
This cell tower by the Falls Village Fire Department on the side of Route 7 is disguised like a tree to better fit in among the rural, forested landscape of the Connecticut's Litchfield hills.
Photo by Caitlin Hanlon
This cell tower by the Falls Village Fire Department on the side of Route 7 is disguised like a tree to better fit in among the rural, forested landscape of the Connecticut's Litchfield hills.
Drivers and residents across Northeast Dutchess County, New York, and Connecticut’s Northwest Corner are well aware of the area’s spotty cell phone coverage.
“Cell phones suck,” Amenia Volunteer Fire Chief Chris Howard said. He echoed the feelings of many residents and visitors to the area who contend with dropped calls and failed text messages on a regular basis.
Spotty cell service is annoying for drivers relying on GPS for directions and it creates problems for Howard and his department. Howard said the truck’s computer-assisted routing uses the T-Mobile network. When trucks have to travel north of the traffic light in the middle of downtown Amenia, their cell service drops out and crews could lose those directions. Usually, Howard said, this isn’t a huge setback for his crew, but that’s not the only challenge emergency responders face because of spotty, slow service.
Hikers hitting the hills often travel through dead zones. The region’s rugged terrain — while scenic and inviting to hikers — hurts coverage. Hills block signals from distant towers, so if hikers have an accident in a remote area they may have trouble getting in touch with emergency services. Howard said Amenia’s rope crew will ask for coordinates, but sometimes the hiker can’t provide good information. “Then they’re hiking blind,” Howard said.
Cell phone tower construction is slow in rural areas across the United States, but several key factors contribute to subpar service in Northeast Dutchess County and the Litchfield Hills. Chief among them are the challenges presented by rugged, undeveloped land. Regions with lots of hills, few people and less power and telecommunications infrastructure are more difficult and costly to service than suburban or urban areas, according to a 2019 New York Upstate Cellular Coverage Task Force report.
John Emra, AT&T’s Atlantic region president, said cell towers require power and fiber optic connections, and many rural sites don’t already have that infrastructure. Another consideration is access. Towers can’t be too remote, otherwise emergency repairs are too difficult. However, they can’t be too close to large groups of people. Often, service roads have to be built to sites on remote ridgelines and hilltops. All this drives up the cost of cell tower construction, and the 2019 cell coverage task force report says the higher cost disincentivizes rural investment.
That report also cites local zoning codes as a potential hurdle for construction, but Emra said regulations don’t completely halt progress. In his 24 years with AT&T, he said rural communities have become increasingly open to cell tower construction and upgrades. Building codes in Northeast Dutchess County and the Litchfield Hills still present unique challenges for cell towers. Special attention is paid to ridgelines and scenic views in the area, so tall towers on high hills are discouraged through local laws. However, cell towers constructed in valleys or on the sides of ridges are less effective, covering much smaller areas because of the hills blocking the signal.
“Even 10 years ago if you proposed a new site — particularly in Litchfield County, Connecticut — you would likely meet some fairly fierce community resistance,” Emra said. “I’ve seen the change where we now have communities asking us to build.” He said AT&T recently finished a project at a site near Stanfordville, New York, and there’s a site near Salisbury, Connecticut, which should be online by the end of the year. Additionally, AT&T has built cell antennas across Dutchess County called “small cell nodes,” which are installed on utility poles but provide coverage over shorter distances than a full-size tower.
Representatives from Verizon did not respond to requests for comment.
Warriors left-fielder James Singleton, no. 4, made it to base on all four at-bats he had Tuesday at Beekman Park.
AMENIA — The Pine Plains boys baseball team travelled to Beekman Park in Amenia to face off against the Webutuck Warriors.
The game ended with a Pine Plains win of 13-7.
The Bombers' Austin Mielich, no. 35, only made one hit in three at-bats, but it was productive. Mielich secured two runners batted in and a run himself in a later play.Photo by Nathan Miller
The Bombers racked up an early lead in the first two innings, scoring four runs in the top of the first and a fifth in the top of the second before the Warriors managed to score two runs in the bottom of the second.
Webutuck defenders held back the Bombers in the third inning and scored another run, bringing the score to a manageable 5-3 Pine Plains lead going into the fourth inning.
Then the Bombers let it rip. Six more runs in the fourth inning brought the score to 11-4 Pine Plains going into the fifth.
Webutuck managed to score another three runs before the end of the game, but the Bombers nearly matched with two more of their own for a finishing score of 13-7.
Bombers catcher Matthew McGhee, no. 10, put out six batters, including Webutuck's Albert Bailey as he tries to cross home plate on Tuesday, May 13, at Beekman Park in Amenia.Photo by Nathan Miller
The Bombers’ pitchers — Warren Lounsbury, no. 11, and Luke Blackburn, no. 4, only gave up four hits to Warrior batters through the game. Between the two pitchers, the Bombers struck out 13 of Webutuck’s batters. The Warriors’ pitchers — Zach Latrell, no. 1, Gabe Domingez, no. 9, and Pearse Williams — managed to strikeout 11 of the Bombers’ batters.
Mickey Stringer of of North East, left, checks in with Chris Virtuoso, volunteering on Saturday, May 12 at the Old Town Garage on South Center Street as a Climate Smart Task Force member. Stringer’s loaded pickup was part of a long line of vehicles along South Center as residents used the opportunity to dispose of air conditioners, mattresses, lumber, and other bulk items. Town Supervisor Christopher Kennan said he didn’t recall seeing such a long line of vehicles in past years.
Elm Drive Elementary School in Millbrook.
MILLBROOK — Preparing for the village-wide vote on the proposed 2025-26 school budget scheduled for Tuesday, May 20, the Millbrook Central School District held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 6, to review the budget and hear residents’ comments.
The CSD proposed 2025-26 budget to be voted upon as Proposition 1, showed total expenditures of $35,649,651, an increase of $1,074,576 (3.11%) over the current year.
“We’re trying to trim as much as we can,” said Elliott Garcia, Assistant Superintendent for Business, during his budget summary.
Two additional propositions are included on the ballot, both anticipating a bond issue to fund repairs, renovations and improvements to school buildings.
Proposition 2 would bring repair to the Middle and High School buildings, with more work at the middle school estimated to cost $37,381,383. Work would include HVAC, electrical, window replacement, roof and ceiling repair, elevator service and doorway improvements.
The high school work would include HVAC at a total estimated cost of $1,883,099.
The total amount would, however, be reduced by $12 million in currently available funding, so that a bond issue would be needed to cover a total of $27,264,482, to be repaid over a number of years. Taxpayers would need to pay the annual interest on the bonds during the life of the bonds.
Separate funding of energy efficiency improvements at the middle school and high school would carry at total estimated cost of $3 million that would also need to be bond-financed, but that funding would return to the school budget in the form of energy cost savings.
Proposition 3 would bring HVAC, electrical and window replacement at the elementary schools at an estimated cost of $21,779,259, also to be financed by bond issue.
Students from the Middle School Student Council presented a report on a recent survey they conducted and analyzed. Their report was titled, “Repair Our School.”
For their building conditions study, the nine students conducted an in-school survey of students, teachers and staff, receiving 228 responses.
Interpreting the responses as percentages, the students reported that 90% indicated that the middle school does not look as good as it could; more than 80% said they were concerned about the state of the building; 67% had classes interrupted by roof leaks; 75% said it was difficult to learn because of the roof leaks; and 94% said that if the school were their home, they would not stay.
“Our student government never stops working,” said Principal Steven Cabello, adding that the students’ efforts have been invigorating.
School superintendent Caroline Hernandez-Pidala praised the students’ project, the time and care invested in their survey study and their reporting of the results.
“I’m super impressed,” Hernandez-Pidala told the students.
The May 20 polling location is at the Middle School, in the Band room adjacent to the auditorium. Polls will be open between noon and 9 p.m.
The proposed budget, details of the propositions and a copy of the ballot are posted on the CSD website at www.millbrookcsd.org.
Voters in two other school districts will decide on higher spending plans for the coming school year on Tuesday, May 20.
Webutuck Central School District and Pine Plains Central School District propose higher K-12 budgets for the 2025-2026 school year.
The proposed budget for Webutuck, with an enrollment of 637 students from K-12, shows a 5.96% increase from the previous year to $28,665,850. Pine Plains proposes spending $38,712,336, an increase of 2.71%.
Ray Nelson, Earthwise Architecture, requested two variances for 7-9 Main St., one to allow a 9-unit floorplan and another to waive the parking requirements for the building, at a public hearing held by the village Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, May 6.
MILLERTON — Ray Nelson of Millerton presented two possible updated floorplans for the apartment building at 7-9 Main St. to the Zoning Board of Appeals at a public hearing on Tuesday, May 6.
Nelson, on behalf of the building’s owner, is seeking two variances for the property: one allowing a density increase and another waiving the parking requirements for the property.
Village code requires at least 5,000 square feet of lot space per unit for multi-unit properties and 1.5 parking spaces per unit.
The building was configured with 12 units under previous ownership, a non-conforming use.
Nelson submitted a 9-unit plan and a 6-unit plan. He argues the 9-unit plan, which would house one fewer total bedroom than the 6-unit layout, would not require additional parking because the smaller units attract tenants that use fewer parking spaces — young couples, single people and very small families.
“There’s a need for apartments that are in the village,” Nelson said.
The submitted 9-unit floorplan is a reduction from a previously declined 12-unit plan that sought to maintain the current number of units in the property.
Zoning board members concluded the public hearing after brief discussion with the three Millerton residents that attended the meeting.
Zoning board members could not reach a final decision on the variances that night, citing required further deliberation, but they indicated a positive attitude to Nelson’s new plans.