Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Tower topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montebello board continues Homeland Towers hearing after residents raise property, environmental and process concerns
Summary
The Village of Montebello continued a public hearing on a proposed Homeland Towers lease for 350 Haverstraw Road after residents questioned property‑value impacts, consultant independence, visual reports and environmental timing; the board set the next decision date in February (transcript records Feb. 18 and Feb. 19; the board's recorded Resolution 26‑012 continues the hearing to Feb. 19, 2026).
The Village of Montebello Board of Trustees on Jan. 21 continued a public hearing on a proposed lease to Homeland Towers LLC for property at 350 Haverstraw Road after residents and board members raised concerns about property values, consultant independence, visual impacts and environmental protections.
Attorney Robert Gaudioso of Snyder & Snyder LLP, representing Homeland Towers, summarized updated materials and said the company chose the site to fill a coverage "void," described environmental timing tied to protections for timber rattlesnakes and bats, and said Homeland had conducted publicly noticed balloon testing and data‑driven analysis to inform site selection. "It is not subjective, it is objective analysis based on the DEC methodology that is spelled out in the reports and in the SEQRA process," Gaudioso told the board.
Several residents asked the board to delay a decision and to post all current application materials online for review. Vincent Caputo asked for a guarantee that the tower would not depress property values. Lee Krafcheck said he "does not trust the reports from Homeland Towers" and pressed whether any independent reports commissioned by the Village exist and how often Homeland's consultants have produced unfavorable findings. Prof. Richard Van Inwegen offered maps showing alternate locations, including municipal properties, and asked why those sites were not chosen.
Not all public comments opposed the proposal. Moshe Engel, who identified himself as a first responder, said the area has known connectivity gaps and argued the village should not wait for an emergency to improve coverage. "We should not wait for someone to have an emergency before we act on a cell tower," Engel said.
Board members pressed technical and process questions. Deputy Mayor Stacy Caridi asked whether emergency services would be able to use the tower; Gaudioso said emergency services are typically provided access and village space can be reserved for local use. Trustee David Rose asked about timing for tree removal and potential impacts on endangered species; Gaudioso said consultants must comply with federal environmental review and FCC-related NEPA procedures.
The board discussed scheduling for additional consideration and, after amendments to earlier continuance motions, recorded a resolution continuing the public hearing and decision to the village's next Regular Meeting in February. The meeting record contains inconsistent references (Feb. 18 and Feb. 19); Resolution 26‑012 as entered in the minutes continues the hearing to Feb. 19, 2026.
What happens next: the board will accept additional submissions and questions, and the Village Attorney was instructed to prepare a comprehensive resolution addressing lease terms ahead of the next hearing date. No final lease decision was made on Jan. 21.
