It sounds like the plot of a David and Goliath-type ‘80s movie, if only cellphones were a thing back then:
To benefit a mega-corporation that’s improbably partnered with a church, lawyers force the construction of a 70-foot cell tower next to a cherished historical chapel, owned by the church, that a community of artists and writers struggle to save. To shield views of the tower, which, of course, is located in a residential area, the mega-corporation plants a couple of rows of evergreens and adds a six-foot faux-wooden gate.
Unfortunately, this wasn’t a movie, it was an April 12 public hearing on an application by Cingular Wireless, doing business as AT&T, before the East Hampton Town Planning Board.
The Planning Department staff preferred the 70-foot standalone pole at St. Peter's Chapel in Springs to the rejected plan first proposed by AT&T in 2020, which called for the cell equipment to be placed in a 50-foot fake “belltower.” (However, Eric Schantz, the assistant town planning director, made it clear that they only preferred it because once new technology makes it obsolete, it will be easier to tear down.)
AT&T sued after the planning board rejected the belltower design; a settlement agreement gave birth to a new application for a 70-foot standalone tower on the chapel property. According to the agreement, if the planning board does not approve the new proposal by May, AT&T would be allowed to build the previously rejected bell-tower model instead, leading to the town’s present predicament.
“It’s ugly as sin,” David Buda told the board. The tower would be “significantly visible,” he complained, and at the very least should be a “stealth pole.” The plan before the board calls for the antennas to be flush mounted to the tower.
Karen Simon said despite a petition in opposition, with over 500 signatures from nearby residents, AT&T felt the need to push ahead. She also blamed St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in East Hampton, which owns the small chapel, for attempting, she said, to monetize it, “by soliciting a three-thousand-dollar per-month payout in exchange for leasing the land in perpetuity for the erection of this monopole.”
“Allowing the parent church to turn St. Peter’s property into a money-generating asset without any regard or consideration for the surrounding neighbors, is absolutely antithetical to one of the basic tenets of religion, which is, ‘Love thy neighbor,’ “ said Ms. Simon.
“This is not about monetizing the chapel,” said the Rev. Joseph L. Cundiff IV, in a phone call. “It is about being able to provide cellphone service to the community.”
Rameshwar Das picked up on the thread. “The church is a non-taxable property and they’re now in bed with one of the oldest and biggest corporations in the country. How does that work? Is that going to make the property taxable now?” Later, he added, “If this proposal were enforced next to St. Luke’s Church in East Hampton Village, excuse me, I don’t want to cast religious aspersions, but there would be hell to pay.”
AT&T’s website includes a coverage map of its service. Valerie Coster showed the board a printed version of the map. “Based on AT&T’s own data, there is no significant coverage gap in AT&T’s 4G service at this precise location,” she said.
In a dark but amusing irony, this caused Matt Fitzgerald, the lawyer representing AT&T, to say, basically, that the map was simply false advertising.
“A marketing map doesn’t hold up against R.F. engineers,” he said, pointing to a disclaimer on AT&T’s website which says, “This map displays approximate outdoor coverage; actual coverage may vary. Coverage isn’t guaranteed and is subject to change without notice.”
St. Peter’s Chapel is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. When a cell tower is proposed that might affect such a structure, the Federal Communications Commission reviews it to make sure mitigation is offered. Sarah Kautz, a historic-preservation consultant whom neighbors had turned to for advice, told the board the F.C.C. has not yet completed its review. Should the agency determine that AT&T was not sufficiently tempering the visual effects of the tower on the nearby historic structure, she said, it was possible it would not grant a license for the pole.
Mr. Fitzgerald countered that it was a chicken-and-egg scenario. The F.C.C. would only look at the application after it was approved by the town, he said.
Christopher Katsaros was simply confused by the situation. He asked if a member of the planning board could explain it all. When it became clear that the board, which doesn’t respond during a public hearing, was not going to answer, he said, “I’m happy to take the next 90 seconds in silence, for it to sink in just how silly this process is.”
After a few seconds of quiet, Ian Calder-Piedmonte, a board member, said, “We’re not really going to sit in silence, are we?”
“I think we get the idea,” said Samuel Kramer, the board chairman, before continuing.
Besides Mr. Fitzgerald, AT&T did find one supporter, Charles Riggi, who attends St. Peter’s Chapel. He said the lack of cell service was a public safety issue. For seven years, he said, the application had been bouncing between town boards. “It’s still a public safety issue, and nothing has been done. It’s been going on forever.”
Ms. Simon stood again to castigate St. Luke’s, which she claimed was “unwilling to use any of their $3,897,000 surplus, as printed in their annual report, to take care of St. Peter’s Chapel.” Ms. Coster also stood again, saying that St. Luke’s donated only $9,000 last year to the Springs community. Meanwhile, she said, with only a few volunteers, she had held two events and raised $50,000 for the local food pantry.
“We would be willing as a neighborhood to raise any and all funds necessary to maintain the chapel,” said Peter Corbett. “You don’t need revenue for maintaining the chapel.” Its maintenance costs, he said, were listed as $1,200 a year.
Reverend Cundiff said the numbers Ms. Simon presented were inaccurate, but did not elaborate on the church’s charitable activities. “Christianity is not about numbers,” he said. “It’s not about competition against other groups, about who is doing the most good or spending the most money to do good. Christianity is about lives transformed. I don’t know how best to walk people through that change. Change is hard to accept, no matter how that change takes shape.”
“We’ve done everything we can to accommodate the town board’s recommendations,” Mr. Fitzgerald concluded. “This entire application is an attempt to find a reasonable compromise with the town.”
The planning board closed the hearing. They will discuss their findings at this Wednesday’s meeting. Because of the settlement agreement, they will also be forced to vote to approve or deny the application.
If they vote to deny, according to the settlement, AT&T would be allowed to build the 50-foot-tall fake bell tower.
--
Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that AT&T had sued and prevailed when the planning board rejected its first design. Instead, a settlement agreement was reached that gave rise to the current application before the board. The planning board was not unanimous in its acceptance of the settlement agreement; one member, Randy Parsons, opposed it.
