Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee: 27-33 William wireless monopole relocation, setbacks remain unresolved
Summary
Representatives for a proposed wireless monopole at 27–33 William reported recent technical filings but said the site’s proximity to houses and setback requirements mean relocation and variance questions remain unresolved.
The Environmental Advisory Committee discussed a proposed wireless monopole sited at 27–33 William on Feb. 26 but did not take final action after town staff and the applicant reported outstanding issues with setbacks and a potential relocation.
Steve Fantuzo, a consultant with Nix and Peabody representing the applicant, told the committee the project team had submitted supplemental materials including an antenna-height coverage justification and an airspace report. Fantuzo said the airspace report “confirms that there's no FAA required lighting,” and that RF coverage drops at lower antenna-centerline heights were included to support reduced heights.
Committee members and staff said the current monopole location appears not to meet setback requirements. A town reviewer noted the code requires the monopole height plus an additional 10 percent of that height as a setback from property lines, and that the present location would not comply. Fantuzo said Verizon and the landowner were discussing alternate locations on the parcel, including areas near storage units, but that he had not received a definitive decision.
The committee and planning board have expressed concern about proximity to residential properties and required fall zones; staff said the applicant may need either a variance or other relief, and that in some cases local law requires referral to the town board rather than only a zoning variance. No vote was taken; the item remains under review while the applicant and property owner resolve site control and potential relocations.
Committee members asked about high-voltage power lines adjacent to the property; Fantuzo said no specific conflicts had been identified and that engineers planned to update drawings once the location is clarified.
Because the project’s final layout is unresolved, the committee did not advance formal recommendations and advised the applicant and town staff to clarify ownership permission for alternate locations and to submit updated plans that demonstrate compliance with setback and fall-zone requirements.
