Cellular Sensitivities
            Judging from the political ads and letters-to-the-editor, things are certainly heating up in advance of our local election. How much of what‚s being said is true, and how much is projection or whatever∑these are things each of us need to sift through for ourselves. Things are obviously tense, framed as we all know by the prospect of big development and very big changes ahead. Whenever issues are big and complex, there‚s a tendency to want to simplify them, and sometimes try and create the appearance of conflict where it may or may not really exist. The perfect case in point is cell service in Shandaken. If there‚s a single person that doesn‚t want cell service in Shandaken, we haven‚t met them. It‚s as close to being something everyone here wants as we‚ve ever heard of, and the issue isn‚t whether people are "for" or "against" it.  It‚s how we‚re going to get it in here. 
            In May of 2001, our ZBA issued a variance to construct a steel lattice tower almost 200 feet high atop the cliffs above the Phoenicia Diner. Soon afterwards, 172 people signed a suit asking the courts to stay that decision.  None of them so far as we know opposed cell service or the construction of cell towers. They opposed that tower, that variance, because Verizon‚s own tests showed a far smaller one would have worked just as well. And like people in the rest of our region, they wanted towers that didn‚t mar the landscape more than necessary. The company refused repeatedly to negotiate for a less obtrusive design, even though that‚s what they‚re building in just about every other community.  So it went to court and the court backed the town. The decision was appealed twice, with both higher courts ruling that none of the 172 petitioners had the legal standing to bring suit, in keeping with the apparent criteria for New York‚s courts that if something can‚t fall on your head, you‚ve no right to challenge it. The actual case, the issues relating to the variance, were never heard. 
            One could say the suit "failed" because the town won, or one could say that it failed because it failed to break the lock on the courthouse door. But there's another way to look at it as well. The truth is a bad decision got made and challenged for one reason: Shandaken's zoning code was inadequate, and didn't have a law that laid out what was acceptable here. That's why Planning Board member Bob Kalb fought for years for a moratorium on cell tower applications; to give us a chance to write that law. Well, as things have worked out we've now effectively had that moratorium, both because of the suit and a downturn at the same time in the telecommunications business. And fortunately we've used the time well because we now have - at least in draft form -the law that would have prevented the suit and helped get the get the towers we need up and running.
            Something as basic and critical to our town as cellular communications should be a non-partisan issue here, and we think it is. But we also think one has to give credit where it's due, and our new cell tower law is basically Pete Di Modica‚s doing, along with a lot of volunteer help from planner Helen Budrock of the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development. Di Modica put together a committee  that‚s worked on the law for six months with our Planning and ZBA chairs, our Zoning Enforcement Officer, and local experts from the telecommunications industry.  And though there may be some final changes in language before it comes to public hearing, what we've got is a superb law in the making.
            Most traditional cell tower laws try to regulate the particulars: not this one. There‚s no set height limit for example, what we have is a flexible height capped at 40 feet above the surrounding tree canopy. There's a two-tiered system designed to encourage providers to propose the preferred or "stealth" type of tower with limited visual impacts. These could essentially be built anywhere, with a streamlined review process. Less desirable designs with greater visual impact like Verizon‚s initial proposal would be permitted, though restricted to R3 and R5 zones, and with a more intensive review process. There‚s a lot more of course, all of it in our view, good and necessary.The point of the law is to use the carrot, not the stick to move the creature forward, and most people who‚ve looked at it think it'll work, and could well become a new model law for towns like ours. As soon as final comments are integrated, a public hearing will be scheduled and electronic and printed copies made available.
            We think that Shandaken will be well served by the law and the process, and that both represent a model of thoughtful, responsible town governance. That‚s why it's distressing, even in an election season, to see the spin that‚s out there that our town government is part of the problem, not the solution to getting cell service here. The problem was that there was no law, and from this point on, we think it should be a non-issue insofar as politics are concerned. Ironically, the issue actually started out non-partisan. Jane Todd for instance was the only board member who actually realized what an awful decision our ZBA had made, and voted not to even spend the town's money defending their action. Di Modica agreed personally but voted to defend the ZBA, so as not to set a precedent of interfering with one of the town's boards. At the time we thought Todd was right and Di Modica was wrong to defend the ZBA, when in our view and presumably in her's, they had violated the law. But the lower court saw it differently and the upper courts wouldn't take the case. You just never know with lawsuits, but hopefully we won't see any more on this subject. That's what home rule and good laws are for. It's our right, and it's our responsibility to put in place new laws once in a while when we actually need them. We think this is one law everybody can comfortably back.