Faulty Tower: Vendor takes Muttontown cell facility fight to court 

Muttontown has taken steps to ask a judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a company seeking to erect a 165-foot-tall cellphone tower even as it has opposed a request by residents to join the village as defendants.

New Cingular Wireless, PCS, which does business as AT&T Mobility, sued the village and several of its boards on Sept. 15 in U.S. Eastern District Court in Central Islip. The lawsuit alleges that the village violated federal and state rules in its failure to approve permits for the proposed facility. 

“The village believes AT&T doesn’t have valid claims and this whole case will be completely dismissed,” Village Attorney Keith Corbett of Uniondale-based Harris Beach PLLC told Newsday on Friday. “We do believe that AT&T did not meet its burden and in any way establish its right to have a cell tower.”

In a Dec. 9 letter to U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert, Corbett requested a conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss AT&T’s lawsuit.

In a statement Friday, AT&T said: “This proposed cell site is necessary to serve our customers, including first responders, in and around the Village of Muttontown, and it should be approved.”

Muttontown agreed to lease village-owned property adjacent to Village Hall to the cellphone provider in December 2020, according to court filings. The lease, according to the lawsuit, included a provision that the village would “assist AT&T with applications for the Government Approvals and in obtaining and maintaining the Government Approvals.”

On March 10, 2021, AT&T filed an application to build the tower, which would have artificial foliage to disguise it as a tree, and would require a special-use permit.

AT&T’s lawsuit describes a deteriorating relationship with the village during the following year as more and more demands were put on its application.

The court filing said the discord culminated in Corbett telling the company they needed approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals to move forward, while the service provider told the village a federally regulated deadline governing the approval of cellphone facilities, which the company agreed to extend until August, was running out.

The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on variances for the tower on May 19 and July 21, ultimately denying AT&T’s application at the July hearing.

In October, Merrick-based attorney Andrew Campanelli asked the court to allow more than two dozen residents he represents to join the lawsuit as interested parties.

He claimed their experts found that if the tower is installed so close to his clients' homes it would reduce their property values from between 15% and 30%.

But last month Corbett asked a different federal judge to reject a motion to allow those residents to intervene in the case, saying the village already expects the case to be dismissed.

Resident Russell McRory, an attorney who separately filed to intervene in the case on his own behalf, said the village already has good cellphone service.

“This is not about cellphone service; everyone wants good cellphone service,” McRory said Friday. “This is about a 165-foot tower in the middle of a residential neighborhood.”