Planning board issues negative declaration for Verizon tower at 121 Parker Avenue after debate over visibility and alternatives

The Poughkeepsie Planning Board voted 5-1 to issue a negative declaration on the environmental assessment form for a proposed 150-foot Verizon wireless tower at 121 Parker Avenue, clearing the applicant to pursue the zoning path that includes Zoning Board of Appeals variances and later site-plan review.

The motion to approve the EAF was made by Planning Board member Chris Betz and seconded from the chair; the board recorded a 5-1 vote in favor and the motion carried. The board’s legal adviser reminded members the Telecommunications Act and Federal Communications Commission rules limit local authority to deny applications intended to close documented service gaps.

Board members and the applicant spent more than a half hour discussing alternatives, visual impacts and co-location options. Scott Olsen, the Verizon representative, showed coverage maps and said the site is intended to fill a gap between existing antennas near Marist College and the Poughkeepsie transfer station. “Green is a signal strength… negative 85 dBm, which is just signal strength that's a very good signal strength, generally for in‑building,” Olsen told the board, and he explained yellow corresponds to about −95 dBm and orange to about −105 dBm.

Olsen and an RF engineer working with him argued the Pendell Road/Vertical Bridge site under review by the town would not substitute for the Parker Avenue site because it is too far away to cover the same area. He said the Pendell Road facility could complement the proposed Parker Avenue tower if both are built, but “it's not one or the other, unfortunately.”

Board members and staff also reviewed a referral letter from the county (described in the record as a 239‑m referral) that recommended additional visual and landscape screening along the rail‑trail and urged consideration of alternate sites before approving a tower on the parcel. The county letter said the board’s concern was not the tower height alone but “the development of a tower on this parcel will impact future development,” a staff member read into the record.

Members discussed a possible disguised “flagpole” structure. Olsen said flagpoles are typically less effective for co‑location and service — “we tend not to do those because they're not very effective service wise” — and that a flagpole design would still be a large structure (he cited about 100 feet) and would limit co‑location opportunities because antennas must be stacked in the top 18–20 feet.

The board’s assistant corporation counsel summarized the legal constraints: “Under the Telecommunications Act…and the rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, there are serious limitations on local governments when they can deny an application to develop a cell tower, particularly when the purpose is to address a gap in service,” she said, warning denials frequently are overturned in court absent substantial evidence of a permissible reason to refuse.

Several board members said they preferred the tower be placed elsewhere if possible. Vice Chair Rosalindoher McNeil explained her no vote stance, saying she would “rather see this tower somewhere else” and emphasized the town’s zoning intentions for sensitive corridors near the walkway and Hudson River. The board’s discussion repeatedly separated policy concerns about corridor character from the technical evidence that a coverage gap exists.

The applicant acknowledged outstanding land‑use approvals still required. If the board’s negative declaration stands, the developer will pursue a use variance and three or four area variances at the Zoning Board of Appeals; the planning board noted any site‑plan approval will follow and that landscaping and site‑plan details should be resolved before final approval.

Staff said a revised Part 3 visual analysis had been posted and that the board could request additional renderings or information before final site‑plan action. The board and staff noted the county had requested conditioning or mitigation such as landscape screening along the rail trail should the city accept the location; staff cautioned that screening cannot hide an above‑ground structure that rises well above tree canopy.

The board’s formal action at the meeting was limited to the EAF negative declaration, allowing the applicant to pursue ZBA relief. The planning board recorded the EAF approval (negative declaration) and clarified that the ZBA’s forthcoming work on use and area variances will determine whether the project can become a legally conforming development before final site‑plan approval returns to the planning board.