How did Laurelton stop a cell tower when other neighborhoods couldn't?

From the Times Ledger:

Laurelton residents and officials have stopped the metal giant.

Residents and area officials celebrated their victory over Verizon’s plans to install a 60-foot cell-phone tower on 229th Street and Merrick Boulevard Tuesday. The company claimed that the tower was needed to provide reliable service for its customers in the New York City area, but residents complained that the tower would ruin the character of the neighborhood.

Some even worried that radiation from the tower would cause cancer, but there is no research to support this claim. According to the American Cancer Association’s website, “there is very little evidence to support” the notion that living or working near cellphone towers might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems.

“This is a community that stands together,” said Franck Joseph, a spokesman for Councilman Donovan Richards (D-Laurelton). “It wasn’t about fighting a corporation, it was about challenging them to be better neighbors.”

But Dwight Johnson, the president of the Federated Blocks of Laurelton, warned that the struggle might not be over.

“We still have to be vigilant,” he said, “and see what comes next.”

While Verizon backed off from the plans for the tower, there still might be tower installations in the future, Joseph said.

The company, he said, is looking for other options in the area and it might choose to install smaller, less obtrusive towers.

Large cell tower proposed for Laurelton

From the Daily News:

Residents are speaking up against the 60-foot cell tower that Big Red plans to put up on a commercial strip in Laurelton.

The free-standing tower, proposed at 229-19 Merrick Blvd., would double the network capacity in the congested area, Verizon spokesman David Samberg said.

But concerned homeowners and community leaders say the structure would be sandwiched between homes and would be “unsightly” and “obtrusive,” and could also pose health risks.

“We have nothing in the community of Laurelton that is that tall,” said Bess DeBetham, who sits on Community Board 13.

“It would be obtrusive. The aesthetics, the health hazards — we don’t want or need that.”

Samberg said that the commercially-zoned proposed location was the least residential option.

Not hiding much

Wow, that's a great camouflage job. I can't believe there are cell towers behind those walls at 23-31 29th Street in Astoria... Completely fooled me.

City missed a lot of cell antennae

From the Village Voice:

The City Department of Finance didn't collect an estimated $24 million in cell phone antenna-related taxes because it didn't ID all the people collecting cash from antennas, Comptroller John Liu announced today.

Yes, you read that correctly: because the Department of Finance didn't look at Department of Buildings data indicating structures with antennas -- which, under law, must be taxed -- Finance overlooked 2000 taxable property owners.

Under City law, people who own commercial property or big apartment buildings have to tell the DOF whether they're making money from antennas. That's because any such profits make these properties more valuable, affecting how much they should be taxed.

The audit, which was a collaboration between Liu and State Comptroller Thomas P. Di Napoli, claims that at least 2,108 properties failed to claim income from 2008 to 2009.

Finance, on the other hand, only identified 90 offending properties.

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 a suprise to co-op owners

From the Queens Chronicle:

Dozens of members of the Forest Park Cooperative are miffed that the co-op board of directors signed a deal to put up cell phone antennas on the roof of one building without consulting the residents.

A group of owners seeking to stop the installation of the antennas on the Hudson building in Section 3 of the co-op, located at 83-77 Woodhaven Blvd., have circulated petitions and are mulling legal action to halt it. But they are concerned it may be too late to stop the process.

Marian Molina, one of the residents opposed to the cell antennas, said the group is considering filing a lawsuit seeking an injunction to halt the process. However, they don’t have the money to pay an attorney and are trying to find pro bono representation.

“None of the shareholders knew about this,” Molina said. “The board has the right to make business decisions without consulting us, but that’s for routine things like paying bills and painting walls, not signing a 25-year contract to put up cell phone towers on our buildings.”

Another resident opposing the project, Viktoriya Driker, said the owners were never told about this deal and only found out by accident.

“Someone went online to look at building violations and they came across permits the board applied for to install antennas,” she said. “When we asked them about it they said it was a board decision, not a shareholder decision.”

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.

Court says cell tower stays

From the Daily News:

Residents of a ritzy upper East Side condo are stuck with unsightly cell towers on their building's roof after a Manhattan judge allowed T-Mobile to continue installing the antennas.

Construction work was put on hold after owners at Salem House on E. 81st St. sued their condominium board and the wireless company, arguing the apparatus - put in without tenants' consent and surrounded by ominous warning signs - is bad for their health.

The towers are on the common, frequently used rooftop "only feet away from outdoor terraces of the penthouse units," the suit claimed back in March. Condo owners asked for $60 million in damages in addition to having the project scrapped.

T-Mobile, which already has spent $270,000 on the work, countered that the signs are required by the federal Communications Commission, and besides, only the FCC has control over telecommunications facilities.

Supreme Court Justice Louis York agreed.

In a decision published this week, he allowed the work to go on for now.

"This Court has seen no basis to assume that the installation of these facilities will cause harm to the users of the roof," he wrote. "But even if such harm were provable, injunctive relief would be denied" because federal law takes precedence.

The project is still grounded, however, due to a pending stop-work order issued by the Buildings Department after contractors punctured a partition, records show.

Cell tower notification bill introduced

From the Times Ledger:

City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Astoria) is calling on the city to alert local communities and their elected officials before a new cell tower or antenna is to be placed on top of a building near residential neighborhoods.

Vallone introduced a bill last week that would include several new requirements for cell phone companies that plan to build towers or antennas on the roofs of buildings. He had first proposed similar legislation six years ago.

“We pushed for the city to list the location of cell antennas and now we are pushing for the community to be notified when carriers are planning to install new antennas,” he said.

The bill would require companies to notify communities when a tower or antenna would be mounted on top of a building, provide the community board and Council member with a written notice before applying for an installation permit with the city Department of Buildings and put an identification number on each antenna to enable residents to link potential concerns to specific equipment.

The companies would also have to prove they first made an effort to install the antenna in a non-residential neighborhood.

A cigar for anyone who can explain this

From the Queens Gazette:

Continuing his fight against the placement of cellphone towers in residential neighborhoods, City Councilmember Peter Vallone Jr. has proposed legislation requiring homeowners with cell towers on their buildings to notify the cell company when the Department of Buildings schedules an inspection.

The bill would apply only to buildings six stories or more in height and is aimed at protecting DOB inspectors and building residents from certain equipment that would otherwise remain in operation during the inspection.

“If a property owner enters into an agreement with a cell carrier, then it should also be his or her responsibility to notify the carrier when the equipment must be turned off temporarily for city inspections,” Vallone said (D–Astoria).

Why is the equipment more dangerous for the people living there only when the inspector comes?

A little radiation never hurt anyone

This building at Springfield Blvd and 121st Ave houses a group which provides social and health services to the elderly and disabled populations of Cambria Heights. I can't think of a better spot for a cell tower. You can both get cancer and be treated for it in the same place! And as you leave, you may salute the flag of the country that says it's ok to place these monstrosities anywhere. God bless America!

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.

Bill introduced to restrict cell towers

From the Daily News:

A bill was introduced Wednesday in the City Council to force phone companies to give local communities an early warning when they intend to erect new cell phone antennas - often called towers - in their territory.

That will allow residents or concerned groups to generate "a dialogue" - translation: raise a commotion - with phone companies before the towers are already in place and it's too late to do anything about it.

"New York City has the most lax regulations in the entire country when it comes to the placing of these towers," said the bill's chief sponsor, Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Queens). "And today, we're doing something about that."

The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 severely restricts what local communities can do about regulating the placement of cell phone towers.

In the city, phone service providers merely negotiate with building owners about the placement of towers and then apply for building permits, which are granted almost automatically, according to Vallone and other sponsors.

The new bill would require the Buildings Department commissioner to set forth general rules about how and where antennas or towers can be erected.

What difference does this bill make if the Board of Standards and Appeals will override the DOB's decision anyway?

CB1 rejects cell tower proposal

From the Queens Gazette:

It was bound to happen. The proliferation of cellphone antennas has left less and less space on rooftops. As a result, one cellphone company was finally forced to ask for permission to install the antenna towers. And Community Board 1 said no.

At its April meeting, the board overwhelmingly voted down an application by MetroPCS New York to install a cellphone tower consisting of six antennas and five cabinets on the roof of a six story residential building in Woodside.

In less than a decade, cellphone towers have gone up unchecked within Community Board 1 because they are, for the most part, not subject to zoning. But the New York City Department of Buildings does limit cellular equipment to no more than 5 percent of the floor area or 400 square feet on a zoning lot, or as in this case, on the roof.

MetroPCS needs a variance because its request exceeds the allowed usage of 5 percent or 400 square feet at the building selected, 53-01 32nd Ave., where multiple cellphone companies already have antennas.

Wow, so the community board from hell actually voted the right way for a change. Too bad it won't do any good. Been there, done that, and the BSA will approve it anyway.

Happy Place?

Don't know about you, but my "happy place" is nowhere near a cell tower.

CB13 concerned about apt building cell tower

From the Times Ledger:

Buoyed by concern that the effects from cell phone antennas are harmful, Community Board 13 narrowly voted Monday against a proposal by a cellular phone service provider to construct an antenna on top of a six−story apartment building in Bellerose.

Metro PCS, a company that recently received licenses from the Federal Communications Commission to build a cell phone network in the state, said an antenna is needed to fix a gap in service in the area for its customers.

The building at 222−89 Braddock Ave. where Metro PCS wants to install the antenna already has antennas from Verizon, Nextel and the city Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications on the roof.

Staten Island is having issues with them lately, too.

Flagpole is more than meets the eye

Here we have a HUGE flagpole that is twice the height of the Fresh Pond Crematory which doubles as a communications tower for city agencies. And I understand they will be installing a bunch more of these throughout the City. No lights on the flag at night as promised, however, when I passed by last week.

Industry seeks to eliminate cell tower restrictions

Bay Terrace Cafe has a copy of a letter written by Councilman Tony Avella about the proliferation of cell towers in residential neighborhoods and efforts by the cell phone industry to further eliminate restrictions placed upon them by local boards.

NY1 actually got Marge Markey to speak about this on camera! She warned, "People watching this program, if you think it can't happen to you, it can."

Isn't this why we elect people like you, Marge, to make sure it doesn't happen? Thanks for watching out for us.