The fate of a proposed cell phone tower on Tice Road in Wawarsing's Spring Glen still remains undetermined, as the public hearing regarding the tower entered its second month at the town's planning board meeting two weeks ago on April 22. The first part of the public hearing, which was first held on March 25, saw varied reactions from those in attendance, from declarations of concern and protest by several area-residents to some words of welcome from a few others. At the end of March's portion of the hearing, SBA Towers, the group responsible for sighting and building the tower on the property owned by Ron Irwin, agreed to conduct a balloon test on April 16 at 8 a.m. for three hours, which would supposedly simulate the visual impact the proposed tower would have on the landscape. The details of the meeting were documented in April 10's edition of the Ellenville Journal.

Anticipating another strong reaction from residents attending the meeting, Planning Board Chairman Marty Lonstein moved the hearing regarding the proposed tower to the top of the night's agenda, again asking that those seeking to speak restrict their comments to two minutes. It was also revealed that the town had hired its own consultants from the Center for Municipal Solutions to look into SBA Towers' proposal, and that they would share their findings with the planning board by the next meeting after they had conducted their analysis. One of the consultants with the firm, Russell Bogie, addressed the planning board, as well as the assembled audience, saying that he and his firm are independent, and work for the community.

"We don't make decisions, we make recommendations," said Bogie.

Robert Fiore, Town Supervisor of Mamakating, the Sullivan County municipality bordering Wawarsing, addressed the board regarding the tower, which would possibly be visible from Mamakating despite its location in Wawarsing's borders. He read from a letter, which was signed by himself and the rest of the Mamakating Town Board. In it, he said that he had found out about the proposed tower on April 15, the day before the balloon test. He said that he would appreciate being kept informed about the project's progress, and he asked that the planning board proceed carefully in its consideration of the proposal. With that, he left the meeting, saying he had to attend his own town board meeting.

Next, the planning board heard comments from Catherine and Michael Abate, the most vocal opponents of the proposed tower and the owners of the property adjacent to that of the Irwins. Catherine spoke first, again urging that AT&T, the cellular provider that has commissioned SBA Towers for the project, make an effort to co-locate their cellular transmitters onto existing towers in the area. The Abates' engineer, Andy Willingham, spoke next, saying that the balloon was visible from four different locations on Route 209. Michael Abate brought scale model visual aids, one in the form of an Eiffel Tower lamp to simulate the proposed lattice-tower's visual impact, and told of how the balloon test was an inadequate demonstration of what the tower would look like should it be constructed.

The attorney representing SBA Towers, Doug Dimitroff, began his presentation by apologizing to the board for not having the photo-simulations of the tower's visual impact on hand that he thought he would, and said that once they were finished, he would furnish the board with them. Next, Dimitroff turned things over to Dan Goulet, a consultant from C Squared Systems, LLC, an engineering and consulting firm hired to do an analysis of the area showing why the tower is necessary to increase cellular coverage. Goulet spoke about how the rapidly changing technological capabilities and demands of cell phones requires new towers to be built closer to other existing towers, and showed the different gaps in AT&T's coverage that the new tower would allow their transmitters to fill.

After Goulet's presentation, Planning Board Chairman Marty Lonstein read a letter from Paul Lonstein, a planning board member who was unable to attend the meeting. The letter asked about co-location, visual impact analysis, and the possibilities of relocating the proposed tower entirely.

After about forty-five minutes total, the public hearing regarding the proposed tower was once again held over until next month's meeting, which will take place on Tuesday, May 20, at 7 p.m. at Town Hall.

COMMENTS about this article (1)