HANOVER – A barrage of arguments on both sides of the issue of constructing a cell phone tower on Route 39 caused the Hanover Town Board to take some action, but not make a decision just yet.

The town board has received several documents arguing for and against a telecommunications tower, leaving council members with a lot to mull over.

At the July 27 meeting, one side argued the property of Richard Skinner was optimally suited for improving cell service, while the other side argued cell service is fine in the area and the construction of a tower would ruin the country aesthetics, pose potential health problems and decrease property values.

On Monday night, a crowd of neighbors gathered once again to oppose the tower’s construction.

Town Attorney Jeffrey Passafaro said the public hearing for the tower was closed, but the board could allow the attorneys for Verizon Wireless and residents Stephen and Ann Marie Gajewski to speak.

Both attorneys complained of not having sufficient access to what the other submitted to the town board.

Verizon Attorney Robert Brennan said he submitted a site selection map overlaid on a tax map to show there are only three parcels in the target area. He said he also submitted documents showing Verizon has exhausted alternative sites, determining they were not “technologically feasible.”

“The town’s telecommunications law says the town can make site preferences provided they are technologically feasible alternatives. … There are none outside of agricultural. There aren’t options for co-location, government or municipal property or light industrial,” he explained.

He pointed to another portion of the town’s law which states a waiver can be granted by the board for “good cause shown.”

“We are requesting a waiver before the board because we do not comply with the 1,000-foot setback requirement. The law also mentions a self-created hardship, which only applies with an area variance. That is why we are asking for a waiver,” he said.

Attorney Arthur Giacalone referred to a 2003 court case, Omnipoint Communications Enterprises v. Zoning Hearing Board of Easttown Township, to explain a gap in service must be determined from the user’s point of view, not by each individual carrier.

He once again asked that the town board follow its own law and classify the tower as a Type 1 action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

“Require a SEQR long form so that information can be gathered requiring the applicant to look at alternatives and document mitigation measures. This process also gives the public a 30-day comment period,” Giacalone said, urging the board to make a positive declaration based on its law, which would effectively end the project.

Brennan had a final rebuttal, saying Verizon had submitted a long-form SEQR.

“I ask that you do what New York state requires and look over the form and then make a decision,” he said. “It is not appropriate to ask for a result based on an ordinance.”

Supervisor Todd Johnson asked that any and all correspondence on the matter be submitted to the town by Aug. 19 in order for the board to review all arguments. The attorneys agreed to share reports and correspondence with each other.

The board members agreed it was a good idea and tabled further action.

The board will meet again on Aug. 24.