The Woodstock Planning Board deferred action on AT&T’s proposed 5G upgrade on the town-owned cell tower until it gets confirmation that the Town Board consents to the application. Centerline Communications, an agent for AT&T, is seeking permission to remove four of the six existing antennas and replacing two. Since the total antennas would be reduced from six to four and the new antennas are similar in size, the upgrades do not change the tower footprint.
And while opponents to 5G technology argue there are ill health effects, a municipality cannot deny an application for that reason alone.
Centerline representative Brenda Blask-Lewis characterized the upgrades as routine maintenance. “The equipment modifications that they’re proposing is maintenance to existing equipment. So they’re going to take down some old stuff and put up some new stuff.”
But those opponents say the new equipment gives companies a path to start installing more 5G capability in town. “I just wanted to start off by saying that I think this move to 5G on our tower is going to be sort of a foot in the door for the millimeter wave small cells to come in,” said Rex Funk.
Millimeter wave can handle the highest bandwidth, but has the shortest range and requires multiple cell sites spaced closely together. Blask-Lewis said the variant of 5G to be installed will operate on the existing 850 mhz frequency. “Most of the controversy surrounding 5G has been related to the millimeter wave that you mentioned, which is not currently being deployed at this site. And well, it’s not part of this modification,” she said. “The main purpose of these upgrades is to increase both the speed and capacity of the network. As far as the amount of power coming out of out of the antennas themselves, I believe it’s equal to what’s out there right now.”
Funk urged the board to scrutinize the application to look for any issues. “I’m just going to ask you to please see if there’s any errors or omissions in the application. That could be a reason to deny it, because often there are errors,” Funk said.
Nian Fish, a 5G opponent, said she didn’t understand why the Planning Board denied an application from T-Mobile to install 5G equipment, but it didn’t appear to be moving in that direction with AT&T.
“The T-Mobile case was a different case factually, and it sought to expand the array of antennas and bring in new antennas that were larger and over a larger surface area than T- Mobile had previously had on the tower,” explained planning board vice chair Stuart Lipkind. “And the Planning Board made a decision that it was a substantial increase in the surface area and visibility that defeated the camouflage elements of the ‘monopine’ tower that the town had paid good consideration for.”
The Planning Board denied the T-Mobile application, called an eligible facilities request, because it changed the dimensions of the tower and had a visual impact. Larger equipment would have defeated the features of the monopole tower that is camouflaged with pine boughs to help it blend into the surroundings. The town agreed to forgo five years of tower lease revenue in exchange for the so-called monopine design.
If AT&T’s application is in order, the Planning Board has no grounds to deny it, but the town, as the landlord, can choose to dictate what equipment can be installed on its tower, Lipkind explained. “It has been the historic practice of this Planning Board to require that applicants that are not owners of the land that is subject to proposed development must provide written proof that the owner of the land consents to the applicant coming before the Planning Board to apply for approval of the project to be located on that land…My view is that the Planning Board should defer making any decision on this application at this meeting until the question of the town’s consent to the application is resolved. There’s no letter of authority that’s been filed with the application from the Town Board itself. And since the Town Board is the governing body of the town of Woodstock, it seems to me that we ought to hear from the Town Board as to whether they’re supporting our granting this application. I don’t even know if they’ve seen it.”
Planning Board member John LaValle had issues with the upgrade itself. “What they’re proposing, in my estimation, is simply a corporate upgrade that has no material value for the town,” LaValle said. “And this is an exercise they’re putting us through and they never provide anyone who can answer detailed questions regarding what they’re planning to do and how they’re going to do it…The difficulty here is they’re not being forthcoming. They’re not being transparent. And we really need some answers.”
Lipkind said LaValle’s points were well-taken, but as long as the equipment change does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower, the Planning Board is obligated by federal regulations to approve it. “So that’s why my focus has been on trying to see what the Town Board has to say on this because it’s their property, it’s their tower, and one of their first responsibilities is to look after the health and well-being of the citizens who elect them,” Lipkind said.
Town planning attorney John Lyons suggested the Planing Board also require Centerline or AT&T “in a way that a layperson could understand, an explanation of the functional differences of this equipment, the future capability of the equipment, and also the future plans for the use of this equipment.”
The Planning Board voted to require Centerline to provide confirmation of the town’s consent as well as an explanation of the equipment 10 days before the January 6 meeting, which is December 27.
Join the family! 
