Telecommunications: Tall towers or small cells -- Which will best solve Croton's mobile phone service gaps? [Updated]
The question was debated at a lively and sometimes raucous public hearing on the future of cell service in the village. Also of concern: Possible health effects from cell tower radiation.
Last evening, June 26, the Board of Trustees held a long delayed and much awaited public hearing on a proposed new telecommunications law designed to help improve cell phone service in the village. At least, that’s what Board members insisted that the law will do. But from the first minutes of the hearing, when one resident accused the Board of intentionally setting the microphones at low volume so that no one could hear, to the very end, when two participants called Trustee Len Simon a “liar” and walked out of the meeting room together with others, it was clear that the TelCom law—now 30 pages long in its current draft—has become a hot button issue in Croton.
Indeed, many of the more than 50 villagers who showed up for the hearing were already angry before they arrived. Over the months that the issue has been discussed, some Crotonites have come to question the motivations of the Board, accusing Mayor Pugh in particular of wanting to lease village owned property for the construction of 150 foot high cell towers as a way of raising revenue not only for Croton, but also for major companies in the cell tower business such as Homeland Towers. Homeland has long showed an interest in operating in the village.
In previous posts on this subject, we have reported that village officials appear to have engaged in a long-running feud with some members of their own appointed Telecommunication Advisory Committee (TAC), which refused to disband when told its advice was no longer needed—and which remains an active player in the debate over how to best improve cell service in our hilly village.
The public comments focused primarily on three related issues:
Should cell towers ranging up to 150 feet tall be built on residential property, as the current draft of the law would allow?
Should the village explore small cell technology as an alternative to cell towers, which is much less obtrusive and can be mounted on existing infrastructure such as lamp posts and traffic lights?
What are the possible health risks of tall towers and has the village taken them into proper account?
A large number of people spoke, with various degrees of knowledge and expertise, but the anger and frustration with the Board was palpable. One speaker who covered a number of the issues was local potter Renee Ivanoff.
“I am here for the same reason that most people are here tonight, to support improving cell service in Croton,” Ivanoff told the mayor and trustees. “I am also here to oppose allowing new cell towers to be built in our neighborhoods. These are not contradictory positions, because addressing our cell coverage gaps with small cell solutions instead of cell towers is not only feasible, but also a better way to meet our needs.”
(Small cell technology has been spreading rapidly across the United States, including here in Westchester County. One of the major companies involved in installing it, Crown Castle based in Houston, has prepared a primer about how the technology works.)
Ivanoff continued:
“We already have two cell towers in Croton, one at the train station and the other on top of this very building. Yet the Televate cell coverage study commissioned by the Village shows that within 1,000 feet of this building on three sides, cell strength is poor. The same study shows that on Young Ave, within 2,000 feet of the tower at the train station, cell strength is also poor. Why is it that our service is so poor so close to our current towers? First, it’s because of our hilly terrain. Cell towers work by line of sight, and the tree covered hills that enhance Croton’s beauty also render cell towers less effective. Second, it’s because the days of meeting cellular service needs with a smaller number of larger towers is over. With 5G and the ways in which people use data on their phones now, the future is a larger number of smaller antennas instead of a smaller number of larger ones.”
Like a number of other speakers, Ivanoff pointed to the role of Homeland Towers, which has been eager to build cell towers in Croton (we reported earlier that Homeland had kept in close touch with Village Manager Bryan Healy about the progress of the TelCom law.)
Ivanoff concluded: “I’d like to ask everyone in the room who shares my concerns to speak tonight so that our voices are heard, even if it is only to say ‘no to towers and yes to small cell in our neighborhoods.’”
The Board also heard from Aaron Lamar, a member of TAC who has taken a leading role in tense negotiations with the trustees, especially Ian Murtaugh and Len Simon, who have been most involved in the revisions to the TelCom law draft. LaMar argued that small cell technology was an alternative that would protect Croton residents from FCC rules that would make it very difficult for the village to prevent construction of cell towers on private property:
“Small cell antennas can provide coverage for up to 1.5 miles, and because they are so small and unobtrusive, they can go just about anywhere,” LaMar said.
”According to the US Census Bureau, Croton has only 6.1 square miles of land. From East to West as well as from North to South, our Village is less than 3 miles. This is not a large or difficult area to cover with small cell. As a matter of fact, small cell in Croton could easily extend into the surrounding area.”
LaMar elaborated on this point:
“While it is true that the major wireless carriers are currently focused on deploying small cell to high density areas – which Croton is not – there are many alternatives. Companies like Crown Castle are currently installing small cell in Westchester County. If the Village’s priority is revenue from leasing land for a tower, then towers are obviously the only solution. If the Village’s priority is resolving our coverage gaps while minimizing negative impacts on residents, then it must be willing to invest money in small cell solutions. Village officials have stated that there is no interest in using municipal funds to fund solutions to address our coverage gaps, so it is no surprise that there has been no serious discussion of small cell solutions. We are asking the Board to reconsider this position.”
And Signe Bergstrom, a local Croton activist, hit hard on the concerns about health effects from radiofrequency radiation, a controversial but persistent concern that has only intensified with the advent of 5G networks. Bergstrom began:
“In August of 2021 the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the December 2019 decision by the FCC to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” Further, the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” The court found the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists and medical doctors who called on them to update limits and the court found the FCC failed to address…”
Bergstrom questioned how the Board could justify provisions in the draft law for Croton that would allow cell towers to be built within 165 feet of homes and schools, citing measures taken in other communities to protect citizens from possible harm:
“We all know how long it can take the federal government to resolve court challenges like this. The simple fact is that more and more municipalities and cities are taking a hard look at safety concerns around 5G and cell towers. Just last year The Board of Representatives in Stamford, CT rejected a 5G agreement because of potential health risks. Here are just a few other examples:
Shelburne, MA – no wireless antennas within 3,000 feet of schools and within 1,500 feet of homes and no new wireless antennas in residential zones.
Copake, NY – no wireless facility may be within 1,500 feet from homes, schools, churches, or other buildings containing dwelling units.
Bedford, NH – No wireless antennas within 750 feet from nearest residentially-zoned property.
Scarsdale, NY – No wireless facilities within 500 feet from homes, schools, parks, and houses of worship.
Randolph, MA – no wireless antennas within 500 feet of homes and businesses.”
The public hearing, which was often heated and emotional, went on for about an hour and a quarter, and then it was time for the mayor and trustees to make their own comments. Trustee Len Simon launched into a lengthy comment about how he saw the debate and the process leading to the current draft of the law, a viewpoint that often differed dramatically from that of the participants and even members of TAC.
Simon insisted that village officials were “big advocates of small cell technology” and that language about it formed “one of the largest sections of our bill.” Simon cited in particular pages 24 to 29 of the proposed legislation, which lay down rules and policies for applications and installations for “small wireless facilities,” which would include small cell technology. But two members of TAC told the Chronicle that despite the inclusion of this section, Simon and other trustees had shown only limited interest in anything but building cell towers during their discussions.
Simon also insisted that it was TAC that wanted the law to allow construction of cell towers in residential neighborhoods, which LaMar, from the audience, loudly called “a lie, a bald lie.” In a discussion after the hearing with another TAC member, the Chronicle was told that both LaMar and Simon were right in their ways, and that it was a matter of “context” how one interpreted the interaction between TAC members and the trustees.
Mayor Brian Pugh, who had been bristling during the entire meeting at accusations that he and the Board were only interested in making money by leasing cell tower sites to Homeland Towers, had the last word. “We have to avoid speculation and accusations,” he said, adding that if the Board only wanted to make money it would have leased land for the cell towers long ago.
The proposed law is expected to come up for a vote by the Board in two weeks, at its meeting on July 10. If it is adopted—and no one the Chronicle spoke to seems to have any illusions that it will not be—the village is likely to put out Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for the installation of telecommunications infrastructure in the village. However that process goes, it is likely to generate a whole new round of debate.
Update: Is the Board going back to the drawing board once again on the legislation?
Yes, according to a post by Trustee Nora Nicholson on The Croton Point Facebook group. Just how and when that will be done remains to be seen. But if so, the issue should not be coming up for a vote at the next Board meeting, scheduled for July 10.
To share this post, or to share The Croton Chronicle, please click on these links.
Comments policy: No personal attacks, please be polite and respectful.
I went and observed. The village trustees seemed bored and annoyed. Whatever the principal / agent relationship these elected representatives are meant to have with residents of Croton, is clearly not there. They have no trust. They were defensive and combative.
Thank you for the very thorough summary of last night's events.