Cell Tower Plan to be Considered in August

An application by Pegasus Towers Company LLC to build a 195-foot cell phone tower on city-owned property at 311 East Paxinosa Rd., was sent back for revisions and clarifications by the Easton Planning Commission at their meeting Wednesday evening.

Concerns regarding setback requirements, the visibility of the proposed tower, a lack of impact mitigation in the plans and a lack of an attempt to disguise or minimize the tower's appearance, along with resident concerns regarding the plan, were the reason for the recommendation to continue the matter, commission chair Charles Elliot told Pegasus representatives.

A 150-foot communications tower owned by Service Electric currently sits on the property. The Pegasus tower would occupy an adjacent space.

Unlike the current tower, the additional tower would be “low-profile” company officials said, though the current design made no attempt at 'stealth', required by city ordinance.

The lack of camouflage will require a special exception, along with the use itself, by the city's zoning hearing board.

Nearby neighbors said they felt the plan was inadequate for the ridge's extreme winter conditions, though the plans meet general engineering codes, and also worried about the installation ruining the view from their homes.

Resident Thomas Walters said he wants to see a landscaping buffer added to the plan to block the view of the installation.

“The bottom is more important,” he said, adding that the tower's support buildings and generator would be visible without it. “That to someone who lives next door, that's more important.”

He said the current tower is “an eyesore” and though plans indicate the area is wooded, “every year there are less trees.”

“We're creating these profit zones, and it only seems fair,” Walters said. “I don't think it needs to be dramatic. Cheap evergreens will suffice.”

Lawyer Theresa Hogan, representing property owner Ed Shaughnessy, agreed the existing tower is unsightly and also brought up other issues.

“The tower that is there now got there by accident,” she said. “It is an eyesore and should be taken down.”

The area, Hogan said, is in a historically designated residential area that calls for open space and residential uses, adding that she feels the city is considering the use because it will receive 40 percent of the revenue generated as part of the lease agreement.

“Making policy decisions based on 'the city really needs the money' is bad policy,” she said, adding that if she wanted to add a 195-foot tower to her private property, she didn't think the city planners would be so likely to recommend approval.

“I understand you have to rely on your planning staff, but they are the applicant here,” Hogan told the board. “You do have discretion. It's a special exception. Just because they meet the specifications doesn't obligate the board to approve it.”

Shaughnessy said he is particularly worried about the standards to which the company proposes to build the tower, based on Northampton County weather averages, instead of the actual extreme conditions the ridge often presents in the winter months.

“I'm more troubled sitting here listening to their report than I was before I waked into the room,” he said.

“Bottom line, they haven't done one bit of (research). The haven't looked at actual conditions on that ridge. The difference between that ridge and the city is amazing,” Shaughnessy said, adding that the area has it's own 'micro-climate' and it often snows all winter, even when it is raining in the city.