Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Verizon fence-material change request carried as board seeks record and legal clearance
Summary
Verizon sought to substitute a 10-foot chain-link fence with vinyl privacy slats for a previously required 10-foot composite fence at 156 Cedar Grove Lane; the Board of Adjustment carried the request to March 6 to verify whether earlier approvals and conditions remain valid and to review additional documentation.
New York SMSA Limited Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless) requested relief from a condition in an earlier approval that required a 10-foot composite fence to conceal equipment for a proposed 118-foot monopole disguised as an evergreen at 156 Cedar Grove Lane. Verizon said supply-chain difficulties made sourcing the specified composite panels impractical and proposed a 10-foot chain-link fence with solid vinyl privacy slats painted in earth tones or green to achieve equivalent screening.
Kevin Jones, counsel for the applicant, and civil engineer Colleen Connolly presented visual simulations and technical testimony. Connolly said the vinyl slats are woven through the chain-link fabric, provide comparable screening at the proposed 10-foot height and, together with remote monitoring and alarmed equipment, would satisfy security objectives. She testified the vinyl-slatted fence would “provide the same level of screening” and noted the site is monitored 24/7.
Board members expressed concerns about materials and visual impact in the wooded, relatively remote site. One member said a composite fence would present a smoother exterior that might draw less attention; another worried that a chain-link surface could make the compound easier to climb. The Environmental Commission had recommended green slats to better blend with tree trunks at the 10-foot level; the applicant submitted earth-tone and tan photo simulations and later provided a green option upon request.
A central unresolved question was whether Verizon’s prior approvals remain valid. The application’s approval history spans multiple resolutions (initial approvals referenced in the record from 2017 and 2020). Board counsel and staff asked the applicant to provide a legal opinion and documentary proof that the earlier approvals and any necessary extensions are still effective. The board carried the application to the March 6 meeting, with no further notice, and asked counsel to supply an opinion at least one week before the hearing and to make available earlier photo simulations or resolution materials for the board’s review.
The board’s motion to carry the application passed by roll call with the same members voting in favor as recorded elsewhere in the evening. The applicant was instructed to provide the requested documentation and to be prepared to show the previously proposed fence materials from the 2017/2020 file when the item returns.
