.jpg)
Re: Public Hearing Comments re Telecommunication Towers Regulation of Wireless Facilities … Proposed Draft Public Local Law Intro No. 5 of 2024 to amend Chapter 206 is UNACCEPTABLE!
To: Mayor Pugh, Board of Trustees and Village Manager Healy
Why is it that other Westchester Towns/Villages can actually draft their telecommunication laws to protect all their residents and their properties… but that doesn’t happen here in Croton?
Why is it that in Croton on Hudson the rights of RA40 and RA60 Property Owners keep being disparately compromised?
I am not able to attend the Board of Trustees Meeting tonight, but after reviewing the latest June Draft Telecommunications Towers Regulations which differ from the previous February Draft in some significant ways, and overall includes provisions that are not in the best interest of residents of Croton on Hudson, I am submitting this letter to focus on some of the more objectionable issues that I believe need to be addressed before any such draft can be considered for approval.
This Approach is Disparate Treatment of the RA40 and RA60 Segment of Croton Residents
A better level of cell service may be needed by our community. But, that should not come at the sacrifice of certain residents of Croton on Hudson. As with other projects considered in the past by the Board of Trustees and Pugh Administrations, addressing one problem by creating other problems for Croton residents is not necessary. Nor is doing so in a manner that negatively impacts just certain segments of our community…or doing so, apparently, to address this Administration’s political agendas!
Whether due to poor legal drafting or intentional use of imprecise and/or obtuse language, the June Draft now being considered does not adequately protect the interests of all Croton residents. As an example, it is hard to figure out what the “Purpose and Intent” paragraph or the language in the Draft is purporting to protect. It definitely does not protect potential damage to adjacent properties, as such damage is only protected from “tower failure”! What about the damage caused by noise pollution from generators, batteries and fans, or potential health risks from extended exposure to RF radiation? Moreover, now, in this June Draft, there certainly is no protection for surrounding RA40 and RA60 homeowners.
Similarly, throughout, there are references to actions not being “detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare,” but who exactly does that refer to? It is hard to tell, particularly when our own Board of Trustees and Administration has basically seemed to have sold out our RA40 and RA60 resident property owners (as I will discuss below). So, whose public health, safety and welfare is being protected? While that generic, boilerplate language sounds broad and inclusive, it is meaningless, unless specific reference is included to address a very real concern. How are we and our properties going to be protected when there is no language in this draft to address inclusion of protection from all the concerns re Tower Wireless Facilities in connection with RA40 and RA60 properties when other language indicates that R40 and R60 residents are excluded and arguably NOT protected because Tower Wireless Facilities are allowed there with no limiting language requiring protection?
It is clear throughout the Telecommunication Laws of other towns/villages in Westchester, including Cortlandt (Sec. 277-7A), Ossining (Sec. 182A-7) and Pleasantville (Sec. 185-35.1G), that a specific prioritized list is set forth for siting of wireless facilities, with an emphasis on public/non-residential properties. With most, residential properties are considered last and defensive explanations would need to be given if a residential property site is submitted, as it is the least prioritized. In addition, in some of these other municipal laws, the effect on surrounding properties is also taken into consideration throughout the law, including even when relating to small wireless facilities. However, here in Croton, this Administration is going in the opposite direction, and now is attempting to sacrifice all of the RA40 and RA60 residential areas!! And doing so without even a smidgeon of apparent concern for protection of surrounding properties throughout. An approach like Croton’s seems particularly egregious in that not only are residential properties allowed right off the top, but now, particular types of residential property (RA40 and RA60) are specifically targeted to bear a burden that other residential properties in the Village are not being asked to bear!
This Approach is a “Taking” of Property
I point this out because, from the start, this current Draft and its intent cannot be trusted! Back in February, the proposed draft did not mention RA40 and RA60 One Family properties as being permitted for Wireless Facilities (Sec. 206-5 (Collocated) or 206-6 (Tower-Based)). However, now in this June Draft, suddenly released just before this Public Hearing, One Family RA40 and RA60 properties are carte blanche being allowed, like many of the other arbitrary and capricious decisions we have seen from the Pugh Administrations. Like the disparate treatment of RA40 and RA60 resident property owners in this Village in the past, this decision was obviously made despite the known potential resulting damage of the Tower Wireless Facilities to home values, damage to wildlife on our properties, the negative impact on the environment and our neighborhood aesthetics, visual and noise pollution, and the health risks due to radiation that would all likely ensue as a result of that disparate treatment.
This is constructively a “taking” of our properties upon which legal action can be pursued. So, Why and on what basis was that decision made by this Administration and this Board of Trustees?
What’s more, apparently, Village Officials not only want to allow these Wireless Facilities to subject these vulnerable Croton RA40 and RA60 residents and their properties to all of the potential damages, dangers and downfalls without the consent of those residents, but then the Village covers itself by mandatory Indemnification Insurance!! … requiring “each person that owns or operates a Wireless Facility to provide Insurance to the Village to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Village, its elected and appointed officials (which includes this Board of Trustees, etc.), against any and all claims for personal injury, including death, and property damage arising in whole or in part from, caused by or connected with any act or omission of the person, its officers, agents, employees or contractors arising out of, but not limited to, the construction, installation, operation, maintenance or removal of the Wireless Facility”!
I have no issue with the Village obtaining an indemnification from those putting up Wireless Facilities, BUT selling out the RA40 and RA60 property owners, not protecting them or their properties, and then requiring indemnification protection for only themselves by way of indemnification insurance from any of the possible damage, even the inevitable, known damage that we would be subject to through the actions of this Administration is NOT what our Officials are elected, or appointed, to do… no matter how they word it!!! Furthermore, that insurance will not protect the Village, this Administration and the Board of Trustees against claims by RA40 and RA60 owners against them as a result of foreseeable damages for these intentional acts they are attempting to take now.
This Type of Approach has been an Unacceptable Pattern and Practice of Pugh Administrations
Unfortunately, not much of this is surprising, as we have learned that one of the hallmarks of the Pugh Administrations (including our Mayor, Board of Trustees, Village Manager and Village Attorney) has been the disparate treatment and lack of concern shown to those residents living on and owning RA40 and RA60 properties despite the high property taxes they pay… and, despite the fact, that the Mayor and Administration should be advocating and representing for the benefit of ALL of the residents of Croton on Hudson!
We saw and have experienced this for a number of years. One example is how the Administration allowed extensive tree removal at Hudson National Golf Course causing erosion, flooding and damage to downhill R40 properties and, despite that, was then pushing to approve Hudson National’s ill-advised Solar Farm Project which would have cleared approximately 600 trees on 7 acres that not only would have caused much damage to our environment violating existing Village environmental laws, but would also have threatened the properties of many RA40 residents downhill from that project. It’s worth noting that, at that time, we brought to the attention of this Mayor and Board of Trustees that such a project would likely NOT have been approved in other Westchester jurisdictions having similar existing environmental laws, such as Cortlandt, Ossining and Pleasantville, because, unlike Croton, the actions of those officials actually aligned with their environmental laws! But this Administration stubbornly paid no heed, forcing Residents to spend almost another year fighting successfully to stop that HNGC Solar project!
We also saw that total lack of concern of this Administration for the well-being of those same RA40 properties when HNGC proposed its extensive Golf Course Restoration project, and this Administration, together with our conflicted Village Attorney (former attorney for HNGC), our Village Manager and the WCC, bent over backwards to contort the reading of our Village Laws to reduce the numbers of permits required, and to allow minimal protection of those properties by keeping that HNGC project from the oversight of the Planning Board.
A similar indication of the disregard for the Resident owners of RA40 and RA60 properties was the apparent intended willingness to subject those properties to increased noise, lighting pollution and traffic all under the expressed intention of the Administration to give consideration to outdoor concerts on the Gouveia property in order to raise revenue due to the lack of financial foresight of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in acquiring that property in the first place… and, we were told, that the adjacent RA40 and RA60 property owners might just need to endure that for the greater good of the community?!?! Again, not just disparate treatment, but unnecessary actions which would have constituted a constructive taking of property and that would be opening up the Village to possible legal actions.
Monopole Cell Towers are not the Solution for Croton
Viewing this current Draft in light of past history, I’m asking that the Board of Trustees and this Administration not start us on that same trajectory. Other municipalities seem to understand that all of their residents are entitled to protection for themselves and their property, that Village Officials do not have the right to make arbitrary and capricious decisions to squander our rights, and certainly are not entitled to treat residents disparately. Our community needs better cell service. But monopole towers spread throughout our Village on residential property is NOT the solution! Public and non-residential property should be the objective and prioritized. And whether large or small cell wireless projects are involved, the standard in any legislation should be set forth as not deleterious to surrounding properties, including to home values… not some vague language that then also has to be litigated! If this Administration and Board of Trustees is truly working for all of our Residents, that is your responsibility to address. Other municipalities have found the way… Why can’t Croton!
This Approach is Disparate Treatment of the RA40 and RA60 Segment of Croton Residents
A better level of cell service may be needed by our community. But, that should not come at the sacrifice of certain residents of Croton on Hudson. As with other projects considered in the past by the Board of Trustees and Pugh Administrations, addressing one problem by creating other problems for Croton residents is not necessary. Nor is doing so in a manner that negatively impacts just certain segments of our community…or doing so, apparently, to address this Administration’s political agendas!
Whether due to poor legal drafting or intentional use of imprecise and/or obtuse language, the June Draft now being considered does not adequately protect the interests of all Croton residents. As an example, it is hard to figure out what the “Purpose and Intent” paragraph or the language in the Draft is purporting to protect. It definitely does not protect potential damage to adjacent properties, as such damage is only protected from “tower failure”! What about the damage caused by noise pollution from generators, batteries and fans, or potential health risks from extended exposure to RF radiation? Moreover, now, in this June Draft, there certainly is no protection for surrounding RA40 and RA60 homeowners.
Similarly, throughout, there are references to actions not being “detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare,” but who exactly does that refer to? It is hard to tell, particularly when our own Board of Trustees and Administration has basically seemed to have sold out our RA40 and RA60 resident property owners (as I will discuss below). So, whose public health, safety and welfare is being protected? While that generic, boilerplate language sounds broad and inclusive, it is meaningless, unless specific reference is included to address a very real concern. How are we and our properties going to be protected when there is no language in this draft to address inclusion of protection from all the concerns re Tower Wireless Facilities in connection with RA40 and RA60 properties when other language indicates that R40 and R60 residents are excluded and arguably NOT protected because Tower Wireless Facilities are allowed there with no limiting language requiring protection?
It is clear throughout the Telecommunication Laws of other towns/villages in Westchester, including Cortlandt (Sec. 277-7A), Ossining (Sec. 182A-7) and Pleasantville (Sec. 185-35.1G), that a specific prioritized list is set forth for siting of wireless facilities, with an emphasis on public/non-residential properties. With most, residential properties are considered last and defensive explanations would need to be given if a residential property site is submitted, as it is the least prioritized. In addition, in some of these other municipal laws, the effect on surrounding properties is also taken into consideration throughout the law, including even when relating to small wireless facilities. However, here in Croton, this Administration is going in the opposite direction, and now is attempting to sacrifice all of the RA40 and RA60 residential areas!! And doing so without even a smidgeon of apparent concern for protection of surrounding properties throughout. An approach like Croton’s seems particularly egregious in that not only are residential properties allowed right off the top, but now, particular types of residential property (RA40 and RA60) are specifically targeted to bear a burden that other residential properties in the Village are not being asked to bear!
This Approach is a “Taking” of Property
I point this out because, from the start, this current Draft and its intent cannot be trusted! Back in February, the proposed draft did not mention RA40 and RA60 One Family properties as being permitted for Wireless Facilities (Sec. 206-5 (Collocated) or 206-6 (Tower-Based)). However, now in this June Draft, suddenly released just before this Public Hearing, One Family RA40 and RA60 properties are carte blanche being allowed, like many of the other arbitrary and capricious decisions we have seen from the Pugh Administrations. Like the disparate treatment of RA40 and RA60 resident property owners in this Village in the past, this decision was obviously made despite the known potential resulting damage of the Tower Wireless Facilities to home values, damage to wildlife on our properties, the negative impact on the environment and our neighborhood aesthetics, visual and noise pollution, and the health risks due to radiation that would all likely ensue as a result of that disparate treatment.
This is constructively a “taking” of our properties upon which legal action can be pursued. So, Why and on what basis was that decision made by this Administration and this Board of Trustees?
What’s more, apparently, Village Officials not only want to allow these Wireless Facilities to subject these vulnerable Croton RA40 and RA60 residents and their properties to all of the potential damages, dangers and downfalls without the consent of those residents, but then the Village covers itself by mandatory Indemnification Insurance!! … requiring “each person that owns or operates a Wireless Facility to provide Insurance to the Village to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Village, its elected and appointed officials (which includes this Board of Trustees, etc.), against any and all claims for personal injury, including death, and property damage arising in whole or in part from, caused by or connected with any act or omission of the person, its officers, agents, employees or contractors arising out of, but not limited to, the construction, installation, operation, maintenance or removal of the Wireless Facility”!
I have no issue with the Village obtaining an indemnification from those putting up Wireless Facilities, BUT selling out the RA40 and RA60 property owners, not protecting them or their properties, and then requiring indemnification protection for only themselves by way of indemnification insurance from any of the possible damage, even the inevitable, known damage that we would be subject to through the actions of this Administration is NOT what our Officials are elected, or appointed, to do… no matter how they word it!!! Furthermore, that insurance will not protect the Village, this Administration and the Board of Trustees against claims by RA40 and RA60 owners against them as a result of foreseeable damages for these intentional acts they are attempting to take now.
This Type of Approach has been an Unacceptable Pattern and Practice of Pugh Administrations
Unfortunately, not much of this is surprising, as we have learned that one of the hallmarks of the Pugh Administrations (including our Mayor, Board of Trustees, Village Manager and Village Attorney) has been the disparate treatment and lack of concern shown to those residents living on and owning RA40 and RA60 properties despite the high property taxes they pay… and, despite the fact, that the Mayor and Administration should be advocating and representing for the benefit of ALL of the residents of Croton on Hudson!
We saw and have experienced this for a number of years. One example is how the Administration allowed extensive tree removal at Hudson National Golf Course causing erosion, flooding and damage to downhill R40 properties and, despite that, was then pushing to approve Hudson National’s ill-advised Solar Farm Project which would have cleared approximately 600 trees on 7 acres that not only would have caused much damage to our environment violating existing Village environmental laws, but would also have threatened the properties of many RA40 residents downhill from that project. It’s worth noting that, at that time, we brought to the attention of this Mayor and Board of Trustees that such a project would likely NOT have been approved in other Westchester jurisdictions having similar existing environmental laws, such as Cortlandt, Ossining and Pleasantville, because, unlike Croton, the actions of those officials actually aligned with their environmental laws! But this Administration stubbornly paid no heed, forcing Residents to spend almost another year fighting successfully to stop that HNGC Solar project!
We also saw that total lack of concern of this Administration for the well-being of those same RA40 properties when HNGC proposed its extensive Golf Course Restoration project, and this Administration, together with our conflicted Village Attorney (former attorney for HNGC), our Village Manager and the WCC, bent over backwards to contort the reading of our Village Laws to reduce the numbers of permits required, and to allow minimal protection of those properties by keeping that HNGC project from the oversight of the Planning Board.
A similar indication of the disregard for the Resident owners of RA40 and RA60 properties was the apparent intended willingness to subject those properties to increased noise, lighting pollution and traffic all under the expressed intention of the Administration to give consideration to outdoor concerts on the Gouveia property in order to raise revenue due to the lack of financial foresight of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in acquiring that property in the first place… and, we were told, that the adjacent RA40 and RA60 property owners might just need to endure that for the greater good of the community?!?! Again, not just disparate treatment, but unnecessary actions which would have constituted a constructive taking of property and that would be opening up the Village to possible legal actions.
Monopole Cell Towers are not the Solution for Croton
Viewing this current Draft in light of past history, I’m asking that the Board of Trustees and this Administration not start us on that same trajectory. Other municipalities seem to understand that all of their residents are entitled to protection for themselves and their property, that Village Officials do not have the right to make arbitrary and capricious decisions to squander our rights, and certainly are not entitled to treat residents disparately. Our community needs better cell service. But monopole towers spread throughout our Village on residential property is NOT the solution! Public and non-residential property should be the objective and prioritized. And whether large or small cell wireless projects are involved, the standard in any legislation should be set forth as not deleterious to surrounding properties, including to home values… not some vague language that then also has to be litigated! If this Administration and Board of Trustees is truly working for all of our Residents, that is your responsibility to address. Other municipalities have found the way… Why can’t Croton!
A little too long for my taste but then this board gives you so much to cover, over and over again. Many thanks for this letter. It conveys the frustration most of us who are paying attention have with this arrogant, uber-progressive board that lives nowhere near the damage they inflict on the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteThanks… so apropos that you refer to arrogant, because upon viewing the webcast of the Public Hearing, the arrogance of the Board and, in particular, the Mayor, toward the residents in attendance was in full view and palpable… totally unacceptable!
Delete