Dear David,

Chapter 255 (Zoning), Section 255-1-41(E), of the East Hampton Town Code states that before a tier-three tower, like the tower Elite Towers erected at the Springs Fire Department, the applicant must prove that tier-one micro-antennas mounted on utility poles cannot deliver adequate service. But several weeks ago, the Town of East Hampton signed a license agreement with Verizon to install 97 tier-one, small-cell antennas on utility poles throughout East Hampton, including in the few areas in Springs where cell service is inadequate. 

As folks who live in Springs know, cell service in Springs greatly improved over the past couple of years as a result of the activation of the both the 180-foot macro tower at Camp Blue Bay from which the Police Department provides emergency communications, and of the 70-foot tower in the steeple of St. Peter’s Chapel on Old Stone Highway.

The town code puts the onus of proving that tier-one antennas cannot plug the service gap on the applicant (Elite) and not on the town or the general public. Verizon knows that its tier-one micro-antennas will plug the gap or it would not have agreed to install these antennas. Therefore, until such time as Elite demonstrates that these micro-antennas cannot plug the gap, it would be a flagrant violation of town code to approve Elite Tower’s application to activate the Elite tower.

The Elite tower should not be approved for many reasons including: The Camp Blue Bay and St. Peter’s towers cured the poor cell service in Springs. The dead zones within 200 to 500 feet of the Police Department’s Camp Blue Bay tower prove that tier-three macro-towers cannot close the remaining coverage gaps, which are caused by clusters of pine needles and the fact that a 150-foot elevation change across Springs eliminates a preponderance of radio frequency signals broadcast by existing tier-three towers. 

Phone calls along Fort Pond Boulevard presently bounce between competing tier-three macro-towers, which causes them to drop. Activating the Elite tower at the Springs Fire Department will exacerbate this problem and make cell service worse, not better.

It is common knowledge that several years ago the fall zone setback in East Hampton was cut from twice-to-once the height of the tower. This changed for several reasons, which included shoehorning the Elite tower into the three-acre Springs Fire Department property. Without cutting the fall zone in half, Elite would have had to obtain a variance from the planning board and engage an unbiased third party to prepare a comprehensive environmental review. In effect, truncating the fall zone acts as a de facto exemption from the code. 

Ironically, in 2015 when the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals ruled against Elite Towers (and the State Supreme Court upheld the Z.B.A. when Elite took it to court), the Z.B.A. argued exactly the opposite; they ruled that Fire Departments are not exempt from code and undertake all of the steps that any party seeking approval for a cell tower must take.

C-Squared (Elite’s consultant) and Richard Slovenko (a consultant retained by SRAET (Springs Residents Against Elite Towers) both performed drive tests throughout Springs to measure the strength of cell reception. They both showed their results maps which are substantially the same. 

Thus, while C-Squared argued that SRAETS’ contention that cell service is strong throughout Springs is untrue (because it is based on the false assumption that the Federal Communications Commission broadband map shows strong cell reception throughout Springs). Ironically, its own maps confirm that Richard Slovenko’s reports are correct. And Mr. Slovenko used Verizon’s benchmark for strong reception to reach his conclusion that cell reception in Springs is now good. So ironically, the C-Squared report confirms that SRAET’s arguments are sound.

The planning board members were extremely concerned that cutting the fall zone in half would jeopardize the safety of the 14 families who will live just a few feet outside the truncated fall zone. The repeatedly quizzed Greg Alvarez (Elite’s attorney) as to whether Elite’s tower was state of the art and could never topple over in a northeaster or hurricane because it would telescope (slide) into itself under high winds. These exchanges between Mr. Alvarez and the board occurred at the board meetings on July 23, 2023, April 2, 2025, and Nov. 19. On all three occasions Mr. Alvarez assured the board that the Elite tower was state of the art and that it would telescope under high winds, as opposed to fall over. 

The assumption that the Elite tower would telescope was the bedrock upon which the planning board based its decision to approve the Elite tower at the Nov. 19 meeting. The paramount importance of the tower telescoping can be seen in the video of the Nov. 14 meeting, where immediately after Mr. Alvarez assured the board that the tower would telescope, they voted unanimously to rescind the positive declaration that had been issued for the tower, paving the way to issue final approval subject only to holding the obligatory public hearing. 

However, on Dec. 16, 2025, the owner of Elite Towers (Tanya Negron) was videotaped at a Springs citizens advisory committee meeting admitting that the Elite tower could not telescope because it was jam-packed with antennas, cabling, and equipment so that there was no room for it to collapse. It is important to note that Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte (who is in charge of all matters concerning telecommunications towers in East Hampton) as well as David Buda and Krae Van Sickle, who are Springs citizens advisory committee members, were all in attendance at the Dec. 16 meeting and that all of them are on videotape concurring that the Elite tower could not telescope. The key question is now that the board is aware that their approval was based on false information, on what basis can they justify approving this tower? 

Not only can’t the tower telescope, but the letter included in Elite’s application by its structural engineer (Vector Structural Engineering based in Draper, Utah) dated Dec. 20, 2023, instead of vouching for the structural integrity of the Elite tower, does precisely the opposite. In the letter, Vector expressly disavows any liability or responsibility they might have for the structural integrity of the tower, saying that they never visited the site and therefore cannot confirm that the tower as built conforms to the specifications shown on the construction drawings (prepared by a different firm) that are included in Elite’s application and that the concrete footing (the sole structural element holding the tower up since this tower does not have the stays that many towers have that reinforce their stability) shown on the construction drawings does not meet town code at the location to which Elite must relocate the tower in order to be squeezed into the truncated fall zone. 

Again, since Elite’s structural engineer expressly disclaimed any responsibility for the Elite tower, on what basis is the planning board approving the tower, especially given the paramount importance of the tower’s structural integrity, given the slicing of the fall zone setback in two?

While federal law prohibits the planning board from raising any questions about the risks that cell towers pose for causing cancer and neurological disorders, etc., that law does not prohibit us from alerting the community that the Elite tower poses serious health issues. SRAET has a portal where 900 scientific studies are posted about the health risks caused by cell towers. Take note that the Elite tower will broadcast 5G signals, which are 35 times more powerful than the 4G signals.

The Elite application, including all the required exhibits, is some 500 pages long so it is understandable that the Planning Department might have overlooked an issue here or there. But a patient and knowledgeable reader who plows through this application cannot help but see that the very process by which the Planning Department and the board have conducted the review of the Elite application has been far too lax. The above examples of taking Elite’s word for things where they themselves should have sought independent advice are just a few of many. Thus the planning board is remiss in not having kicked the tires harder on this project.

Lord knows that Article 78 challenges are not about the facts but the process. It’s time for the planning board to stop bending over backward to accommodate a tower, which, among all other things, is unnecessary and which threatens the safety and well-being of the Springs community.

Finally, we must remind readers that merely by reviewing the Elite application, the town planning board is derelict in its duty because town code expressly forbids approving any application for a telecommunications tower where the applicant is in default on the town’s statutes. Again, the Elite tower is at present unlicensed and located inside the truncated fall zone. By rights, the tower needs to be dismantled before it can be relocated. That should not be too hard given that for the tower to be made legal, it needs to be relocated even to comply with the current truncated fall zone.