There were welcome hints of normalcy during the East Hampton Town Board’s meeting on Tuesday despite its five members’ remote participation via videoconference. With a few weeks’ experience with the new paradigm amid the Covid-19 pandemic — and statistics suggesting that the apex of new infections may arrive sooner than anticipated — the board returned to matters of governance, in this case, proposed code revisions related to cellular service towers and fences.
The town’s wireless master plan was adopted in 2001, Eric Schantz of the Planning Department told the board, but had been formulated in 1998. It is outdated and obsolete with respect to Federal Communications Commission requirements, said Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc, “which pretty much override our current town code in many ways.”
There have been 78 applications for cellular antennas since 2002, Mr. Schantz noted. “Most of these require multiple planning board meetings to be deemed complete — at least five -- which puts you at nearly 400 times these applications have been before the board . . . The number is increasing significantly, and we have six new facilities pending.”
Excluding East Hampton and Sag Harbor Villages, there are 43 cellular antenna installations in the township, he said. These include monopoles and antennas affixed to other structures, such as water towers.
The code says that the planning board cannot consider coverage restrictions, but federal law now requires it, Mr. Schantz explained. Federal law also limits a review’s time frame, “which really limits the planning board’s ability to require additional information.” Monitoring facilities is difficult due to the increased number of applications, and some carriers overload towers or perform work without necessary approvals, he said.
A committee has worked on recommendations for the board. In the near term, the town should hire a consultant with access to radio frequency engineering professionals to review applications for new facilities, said Mr. Schantz. Federal law limits the town’s discretion to approve or deny an application when there is a demonstrable gap in coverage. “We need a consultant that has R.F. engineering capability to determine whether or not there truly is a gap in coverage.”
The town code already has a registry; cellular service carriers are required to file pertinent information with it. The town should enforce the requirement, Mr. Schantz said, and consider adding a fee.
The consultant should produce a coverage map showing needed areas, he said, who would coordinate with town departments to find suitable locations for new facilities and create a list of properties that the board could vet at a public hearing before a vote. Modifications, such as equipment upgrades, to existing sites should be “essentially an administrative application that would only be reviewed by the Planning Department,” he said.
Long-range, he recommended that a consultant review the town’s wireless master plan, to streamline it with federal law while preserving the community’s goals with respect to property values, safety, open spaces, and scenic areas. “You can’t have a code section that’s 20 years old for something like wireless service,” he said. A revamp is overdue, planning staff is burdened by its obsolescence, cellular carriers would be grateful for a streamlined code, “and I think that the town is overlooking a potential significant source of revenue that I think the carriers would not mind complying with, provided they could have an expedited review and a guarantee that the town would be complying with the applicable laws.”
Mobile phones are “an integral part of modern life,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said. “Part of what’s required is, we have to consider coverage. For us to be able to understand whether there are in fact gaps that exist in coverage or not, with a particular application, that’s going to be helpful.”
Enforcing the registry requirement “really modernizes and brings up to date our understanding and review of these infrastructure aspects within the town,” the supervisor said. “There’s an opportunity to have fees that reflect the additional resources that the town has to bring to bear to review and process these applications.”
The board also plans a May 7 public hearing on revised legislation on fences, intended to clarify such things as setback requirements and parameters for agricultural land. This would be useful to the architectural review board, NancyLynn Thiele, an assistant town attorney, told the board.
The board is “still waiting for further guidance on the legal method in which we can hold a public hearing while social distancing,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said. There has been discussion among municipalities about providing a teleconference opportunity in which the public could participate, he said, “but to date we don’t have firm guidance . . . We will go ahead and schedule a public hearing, and hopefully will be able to have it at that time.”
The board has been consumed by the Covid-19 pandemic for weeks. “It feels good,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said, “to be getting to a point where we can talk about other things that need to be done.”
