wiffc@spotlightnews.com
With the approval of the Bethlehem Central School District narrowly given, a cell tower developer says it is putting together a proposal for a tower on school property to send to the Town of Bethlehem. Still, as a separate and nearly 2-year-old application for a nearby location demonstrates, the review process for projects in the competitive industry is lengthy and detailed.
ESCO Tower, Inc., with offices in Delmar, in February of 2008 proposed a 120-foot tower on Chuck Preska’s land off of Van Dyke Road and has both AT&T and Verizon Wireless lined up to locate antennas there. The developer is still making its case to the Planning and Zoning boards.
The town’s regulations require not only that any structure above a height of 90 feet apply for a variance, but compels cellular carriers to prove there is a need for their services and investigate collocation before building new towers.
This policy of collocation—which means pooling antennas together on one tower or other tall structure and is the norm in many municipalities—means that if one of the proposed cell towers is built, it is virtually guaranteed the other will be denied.
“Our chapter for that really encourages collocation,” Senior Planner Robert Leslie said of the Bethlehem Town Code. “We encourage the applicant to go to that location first.”
During the review of ESCO’s application, the town suggested that the company look into locating equipment at Town Hall, where a tower houses public safety equipment for the Police Department. It’s roughly 1.5 miles from the high school.
ESCO Vice President Thomas Butler said that the facilities at Town Hall are not appropriate for cell antennas, and even if there were an adequate tower, providers would be reluctant to locate there because it is in a densely populated area and wouldn’t meet coverage needs.
“Verizon Wireless and AT&T, they do not spend money unnecessarily and they know what they want,” said Butler. “They would not even give us the time of day if it wasn’t the right location.”
Butler joined with a coalition of parents and community members in October in protesting a proposal to build a tower near Hamagrael Elementary, a move he said was rooted in his desire to see towers built in nonresidential areas and off of school property, which he said should not be used for commercial ventures.
Contractor Independent Towers has signed a letter of consent with the BC School District to pursue the construction of a 110-foot tall tower at a location practically across the road from ESCO’s site.
Independent Towers Development Manager Daniel Schweigard said that the company has one carrier lined up, though he declined to identify the company or say when Independent would file an application with the town.
“At this point it’s just a proposal between the company and the school,” he said. “We’re kind of contemplating our strategy and contemplating what we’re going to have to go through with the town… It’s a pretty lengthy process.”
But the issue of collocation is only one part of the equation. Cell providers must demonstrate to the town that there exists a service gap that would be filled by their equipment.
“Basically, you have to show that there’s a need,” Leslie said. Arguing this need constitutes a sizable portion of ESCO’s application to the town.
“They need to show in their application what is the existing coverage for AT&T in this area,” Leslie continued.
The town has hired the services of a Connecticut-based RF engineer to review the data. Ronald Graiff will be retained for an estimated cost of $4,850 to look over the maps provided in the ESCO application, a cost that will be assumed by the applicant.
One element in which the town’s hands are tied is the matter of health concerns—a tower cannot be denied due to worry about the effects of RF radiation.
“They are seen as public utilities, and we’re not able to disapprove an application based on health reasons,” Leslie said.
With the factors of collocation and service need, the number of towers that can be built in a given area is invariably limited under existing regulations. But antennas can also be placed on existing tall structures, and for the property owners who do have appropriate structures in place, there comes the possibility of realizing rent.
Independent has said the school district stands to make $24,000 per year with one carrier on a tower, with revenues rising if more carriers locate there. Antennas located on the town water tower add to town revenues. This year, rent from AT&T, Nextel, T-Mobile and Wireless One will net the town $115,000.
The Town of Bethlehem in July of this year put out a request for proposals to cell tower companies that included the location of all town-owned land and existing cell antenna sites. It asked contractors to submit plans for building towers on town property and made specific reference to the facilities at Town Hall.
The town received two responses to the RFP, and the proposal are under review, according to the Planning Department.
Chuck Presca hopes that a tower on his land would help subsidize his farming operation and keep his 115 acres of land undeveloped. He wondered if seeing a tower on his property is a possibility, though, given the interest of the school and town.
“When you get into the new construction of towers and you got a government entity competing with a private entity, I think it’s an unlevel playing field,” he said. “If you look at all the hoops and stuff they’re making ESCO go through to put the tower up, you got to wonder.”
Presca said he has been open to having a tower at the site for about 20 years now.
Other cell equipment locations in Bethlehem include: behind Delaware Plaza on a monopole, on Hannay Lane off of Route 9W and on Jolley Road near the Thruway.
Cell towers generate tax revenue for the town, according to Town Assessor Patricia McVee, no matter what the property they sit on was originally zoned.
“That portion would be broken off and the company would be sent a tax bill,” she said.
Schweigard has said his company’s tower would have an assessed value of about $250,000.
