Scarsdale 10583

Edgemont residents were surprised last week by a series of emails from Ellen Weininger, the Educational Outreach Coordinator for Grassroots Environmental Education, concerning a proposal from NextG Networks of NY to get permission from the Town of Greenburgh to install cell phone antennas on existing utility poles all over Edgemont! I was especially concerned for two reasons: 1) Why had this proposal not been made public? I read all the emails I get from everyone (including the Town of Greenburgh) and I had never heard about this proposal even though I live one block away from one of the proposed sites and 2) I am concerned about the possible health risks from these antennas in residential areas.

My understanding of the situation is that NextG is seeking to install a series of Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS). These systems consist of cell transmitters mounted on utility poles right outside of area homes. Some believe these transmitters pose an even greater exposure risk than cell phone towers. No one I spoke to in Edgemont had heard anything about the public hearing that occurred on December 14th .  According to Deborah Kopald, an expert on cell towers and radiation issues, "proximity to the transmitter is a larger factor in total radiation exposure than total power output. In other words, this is the cell tower issue multiplied several-fold; cell towers in residential areas increases more people's cumulative exposure to microwave radiation. Homeowners in close proximity will have more radiation exposure from these transmitters than they would have from most cell towers."

I contacted Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner who said that: the town has an antenna review board that reviews all applications. However, Federal law limits the ability of governments to reject antenna applications for health reasons. Feiner asked the Town Attorney's office and the Edgemont Community Council (ECC) to review the federal statute to see if anything can be done legally to restrict the placement of antennas in residential areas. Feiner stressed that if the town can legally keep antennas away from homes and if the Town can authorize them in non-residential areas, he would prefer that compromise option.

Geoff Loftus, president of the ECC, responded to Feiner that he had consulted with some of the ECC members who are lawyers and they felt that under a Greenburgh law passed in 1998, the Town has the right to not allow cell phone antennas in residential areas except by special permit. Furthermore, in their opinion, Next G does not qualify for a special permit so the Town will be able to restrict where Next G places these antennas. Hopefully, the Town Attorney's office will concur with this opinion and Next G's cell phone antennas will be placed away from any residential area.

There is a following up hearing on Wednesday January 25th at 7:30 pm at Town Hall that is open to public comment. Hopefully, there will be a more widespread distribution announcement for this meeting. I asked Feiner to include me on any email distribution list for this proposal and he agreed to do so and urged me to have other residents to contact him if they also wanted to be included. He can be emailed at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

In preparation for this hearing at Town Hall, a group of Edgemont residents will have a community meeting on Thursday, January 5th at the Edgemont High School LGI room at 7 pm. All residents are encouraged to attend. Environmental educator, Ellen Weininger , will speak about the dangers of DAS, as well as Deborah Kopald.

The proposed locations In Edgemont are on the following existing wood utility poles close to: 155 Highland Road, corner of Sprain Brook Parkway and Jackson Avenue, 2 Skytop Drive, Ardsley Road (north of Sprain Valley Road), 35 Sprain Valley, 404 Ardsley Road, Clifton Road (east of Central Avenue), 3 Longview Drive, 644 Fort Hill Road, 400 Underhill Road, 37 Sprain Road, corner of Westminster Road and Ardsley road, and 11 Old Army Road. There are also several other locations through the town on Greenburgh. The actual forms filed with The Town of Greenburgh in August, 2011 can be found by clicking here and scrolling to "Town Antenna Applications" towards the end of the page.

Comments (22)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Curious, March 09, 2012

So what's happening here??

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by DAS article, December 28, 2011

Here is a repost of Deborah Kopald's December 19th Op-Ed that ran in the Journal News (it was taken down off their website):

http://www.terraspheres.com/blogs/radiation-from-cell-towers-is-a-serious-concern

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Anna Karenina, December 25, 2011

Check out these articles on DAS from Garden City, LI and Santa Barbara to see how sneaky these cellcos are:

"Garden City Residents Gird for Battle..." and "Attack of the Antennas"

http://longislandreport.org/news/garden-city-residents-gird-for-battle-against-backyard-hazards/4123
http://www.independent.com/news/2009/oct/08/attack-antennas/

By the by, love the post by "Next G Ceo" "And we are quite pleased that the nimby issues that surround these devices, as well as the aesthetics of these, will surely have a nice impact on increasing your property values."

Like the MasterCard commercial says - Reduction in property prices-20%! Reduction to the level of your health-- priceless!

Guys, it's not just DAS antenna- its smart meters, cell towers, Wi-Fi in schools, iPhones (that have a built in repeater- that functions like a mini cell tower) ETCETERA. If we don't take a stand and say NO to antenna proliferation at the local level, dollars to donuts, the problem will increase. The feds are bought and paid for and the federal agencies are corrupted by industry $$ and industry standard setters.

Political pressure has to go on EVERY local official in Westchester to stand up to the federal government because the FCC is actively promoting DAS and wants to dismantle wireline phone service.

It should be a campaign litmus test for any Westchester politician right down to the school board officials and PTA presidents. Will you fight antenna proliferation? Fine, you have my vote. You think it's a minor issue? Don't even bother running for office.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by jeff c, December 25, 2011

Hi All.

Please be forewarned that NextG's actual installations are much more offensive than the pictures on their website. See the links below for some information on my fight with NextG in San Francisco. The did not follow the rules, they tried to vilify the residents that have serious concerns and when they had the permit application revoked they sued the city. They have no real stake in the communities in which they operate and they don't care what the residents think.

http://richmondsfblog.com/2011/03/07/27th-avenue-neighbors-fight-back-against-wireless-antenna-installations/

http://richmondsfblog.com/2011/03/18/resident-wins-appeal-to-revoke-antenna-permit-more-nextg-violations-identified/

http://richmondsfblog.com/2011/06/21/despite-city-mandate-nextg-fails-to-remove-equipment-on-27th-ave/

Good luck.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by I'll Sue You, December 24, 2011

If you’re interested in knowing about NextG’s litigious appetite:

Here's the battle waged with the Village of Scarsdale and NextG (click below):

http://ecfsdocs.fcc.gov/filings/2011/09/30/6016844187.html

http://www.natoa.org/ListingCitiesNOICommentsbystate.pdf

• 
• +3
• 
• 

...
written by Concerned Edgemont Resident , December 24, 2011

I would like to see the report that clearly indicates that there are no alternative locations (not located close to our houses) with similar (maybe not perfect) coverage characteristics that would meet the cellular needs of our community done by an independent firm. I find it hard to believe that cell towers along the high voltage power line right of way wouldn't achieve this although at a a higher cost, but lets have independent experts figure this out. Also, I would like to see how much money the town will make from this deal, how much will NEXTG be paying annually, then I think it will be clearer what motivates our local government. This business proposal should be subject to complete transparency and made available to the public. I heard that when directly questioned Paul Feiner denied the town was receiving any money from NEXTG, typically fees are paid. Trying to argue that health issues alone should prohibit this from going through is naive.

• 
• +5
• 
• 

...
written by NextG CEO, December 22, 2011

I agree with the last (im)poster, so-called voice of reason. You and your children can be comforted that we have done all the long term studies to determine impacts of a 24/7 exposure to radio frequency emissions. And we are quite pleased that the nimby issues that surround these devices, as well as the aesthetics of these, will surely have a nice impact on increasing your property values. The fact that we are providing these to you to get you excellent MetroPCS coverage in your home should really be another great selling point -- now you don't need Verizon or AT&T.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

..., Low-rated comment [Show]

...
written by edgemont resident, December 22, 2011

I completely agree with the Longview Resident, lets stop blaming everyone else and stick to the most important point: keeping the cell antennas off of our residential streets. There is the Town Hall hearing on the 25th of January -- Edgemont residents should attend and voice their opposition.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by Edgemont Resident on Longview, December 22, 2011

I had contacted Supervisor Feiner and Scarsdale10583.com about this issue on November 19th when I received a certified letter from a law firm representing NextG that they were planning to install one of their Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) on a utility pole in front of my house on Longview Drive. Both Supervisor Feiner and the Town Attorney, Tim Lewis, have responded promptly, diligently and with sensitivity to my concerns. Joanne from Scarsdale10583.com has also been on top of the issue, and has corresponded with Supervisor Feiner to address these concerns. So before we escalate this conspiracy theory further, I just wanted to let you know, from my personal experiences and perspectives, that they are sensitive to our issues, and are actually on OUR side. I am supportive of their efforts, and I would like you all to be open minded about these folks as we move forward to STOP the NextG invasion of Edgemont.

• 
• -2
• 
• 

...
written by Feiner is deceiving us, December 21, 2011

Why does Feiner keep saying the Town needs legal opinions on federal law when the point thats been made 's that the Town is not enforcing its own laws in this area? And how reassuring is it that Feiner wants the Town Attorney's office to review legal opinions from Edgemont lawyers saying that the Town should be enforcing its own laws. This is the same Town Attorney's office that the court found couldn't be trusted to defend the rights of Greenburgh taxpayers in the Valhalla lawsuit -- because Feiner was on the other side of the issue. Well, with all the money Feiner's collected over the years from lawyers representing cell phone antenna companies in Greenburgh, what makes anyone think the Town Attorney's office will be any more capable of representing the interests of Greenburgh homeowners on this issue than it was in representing our interests in the Valhalla case. Feiner should do us all a favor and stop pretending the issue is with federal law and RECUSE HIMSELF on the ground that he's so conflicted he can no longer tell right from wrong.

• 
• +5
• 
• 

...
written by Another Edgemont taxpayer, December 21, 2011

"Edgemont taxpayer" didn't identify himself, but Bob Bernstein sure did, and he made clear that the problem here is not with the federal law, but with Feiner himself and his refusal to acknowledge, much less understand or enforce the Town's own law, which Bernstein says is consistent with federal law and gives residents legal protections which Feiner is simply ignoring, preferring instead to mislead residents into thinking the problem isn't with Feiner or the Town, but with Federal law -- when nothing could be further from the truth. I hope the ECC still has a tape of the town work session where Feiner led the opposition to the ECC's proposed change in town code to give residents the right to receive written notice when cell phone applications are filed with the Town. Now would be a good time to post THAT on its Facebook page. As for Feiner getting political contributions from lawyers representing cell phone antenna companies, that's easy to find. It's all a matter of public record.

• 
• +6
• 
• 

..., Low-rated comment [Show]

...
written by Edgemont resident near Ardsley and Highland Rd, December 21, 2011

This is just getting out of hand. It was bad enough that we had to live w/ an OVERSIZED WHITE DOME covering a once small reservoir, as well as the slash and burn of the trees under the power lines that laid the land barren from the beauty and sound barriers that the trees and bushes provided, now we have MULTIPLE antennas slated to be located near Ardsley and Highland....enough already! Leave this area alone!

• 
• +6
• 
• 

...
written by Edgemont taxpayer, December 21, 2011

The ECC is not at fault here, Feiner is. The ECC drafted a proposal for the Town three years ago to require that every homeowner within 500 feet of a proposed cell phone location be notified in writing whenever a cell phone antenna application was filed. That way could track its progress when it was before the Town's Antenna Review Board. Feiner opposed the measure and no one on the town board would even introduce it. So, fast forward to the NextG application Thanks to Feiner, residents were informed only when the Antenna Review Board concluded, after a year of studying the matter, that the application was complete. Why did Feiner oppose giving residents legal notice when the application was filed? If Feiner won't tell you, perhaps the lawyers representing the many cell phone antenna companies who contributed so heavily to Feiner's political campaigns, and opposed the ECC's notice proposal, might be able to answer. What will this mean now? It means Feiner will tell you that the Town's hands are tied, it can't restrict the location based on health concerns, that Feiner himself feels towns like Greenburgh should be able to impose such restrictions, and he'll urge every gullible Edgemont resident he can find to blame not the Town or Feiner, but the federal government for the Town's failure to protect its residents. He'll then ask the gullible to write letters to Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, and Rep. Nita Lowey, demanding that they take action to exempt Greenburgh from such federal restrictions. One hopes Edgemont residents will demand instead that Feiner enforce the Town's own laws restricting cell phone antennas in residential neighborhoods, which seems to be all the ECC is asking him to do. But don't count on him doing it. With Feiner, money talks.

• 
• +7
• 
• 

...
written by Edgemonter, December 21, 2011

I had no idea cell phone antennas were being proposed for the Edgemont area, and wonder why the ECC didn't publicize it? Thank you, Paul, for working with Edgemont to keep cell phone antennas out of residential neighborhoods!

• 
• -2
• 
• 

...
written by very concerned Edgemont resident, December 21, 2011

Very informative article! I, as I'm sure goes for many Edgemont residents, was not aware of this plan and am glad you've brought it to our attention. We must do everything we can to prevent this company from putting up these antennas and the Town of Greenburgh must deny any and all necessary permits to them! Edgemont residents should never have been left in the dark on this issue! Who makes up the Antenna Review Board? There is no reason not to have an Edgemont resident sitting on the board who can voice the obvious concerns for health and safety violations! Health before business! Radiation is a scary subject and we definitely do not need more of it in our residential areas where children are growing up!!

• 
• -3
• 
• 

..., Low-rated comment [Show]

...
written by democrat, December 21, 2011

Thank you Paul for taking the ECC's opinion in your consideration.
The rejection of these antennas will give the town a lot of positive press for putting the residents' health considerations first instead of favoring big business.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

...
written by Edgemont resident, December 21, 2011

The Town's antenna review board needs an Edgemont resident on it in order to look out for Edgemont's best interests! Edgemont should have known about this back when the papers were initially filed! Good article.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by concerned edgemont resident, December 21, 2011

The town should do everything in its power to not grant the permits to this company. We do not want cell phone antennas near our homes...too much of a health risk.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

...
written by PAUL FEINER, December 20, 2011

I would like to thank Geoff Loftus and the ECC for their help in providing the Town Board with another opinion--which we will carefully consider.
PAUL FEINER

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Comment

smaller | bigger

Add Comment