Cellphone Tower Mistakes Alleged at Z.B.A.
The commisssioners of the Springs Fire District came under a barrage of fire at a hearing before the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, concerning a cellphone tower erected behind the Springs Firehouse on Fort Pond Boulevard in April. The 150-foot-tall structure is owned by Elite Towers, which agreed to pay the fire district $18,000 a month in return for allowing it to use the tower for commercial antennas.
The hearing was on an appeal by the tower’s critics of building permits for the tower that Tom Preiato, then-chief building inspector, had issued in November of last year and again in Januuary. They charged that the building permits enabled the commissioners to bypass proper review. According to Anthony Pasca of Esseks, Hefter & Angel, a lawyer for the opponents, the permits were issued on the mistaken assumption that, because the land was owned by the fire district, the commissioners had governmental immunity and did not need to follow the site plan process.
“There is no such thing as blanket immunity,” Mr. Pasca said, telling board members that he wasn’t asking them to vote up or down on the tower, but to force the district to go through the normal planning process.
Much of the discussion Tuesday concerned what was called “the Monroe test,” which arose from a 1988 State Court of Appeals decision. The decision lays out a necessary balancing test when two governmental bodies are in conflict over a building. New York State provides the following guidance on its website: “When a local government, fire district, or fire company undertakes the construction of a firehouse within its own borders or within the boundaries of another municipal government, such construction may be subject to the requirements of the host municipality’s zoning.”
Saying the commissioners had side-stepped the balancing test, Mr. Pasca asked, “Why are they so hell-bent on going ahead? It’s about money. Elite is not doing this for fun.”
He also criticized the fact that the district, after the firestorm of opposition erupted, completed its own State Environmental Quality Review Act study, which, he said, ended up with a predictable finding that the tower would have minimal community impact. He added that the commissioners had failed to comply with requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the minutes of meetings at which the structure was discussed.
Among Springs residents who spoke was Jonathan Coven, who went to the podium with his wife and three children. “My family lives inside the fall zone,” he said. “All this was done with no publicity.” He concluded by saying, “Please enforce the law.”
“The tower just happened overnight,” Ana Nunez said. She complained that even though she is a member of the volunteer Fire Department, she knew nothing about plans for the tower.
Carl Irace, an attorney representing the district, and Patrick Glennon, the Springs Fire District’s chief commissioner, also addressed the board.
Mr. Glennon described the need for the tower. “Back in 2013, we were experiencing a lot of dead spots,” he said. “There are multiple dead spots in Springs,” saying the tower is not yet in use and calling it a “hollow tower.” He denied that the tower’s approval had occurred secretly. “We are elected by the general public,” he said. “Our meetings are open to the public.”
Mr. Irace noted that the commissioners hold meetings every second Monday of the month. However, he admitted that mistakes were made, with the SEQRA study happening after the fact. He said that the district had performed its own Monroe test. “My client got some bad advice, and made a mistake.”
Mr. Irace said that the commission had discussed the tower with the East Hampton Town Planning Department and members of the planning board. Mr. Pasca challenged that assertion, saying “There’s no record of this.”
At the end of the almost three-hour hearing, the record was kept open for one week, to allow the commission to forward its minutes to the board.