, the property owner, Joseph Wallace, and Verizon Wireless would have to have been granted five separate variances. Those included permission to put the tower in an area zoned for residential use only; a variance to exceed the maximum height for towers (Vernon’s code puts the maximum height at 80 feet); and permission to install the tower on a 4.3-acre site when the ordinance says that the site must be five acres or larger. The last two variances the firm would have needed for the plan to go through involve setbacks. The township ordinance calls for a minimum residential setback of 420 feet and a rear yard setback of 75 feet. The plan for Silver Spruce Drive had called for a residential setback of 62.9 feet and a rear yard setback of 31.2 feet. Difficult proposal To make things even more complicated, during the first hearing before the land use board in May 2009, it was pointed out by Weiner that some development for the tower project had already taken place on the site, in violation of town law. He suggested that the owners of the property may be in violation of the Highlands Act in making changes to the property. Vocal opposition Area residents were also out in force to oppose the project, with members of a coalition created to fight the project appearing at the land use board meetings, town council meetings and other events to make sure that their feelings were made known. Tim DeGroot, who lives along Route 565, stood up at one meeting to show his confusion as to why the tower was needed at all. “I get cell phone service in my house,” he said. “I get cell service in my basement, in my upstairs. Why do I need this?” Verizon pushed forward with the application, making it to one more land use board meeting in January, but that’s where it ended. Weiner wasn’t surprised by how the application turned out. “This was a very challenged site in terms of the way it was created and questions as to whether it was developed after the Highlands. They had a lot of hard questions ahead of them.”