Saturday, August 16, 2008

Maspeth cell tower gets canned

A proposal to place a 25-foot cellular tower on top of a 72nd Place house has been replaced by a plan calling for several smaller panels, according to the building owner.

Cell Tower Proposed for Maspeth House Scaled Back

A hearing before the city Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) scheduled for Tuesday has been canceled as Omnipoint Communications and Joseph Wroblewski work out a revised contract for the smaller project. “It’s not happening – there is no cell tower,” said Wroblewski, who owns the house at 53-20 72nd Place, next door to Frank’s Deli.

The plan originally called for a 25-foot tower placed on top of a one-story high platform on top of the roof. The 36-inch wide pole would be disguised as a flagpole with an American flag at the top, capped by a gold ball. The entire structure would have risen 56-feet above street level, which many residents felt would not fit into the neighborhood.

On Tuesday, Wroblewski said that Omnipoint has agreed to replace the 25-foot tower with three panels after realizing how much opposition there is to the plan. Two of the panels would be two feet by one foot, and the third would be six feet by one foot, according to Wroblewski. “I understand that the neighbors very much want nothing, but I don’t think that’s happening,” he said. “I’m not allowed to back out [or] they [Omnipoint]would go ahead with the cell tower... What they propose now is very simple, very easy. To me, this was huge [to go] from a massive structure down to basically nothing.”

One of the big concerns for neighbors was potential for longterm health effects due to the tower. According to Wroblewski, Omnipoint told him there would be “zero health issues” and has offered to meet with neighbors to “prove that your average household items are doing more harm” than the panels would.

Previously: The Western Queens Way


Anonymous said...

If the 25 foot tower is not to be, that means the contract with Omnipoint is negated. Why would residents and neighbors setttle for smaller towers? We don't want any towers at all on residential structures. Mr. Wroblewski is still looking for a way to line his pockets at the expense of the people who built his business. He can put cell towers on his house on Long Island. Since the tower isn't going up, that should be the end of it. Nothing should go up on a 2-family structure.

Queens Crapper said...

I believe that there is a clause in the contract that states repeaters can be put on the building in place of the tower and he'd still get paid by the company. So that's what he's doing. Don't give up the fight; the DOB has been known to not approve repeaters if they are not on commercial strips.

Anonymous said...

Has Omnipoint demonstrated how they will comply with all rules and regulations of the FCC? How do they plan on protecting the workers and general public from RF over exposures? It is our right to have these questions answered before any antennas are built. The TeleCo act states that towers cannot be denied construction for health reasons, However any city can trump any antenna construction on the basis of safety. Site specific RF safety plans are very expensive and usually the cell companies will walk away.

If a cell company is going to put an antenna on the side of a building, how will that company protect the painter from being over exposed? They can't.

This has already happened before. A small town in New Jersey (Township of Warren)opposed a tower and asked Sprint how they planned on being in compliance with FCC regulations. Sprint said that they couldn't ask that and took them to court - and LOST.