ROSENDALE � The Rosendale Planning Board had its hands full during its regular meeting this past Thursday, December 2. The bulk of the nearly four-hour meeting concerned the continuing, and controversial, application by Cellco Corp (Verizon) to construct a new cell tower on Davis Road in Tillson.

The applicant last appeared before the board in August. In its July 1, 2010 meeting, the board had issued a negative declaration, pursuant to town code, stating that, as outlined, the project would present no "significant" impact upon the environment. Some concerns remained, and were addressed during the August 5 Planning Board meeting � specifically, regarding the visibility of the tower and its possible relative devaluation of surrounding property.

In an attempt to examine the likely "visibility" of the tower, a mandated balloon test was conducted on April 3, 2010. But residents living adjacent to the Davis Road site, specifically those along Mountain View Drive, had concerns about the viability of that test. Thus, the board requested and Cellco conducted a second site test on November 2.

This test, however, encountered even more vociferous claims of invalidity; specifically that the test, originally scheduled for a weekend (October 30 or 31), had been postponed due to weather conditions, and that its actual date, on a Tuesday, occurred without notice or the residents' ability to witness it as most were working at that time.

Some members of the audience were adamant that, even without the notice problems, the test itself was flawed: the balloon did not fly for the requisite time or at the requisite height.

In consideration of the sensitivity of the issue, the board allowed a number of interruptions, but eventually instructed those concerned to submit their remarks in writing prior to the eventual public hearing.

After considerable discussion, the board unanimously requested that Cellco conduct a third balloon test; and in an effort to prevent any similar notice problems, it devised a system by which representatives of the board, Billy Liggan, John McEnrue and Joseph Havranek, as well as resident representatives, Doug Jones and Bridgett Mead, would receive notice of the next test and charged with the responsibility of "chain-notifying" their colleagues. Some members of the board cautioned that, if Cellco were to perform yet another balloon test, it would be done only as an extension of good will and not as an obligation.

According to Havranek, "The concerned residents, if effectively mobilized, should have exercised the due diligence necessary to determine when the second test had been carried out."

It was also suggested that an engineering consultant be present at any third test to stave off any challenges with regard to test duration, location, and height.

Others matters that also factored into the board's delaying further action on the application: the receipt of a letter from Van Pelt and Associates, newly retained residents' counsel, that necessarily required review and response by Town Attorney Mary Lou Christiana, as well as the delivery by Cellco representatives of a report containing additional data and technical information. And, although "superfluous to SEQRA," the counsel is requiring review and response by the board.

Another hotly discussed topic that arose was the possibility of constructing the tower on a town-owned parcel; two options being the water towers on Brown Avenue and Mountain Road. Scott Olson, Cellco's representative from Cooper, Savage & Irving, announced his party was "between a rock and a hard place" � that the Town Board had not responded in a timely manner to Cellco's overtures, and further insisted that Cellco had dealt "in good faith" with the board.

However, Councilperson Manna Jo Greene countered by proclaiming that "enlightened, sustainable communities" can and have accomplished similar projects with an eye to what's "best for both the corporation and the community." She added that, in her personal opinion, stressing that it was not that of the Town Board's itself, Cellco was "trying to use existing law to its own advantage and benefit and not that of the town's."

Her passionate remarks were greeted by sustained audience applause.

At one point during Cellco's presentation, Board member Fred Greitzer remarked, for the record, that he was legally prohibited from discussing any possible radiation effects from the project and he found that "regrettable." Board Chair Billy Liggan agreed that the board's "hands were tied" and explained that Federal law trumps local law.

Finally, all the aforementioned matters are predicated on Cellco's agreeing to an extension of the Federal "shock clause," if such an extension were even legally permissible.

The "federal shock clause's" purpose is to prevent local municipalities from procedurally delaying projects. The decisions to conduct the third balloon test, and to extend the allowable time period for project consideration, remain voluntary and at the discretion of the applicant (Cellco). The presentation concluded with Olson's promise to approach his client with the board's requests.