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.
Showing posts with label cell tower. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cell tower. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
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.”
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.”
Thursday, January 8, 2009
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."
Thursday, December 18, 2008
City Approves Proposal for Cell Tower on Top of Maspeth House
Fear Case Sets Precedent Allowing Future Antennas
By Conor Greene
Despite overwhelming opposition from residents, elected officials and the local community board, the city has granted a cellular company permission to place a tower on top of a house on 72nd Place in Maspeth.
At its meeting this past Tuesday, the Board of Standards and Appeals, which rules on applications requiring a variance from the city’s building code, voted 4-0 to allow Omnipoint Communications to place the cellular tower on top of a house at 53-20 72nd Place.
The decision immediately garnered strong backlash from neighbors and community leaders who fought the proposal since it was announced late last year. Under the agreement, property owner Joseph Wroblewski - whose family owns Frank’s Deli next door to the proposed site - will receive an undisclosed amount in rent for allowing the company to place the antenna on top of the house.
Many now fear that this ruling sets a dangerous precedent that could allow cellular companies to easily obtain the necessary variances and permits. That could mean a greater number of towers within residential areas as companies seek to improve their coverage, especially inside homes as people rely more on cell phones over landlines.
The proposal originally called for a 25-foot tower on top of the house, rising a total of 54 feet above street level. As a result of community opposition, the company scaled back its proposal to a 19-foot tower that will rise 45 feet above street level. The diameter of the antenna, which will be disgusted as a flagpole with an American flag at the top, has been reduced from 36 inches to 32 inches.
Maspeth resident Manny Caruana fears that quiet residential neighborhoods such as this are being destroyed by greedy developers and companies. “Quite honestly it seems like we no longer have control over our own neighborhoods,” he said. “They can just come in and do what they want... Our quality of life doesn’t mean a damn thing and our investment in the community and in our homes doesn’t seem to matter.”
Caruana said he is concerned that the decision will mean other cellular companies will come in and offer homeowners “big bucks” to allow cellular towers on their homes. He noted that Wroblewski lives on Long Island and rents out the house where the tower will be placed. “Quite obviously, he bought this house to make money and doesn’t care about the community,” he said. “Anybody who does certainly wouldn’t do this.”
Wroblewski initially said he tried to back out of the contract after neighbors objected, but was not able to. He refused to say how much rent he will receive from Omnipoint, and has stopped speaking with the media about the matter.
For Caruana, that public hearings were held during the day in Manhattan only adds insult to injury. “Had these hearings been held in the area affected, you would have had thousands of people there and it might have been a different outcome,” he said. “It is held in Manhattan, with Manhattan people making decisions for Queens. We should have another venue to challenge this decision. It leaves absolutely no recourse.”
He is not the only resident angry over the vote. Diane DeSilvia, a 72nd Place resident who helped organize opposition to the application, called the decision “outrageous” and said it “could allow cell companies to invade residential areas everywhere with structures that do not belong where people live.”
Gary Giordano, district manager of Community Board 5 – which overwhelmingly rejected the proposal – agreed that this could set a bad precedent. “I would say there is certainly a possibility [that wireless companies will have an easier time gaining variances] but hopefully they would have to do a very good job proving there is a lack of service in that area,” he said. “I don’t like it at all.”
In a statement, Assemblywoman Marge Markey (D-Maspeth) said she is “angry” over the board’s decision.
“It is an inappropriate intrusion on a peaceful residential block and it should not have been permitted,” she said. “I want to warn... any other cellular company that seeks to use this case as a precedent: get ready for a fight! We will continue to strongly oppose any other plan that seeks to place a cell tower on any residential block in my district.”
In the meantime, residents such as Caruana are left wondering about the rational behind the board’s decision, and what the next step is. “I was very hopeful they were going to disapprove this tower,” he said. “It is in the middle of a bunch of one-and-two-family homes... I don’t know if there are any other steps we can take, but we will be looking into it.”
Thursday, December 4, 2008
City to Decide Soon on Maspeth Cell Tower
Proposal Calls for Antenna on House Roof
By Conor Greene
After more than a year of fighting, residents will soon find out if the city will allow a property owner to place a cellular antenna on top of a 72nd Place house in Maspeth.
The final public hearing on the proposal by Omnipoint Communications was held two weeks ago at the Board of Standards and Appeals, and the board, which votes on projects requiring variances from the existing building code, is expected to make its decision on December 16.
The proposal calls for placing a fifteen-and-a-half foot cellular tower on the roof of 53-20 72nd Place, which is owned and rented out by Joseph Wroblewski. In all, the structure would rise 45 feet above street level. It would be disguised as a flag pole with an American flag on top, and would have a diameter of 32 inches. The house is adjacent to Frank’s Deli, which the Wroblewski family has owned for nearly 60 years.
The original proposal called for a structure rising more than 54 feet above street level, but was met with a great deal of backlash from neighbors and local elected officials. Several months ago, Omnipoint unveiled a proposal that featured six foot high panels instead of the large antenna. However, Wroblewski, fearful of again alienating neighbors, reportedly refused to sign that contract. That plan wouldn’t have needed BSA approval.
Gary Giordano, district manager of Community Board 5, sent a letter to the BSA informing the agency that the local board had voted overwhelmingly against the proposal, even with the lower flagpole. He said it is “hard to say” what the likely outcome of the board’s vote will be. “I have T-Mobile service, and when I was standing outside [the proposed location] I used my cell phone and got good reception,” he said, echoing sentiment among residents that the new antenna isn’t really needed.
He noted that according to Omnipoint’s application, a key issue is improving cell reception inside homes and other buildings. However, some residents say that is not necessary because many Maspeth residents are property owners and have land lines.
Assemblywoman Marge Markey (D-Maspeth)has also argued that point as she has helped lead the fight against the plan. In testimony to the BSA, she claimed the Omnipoint hasn’t looked into using other locations in non-residential areas and noted that T-Mobile’s website claims that Maspeth already receives the company’s highest levels of reception.
Meanwhile, many nearby residents are left wondering about potential long term health impacts from living near so many towers. The company has argued that there are no known health dangers associated with cellular antennas, and the federal government has concluded they are safe.
By Conor Greene
After more than a year of fighting, residents will soon find out if the city will allow a property owner to place a cellular antenna on top of a 72nd Place house in Maspeth.
The final public hearing on the proposal by Omnipoint Communications was held two weeks ago at the Board of Standards and Appeals, and the board, which votes on projects requiring variances from the existing building code, is expected to make its decision on December 16.
The proposal calls for placing a fifteen-and-a-half foot cellular tower on the roof of 53-20 72nd Place, which is owned and rented out by Joseph Wroblewski. In all, the structure would rise 45 feet above street level. It would be disguised as a flag pole with an American flag on top, and would have a diameter of 32 inches. The house is adjacent to Frank’s Deli, which the Wroblewski family has owned for nearly 60 years.
The original proposal called for a structure rising more than 54 feet above street level, but was met with a great deal of backlash from neighbors and local elected officials. Several months ago, Omnipoint unveiled a proposal that featured six foot high panels instead of the large antenna. However, Wroblewski, fearful of again alienating neighbors, reportedly refused to sign that contract. That plan wouldn’t have needed BSA approval.
Gary Giordano, district manager of Community Board 5, sent a letter to the BSA informing the agency that the local board had voted overwhelmingly against the proposal, even with the lower flagpole. He said it is “hard to say” what the likely outcome of the board’s vote will be. “I have T-Mobile service, and when I was standing outside [the proposed location] I used my cell phone and got good reception,” he said, echoing sentiment among residents that the new antenna isn’t really needed.
He noted that according to Omnipoint’s application, a key issue is improving cell reception inside homes and other buildings. However, some residents say that is not necessary because many Maspeth residents are property owners and have land lines.
Assemblywoman Marge Markey (D-Maspeth)has also argued that point as she has helped lead the fight against the plan. In testimony to the BSA, she claimed the Omnipoint hasn’t looked into using other locations in non-residential areas and noted that T-Mobile’s website claims that Maspeth already receives the company’s highest levels of reception.
Meanwhile, many nearby residents are left wondering about potential long term health impacts from living near so many towers. The company has argued that there are no known health dangers associated with cellular antennas, and the federal government has concluded they are safe.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Cell Tower Proposed for Maspeth House Scaled Back
Panels Now Planned Instead of Tower
By Conor Greene
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.
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.
Immediately after Wroblewski entered into the contract last year, which would have paid him an undisclosed rental fee each month, residents and local officials began fighting the proposal. The first BSA hearing in January was attended by local elected officials including Assemblywoman Marge Markey (D-Maspeth), along with members of the Juniper Park Civic Association and other groups.
The proposal was voted down by Community Board 5 and has been opposed by Borough President Helen Marshall. Several Maspeth residents also submitted a petition with more than 1,300 signatures from neighborhoods against allowing a cell tower in a residential area.
“We’re really devastated over this,” said resident Hope Stancati told the Forum West in November as the fight was heating up. “We never thought we would have something like that on a two-story house.”
Since the initial hearing in January, several scheduled BSA hearings have been postponed at the request of Omnipoint. This week, it was announced that this month’s hearing was also delayed and that a new plan was in the works. However, unlike the first plan calling for a tower, the new proposal likely won’t need approval from the BSA since a variance isn’t required.
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.
Councilman Anthony Como (R-Middle Village) met last week with several Maspeth residents who are fighting the proposal and remains committed to assisting them, according to his spokesman, James McClelland.
“We’re behind the residents,” said McClelland on Tuesday. “Just because they would be smaller antennas doesn’t mean it changes the resident’s concerns. We’re going to work with the DOB [city Department of Buildings] to find out all the information and assist the residents in their fight.”
As of press time, McClelland was trying to find out from the DOB what type of approvals or variances, if any, the new proposal would need.
On Tuesday, Markey suggested that they company is delaying the project due to the community backlash. She noted that it is the fourth time the hearing has been delayed and said that Omnipoint stated that this is the final three-month adjournment they will seek.
“I think this new postponement means that Omnipoint is getting the message about our vigorous opposition to their proposal,” she said in a statement. “I will continue to stand with property owners, community leaders and residents... to speak out in the strongest terms against a plan that is totally inappropriate for a residential area. Markey added that Omnipoint “is seeking to redesign alternatives that might be more acceptable to the community and we are waiting to hear the details.”
By Conor Greene
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.
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.
Immediately after Wroblewski entered into the contract last year, which would have paid him an undisclosed rental fee each month, residents and local officials began fighting the proposal. The first BSA hearing in January was attended by local elected officials including Assemblywoman Marge Markey (D-Maspeth), along with members of the Juniper Park Civic Association and other groups.
The proposal was voted down by Community Board 5 and has been opposed by Borough President Helen Marshall. Several Maspeth residents also submitted a petition with more than 1,300 signatures from neighborhoods against allowing a cell tower in a residential area.
“We’re really devastated over this,” said resident Hope Stancati told the Forum West in November as the fight was heating up. “We never thought we would have something like that on a two-story house.”
Since the initial hearing in January, several scheduled BSA hearings have been postponed at the request of Omnipoint. This week, it was announced that this month’s hearing was also delayed and that a new plan was in the works. However, unlike the first plan calling for a tower, the new proposal likely won’t need approval from the BSA since a variance isn’t required.
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.
Councilman Anthony Como (R-Middle Village) met last week with several Maspeth residents who are fighting the proposal and remains committed to assisting them, according to his spokesman, James McClelland.
“We’re behind the residents,” said McClelland on Tuesday. “Just because they would be smaller antennas doesn’t mean it changes the resident’s concerns. We’re going to work with the DOB [city Department of Buildings] to find out all the information and assist the residents in their fight.”
As of press time, McClelland was trying to find out from the DOB what type of approvals or variances, if any, the new proposal would need.
On Tuesday, Markey suggested that they company is delaying the project due to the community backlash. She noted that it is the fourth time the hearing has been delayed and said that Omnipoint stated that this is the final three-month adjournment they will seek.
“I think this new postponement means that Omnipoint is getting the message about our vigorous opposition to their proposal,” she said in a statement. “I will continue to stand with property owners, community leaders and residents... to speak out in the strongest terms against a plan that is totally inappropriate for a residential area. Markey added that Omnipoint “is seeking to redesign alternatives that might be more acceptable to the community and we are waiting to hear the details.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)