Whitestone says there are too many cell repeaters on building

From the Times Ledger:

The reception might be good near the intersection of 150th Street and Willets Point Boulevard in Whitestone, but state Sen. Tony Avella (D-Bayside) said his calls haven’t been answered yet.

The senator gathered with area residents Friday to protest what he called the poster child for the unwarranted expansion of the cell phone industry outside a real estate office, at 24-12 150th St., riddled with more than 20 cell phone towers and a large generator.

“The amount of antennas on this building presents a handful of dilemmas for the entire community,” Avella said. “The sheer number of these towers alone beg the question of whether the building can even sustain the weight of the multiple towers.”

Avella said he reached out to the city Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications as well as the city Department of Buildings to no avail, asking them for an analysis on the number of radiation-linked illnesses in the last decade in that area.

The DOB returned his calls with what he called an incomprehensible response, only recognizing that each individual permit was valid.

Aside from the aesthetic disadvantages Avella had mentioned, the senator also said area residents were concerned about a potential health risk in living so close to the towers.

Cell towers may cause buildings to crack

From the NY Times:

Tenants at 165 Pinehurst Avenue, a six-story brick building on a hilltop in Washington Heights, have something most modern Americans would envy: impeccable cellphone service.

But it comes with a cost. They worry their building in northern Manhattan is going to collapse.

Their reception is so crisp because of two cellphone base stations and 20 antennas positioned on their building’s roof, sending and receiving thousands of calls each day for T-Mobile and AT&T.

To the cellphone providers, this hub — and others like it — are essential to accommodating the explosion of mobile data and voice communications.

But the tenants, as much as they like their clear reception, are in an uproar because they argue that their 82-year-old building cannot bear the weight of the base stations.

Long, zigzagging cracks have appeared along the building’s outer walls, and mortar has crumbled from the parapet, which supports hefty I-beams that the base stations sit upon.

“Before this went up, we were told we couldn’t come up here, because it wasn’t stable enough for human weight,” said Meg Gibson, a longtime tenant, as she surveyed the building’s factorylike rooftop on a recent sunlit day.

The rooftop, painted silver, was crisscrossed with snakelike metal coverings, protecting transmission cables. The rectangular cellphone antennas stood sentinel along the edges. Two raised metal platforms, resembling miniature oil rigs, filled a quarter of the rooftop, supporting the cabinetlike base stations that receive and send calls.

The tenants did not mind much when the first base station, which belongs to T-Mobile, went up in 2006, but grew concerned when the second one, owned by AT&T, was installed last fall.

Ms. Gibson said her roof had a “chronic problem” of disrepair, and alerted the city to her concerns. The Buildings Department issued a notice of violation to the landlord, Shahram Mobasser, for failing to maintain the buildings’ walls, and, in a report, noted four large cracks beneath the base station’s support beams, though a city engineer concluded that it was hard to determine the cause of the cracks.

The Buildings Department approved the landlord’s application to erect the AT&T base station last summer, after determining, a spokeswoman said, that the plans complied with the building code. Sarita S. Marbella, the architect who signed off on the work last February, would not comment on the tenants’ complaints, citing a confidentiality clause with AT&T.

New bill to regulate cell towers

From the Times Ledger:

City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D−Astoria) is calling on the city to allow for greater regulation of cell phone antennas in residential communities as well as giving borough residents more input before a tower is placed in their neighborhood.

His newest bill, proposed earlier this month, would require cell phone companies to alert a community and its elected officials when a new tower would be installed, provide the community board and Council member with written notice before applying to the city’s Department of Buildings for an installation permit and prove that the company had made an effort to install antennas in non−residential areas.

In addition, Vallone’s bill would require each antenna to have an identification number to enable residents to refer to potential concerns related to the equipment.

Concern about cell repeaters on SI school

STATEN ISLAND (WABC) -- Dozens of worried and angry parents are protesting a cluster of cell phone towers built on top of and near an elementary school.

They claim the towers are a danger to students. Their fear is that the towers may be sending low-level radiation into classrooms at the Staten Island school.

Some officials are also asking the Federal Communications Commission to scrutinize cell phone towers.

State Assemblyman Lou Tobacco and City Councilman Vincent Ignizio said they filed a complaint with the FCC Thursday about their concerns regarding Our Lady Star of the Sea. They hope the agency will order the towers moved.

The FCC didn't immediately return a telephone call Thursday evening.

Studies indicate radiation detected in the school came from a nearby strip mall. The radiation levels were deemed safe under federal standards, and the mall's owner says the antennas have permits.

But as a precaution, Monsignor Jeff Conway has ordered metal window screens.

Something's built rotten in Ridgewood

What the bejesus is going on here? This was a warehouse...
Located at 71-13 60th Lane in Ridgewood, this baby's only got 45 DOB violations, 27 of which are currently open. Interesting to see that conversion from an industrial use to a residential use with demolition of most of the building is considered an "alteration".
55 DWELLING UNITS?!? IS THE BSA INSANE???? Where's the hardship? It's already zoned R6B; is that not profitable enough? Oh wait, none of the commissioners live in the area and the owner's address is on 5th Avenue in Manhattan, so they don't give a damn that we flood, have power outages and that School District 24 is the most overcrowded in the borough. And yes, those are cell repeaters on the roof, because we simply must squeeze every last penny out of this property. Screw you, Ridgewood.