A proposal to install an AT&T wireless antenna atop the Glen Cove Shopping Center, on Forest Avenue, was denied on Nov. 18, ending six months of contentious public hearings and intensifying debate over cell service needs and their potential impact on city neighborhood.
The application — a request for a special-use permit and site plan approval — drew dozens of residents to Planning Board meetings in September and earlier this month. Many urged the board to reject the project, citing health concerns, potential declines in property value and what they argued would be a permanent change to the character of the neighborhood behind the shopping center.
Board members Philip Pulaski, Andrew Kaufman, Michael Corigliano, Richard Maccarone and Ellen Pantazakos voted against the application. Kenneth Weinstein and James M. Greenberg were absent.
AT&T sought to install a canister-style tri-sector antenna extending roughly 20 feet above the existing roofline, a total height of roughly 41 feet. Utilities would have run through existing conduits, with no ground disturbance. According to AT&T, the landlord, Bruce Waller, deemed the Northwest corner of the shopping center roof the only viable location.
Attorney Anna Mercado Clarke, representing AT&T, said the antenna would be the “least intrusive means” of addressing what she described as an “undisputed” gap in the carrier’s wireless coverage.
“This facility consists of essentially a 16- by-2-inch tri-sector canister antenna,” Clarke explained, noting that the visible portion would be painted to blend in with the building and be minimally noticeable. “It is the least intrusive means to meet this gap.”
AT&T, Clarke said, had explored a number of alternative locations, but other property owners were not interested or would have required taller, more intrusive structures that violated zoning laws or necessitated additional variances. In a Nov. 3 supplement, the company also submitted new radio-frequency data, responses to public comments and additional photo simulations.
She emphasized that the antenna met federal and local health standards for radiofrequency, or RF, emissions. According to the RF report submitted with the application, exposure levels would be 4.17 percent of the general-population limit at ground level and 21.40 percent on the rooftop.
“The Telecommunications Act … provides that no state or local government … can regulate on the basis of health and safety concerns if the RF limits are met,” Clarke told the board, adding that Glen Cove’s code mirrors FCC thresholds.
She also noted that objections based on property values are legally insufficient unless supported by substantial, empirical evidence — a standard Clarke said residents had not met. She cited several cases in New York and federal courts rejecting generalized fears as a legally sound reason for denial.
Planning Board Chairman Andrew Kaufman pushed back on AT&T’s visual impact simulations.
“If you went into any of the backyards of those homes, the simulation would be quite different,” Kaufman said of houses near the shopping center. “Taking a picture from across the street where the house blocks the view … is not much of a simulation.”
He also noted concerns that federal RF limits were based on “actual scientific study … from the mid-1990s.” While acknowledging that the limits are binding, he said that the age of the data was worth noting on the record.
City consultant Joseph Macy said that he and Clarke had discussed alternatives earlier that day, including relocating the antenna toward the southeast corner of the roof or exploring architectural enclosures to reduce its visual impact.
“We did have a very productive discussion,” Macy said, adding that both party’s engineers were willing to continue evaluating adjustments. He also explained that the “shot clock” — a federal deadline for local review — had been extended by mutual agreement several times, but was set to expire onm Nov. 18, raising the possibility of litigation if the board delayed action further.
Nearly a dozen residents spoke, many reiterating concerns expressed at prior meetings.
Lia Leone, a Glen Cove school district trustee who lives nearby, said she was alarmed by the antenna’s proximity to the Gribbin School, which serves children ages 4 to 7.
“This decision is going to have impacts on our health and safety, our property values and the character of our community,” Leone said. She urged the board to “err on the side of caution,” adding, “We simply cannot have this tower in our backyard shadowing our children as they play on the playground.”
Councilman-elect John Perrone questioned AT&T’s photo simulations, and argued that Wi-Fi calling reduces the necessity of rooftop antennas in dense neighborhoods.
“The photographs that were submitted had no antennas on them,” he said. “They were taken from areas so far away that … I had to zoom in.”
Perrone also warned that once a single carrier is approved, others typically follow — creating what he called an “antenna farm.”
In September, Waller defended the proposal, telling the Herald that he signed the lease five years ago to address what he called a “dead area” for service stretching from Deasy School all the way to Locust Valley.
“It’s in the back of the Rite Aid in the corner, and the trees are much higher than the antenna,” Waller said, adding that he believed better service would benefit customers as well as emergency responders.
“If I thought it was harmful to the neighbors, I wouldn’t do it,” he said.
After its discussion, the board voted 5-0 to deny the application. While members acknowledged the increasing demand for wireless capacity, they said that the visual, neighborhood and siting concerns outweighed the benefits of the proposed location.
