The Cheektowaga Planning Board voted to table an AT&T application to install a 155‑foot “monopine” wireless telecommunications tower at a leased parcel on Lawson, citing the need for additional environmental and RF documentation and a pending Environment Advisory Committee (EAC) review.

The nut graf: Applicants said the monopine is intended to fill a local coverage gap and accommodate emergency responder traffic, but town staff and board members asked for up‑to‑date RF reports and confirmation of any wetland permitting after the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) contacted the project team. The board tabled the matter so the applicant can present EAC findings and outstanding documentation.

Centerline Communications’ site consultant Brenda Blasglas told the board that AT&T plans antennas mounted at 136 feet on a 155‑foot monopine, a fenced equipment compound roughly 85 by 34 feet, three walk‑up cabinets and a 20‑kilowatt diesel backup generator. “The purpose of the tower is to fill a coverage gap that they have in the area, and it will also increase some capacity for their customers, including emergency responders,” Blasglas said. She said the monopine design leaves the top portion conical to resemble a tree and that the lease area is smaller than AT&T’s typical 70‑by‑70 compound.

Blasglas said AT&T had conducted an RF study and sent an updated version in response to the planning board’s comment letter; she offered to email the updated RF materials to the town. She also reported that the DEC sent a letter indicating a requirement for a wetland delineation and that state wetlands review may affect whether a permit is required. “We are going to have to complete a wetland delineation, and we’re discussing with them about whether or not we’ll need a permit,” Blasglas said.

Board members raised concerns about the diesel generator’s testing schedule and potential noise near nearby residences. Blasglas said generators are tested in short weekly runs — she estimated about 15 minutes — and that testing can be scheduled during daytime hours to limit sleep disruption for neighbors. The board and staff also confirmed the applicant had not yet appeared before the town’s EAC; the applicant agreed to seek EAC review and return to the planning board with the EAC results and any additional required documentation. The planning board made and seconded a motion to table the application; the motion passed by voice vote.

Next procedural steps discussed included scheduling a balloon test prior to any public hearing and the applicant’s plan to appear at the EAC on the last Wednesday of the month; the applicant said it would pursue EAC review for the October session identified by staff.