Board Rejects Maspeth Antenna Plan

Proposal Moves to Boro Prez Before BSA Eventually Rules

As expected, Community Board 5 unanimously voted against a proposal to place six cellular antennas on top of a Maspeth apartment building. The proposal will move on to the borough president for review before the city ultimately rules on it.

At its meeting last Wednesday in Christ the King High School, Land Use Chairman Walter Sanchez reported to the full board that the committee felt that a “saturated condition” already exists on the roof at 53- 00 65th Place. Companies generally don’t need special approval for cellular antennas, but a variance is needed in this case because the roof already contains antennas for Sprint, Verizon and the 911 system.

Sanchez noted that the new antenna would result in the building exceeding the amount of square footage allowed to be used for cell antennas and said the roof is already damaged from a 2008 fire. There are also concerns over light, noise and long term health impacts that the antennas would have on the residential neighborhood. Finally, the company made no effort to find space on a nearby commercially-zoned building, said Sanchez.

After hearing the Land Use Committee’s recommendation, the full board voted 33-0 to reject the application. A hearing is scheduled before Borough President Helen Marshall on December 3 before the matter is eventually referred to the city Board of Standards and Appeals, which has final say in matters regarding zoning variances.

Maspeth Cell Antenna Plan Gets Poor Reception

By Conor Greene

An application to place cellular antennas on top of a Maspeth apartment building has not been received warmly by tenants, neighbors and the local community board, but might still win approval from the city.

MetroPCS has applied for permission from the city Board of Standards and Appeals to install six wireless antennas on top of the apartment building at 53-00 65th Place. While cellular antenna proposals are not generally subject to local zoning restrictions, a variance is needed in this case due to existing wireless equipment already located on the roof.

A hearing on the plan was held at Community Board 5’s October meeting, and the board’s Land Use Committee subsequently voted at its meeting the following week to recommend rejecting the application. The full board was expected to vote against the plan at its meeting this past Wednesday night, according to District Manager Gary Giordano.

According to the company’s application, the antennas are needed to close coverage gaps in the area. MetroPCS already has antennas in the area, including on top of buildings on 51st Avenue and 67th Street. However, it is eying the 65th Place building because it is the tallest in the area and already houses antennas for Verizon, Sprint and the 911 system.

“If approved, the proposed facility will offer significant advantages and services to the community with virtually no negative impact on the community,” the company argued in its application to the BSA. “The proposed facility is of vital importance to MetroPCS’ efforts to provide reliable service to the area in question. Without the proposed facility, a significant gap in reliable coverage would exist in the area.”

However, the plan isn’t sitting well with building residents and other community members who are worried about the increasing number of cellular antennas in their neighborhood. “I think it’s absolutely ridiculous,” said Maspeth resident Manny Caruana. “It’s another intrusion into residential areas with these cell antennas. There are already antennas on top of that roof, so it is going to intensify the RF frequencies generated.”

One problem, said Caruana, is that private companies like MetroPCS are given the same latitude afforded to public utilities in these types of applications since they provide a service to the public. “There are no regulations on these people,” he said. “They allude that they are a public utility… but they’re not regulated. I think at some point we’re going to find out we’re being over radiated by these antennas.”

The building owner, Jangla Realty of Great Neck, will be paid by MetroPCS in exchange for providing space on the roof and in the basement for related equipment. Residents accused the company of failing to properly maintain the building, and said that firefighters’ efforts to extinguish a 2008 blaze at the property were hampered by the presence of the antennas and equipment. “This guy just wants to take the money and run,” said Caruana.

A Jangla Realty official reached by phone at the company’s Great Neck office would only say that “they comply with the law” and said the building is maintained, but is still being repaired from the fire. He ended the conversation without discussing the opposition from tenants and the community to the plan.

According to Giordano, the board’s recommendations will be forwarded to Borough President Helen Marshall, who has the opportunity to weigh in on variance applications,before a BSA hearing is held in Manhattan. “It’s certainly a concern for me personally and I think for a lot of people,” he said of the increase in cellular antennas in residential areas. “I think part of the problem is that more and more people have cell phones and are using them as their main phone, even doing away with their landlines. So if you have demand for more service, and service where you can use your cell phone inside your home, there’s no magic, and I think that’s a big part of the issue.”

At the board’s hearing last month, building resident Candida Baez submitted a petition signed by 31 residents from the 60-unit apartment building in opposition to the plan.

Residents Upset Over Maspeth Building Rental

Variance was Based on Company's Need for Space

By Conor Greene

Some local civic and community board members are unhappy that a local business is advertising office space for rent, after gaining a variance on the basis the additional room was needed to accommodate its growing business.

In 2004, Aldona Fire Protection was granted a variance by the city Board of Standards and Appeals to build an additional three floors on top of what was a two-story building at 74th Street in Maspeth. Despite the objections of Community Board 5, which voted against the variance, permission for the expansion was granted after Aldona argued it needed the space to consolidate its operations under one roof.

Because of the impact the expansion had on the neighborhood, including the parking situation, Juniper Park Civic Association President Robert Holden was not happy to see that Aldona had hung a large For Rent sign across the building. At a press conference last Friday in front of the building, Holden and Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside) said the problem starts with the BSA.

“Towering over neighboring structures, this building is clearly out of context with the character of the neighborhood,” said Avella, who has long called for either reform or outright abolishment of the BSA. “It is blatantly obvious that BSA incorrectly granted a hardship variance to the owner of this property because they claimed they wanted to expand their fire protection business, yet now they are renting out office space. While shocking, this unfortunately occurs far too frequently throughout the city because BSA fails to take the concerns of the community into account.”

Holden noted that the building is now three stories taller than what is generally allowed under the property’s zoning. He pointed out that the company testified to CB 5, the borough president and the BSA that the space was needed for the business expansion. “Instead, we see that they are renting the building out as office space. What’s wrong with this picture?” said Holden, who is also a CB 5 member.

According to the resolution approving the variance, Aldona is required to gain BSA approval for “any change to the approved plans.” In addition, the company is required to provide for additional off-street parking if the parking conditions in the area worsen as a result of changes in the immediate area. The property, at 54-14 74th Street, is down the block from the former Restaurant Depot site, where the city wants to build a 1,100-seat high school.

“The problem is that developers claim hardships at the BSA in order to build what they want,” said Manny Caruana, a member of CB 5 and the JPCA executive committee. “Afterward, when it becomes obvious that the hardship never existed, the community is left to suffer and the BSA doesn’t do anything because they don’t care.”

A message left with Aldona was not returned by press time. However, the owner was quoted in a published report as saying that the company is considering renting out part of the building because it hasn’t yet been paid for several large contracts. The original plan had called for filing the building with the company’s 20 employees, but the third floor is now being offered for rent to account for the shortfall due to the unpaid contracts.

Avella, who is running for mayor, has been a constant critic of the BSA since taking office in 2002. Since one of the board’s five variance criteria involves the review of alleged financial hardship, Avella introduced a bill last year that would have required one of the BSA members to be a financial analyst with professional qualifications. “It only makes sense to have a member of the board who has the financial background to determine the legitimacy of any such claim by a developer,” said Avella. “Unfortunately, the bill has languished in the City Council.”

JPCA members Robert Holden, Anthony Nunziato and Manny Caruana join Councilman Tony Avella at a press conference in Maspeth last week. The Forum Newsgroup/photo courtesy of CHRISTINA WILKINSON

Avella Questions New Building Regulations

Construction Plans Will be Available Online

By Conor Greene

The city Department of Buildings has announced reforms intended to increase public scrutiny of construction projects, but one local official argues the new rules will actually diminish the ability of citizens to contest illegal projects.

The new guidelines, announced recently by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and DOB Commissioner Robert LiMandri, are intended to “give New Yorkers a stronger voice in the development of neighborhoods, create greater transparency and clarify the process for the public and for developers.”

As part of the new process, New York will become the first city in the nation to require that developers place diagrams of new buildings or major alterations online so the public can view the size and scale of a proposed project.

In addition, a new 30-day formal public challenge period will be implemented “to give the public a greater voice in the development process and provide clarity for developers about when and how a project can move forward,” according to a release issued by the city.

However, Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside), who is challenging Mayor Bloomberg this fall, immediately issued a statement voicing concerns with the new regulations. He argues it will limit the public’s ability to fight illegal projects due to the 30-day statute of limitations created by the review window.

“While I believe that the posting of online diagrams for proposed development on DOB’s website is definitely a step in the right direction and leads to greater transparency, I completely disagree with the new development challenge process,” said Avella. “Despite being touted… as empowering the public with greater oversight over new developments, it is actually diminishing the ability of residents to contest new construction by creating a defacto statute of limitations through the implementation of the 30-day comment period.”

Avella, a fierce critic of the DOB who has made fighting overdevelopment a focal point of his time on City Council, is worried that the procedure “will in effect actually benefit unscrupulous developers who will simply wait out the clock to avoid community challenges.”

When announcing the reforms, Mayor Bloomberg insisted they would “inject a much-needed dose of transparency and accountability into a critical area of construction and development – zoning compliance… The reforms center on the public’s right to challenge any approved development if they think it violates local zoning regulations.”

Under the regulations, diagrams for any new building or major enlargement approved by the DOB would be uploaded to the agency’s website. Residents would then have 30 calendar days to review and challenge the development approval. Once that window closes, the DOB Borough Commissioner will address any challenges to the project that have been lodged. If a challenge is determined to have merit, “appropriate enforcement action will be taken, including issuing Stop Work Orders, revoking of permits and requiring redesigns of the proposed construction.”

If the Borough Commissioner determines that a challenge is invalid, the public will be given an additional 15 calendar days to appeal to the First Deputy Commissioner. Once that decision is rendered, the public can appeal to the Board of Standards and Appeals(BSA).

The provision granting the BSA final determination also concerns Avella. “It is extremely inappropriate for the final appeal in the public review process to have to be brought before the Board of Standards and Appeals, which throughout its existence has essentially been a rubber stamp for developers,” he said. “BSA repeatedly ignores the public’s opinion and there is no reason to believe that they will act differently in this process.”

Locally, the BSA recently came under fire after granting a cellular company permission to install a radio tower on top of a two-story home in a residential area of Maspeth.

“This is just the latest example of the Bloomberg administration’s failed attempts to reform this agency,” said Avella. “In order to have true reform, DOB needs to be held accountable for their actions and must also allow greater community involvement, both of which will not be accomplished by this development challenge process that actually substantially limits the ability of New Yorkers to submit complaints or question the actions of DOB.”

Residents Protest Cell Tower Proposal

By Conor Greene

Residents and elected officials rallied this week in Manhattan to protest the city’s decision to allow Omnipoint Communications to place a cellular tower on top of a two-family home in Maspeth.

Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside) residents and civic leaders gathered on Monday morning outside the offices of the Board of Standards and Appeals in Lower Manhattan. The protest came weeks after the city agency granted Omnipoint a variance allowing a 13-foot cellular tower on top of a two-story house at 53-20 72nd Place.

“With this approval, the BSA has now set a very dangerous precedent allowing a 13-foot tower on a two-family house,” said Avella, who has recently called for the city to either reform or abolish the BSA. “This is now a huge precedent, which is scary to be honest, that we can have these things in quiet, low-density neighborhood.”

On December 16, the BSA voted 4-0 in favor of granting the application, despite overwhelming opposition from residents, elected officials and local community board members since it was first proposed in November 2007. The 13-foot tower will be mounted on the roof of the house, extending nearly 43 feet above street level.

The proposal initially called for a 25 foot pole rising nearly 55 feet above the street. In addition, the pole’s diameter has been reduced from 36 inches to 32 inches, and the structure will no longer be designed to resemble a flag pole.

After several public hearings, the BSA determined that “the proposed pole and related equipment will be located, designed and operated so that there will be no detrimental effect on the privacy, quiet, light and air of the neighborhood,” the board determined in its resolution affirming the decision. “The board further finds that the subject use will not alter the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood nor will it impair the future use and development of the surrounding area.”

However, many residents worry the tower will negatively impact their property values and could pose longterm health risks. “We’ve never seen anything like it, and are concerned that it doesn’t belong on top of a two-family building… in a residential neighborhood,” Peggy Vitalo told NY1 news. Her neighbor, June Osman, said her family is considering moving after 69 years in the neighborhood if the tower is built.

Federal law prohibits the BSA from rejecting the cell tower application because of potential health risks, and the BSA resolution affirming its decision notes that antidotal evidence from residents suggesting that there already is adequate coverage in the area also can’t be taken into consideration.

One of the few options left for residents is to challenge the city’s decision in court, which amounts to an expensive long-shot. Still, Avella said he is committed to assisting residents and civic groups if they go that route. “There are some legal aspects we can review as it relates to the application,” he said.

Avella noted that while “it’s a done deal as far as the city is concerned, there are always avenues we can pursue, adding that “the power of public opinion may be the best strategy we have when it comes to [fighting] these cell towers.” He said that after a two-year battle, residents in his district were successful in convincing a local church take down 23 antennas it had placed on top of its elementary school.

“Certainly, we can’t rely on the city,” said Avella, who is challenging Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his seat this fall. “Unfortunately, it’s typical.” Since taking office in 2002, he has pushed to reform the agency and provide residents with a way to appeal BSA decisions to the City Council, or scrap the agency entirely.

Some residents have suggested that there is another course of action available in this case. The house at 53-20 72nd Place is owned by Joseph Wroblewski, whose family owns Frank’s Deli in the adjacent building. In exchange for allowing Omnipoint to place the antenna on the house, which is rented out, Wroblewski will receive an undisclosed monthly rental fee.

Angry about the impact the project might have on the neighborhood, some individuals posting on online blogs have called for a protest of his family’s business.

“Everyone, and I mean everyone should boycott this deli,” wrote an anonymous poster on the local blog Queens Crap. “Show this guy who built his business on the backs of people in this community that he no longer has a business. Let his business dry up, just like the real estate in this neighborhood will… Wroblewski can just hop in his expensive truck and hightail it out to his lavish Long Island community. He’s laughing at the people of Maspeth… all the way to the bank.”

Wrote another poster: “It’s not bad enough that we all deal with the crap that surrounds the operation of that deli (early morning deliveries, 2 a.m. garbage pick ups, cars double parked or parked in crosswalks/fire hydrants and the garbage that blows [on] our streets. Now they can go home to LI and we can stare at our new cancer emitting flag pole.”

On Tuesday, Wroblewski refused to discuss the project, or comment on the residents’ calls for a boycott of his family’s business. “It is what it is,” he said. When asked how much he is receiving from Omnipoint, he first said, “I have no idea,” before adding, “I don’t think it’s anybody’s business.”

For residents living near the tower, it is a simple case of a large corporation with deep pockets disrupting the area’s quality of life, and an absentee landlord benefiting as a result. “Quite obviously, he [Wroblewski] bought this house to make money and doesn’t care about the community,” said Manny Caruana, a member of the Juniper Park Civic Association, following last month’s BSA ruling. “Anybody who does certainly wouldn't do this."