Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 31
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-----------------------------------------------------------------X
`VERIZON WIRELESS OF THE EAST LP d/b/a
`Verizon Wireless and TARPON TOWERS II, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`TOWN OF WAPPINGER, TOWN OF WAPPINGER
`PLANNING BOARD, and TOWN OF WAPPINGER
`ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
`EXPEDITED REVIEW PURSUANT
`TO 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v)
`
` 7:20-cv-8600
`Docket No.:
`
`-----------------------------------------------------------------X
`Plaintiffs Verizon Wireless of the East LP d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) and Tarpon
`
`Towers II, LLC (“Tarpon”), as and for their Complaint against Defendants Town of Wappinger
`
`(“Wappinger” or the “Town”), Town of Wappinger Planning Board (“Planning Board”), and Town
`
`of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA” and collectively with other Defendants, the
`
`“Town”), allege as follows:
`
`Facts Common to All Claims for Relief
`Nature of the Action
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 332
`
`of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and
`
`correspondent federal regulations and orders. That federal law generally prevents and preempts
`
`state and local governments from action or inaction that prohibits or has the effective of prohibiting
`
`the provision of personal wireless services. Among other things, it is unlawful under Section 332
`
`for a municipality to fail to act on or fail to approve applications to install infrastructure to support
`
`wireless services within a certain time period or absent a recognized justification. Here, the Town
`
`violated that federal law through its continuing and unjustifiable failure to act on Plaintiff’s
`
`application to install a wireless communications facility—a 150 foot tall monopole on an
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`approximately 48 acre horse farm—to address what the Town’s own wireless consultant confirmed
`
`is an area of deficient wireless service for residents and visitors in the Town and neighboring
`
`Fishkill.
`
`2.
`
`The Town’s failure to act, and the Planning Board’s unlawful and pretextual
`
`invocation of state law to delay action, occurred more than 270-days after Tarpon’s application
`
`was complete and the Planning Board had received and reviewed a full visual report with photos
`
`and photo simulations from vantage points it had pre-approved and in some cases selected.
`
`3.
`
`The Town’s actions were contrary to not just federal law, but also local and state
`
`law, and were based on solely generalized—and unsupported—“Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY)
`
`opposition from a group of small, but vocal, residents.
`
`4.
`
`The Town’s decision to succumb to generalized NIMBY opposition rather than act
`
`based on its obligations under federal law, or even follow its own local code and New York’s State
`
`Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), is not unique in the context of wireless facilities
`
`applications and the Telecommunication Act (“TCA”) lawsuits that can follow. Yet, the Town’s
`
`actions were particularly unjustifiable here.
`
`5.
`
`Tarpon first met with Town representatives in August 2019 for a pre-application
`
`meeting after securing a ground lease option with a property owner and Verizon as the “anchor”
`
`tower tenant. There, Tarpon and the Town discussed the need for the tower (the “Facility”) and
`
`the permits, variances, and authorizations Tarpon would need to apply for. The Town advised
`
`Tarpon that rather than submitting a full visual study in its initial application, it was preferable that
`
`Tarpon submit an application and include a map with proposed locations for photos to be included
`
`in the visual study which it could discuss with the Planning Board prior to preparing and submitting
`
`the study required in the Town’s Code.
`
`2
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Per the Town’s instructions, in October 2019, Tarpon applied to the Planning Board
`
`and ZBA for the various permits and variances it needed to install the Facility. Tarpon’s
`
`submission included a detailed radiofrequency (RF) engineering report from Verizon explaining
`
`the need for the new Facility to improve service in the Castle Point area of the Town and the
`
`northwest portion of Fishkill. The submission also included a site selection analysis addressing the
`
`various locations that Tarpon and Verizon had identified and evaluated and the basis for selecting
`
`the final proposed site. The submission contained a full SEQRA environmental assessment form
`
`with a visual addendum. And the submission provided a map of proposed photo locations for the
`
`visual study with several of the locations provided by Town staff as part of the pre-application
`
`meeting and process.
`
`7.
`
`Following a Planning Board meeting in November 2019, at which the Planning
`
`Board approved (a) the timing and public notice for the balloon float and (b) the photo locations
`
`Tarpon should include in its visual analysis report, Tarpon conducted the balloon float and in
`
`December submitted the visual study.
`
`8.
`
`Through the course of the next several months, Tarpon addressed comments on its
`
`submission from the Town Planner, Engineer, and Fire Prevention Bureau. Tarpon obtained
`
`authorizations for the Facility from various federal and state agencies, including the Federal
`
`Aviation Administration, the New York Department of State Coastal Commission, and the State
`
`Historical Preservation Office, which determined that the Facility would have no visual impact on
`
`any historic properties. The Town’s RF consultant also concluded that Tarpon’s proposed tower
`
`was the “best solution” to address the agreed upon coverage deficiencies in the Castle Point area
`
`of the community.
`
`9.
`
`Per the Planning Board’s request, Tarpon submitted renderings of various design
`
`3
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`options for the Facility, revised site plans addressing comments from the Planning Board and the
`
`Town’s professionals, and a stormwater management plan. Tarpon also appeared at multiple
`
`Planning Board meetings and participated in various work sessions with the Town’s professionals
`
`and agreed to a tolling agreement whereby it extended the Town’s time to act on the application
`
`under the FCC’s “shot clock” by 45-days.
`
`10.
`
`Starting in May 2020, local NIMBY opposition became more vocal. The opposition
`
`was based primarily on generalized aesthetic objections, health and safety concerns regarding RF
`
`exposure, and conclusory assertions regarding diminution of property values.
`
`11.
`
`In supplemental filings in late May and early July 2020, Tarpon responded to the
`
`public comments and filings of the opposition by, inter alia, submitting reports regarding the lack
`
`of diminution of property values from wireless facility installations and addressing structural
`
`safety of towers. Tarpon also submitted revised zoning drawings and provided a storm water report
`
`per the Town Engineer’s request and agreed to another 45-day extension of the shot clock.
`
`12.
`
`Satisfied with Tarpon’s application, the SEQRA Full EAF as originally filed and
`
`updated and the way in which it and Verizon had addressed the comments of the Town’s
`
`professionals and the public, the Planning Board passed a unanimous resolution on July 6, 2020
`
`directing the Town Planner to draft a SEQRA negative declaration (i.e. a finding of no significant
`
`environmental impact) with the intention that the Planning Board would review and confirm the
`
`written negative declaration at a continued public hearing in two weeks.
`
`13.
`
`Between the July 6, 2020 and July 20, 2020 public hearings, Tarpon submitted a
`
`noise study verifying that the Facility equipment at grade would emit only very low decibel levels
`
`of sound and the Town Planner drafted and circulated the negative declaration, which would clear
`
`the way for approval of the Facility. No other materials were added to the administrative record.
`
`4
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`14.
`
`However, at the July 20, 2020 continued hearing the Planning Board did not act on
`
`the negative declaration it had unanimously directed the Town Planner to draft two weeks prior.
`
`Instead, for the first time, the Planning Board claimed to take issue with the scope and
`
`completeness of Tarpon’s visual study—the same study the Planning Board scoped, approved, and
`
`had been in possession of for seven months.
`
`15.
`
`Then, in a comment letter, dated July 24, 2020, the Planning Board asserted that it
`
`had determined that the visual study was “defective” and did not accurately reflect the potential
`
`visual impact of the Facility. The Planning Board requested that Tarpon submit additional photos
`
`depicting how the Facility will look from areas immediately adjacent to the property. Additionally,
`
`though the Planning Board received Tarpon’s site selection analysis in early October 2019 and had
`
`never taken issue with its thoroughness or requested that Tarpon evaluate any additional sites or
`
`re-evaluate any previously considered sites, the Planning Board also requested that Tarpon
`
`evaluate two new sites and re-evaluate a site it had previously considered.
`
`16.
`
`The Planning Board also requested that Tarpon provide a real estate valuation
`
`report specific to the unique nature of the neighborhood. The Planning Board did not identify or
`
`cite a single local code provision or any other basis in law to support its assertions that Tarpon’s
`
`submissions were somehow defective, or that additional information could be required.
`
`17.
`
`Nevertheless, at significant cost, Tarpon completed additional visual scopes of
`
`work, which included photos from over fifty vantage points and 360-degree drone fly footage.
`
`Tarpon also engaged a certified real estate appraiser to conduct a site-specific market study.
`
`18.
`
`On August 18, 2020, Tarpon submitted (a) the additional visual study, (b) the site-
`
`specific market study, (c) an additional real estate appraisal study conducted in the nearby town of
`
`East Fishkill finding no diminution of property values following the installation of a wireless
`
`5
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 6 of 31
`
`facility, and (d) an updated site selection analysis addressing the three sites for which the Planning
`
`Board had requested additional information.
`
`19.
`
`Contrary to its prior position, on September 9, 2020, the Planning Board completed
`
`its about-face and directed the Town Planner to prepare a positive declaration under SEQRA,
`
`which the Planning Board unanimously adopted on September 21, 2020—the date to which the
`
`parties had agreed to toll the shot clock for a final decision on the applications before the Board.
`
`20.
`
`Precisely as in Bell Atlantic Mobile of Rochester L.P. v. Town of Irondequoit, 848
`
`F.Supp.2d 391, 401 (W.D.N.Y. 2012), here, the Town’s “invocation of SEQRA’s procedures was
`
`merely a delaying tactic as a result of vocal opposition to the placement of a monopole in the one
`
`location that would address the lack of coverage. The Defendants’ decision to delay final ruling
`
`on the application beyond the “shot clock” Order period has the effective of prohibiting the
`
`provision of wireless services” in the Castle Point area.
`
`21.
`
`Accordingly, in furtherance of Congress’s express intent to promote the rapid
`
`deployment of wireless infrastructure to provide service to communities, Plaintiffs seek an order
`
`that will allow Tarpon to install the wireless facility to provide wireless services to the public in
`
`an area of admitted and acknowledged need.
`
`The Parties
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff Verizon is a New York limited partnership with a place of business at 175
`
`Calkins Road, Rochester New York.
`
`23.
`
`Verizon provides personal wireless services and telecommunications services to the
`
`public as those terms are defined in the TCA and correspondent FCC regulations, rulings, and
`
`orders.
`
`24.
`
`Tarpon is a limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of New
`
`6
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`York and organized under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business at 8916 77th
`
`Terrace East, Suite 103, Lakewood Ranch, Florida.
`
`25.
`
`Tarpon owns and operates personal wireless service facilities across the country
`
`that are used in the provision of personal wireless services to the public, as those various terms are
`
`used and defined in Section 332 of the TCA.
`
`26.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Town is a municipal corporation of the State of
`
`New York, located at 20 Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls, New York 12590.
`
`27.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Planning Board is an agency of the Town with
`
`authority under federal, New York State and Town laws to review applications for the placement,
`
`construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities.
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, the ZBA is an agency of the Town with authority
`
`under New York State and Town laws to grant variances from the Town’s zoning laws.
`
`Jurisdiction & Venue
`
`29.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §
`
`332(c)(7)(B), because Plaintiffs have been adversely affected and aggrieved by Defendants’
`
`actions in violation of those provisions, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this is a civil action that
`
`presents federal questions arising under the TCA and related FCC rulings, orders and regulations.
`
`30.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and venue is proper
`
`because the claims stated herein arose in this judicial district and this is the judicial district in
`
`which Defendants reside.
`
`Expedited Treatment
`
`31.
`
`Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v), Plaintiffs are entitled to have this matter
`
`heard and decided on an expedited basis.
`
`7
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`Verizon & Tarpon’s Personal Wireless Services & Infrastructure
`
`32.
`
`Verizon is an FCC-licensed provider of commercial mobile services and personal
`
`wireless services.
`
`33.
`
`Verizon operates a fourth generation (4G) network in and around the Town.
`
`Specifically, Verizon provides services using its FCC-licensed 700 MHz and AWS (advanced
`
`wireless services) frequency bands in the area.
`
`34.
`
`Because of increasing demand for wireless services, primarily driven by increasing
`
`use of personal wireless devices, Verizon, and other FCC-licensed carriers, must constantly
`
`upgrade and add to its network infrastructure.
`
`35.
`
`Based on data from CTIA’s most recent annual survey, 37.06 trillion megabytes of
`
`data (voice calls are treated as data packets in modern networks) travelled over wireless networks
`
`in 2019, an increase of approximately 8.5 trillion MB from the previous year and nearly 10,000%
`
`more traffic than in 2010. The one-year increase in data usage from 2018 to 2019 is alone more
`
`than double the total wireless traffic in 2014.
`
`36. Wireless networks are designed to reuse scarce FCC-licensed spectrum and
`
`coordinate between interlocking cells (or antennas) as a call or data transfer (referred to as a
`
`session) moves between cells.
`
`37.
`
`Cells must be placed closely enough so that they eliminate coverage gaps and can
`
`effectively hand off sessions based on network protocols but cannot be placed too closely together
`
`or they will cause interference and decrease spectral efficiency and the quality of service.
`
`38.
`
` Increasing wireless usage creates capacity issues where individual cells become
`
`overloaded and their coverage area shrinks. The solution for Verizon and other carriers is to add
`
`more infrastructure (cells or antennas) with each serving smaller geographic areas. This is referred
`
`8
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`to as network densification or cell-splitting.
`
`39.
`
`By adding cells and shrinking the geographic area that each cell is required to serve,
`
`networks are better able to satisfy increasing demand and provide more reliable service.
`
`40.
`
`Higher frequency bands, like the AWS band (approximately 2100 MHz) are
`
`particularly important for addressing capacity issues because of their propagation characteristics.
`
`Accordingly, being able to provide reliable service at the AWS band is critical to Verizon’s overall
`
`network performance.
`
`41.
`
`Tarpon builds, owns and operates wireless tower sites where tenants install
`
`transmitting facilities to provide personal wireless services to the public.
`
`42.
`
`Tarpon will often be contacted by FCC-licensed wireless providers such as Verizon
`
`to construct a tower facility in a geographic area in which the carrier has identified a need for
`
`increased capacity or improved service and a tower is required.
`
`43.
`
`Once under contract with the wireless carrier, Tarpon will work with the carrier’s
`
`RF engineers to identify potential sites taking into consideration the location of existing wireless
`
`facilities, topography, foliage, local zoning regulations, and local characteristics.
`
`44.
`
`Typically, RF engineers will identify a search ring within which the facility must
`
`be based so that it (a) provides service to the needed area and (b) does not interfere with existing
`
`infrastructure.
`
`45.
`
`Tarpon will identify potential sites within the search ring and then negotiate access
`
`to those sites with the property owners. Once a site is procured, Tarpon will apply for all necessary
`
`permits and authorizations to construct the facility.
`
`46.
`
`Tarpon constructs tower sites that multiple wireless carriers can co-locate their
`
`equipment on consistent with federal, state, and local policies to limit the proliferation of wireless
`
`9
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`tower infrastructure.
`
`Federal Statutory and Regulatory Framework
`
`47.
`
`In 1996, Congress passed the TCA to “provide for a pro-competitive, deregulatory
`
`national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced
`
`telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans…” H.R. Rep. No.
`
`104-458, at 206 (1996) (Conf. Rep.); see also 1996 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 10.
`
`48.
`
`In passing the TCA, Congress explicitly directed the FCC to “promote competition
`
`and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American
`
`telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications
`
`technologies.” Preamble, The Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 104-014, 100 Stat. 56 (1996).
`
`49.
`
`The TCA preempts any state or local action or inaction that effectively prohibits
`
`the provision of personal wireless services and preserves limited municipal authority over the
`
`placement, construction, or modification of wireless facilities.
`
`50.
`
`Section 332(c)(7) of the TCA provides that state or local requirements that prohibit
`
`or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services are preempted.
`
`51.
`
`Courts in this Circuit and the FCC have confirmed that a state or local requirement
`
`is an effective prohibition if it materially inhibits the ability to provide services in a fair and
`
`balanced regulatory environment—including inhibiting the ability to effectively apply for permits
`
`associated with required wireless infrastructure.
`
`52.
`
`Section332(c)(7) of the TCA also requires that any actions a locality takes,
`
`legislative or on a specific application, be made on a competitively neutral and non-discriminatory
`
`basis.
`
`53.
`
`Section 332(c)(7) of the TCA further requires a state or local government agency
`
`10
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`to act on any application for a wireless facility within a “reasonable period of time.”
`
`54.
`
`Section 332(c)(7) of the TCA additionally requires that any decision by a local
`
`authority denying a request or application for a wireless facility be in writing and supported by
`
`substantial evidence.
`
`55.
`
`Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) grants any entity adversely affected by an action or inaction
`
`of a municipality on an application for a wireless facility the right to commence a judicial
`
`proceeding, which the “court shall hear and decide…on an expedited basis.”
`
`56.
`
`In furtherance of its Congressional mandate to promote competition, reduce
`
`regulation, and encourage the rapid deployment of telecommunications technologies, the FCC has
`
`issued orders and regulations interpreting Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)’s requirement that state or local
`
`governments act on requests for authorizations to place, construct, or modify personal wireless
`
`facilities within a reasonable amount of time.
`
`57.
`
`Specifically, in a November 2009 order (the “2009 Shot Clock Order”), the FCC
`
`recognized that “personal wireless service providers have often faced lengthy and unreasonable
`
`delays in the consideration of their facility siting applications, and that the persistence of such
`
`delays is impeding the deployment of advanced and emergency services.”
`
`58.
`
`In the 2009 Shot Clock Order, the FCC set shot clocks of 90 days for applications
`
`to collocate facilities on existing structures and 150 days for new structures. The FCC explained
`
`that the purpose of shot clock deadlines was to give municipalities “a strong incentive to resolve
`
`each application within the timeframe defined as reasonable, or they will risk issuance of an
`
`injunction granting the application. In addition, specific timeframes for State and local government
`
`deliberations will allow wireless providers to better plan and allocate resources.”
`
`59.
`
`Both the Second Circuit and the FCC have recognized that the shot clock applies
`
`11
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`to all authorizations necessary for the deployment of personal wireless facilities and runs
`
`concurrently. This consistent with the TCA’s express intent to encourage the rapid deployment of
`
`new telecommunications technologies by reducing impediments imposed by local governments.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`The FCC shot clocks are codified at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003.
`
`Congress and the FCC’s federal statutory and regulatory framework, along with
`
`various Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders,1 demonstrate a national policy to
`
`promote the provision of wireless services and the deployment of new and improved technologies
`
`in the United States by preempting various legal requirements and limiting municipal authority
`
`over the siting of wireless infrastructure.
`
`Background Facts
`
`Site Selection.
`
`Several years ago, Verizon identified a need for new infrastructure to improve
`
`62.
`
`coverage and relieve capacity demand in the Castle Point area of Wappinger (i.e. the southwest
`
`portion of Wappinger and the northwest portion of Fishkill, New York).
`
`63.
`
`Specifically, based on network data, Verizon’s RF engineers determined that the
`
`three cell towers that were serving the area around Castle Point required capacity relief due to the
`
`increase in consumer wireless usage. Verizon’s RF engineers concluded that Verizon needed to
`
`add a facility to provide relief to those existing sites and provide adequate coverage for its
`
`customers within that area of Wappinger and portion of neighboring Fishkill.
`
`64.
`
`Based on topography and RF propagation characteristics, Verizon’s engineers
`
`
`1 See Proclamation No. 8460, 74 Fed. Reg. 234 (Dec. 8, 2009) (recognizing wireless infrastructure
`as “an essential element of a resilient and secure nation.”); Executive Order 13616, Accelerating
`Broadband Infrastructure Deployment, 77 Fed. Reg. No. 199 (June 14, 2012) (“Broadband access
`is essential to the Nation’s global competitiveness in the 21st century, driving job creation,
`promoting innovation and expanding markets…”)
`
`12
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`identified a search ring within which they determined a new facility would need to be sited to
`
`provide reliable service.
`
`65.
`
`After determining there was no existing infrastructure within the search ring on
`
`which Verizon could collocate its equipment (e.g. existing towers, water tanks, tall buildings or
`
`other structures), Verizon requested that Tarpon identify and acquire a site for a new tower, obtain
`
`all necessary municipal permits and approvals for the facility, and then construct the facility for
`
`use by Verizon.
`
`66.
`
`Tarpon, in coordination with its site acquisition agent and Verizon’s RF engineers
`
`identified five parcels, and six locations (two on one parcel), as candidates for a new wireless
`
`facility.
`
`67.
`
`Tarpon’s siting agent contacted the owners of the five parcels regarding their
`
`interest in leasing space to Tarpon to construct a wireless facility. Based on these communications,
`
`in which several property owners expressed no interest in leasing space for a tower, an analysis of
`
`the zoning restrictions applicable to each property, and an analysis of the RF propagation that
`
`Verizon would achieve from the various sites, Tarpon selected a site at Hobbit Hills Farm (the
`
`“Property”), which was located near the center of the search ring and located in the Town’s R-40
`
`zoning district which permits the construction of wireless telecommunications facilities subject to
`
`site plan approval and special permit approval. In May 2019, Tarpon entered into an option
`
`agreement with the property owner with a 24-month term for a small portion of the nearly 48-acre
`
`horse farm, one of the largest properties in the Castle Point area.
`
`68. Where a zoning code permits the construction of a wireless facility in a zoning
`
`district subject to a special permit—like the R-40 district where the Property is located here—there
`
`is a zoning presumption in New York State that sites within that district are suitable for wireless
`
`13
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`facilities and applications involving such land uses should be approved.
`
`Tarpon contacts the Town to initiate the municipal permitting process.
`
`69.
`
`On July 19, 2019, attorneys for Tarpon contacted the Wappinger Town Attorney
`
`and Zoning Enforcement Officer via email introducing the project and requesting an informal pre-
`
`application meeting at which Tarpon and the Town could discuss the project, its viability and the
`
`scope the application process.
`
`70.
`
`After follow up requests for the meeting from Tarpon, Tarpon representatives met
`
`with the Town Attorney and Zoning Enforcement Officer for a pre-application meeting on August
`
`15, 2019.
`
`71.
`
`At the pre-application meeting, Tarpon and the Town representatives discussed the
`
`project, the local permitting requirements and relevant zoning code provisions, and how to
`
`expeditiously move the application forward.
`
`72.
`
`The Town advised that Tarpon would need to apply for a special permit, site plan
`
`approval from the Planning Board and a variance from a Town Code provision that no tower be
`
`located closer than 750 feet to an existing dwelling unit, an exclusionary zone with no specifically
`
`identified nexus to safety or other land use considerations.
`
`73.
`
`Tarpon confirmed for the Town that under New York law, Plaintiffs’ tower and
`
`network facilities are considered public utility facilities for zoning purposes because of the
`
`essential nature of wireless services and they are accordingly subject to a balancing test in
`
`applications for variances that is accommodating to the infrastructure needed to serve the public
`
`and less stringent in comparison to typical land uses.
`
`74.
`
`The Town also advised Tarpon that, despite exemption and historical agricultural
`
`use and disturbance of wetlands in the area of the Facility, a local wetlands permit would be
`
`14
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 15 of 31
`
`
`
`required from the Planning Board for work in a “regulated area” as applied to the
`
`telecommunications use of the Property.
`
`75.
`
`The Town representatives also advised Tarpon that the Planning Board was likely
`
`to act as the lead agency for purposes of applying SEQRA and procedurally requested that Tarpon
`
`first file its formal applications and then meet with the Planning Board to discuss a public balloon
`
`float and visual study required as part of the special permit process.
`
`76.
`
`Specifically, the Town representatives advised that prior to performing the balloon
`
`float and visual study, Tarpon should provide the Planning Board with a map of proposed photo
`
`locations for the visual study so that the Planning Board could have input. The Town
`
`representatives also suggested some locations that Tarpon should take photos from as part of the
`
`visual study at the meeting.
`
`Tarpon applies to construct a 150’ tall monopole on the 48-acre horse farm.
`
`77.
`
`On October 9, 2019, Tarpon submitted a combined application to the Planning
`
`Board and ZBA for site plan, special permit, wetlands permit, and area variance approvals to install
`
`the Facility at the approximately 48-acre horse farm in the Castle Point area.
`
`78.
`
`In its cover letter, Tarpon gave an overview of the Property, the proposed Facility,
`
`the relevant zoning requirements and considerations, and requested that it be placed on the agenda
`
`for the October 21, 2019 Planning Board meeting where it could receive further input from the
`
`Planning Board on proposed photograph locations for the visual study.
`
`79.
`
`Tarpon’s submission included (a) a SEQRA full environmental assessment form
`
`and a SEQRA visual environmental assessment form addendum, (b) a plan map of potential
`
`locations for photographs for the visual study, (c) an RF report from Verizon, (d) a site selection
`
`analysis report, and (e) site plans.
`
`15
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 16 of 31
`
`
`
`80.
`
`The RF report explained that the Castle Point area is partially served from three
`
`sites in the surrounding region, which are all overloaded and require capacity relief. The report
`
`further explained that the terrain of the area and impact of foliage on RF propagation combined
`
`with capacity issues leads to significant gaps in customer access to Verizon’s wireless network in
`
`the area.
`
`81.
`
`The RF report included various coverage and propagation maps, charts and graphs
`
`of capacity utilization, and propagation maps showing the increased coverage and capacity relief
`
`that would be provided by the Facility.
`
`82.
`
`The RF report included a narrative explaining the various maps and charts and
`
`describing how a new dominant transmitting server was technically required in the Castle Point
`
`area to offload capacity from the currently overloaded nearby sites.
`
`83.
`
`The report explained how Verizon’s engineers considered topography, user density,
`
`and Verizon’s existing network infrastructure in identifying and defining the search ring it used in
`
`this case.
`
`84.
`
`In the site selection analysis, prepared jointly by Verizon and Tarpon, the Plaintiffs
`
`explained that the topography in the Castle Point area made finding suitable sites for a tower
`
`particularly challenging.
`
`85.
`
`Specifically, the site selection analysis explained that the undulating terrain posed
`
`significant challenges for siting a facility and how the Plaintiffs were required to find a location
`
`that would work with and around the Ver Planks ridge to the east and also avoid the dramatic drop
`
`in elevation as terrain moves towards the Hudson River.
`
`86.
`
`The report explained that there were no collocation options available for Verizon
`
`in the area and that there were no options to site a tower on municipally owned property.
`
`16
`
`4590660.v4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-08600-KMK Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 17 of 31
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs were required to investigate privately-owned properties for a new tower in
`
`the area.
`
`87.
`
`The report went on to describe the six locations that Plaintif