A proposal to install an AT&T antenna on the roof of the Glen Cove Shopping Center, on Forest Avenue, has ignited a fierce debate, with a dozen residents voicing their opposition at a Sept. 16 Planning Board meeting. Neighbors said the installation would lower property values, raise health concerns and permanently change the character of their community, while attorneys for the wireless carrier argued that the project is critical to remedy a significant gap in coverage.
Brian Miller, who lives on Driftwood Drive, told the board that an artist’s renderings submitted by AT&T at a previous meeting didn’t show how the antenna would look from his neighborhood. “You will see it in the skyline from every front yard on Oak Hill,” he said. “You will see it in the backyards of Driftwood Drive. I’ll see it from my bedroom window every morning I open my shades. It will permanently change our neighborhood in a negative way.”
Miller said he consulted two real estate agencies, which warned that the tower could depress nearby property values. “We’ll now have to disclose that we are within 200 feet of an environmental hazard, even though it may pass these federal regulations,” he said. He presented signatures from nearly 100 residents and businesses opposing the project.
Twelve-year-old Orietta Begonia, a student at Robert M. Finley Middle School, also addressed the board. “Where it’s being built is literally in my backyard,” she said. “I usually go outside, play basketball with my neighbors or just to play soccer, and I feel like it would be really dangerous to have something outside like that. It could cause many health issues, and I just wanted to give you a student’s perspective on that.”
Representing AT&T, Matthew Fitzgerald, a senior associate at Phillips Lytle LLP in Buffalo, stressed that the proposed rooftop facility was designed to be as unobtrusive as possible while addressing a longstanding coverage gap. “This is what’s known as a single tri-sector antenna,” he said. “It’s an antenna mounted on top of a pole that’s mounted on top of a rooftop mount that is attached to the parapet in the northeast corner. We looked for alternatives. This is the one that we felt took up the least amount of space on the roof, with as low visibility as possible from as many different locations.”
According to Fitzgerald, the antenna would stand about 41 feet tall, and extending no higher than 20 feet above the existing roofline. Utilities would be routed through existing conduits, with no disturbance at ground level. The site, he emphasized, was chosen after a lengthy search and negotiations with potential landlords, and he added that alternatives on nearby buildings were either rejected by property owners or deemed structurally unworkable.
“There is a significant gap in coverage in the vicinity of the site,” Fitzgerald said. “If you’re inside any of the buildings in the area or if you’re driving your car, you’re not going to have reliable coverage. And this is important in the day-to-day life of everyone, but also in the event of emergencies, in the event that first responders need to make use of AT&T’s First Responder Network Authority.”
Planning Board member Philip Pulaski pressed Fitzgerald on how AT&T determines the need for new facilities. “I’m trying to determine who’s creating the need,” Pulaski said. “We’re trying to figure out what’s driving this, because we’re trying to balance this against the needs of the community. I’m not hearing the community screaming for more towers.”
Fitzgerald replied that AT&T monitors its own network and is obligated under federal law to remedy significant gaps. “AT&T produces propagation maps, so it’s aware of where its gaps in coverage are,” he explained. “Congress in 1996 passed the Telecommunications Act. That’s the genesis of everything we’re talking about. There are instances where federal law can override local zoning, and you can’t effectively prohibit wireless services. So we have the obligation to fill these.”
Board member Richard Maccarone expressed frustration with the federal restrictions. “You’re saying that we have no authority — we can’t do anything?” he said. “What are we doing here?”
Joseph Macy, of Berkman Henoch, a consultant for the city, explained that the board retains authority over the placement and aesthetics of the antenna but cannot reject applications based on health concerns if the project complies with Federal Communications Commission limits. He confirmed that an independent consultant verified AT&T’s compliance.
Property owner Bruce Waller defended the project. Waller, whose family built the shopping center, told the Herald that he signed the lease with AT&T five years ago to address what he called a “dead area” for service. “It’s a dead area from Daisy School all the way to Locust Valley,” he said. “We have a hospital that has no cell signal either.”
Waller claimed that the antenna would be largely hidden. “It’s in the back of the Rite Aid in the corner, and the trees are much higher than the antenna,” he said. “My office is directly in front of where that antenna will be. It’ll be right off the corner of the Rite Aid building, which is at the height of my office, and I’m not concerned. I’d rather have better cell service.”
He added that his decision was not motivated by a desire to make a profit. “We did it because we have no cell service in our area,” Waller said. “We did it for the customers that shop at the shopping center. If I thought it was harmful to the neighbors, I wouldn’t do it.”
A second public hearing on the application is scheduled for Oct. 7.
