Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board presses Homeland Towers for clearer simulations and alternatives
Summary
At a Dec. 4 Ancram Planning Board hearing, consultants and the applicant debated visual impact and technical tradeoffs for a proposed 100-foot Homeland Towers cell site; the board asked for leaf-off photos, worst-case simulations, and further RF analysis before continuing the public hearing to Jan. 8, 2026.
The Ancram Planning Board spent most of its Dec. 4 meeting on Homeland Towers' application for a 100-foot special permit, hearing a critical review from an independent visual consultant and lengthy technical discussion about alternative tower designs and coverage.
George James, an urban-planning consultant hired to review the applicant's visual materials, told the board the applicant’s viewshed maps and photography "use industry standards" but identified problems that could understate visibility. "The photographs from the, the rail trail are taken using leaf on conditions, which is not industry standard," James said, and he recommended leaf-off photos and "reasonable worst case" simulations that show removed trees and equipment sheds. James also suggested exploring camouflage or alternate forms — a flagless flagpole, painted monopole or lattice structure — while noting design tradeoffs.
Applicant representative David Kenny said the company would provide additional imagery and consider alternative simulations. "We'll absolutely give you a new simulation of, not only the lattice tower, but I will speak with my client about the silo that's been requested," Kenny said. He and Cityscape, the board's RF consultant, agreed to share supplemental material for independent review.
Board members and technical consultants focused discussion on two linked questions: (1) whether a camouflage design can meet the town’s scenic-overlay requirement while allowing sufficient antenna capacity and collocation, and (2) whether the proposed site and height meet the board’s coverage objectives, notably for parts of the Boston Corners area. Members repeatedly cited the local 100-foot zoning cap and asked whether alternative designs could satisfy technical needs without exceeding that limit.
The board did not vote on the special permit. It requested revised simulations (leaf-off photos and 'worst-case' equipment-shed depictions), a Cityscape review of the applicant's October materials, and additional RF detail on the extent of coverage. The public hearing was continued to Jan. 8, 2026.
