Klein Introduces Legislation To Restrict Cellular Phone Tower Construction

S1794-2011: Requires landlords to hold public forums with tenants
before permitting cell phone towers to be placed on residential
buildings; requires school to notify parents and school faculty

Versions: S1794-2011 Print HTML Page / Print Original Bill Format /
ShareThis / Read or Leave Comments
Requires landlords to hold a public forum with tenants prior to
contracting with cell phone carriers to mount cell phone towers on
residential buildings; requires school districts to provide parents
and school faculty with written notification of cell phone towers
being mounted onto school facilities.
Sponsor: KLEIN / Co-sponsor(s): HASSELL-THOMPSON, KRUEGER / Committee:
JUDICIARY
Law Section: Real Property Law / Law: Add S238-a, RP L; add S414-a, Ed L
S1794-2011 Actions
Jan 12, 2011: REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
S1794-2011 Memo
BILL NUMBER:S1794

TITLE OF BILL:
An act
to amend the real property law, in relation to
requiring landlords to hold a public forum with tenants prior to
contracting with cell phone service carriers to mount cell phone towers
on residential buildings; and to amend the education law,
in relation to requiring school districts to
provide parents and school faculty with written notification of cell
phone towers being mounted onto school facilities

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To provide prior notification to tenants in residential buildings when
cell phone service carriers approach their landlord with an offer to
build cell antennas on the roof or side of the building. The bill
also instructs school districts to notify parents and school faculty
of such negotiations, prior to the approval of a building permit.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Section 1: Amends the Real Property Law to add a new section 238-a. It
requires landlords to hold a public forum 45 days prior to entering
into a contract to mount a cellular phone tower on a residential
building structure.
A violation of this section results in a civil penalty of two-hundred
and fifty dollars for each day that passes after a building permit
has been approved and no forum has been conducted.

Section 2: Amends Education Law to add a new section 414-a. It defines
the terms “Facility”, and “Written Notification”. Requires schools to
provide written notification to the parent or guardian of a student
and to school faculty, staff and administrators 45 days before cell
phone towers, cell phone antennas, or base stations are placed or
mounted onto school facilities. A violation of this section results
in a civil penalty of five _ hundred dollars for each day that passes
after a building permit has been approved without proper notification.

JUSTIFICATION:
Tenants should have the right to know when a landlord has agreed to
place a cell tower on the roof or side of a residential building.
Cell phone service carriers compensate the landlord for placing
towers on their building, while tenants are left without a voice in
the process.

It is important that a tenant has the opportunity to express his/her
opinion when a cell tower is going to be placed where they live,
especially since the health effects from human exposure are not fully
known.

Under current Federal FCC regulations, states cannot regulate or
prevent the placement of cell towers on residential buildings based
upon allegations that the energy emitted causes environmental or
health effects.

However, complaints and requests for an environmental review can be
applied for within three months of the building permit’s approval. It

is only fair that tenants are made aware of the landlord’s
intentions, and give them ample time to file a complaint.

Schools are both institutions for learning and also a work place
environment for teachers and other faculty. Both parents and faculty
should be made aware of the school’s intentions to build cell towers,
and should be given time to voice their concerns.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2009/2010 – S.4913 – Referred to Judiciary Committee

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None. This bill could potentially raise revenue for the state through
the collection of fines.

EFFECTIVE DATE:
180 days after it shall have become law.

S1794-2011 Text
S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K

1794
2011-2012 Regular Sessions
I N  SENATE
January 12, 2011

Introduced  by  Sens. KLEIN, HASSELL-THOMPSON, KRUEGER — read twice and
ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee  on
Judiciary
AN  ACT  to  amend the real property law, in relation to requiring land
lords to hold a public forum with tenants prior  to  contracting  with
cell  phone service carriers to mount cell phone towers on residential
buildings; and to amend the education law, in  relation  to  requiring
school  districts  to  provide parents and school faculty with written
notification of cell phone towers being mounted onto school facilities
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEM
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section  1.  The  real property law is amended by adding a new section
238-a to read as follows:

S 238-A. DUTY OF LANDLORD TO HOLD A PUBLIC  FORUM  PRIOR  TO  MOUNTING
CELLULAR  PHONE  TOWERS  ONTO  RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STRUCTURES. 1.   THE
TERMS  “CELLULAR  PHONE  TOWER”,  “CELLULAR  PHONE  ANTENNA”  AND  “BASE
STATION”  AS  USED  IN THIS SECTION SHALL MEAN A STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF
RADIOS, COMPUTERIZED SWITCHING EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS THAT  RECEIVE  AND
TRANSMIT  RADIO FREQUENCY SIGNALS WHICH FACILITATE CELLULAR PHONE TRANS
MISSION AND RECEPTION.  THE TERM “RESIDENTIAL BUILDING” AS USED IN  THIS
SECTION SHALL MEAN A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING THAT HAS FOUR OR MORE DWELLING
UNITS OR APARTMENTS.
2. A LANDLORD SHALL BE REQUIRED TO HOLD A PUBLIC FORUM WITH HIS OR HER
TENANTS  NOT  LESS THAN FORTY-FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO CONTRACTING WITH A CELL
PHONE SERVICE CARRIER TO MOUNT OR ATTACH A CELL PHONE TOWER, CELL  PHONE
ANTENNA  OR  BASE STATION ONTO THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STRUCTURE.  EACH
SUCH LANDLORD SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC FORUM TO  EACH
TENANT  OF  THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING NOT LESS THAN TEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC FORUM. THE NOTICE SHALL INCLUDE THE DATE, TIME, PLACE AND PURPOSE
OF SUCH FORUM. EVERY PUBLIC FORUM SHALL BE HELD AT A  COMMON  AREA  WITH
THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO WHICH IT RELATES. THE PUBLIC FORUMS REQUIRED
EXPLANATION–Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD05417-01-1

S. 1794                             2
BY  THIS  SECTION  SHALL  BE  OPEN SOLELY TO THE LANDLORD AND HIS OR HER
AGENTS, AND THE TENANTS OF THE AFFECTED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
3.  A  LANDLORD  WHO VIOLATES SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
SUBJECT, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTIES THAT MAY  BE  PRESCRIBED  BY
LAW,  TO  A CIVIL PENALTY OF TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT
PASSES AFTER A BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN APPROVED  TO  BUILD  A  CELLULAR
PHONE  TOWER,  CELLULAR  PHONE ANTENNA OR BASE STATION, TO BE MOUNTED OR
ATTACHED ONTO A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STRUCTURE WITHOUT PROPER  NOTIFICA
TION TO TENANTS.

S  2.  The  education  law is amended by adding a new section 414-a to
read as follows:

S 414-A. NOTIFICATION ABOUT CELL PHONE TOWERS LOCATED ON SCHOOL FACIL
ITIES. 1. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION THE FOLLOWING  TERMS  SHALL  HAVE
THE  MEANINGS SET FORTH BELOW: (A) “SCHOOL” SHALL MEAN ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICT, PRIVATE OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOL, OR BOARD  OF  COOPERATIVE  EDUCA
TIONAL SERVICES.
(B)  “FACILITY”  MEANS  ANY  SCHOOL  BUILDING  USED  FOR INSTRUCTIONAL
PURPOSES AND ITS SURROUNDING GROUNDS, SITES AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE USED
FOR PLAYGROUNDS, ATHLETICS AND OTHER  INSTRUCTIONAL  PURPOSES,  AND  ANY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.
(C)  “WRITTEN  NOTIFICATION”  SHALL  MEAN  NOTICE  IN WRITING THAT IS:

PROVIDED DIRECTLY TO STUDENTS’ PARENTS OR GUARDIANS AND TO SCHOOL  STAFF
MEMBERS;  OR  MAILED  TO  STUDENTS’  PARENTS  OR  GUARDIANS AND TO STAFF
MEMBERS’ LAST KNOWN ADDRESS; OR DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER REASONABLE  METH
ODS  AUTHORIZED BY THE CHANCELLOR, SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT, PRIN
CIPAL OR HEADMASTER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED  TO,  INTERNET  NOTIFICA
TION.
2. SCHOOLS SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION TO THE PARENT OR GUARDI
AN OF A STUDENT AND TO SCHOOL FACULTY, STAFF AND ADMINISTRATORS NOT LESS
THAN  FORTY-FIVE  DAYS  BEFORE CELL PHONE TOWERS, CELL PHONE ANTENNAS OR
BASE STATIONS ARE PLACED, MOUNTED OR ATTACHED ONTO SCHOOL FACILITIES.
3. ANY SCHOOL THAT VIOLATES SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION  SHALL  BE
SUBJECT  TO  A  CIVIL  PENALTY OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT
PASSES AFTER A BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN APPROVED  TO  BUILD  A  CELLULAR
PHONE  TOWER,  CELLULAR  PHONE ANTENNA OR BASE STATION, TO BE MOUNTED OR
ATTACHED ONTO A SCHOOL  FACILITY  WITHOUT  PROPER  NOTIFICATION  TO  THE
PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF A STUDENT OR TO SCHOOL FACULTY, STAFF AND ADMINIS
TRATORS.

S  3.  Severability.  If  any provision of this act or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is adjudged invalid by a court  of
competent  jurisdiction,  such  judgment  shall not affect or impair any
other provisions or applications of this act which can be effected with
out the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions
of this act are severable.

S 4. This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after
it shall have become a law.

—
Michael Grubiak
Director of Constituent Services
Senator Jeffrey D. Klein
New York State Senator – 34th District
3612 East Tremont Avenue, Bronx NY 10465
(p)- 800-718-2039/ (f)- 718-822-2321(m)- (914) 246-0131
grubiakm@nysenate.gov

Senate Committee Approves Golden Bill To Prevent Installation Of Cell Phone Towers Near N.y.c. Schools

Posted by Martin J. Golden on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006

Albany- Senator Marty Golden (R-C-I, Brooklyn) today is announcing that the New York State Senate Committee on Local Government has approved legislation this morning which begins the process of regulating the installation of cellular phone towers and antennas in New York City.

Senate Bill 6006 introduced by Senator Golden, seeks to prohibit the erection of cellular towers or antennas within five hundred feet of a school building in New York City. The bill further allows parents and neighborhoods to receive notification and thus make appropriate decisions on the placement of both cellular towers and antennas.

Senator Marty Golden stated, “There is a continued controversy over whether cellular towers pose health hazards from exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation. Until there is some conclusive evidence that shows that there are no harmful effects related to this radiation, we can not in our right mind allow for these towers to be placed near a school, emitting radiation into classrooms, lunchrooms and gymnasiums throughout New York City.”

Senator Marty Golden continued, “Within this legislation, we have also raised the issue and brought to light the need for community notification prior to such an installation. For companies to come in the dark of the night and simply erect these towers is unacceptable. Communities should not have to wake up and find that a cell phone tower was placed near their school or their home. We must be allowed to find an appropriate placement for these towers.”

Senator Marty Golden, working with local civic leaders, parents, school and Parish officials, was sparked to introduce this legislation following the attempted installation of a cellular phone tower directly across from St. Anselm’s School, located at 356-83rd Street, on a rooftop of a neighboring apartment building located at 8300-4th Avenue.

Assemblyman Matthew Mirones, (R-C, 60th District) a co-sponsor of this legislation in the State Assembly stated, “We are one step closer to protecting our children and community from the potential hazards of cell phone towers. I urge my colleagues in the Assembly to follow the lead of the Senate. We can not take a ‘wait and see’ approach with our children’s health.”

Craig Eaton, Chairman of Community Board 10 stated, “Community Board 10 has had several meetings urging our elected officials to strengthen regulations as it relates to the installation of cellular antennae particularly those near schools. I am elated and would like to thank State Senator Golden, for fighting and delivering this important piece of legislation to our community.”

Eaton continued, “The passage of State Senate Bill 6006 will prevent the erection of cellular phone antennas from being installed within 500 feet of a school. The truth is that we just do not know what the potential health risks are from exposure to RF waves emitted from these devices and until there are concrete health studies they should not be placed within 500 feet of any school.”

Assemblywoman Joan Millman (D-Brooklyn) is the sponsor in the State Assembly.

That how The school Superintendent really care about our children…

That how The school Superintendent really care about our children…

The Town Zoning Board Approved The building of the Cell Tower  based only of the fact that our cellphones will have a better coverage and do some money for the school district and the town of Bethlehem, and that because legally health issue can’t be a reason to stop the contraction of the Cell Tower, but according to many studies was done (you can find them on this homepage) our kids will be at risk of Cancer and Brain Tumor and we have the right to protest and fight the town decision.
Thank you for your email and the concerns that you are raising regarding this issue. Allow me to clarify that the person building the tower is a private citizen that has petitioned the town for the right to build the tower. The Town approved the request in a legal proceeding with public forums and invitations for community involvement 2 years ago.

The school district can have nothing to do with preventing it at this point. Therefore, I cannot authorize Mrs. Reagan to do as you request.

While we share your concerns about the risks, the jury is out on whether there is any truth to their validity. The Town has already considered these questions.

Dr. Michael D. Tebbano

Cell Phone Towers: How Far is Safe?

If you or people you know live within a quarter mile of a cell phone tower, this may be of concern. Two studies, one in Germany and the other in Israel, reveal that living in proximity of a cell phone tower or antenna could put your health at significant risk.

German study: 3 times increased cancer risk

Several doctors living in Southern Germany city of Naila conducted a study to assess the risk of mobile phone radiation. Their researh examined whether population living close to two transmitter antennas installed in 1993 and 1997 in Naila had increased risk of cancer.

Data was gathered from nearly 1,000 patients who had been residing at the same address during the entire observation period of 10 years. The social differences are small, with no ethnic diversity. There is no heavy industry, and in the inner area there are neither high voltage cable nor electric trains. The average ages of the residents are similar in both the inner and outer areas.

What they found is quite telling: the proportion of newly developed cancer cases was three times higher among those who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400m (about 1300 feet) from the cellular transmitter site, compared to those living further away. They also revealed that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier.

Computer simulation and measurements used in the study both show that radiation in the inner area (within 400m) is 100 times higher compared to the outer area, mainly due to additional emissions coming from the secondary lobes of the transmitter.

Looking at only the first 5 years, there was no significant increased risk of getting cancer in the inner area. However, for the period 1999 to 2004, the odds ratio for getting cancer was 3.38 in the inner area compared to the outer area. Breast cancer topped the list, with an average age of 50.8 year compared with 69.9 years in the outer area, but cancers of the prostate, pancreas, bowel, skin melanoma, lung and blood cancer were all increased

Israel study: fourfold cancer risk

Another study, this one from Israel’s Tel Aviv University, examined 622 people living near a cell-phone transmitter station for 3-7 years who were patients in one clinic in Netanya and compared them against 1,222 control patients from a nearby clinic. Participants were very closely matched in environment, workplace and occupational characteristics. The people in the first group live within a half circle of 350m (1148 feet) radius from the transmitter, which came into service in July 1996.

The results were startling. Out of the 622 exposed patients, 8 cases of different kinds of cancer were diagnosed in a period of just one year (July 1997 to June 1998): 3 cases of breast cancer, one of ovarian cancer, lung cancer, Hodgkin’s disease (cancer of the lymphatic system), osteoid osteoma (bone tumour) and kidney cancer. This compares with 2 per 1 222 in the matched controls of the nearby clinic. The relative risk of cancer was 4.15 for those living near the cell-phone transmitter compared with the entire population of Israel.

Women were more susceptible. As seven out of eight cancer cases were women, the relative cancer rates for females were 10.5 for those living near the transmitter station and 0.6 for the controls relative for the whole town of Netanya. One year after the close of the study, 8 new cases of cancer were diagnosed in the microwave exposed area and two in the control area.

Locate the Cell Phone Towers and Antennas Near You

Do you know how many cell phone transmitters are in your neighborhood? You’d be surprised. Visit antennasearch.com to find out where the towers and antennas are in your area and how close they are to your home or place of work. The site will also pinpoint future tower locations, additional helpful information for those considering buying a home.

For clarity, towers are tall structures where antennas are installed. A typical tower may easily hold over 10 antennas for various companies. Antennas, on the other hand, are the actual emitters of signals for various radio services including cellular, paging and others. Antennas are placed on high towers or can be installed by themselves (stand alone) on top of buildings and other structures.

Using where I live as an example, I’ve located 3 cell phone towers and 22 antennas within a quarter mile from our home, with the closest one at 845 feet.. And this is in a relatively quiet residential neighborhood by the ocean in the small city of Hilo in Hawaii. As you may guess, I did my research only well after we’ve moved in. Fortunately, we’re here on just a lease and we’ll be a bit wiser next time we look for a new home.

What to Do If You Live Near a Cell Phone Transmitter

Short of relocating, there are some things you can do to fight the effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). The Safe Wireless Initiative of the Science and Public Policy Institute in Washington, DC, outlines three levels of intervention in accordance with the public health paradigm that everyone can apply. Here are our suggestions based on these guidelines:

The primary means of intervention is through avoidance or minimizing exposure. This simply means to avoid contact with EMR as much as possible. In case of a cell phone tower close to your home, this could mean using specially formulated RF shield paint, shielding fabric, shielding glass or film for windows, etc. Although they may sound extreme, these measures are a life-saver for someone who suffers from electrosensitivity, a condition in which a person experiences physical symptoms aggravated by electromagnetic fields. (Sweden is the only country so far that recognizes electrosensitivity as a real medical condition, and their government pays for measures to reduce exposure in their homes and workplaces).

The secondary means of intervention is to minimize the effects of exposure. This includes the use of bioenergetic devices that help reduce the effects of EMR, such as pendants, chips or other devices designed to strengthen the biofield of the individual. A biofield is the matrix of weak electromagnetic signals that the body’s cells use to communicate with each other. EMR disrupts these signals, causing the cells to eventually shut down and result in build up of toxins and waste products within the cells, including free radicals known to result in cellular dysfunction and interference with DNA repair. A scientifically validated bioenergetic device restores intercellular communications and normal cellular function by strengthening the biofield against the effects of EMR.

The third means of intervention is to help reverse damage caused by exposure.This includes nutritional support such as anti-oxidant supplementation, particularly helpful in countering the effects of free radicals. Supplementing with anti-oxidants SOD, catalase, glutathione, and Coq10 are especially recommended. Microwave radiation has been shown to decrease levels of these anti-oxidants that the body normally produces to protect itself. These levels are sensitive indicators in stress, aging, infections and various other disease states.

CELL TOWER CONSTRUCTION HAS BEGUN

TOWN OF BETHLEHEM

PARENTS BEWARE!!

CELL TOWER CONSTRUCTION HAS BEGUN

NEXT TO EAGLE ELEMENTARY

 

**CELL TOWERS ARE KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER!**

CELL TOWERS HAVE BEEN AT MIDDLE SCHOOL FOR 4 YEARS!

• THE ANTENNAS MOUNTED ON THE WATER TOWER NEAR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL HAVE  EXPOSED OUR CHILDREN TO RADIATION AND RISK OF CANCER FOR THE PAST 4 YEARS.

 

PLEASE HELP THE COMMUNITY TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CELL TOWER BY

• ADDING US ON FACEBOOK; AND
• SIGNING OUR PETITION.

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT US:

www.facebook.com/bethlehemcelltower

https://bethlehemcelltower.wordpress.com

PARENTS TAKE THEIR OPPOSITION TO CELL TOWER PLACEMENT NEAR SCHOOLS TO SENATOR BRESLIN

On August 10, 2011 a group of parents brought a petition of over 400 signatures from town of

Bethlehem parents who are strongly opposed to the placement of a cell tower next to Eagle

Elementary and Bethlehem Central High Schools to Senator Breslin asking for legislation

to block the cell tower placement, and a fair public hearing process on the local and state levels that

will show that the local public review process that approved the cell tower placement was flawed

and that the placement of the cell tower near both schools will pose significant health risks to students.

Senator Breslin-a Democrat, and a resident  of the town of Bethlehem who represents Albany County

Due to an unexpected conflict, was unable to meet with town of Bethlehem parents and offered a representative to meet with the group in his place.

During the meeting, parents expressed their concern for the flawed public hearing process held by the Town Board in which three public hearings on the cell tower placement were scheduled on the same day that open houses were scheduled for both schools. Town of Bethlehem parents believe that they did not have a fair opportunity to attend the Town Board’s public hearings, and if they had attended, the measure would not have been approved by the board.

The petition of over 400 town of Bethlehem parents  in opposition to the placement of the cell tower near both schools, along with numerous articles, including a website created by the group

www. Bethlehemcelltower.wordpress.com that includes  congressional coverage of debates on this issue which is being reviewed in several states, were given to Senator Breslin  for his review

and consideration. The group requested that Senator Breslin introduce legislation that will prohibit the placement of cell towers near schools, and to conduct a public hearing or forum for parents and experts to voice their opposition to cell tower placement near schools.

Senator Breslin is currently reviewing the materials presented by the group and is also looking at the issue statewide before making a decision on introducing legislation or conducting a statewide public forum to review the support and opposition to the placement of cell towers near schools in in New York State.

In the interim, parents of the Town of Bethlehem plan to meet with Senator Maziaz, Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy & Telecommunications (518) 455-2024, and Assemblyman Cahill,

Chair of the Assembly Committee on Energy (518) 455-4436 in efforts to stop the placement of the cell tower which has begun construction less than one month before the beginning of the 2011 school year.

We urge you to contact Senator Breslin’s office at (518) 455-2225 to voice your opposition to the cell tower placement next to Eagle Elementary and Bethlehem High Schools, and to ask that construction cease until there is a full review of local parental concerns and the local process that approved the cell tower placement.

Opposition to cell towers in New York

Park Slope Courier

03/17/2006
Critics Fight to Restrict Cell Towers
By Thomas Tracy

Legislation that will keep cell phone towers and antennas 500 feet away from schools is close to being passed.
If a piece of Brooklyn-inspired legislation comes to pass, cell phone towers will begin to be placed farther and farther away from our schools.

At least, that’s the hope of opponents to the increase of cell phone towers and antennas in the borough, who were all smiles last week after the first of many pieces of legislation about the siting and placement of these towers passed its first major hurdle – a scrupulous review from a legislative committee.

On Wednesday morning, the New York State Senate Committee on Local Government approved legislation sponsored by Bay Ridge Senator Marty Golden.

The bill would prohibit the erection of cellular towers and antennas within 500 feet of schools throughout New York City. Officials said that the bill is expected to be voted on by the Senate in the next few weeks.

“There is a continued controversy over whether cellular towers pose health hazards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation,” said Golden. “Until there is some conclusive evidence that shows that there are no harmful effects related to this radiation, we cannot in our right mind allow for these towers to be placed near a school, emitting radiation into classrooms, lunchrooms and gymnasiums throughout New York City.”

Similar legislation, which was sponsored by Carroll Gardens legislator Joan Millman, is currently being mulled over in the Assembly. Her bill would prohibit the placement of any cell phone antenna or related equipment within 500 feet of a school building. Both bills also require that municipalities be notified within 90 days prior to the placement of a cell phone tower.

“Until we can determine the health risks associated with cellular antennae, we need to regulate how and where they are sited,” said Millman in a statement.

Golden’s legislation was written in response to parents of St. Anselm’s
School in Bay Ridge, who are continuing to fight the construction of a
Sprint/Nextel tower expected to be placed just 50 feet away atop 8300 4th Avenue. Parents at the school didn’t know that the tower was coming until a crane showed up one night.

“For companies to come in the dark of the night and simply erect these towers is unacceptable,” said Golden. “Communities should not have to wake up and find that a cell phone tower was placed near their school or their home.”

The committee’s passage of the bill was hailed by St. Anselm’s parent Chris Proscia, who has spearheaded the fight against Sprint/Nextel.

“Nextel’s people were lobbying all week to get the senators in the committee to vote against it, but it didn’t work,” said Proscia. “I think they’re running scared.”

For years, parents of school age children have complained that the
radiofrequency radiation crackling from these towers could pose a hazard.

Officials from Sprint/Nextel and other cell phone companies continue to contend that all of their studies show that their towers are not dangerous. Parents counter by stating that since no long term studies have been performed, no one can be sure if the students are in danger.

The regulation of cell phone towers have been a hot button issue across the borough. Just last month, a group of legislators, calling themselves the Coalition to Reform Antennae Safety (CRAS) was formed to advocate for cell phone antenna placement regulation until all possible health risks are accurately assessed.

Community activist and Congressional candidate Chris Owens, a founding member of CRAS, saw the passage of the Senate bill through committee as a “sign of the law catching up with the science.”

“I think it’s just a matter of time when these laws get passed,” he said. “The law will have to catch up with the science until it is absolutely clear that the science is not dangerous.”

Owens predicts that further pieces of legislation regulating the placement of cell phone towers and antennas will be passed “in the next year.”

REP. CAMILLO VOTES TO REQUIRE STATE TO CONSIDER SCHOOLS WHEN SITING CELL TOWERS

CAMILLO, FLOREN AND GIBBONS SEEK SCHOOL ZONE FOR CELL TOWERS

by: jdooley Friday, March 19th, 2010

HARTFORD – Today, legislation to have cell towers not be sited within 750 feet of a school had a public hearing at the State Capitol according to State Reps. Livvy Floren (R-149), Lile Gibbons (R-150), Fred Camillo (R-151).

The bill, House Bill 5504, An Act Concerning Siting Of Cell Phone Towers Near Schools received a public hearing on Thursday March 18th in front of the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee.

The bill provides that cell towers not be sited within 750 feet of schools. Camillo would also like to include day care centers into the bill.

In submitted written and oral testimony, Rep. Fred Camillo said, “This issue, however, is one which makes me subscribe to the old adage about being safe rather than sorry. No one can legitimately and reasonably fault this committee or the state legislature for erring on the side of caution. Waiting 20 years for a study to be published linking illness to these cell towers is too much of a risk to take at this time, or at any time.”

“This bill only seeks to put added focus on the safety of children, students, and adults who work in schools and day care centers first when siting cell towers in the vicinity of these venues, Camillo, a member of the Environment Committee, added, “please keep in mind that decades ago we also didn’t have the data or evidence when we were told the same thing by the tobacco industry.”

“I urge the committee to discuss negative health effect with the Connecticut Siting Council and, if necessary, to mandate the Council to disallow a cell tower to be sited next to a school or day care center,” added Rep. Gibbons, in her written testimony.

Rep. Livvy Floren also submitted written testimony in which she stated, “The bill offers a viable, fair, reasonable and cautious compromise.”

Also testifying at the public hearing were Greenwich residents Christopher von Keyserling, Janet Lynn De Luca and Gregory W. Schulte.

In oral testimony, Mr. Keyserling said, “This Bill would not only be fair to the greatest part of your constituency;  Safeguard our children and their educational system; Stabilized real estate values and local tax base; It helps the Connecticut Siting Council by removing one of the main and unnecessary areas of contention from their table.

Janet Lynn De Luca testified that, “This bill strikes a balance between the needs of local wireless users and the interests of residents. It will benefit not only our efforts in Greenwich, but also our neighboring communities state-wide.”

In written testimony Mr. Schulte wrote, “It is incredulous to most if not all of us that this tower can be located so close to a school despite the spirited disapproval of the community, Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission, Connecticut State Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General and Greenwich First Selectman.

HARTFORD – Last night, April 27^th, legislation to have cell towers not be sited within 750 feet of a school unless the Siting Council finds that there are no economically feasible alternative sites within the municipality passed the House of Representatives according to State Reps. Livvy Floren (R-149), Lile Gibbons (R-150), Fred Camillo (R-151).

“This cell tower language seeks to put added focus on the safety of children, students, and adults who work in schools first when siting cell towers in the vicinity of these venues,” said Rep. Camillo, a member of the Environment Committee.

Rep. Livvy Floren added, “This bill is a first step and takes into account local input regarding health and safety concerns about placing cell towers near schools.”

Rep. Lile Gibbons said, “Although not an outright ban of siting a cell tower within 750 feet of a school, the bill does require the Siting Council to acknowledge the proximity of a school as well as safety standards, neighborhood concerns and the latest transmission technologies in rendering its decision.”

The vote was unanimous in the House of Representatives 139-0. The bill now heads to the State Senate

The Secret of Brain Wave Vibration

Outcry doesn’t stop cell tower

Bethlehem panel OKs permit for site quarter-mile from school

by bryan fitzgerald Special to the Times Union

Published 11:05 a.m., Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Outcry-doesn-t-stop-cell-tower-1015962.php#ixzz1UWr7GNhI

bethlehem — Despite protests from parents and residents, a cellphone tower disguised to resemble a pine tree is one step closer to breaking ground blocks away from an elementary school.

The town Planning Board voted 5-0 Tuesday night to approve a special-use permit and site plan for the site at 75 Van Dyke Road, a quarter of a mile from Eagle Elementary School.

One member of the seven-member board abstained; another was absent.

In January, the town Zoning Board approved the proposal to the build the tower, which will be built on private land at Sunnyside Farms.

Bethlehem Senior Planner Robert Leslie said the company building the tower, ESCO Tower Inc., still has to apply for a building permit from the town.

In 2009, the Bethlehem school district considered placing three separate cell towers on school property to generate nontax revenue, but backed off after parents complained. The district expected to generate about $30,000 annually from the project.

Earlier this week, parents concerned over their children’s potential exposure to the tower’s radiation and residents fearful of the tower’s aesthetics rallied in front of the school.

“No matter how the planning board of the town of Bethlehem plans on spinning its blatant disregard for the concern of town residents and the potential risk to over 2,200 students, teachers and staff at both Eagle Elementary School and Bethlehem High School, the process to allow the construction of the cell tower at 75 Van Dyke Road is disrespectful to the wishes of parents, students and antithetical to the town’s long-standing tradition of preserving open spaces,” Guillermo A. Martinez, chair of Parents Against Cell Towers and a Bethlehem resident, said in a written statement.

To try to camouflage the tower among nearby trees, Leslie said the tower will be designed to look like a pine tree. AT&T and Verizon have been linked to the project.

Town Supervisor Sam Messina said there was no data to suggest the tower would pose any health risks or lower surrounding property values.

“This whole process has been very closely watched and examined,” Messina said.

Both Leslie and Messina did not know when the cell tower’s construction would begin or end.

David Carpenter, director of the Institute of Health and the Environment at University at Albany, said the towers release the same low dose of radiation as a cellphones. He said cellphones pose more of a health risk because they are held close to the body, but that the risk in nominal.

Cellphones and towers emit non-ionizing radiation, a far less intense form of energy than the ionized radiation associated with radioactive forms, like X-ray tubes.

Alex Yatsevitch, a retired Department of Transportation worker who lives two blocks from the site on Delaware Avenue, protested with those objecting to the tower for health risks, but said he objected because the tower would obstruct his view of the Helderberg Mountains.

Yatsevitch, who said he does not own a cellphone, said those who rallied with him because they were concerned about the tower’s radiation but did not get rid of their personal cellphones were hypocritical.

“If you are protesting the tower and have a cellphone, you have no case,” Yatsevitch said.

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Outcry-doesn-t-stop-cell-tower-1015962.php#ixzz1UWqxgUkk