Local residents and property owner urge tower for safety and coverage gaps

Multiple residents and the landowner whose property is proposed for the tower told the planning board they support the application primarily for public‑safety reasons and to fill what they described as long‑standing coverage gaps in the valley.

Robert Magnus said he has spent thousands on boosters and Wi‑Fi and recounted a recent February incident when a cold, stranded woman walked to his house because she could not call for help: “If cell service was available in this area… she would have been able to avoid a cold walk to a stranger’s house at night,” he said. The property owner, who identified himself as a third‑generation dairy farmer, said about 80% of the valley lacks coverage and urged the board to consider life‑safety benefits over aesthetics.

Other residents offered mixed anecdotal experiences: Nancy Williams (at 6461 Route 22) said she has not had problems recently, while Dan Sternberg (from the neighboring town of Northeast) urged the board to consider regional alternatives and not act reactively. Applicant counsel and Cityscape acknowledged public‑safety claims and said Verizon’s low‑band coverage maps indicate gaps the proposed facility is designed to fill; the applicant also offered to provide additional RF detail and to explore whether a lower tower height could achieve the same objectives.

The town’s wireless consultant agreed to review RF materials and to comment to the board; the planning board left the record open and set an Aug. 7 continuation date.