Bethany Beach council rejects AT&T antenna proposal

Bethany Beach Town Council members this week voted unanimously to reject a proposal from Velocitel to host AT&T’s cellular antenna equipment on the town’s water standpipe.

The decision came at the council’s Jan. 20 meeting, after the company had responded to a number of council members’ previously expressed concerns, including potential safety impacts on the town’s water plant. It also came despite an appeal from residents of neighboring Sea Pines Village to entertain the proposal as a way to help derail AT&T’s continuing efforts to locate the equipment on a tower just south of town limits or at other, less desirable, locations.

Vice-Mayor Jack Gordon led the council opposition to the proposal on Jan. 20, acknowledging that Velocitel had addressed some of the council’s concerns in its most recent correspondence but emphasizing lingering concerns about the limited amount of space remaining at a water plant that may need to be expanding in the coming years.

“The two alternate locations for the support building would occupy the only expansion area or space normally used for placement of a large crane” that the Town uses to conduct repairs and maintenance on the water standpipe when needed, he said. “While alternate positions for the crane may exist, the use of the expansion area is not acceptable at all,” Gordon added, noting that the town could be required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change to charcoal filtration for its water system in the future, “at which time the expansion area would be needed.”

Gordon said his viewpoint was reinforced by the fact that the Town had never intended to use the water plant facility as a profit-generating entity. “It’s solely there to provide safe and adequate drinking water, and any other use would not support that mission” and could, in fact, undermine it, he said.

Councilwoman Margaret Young offered limited support for the idea, noting that the Town could include in any contract with AT&T that the company would have to vacate the space in the future if it was determined the Town need it.

“They supplied a great number of locations where they are on water towers,” she noted, referencing South Bethany’s hosting of Verizon equipment and Sussex Shores’ hosting of both AT&T and Verizon equipment, and saying that neither entity had reported to her any problems with their agreements.

However, Councilman Jerry Dorfman said his conversation with South Bethany officials had yielded information that one nearby resident complains “constantly” about the noise created by the Verizon equipment’s generator.

Councilman Joseph Healy and Councilwoman Carol Olmstead said they both agreed with Gordon’s reasoning, and Healy said his primary concerns continued to focus on the security of the water facility, despite assurances from AT&T that it would limit access to screened personnel with Town approval.

“I don’t think it is appropriate for us to allow them into the area,” Healy said. “It’s a very confined space, and I’m not inclined to go along with adding on to that. And, having been in that space, it’s very tight. I can’t condone allowing AT&T in there.”

“Either our water plant is a secure facility, only for the purpose for which it was created,” Olmstead began, “or … we have to be looking at it in a totally different way. It’s extremely important that we know that our facility is only accessed by people employed by the Town of Bethany Beach.”

Healy noted also a December 2011 court hearing on AT&T’s appeal of the Sussex County Board of Adjustments decision on the proposed tower south of town limits. The board had unanimously rejected the application for a special use after revisiting it in April 2011. An earlier 3-2 ruling in favor of AT&T was nullified by court order in late 2010, based on notification irregularities from the original March 2010 hearing before the board.

Residents of neighboring Sea Pines Village (SPV) have opposed both the permanent tower and a temporary tower AT&T erected after the 3-2 vote, which remains in place to this day, and which they have asked the courts to force AT&T to remove. The SPV residents received support from individual council members in their efforts to have the tower rejected, but some have urged the Town to welcome the proposed water-tower installation as a less-impactful alternative.

“We were supportive of Sea Pines Villages’ efforts, and rightly so,” Healy continued. “There was a hearing a month ago. We were prepared to go to the hearing and, at the last moment, the hearing was closed and we were not allowed to participate. I was taken aback by that. But the name of the Town of Bethany Beach was passed around at that hearing, and I take exception to that, since we were not present at that hearing and were not allowed to speak.”

“We only had a two-hour warning that we could not attend that hearing,” Mayor Tony McClenny pointed out.

Sea Pines Village resident David Gerk acknowledged the difficult position the Town has been placed in.

“I’m certainly one of last people here to push for AT&T,” he said. “I believe that there are many questions as to whether there’s really a need for it or not. But the question is they want it, and they need a location. AT&T spent $40 million in advertising for their proposed merger with T-Mobile,” he emphasized to highlight AT&T’s resources and how they could be used in any effort to achieve a desired result.

“By finding a solution that is the best solution, Bethany would retain control over the situation,” Gerk asserted. “AT&T can pursue the options they see fit, and they may not take the concerns of Bethany residents into consideration. They certainly don’t take the concerns of Sea Pines Village residents into consideration. By finding a solution that is not invasive, you can protect the Town by having control of the process, versus shooting it down, or finding other solutions that are a good proven solution.

“They could do what is not beneficial for Bethany Beach residents,” he added. “The only issue is they want it. There are many who doubt they need it. But they’re going to pursue it. They have the money to do that, and it would be prudent to pursue a solution.”

Gerk argued that, while he was confident the SPV residents would prevail in their case to have the temporary tower removed and the board’s decision sustained, “That doesn’t mean they aren’t going to go to the other side of Bethany and do something that’s going to impact the residents there.” Instead, Gerk urged the council to take control of the situation and use their leverage to manage where the AT&T facility would be. “You can write anything in a contract that you want,” he advised, noting his credentials as an attorney.

Richard Forst, an attorney for AT&T, also appealed to the council to further consider the proposal, which he said AT&T had made because of a documented need for the new tower.

“I’m a little confused,” he told the council. “A series of questions was asked, and we answered them, and now I’m hearing some other concerns that I’m not sure we were really aware of. … For all I know, there are four other alternatives, and one of those other alternatives might address concerns about possible future expansion.”

Forst said he believed AT&T had already addressed the council’s concerns about security. “This isn’t the first time AT&T is proposing to enter into one of these arrangements. Cell equipment on water towers is pretty common, and I’m not aware of there ever having been an issue with security.”

He also said he didn’t believe Olmstead was correct in suggesting there could be an issue with setting a precedent if the proposal was approved, asserting that the council could reject future proposals if it determined it didn’t have room for additional equipment.

“One of the things that’s a little frustrating is that we go through this public process… but if you’re going to shoot us down for new concerns that haven’t been raised before…” Forst continued, saying AT&T could probably work around the potential impacts of a future expansion. “I would rather have had the opportunity to respond to these new concerns, rather than having you vote this down and that being the end of things,” he said. “If you all aren’t interested, no matter what we say, no matter what we do, then just say that, and we can go look somewhere else.”

Bethany resident Michael Horn, calling himself “an advocate for lost causes, based on what I’ve just heard” from the council,” said he believed the second location option for the support equipment building needed by AT&T for such an installation – outside the existing fence – was “no different from kids playing in the street outside the fence. They offered to limit the people who can get in there,” he emphasized. “You could work these things out.”

Horn said he, too, was concerned about what would happen if the Town rejected the proposal. “The tall tower at Arby’s or some other place is likely to happen if you refuse to negotiate for use of the water tower,” he predicted. “AT&T is going to want to bring service to the community, and accommodating them, if it can be done, would certainly be much better than having an ugly, tall tower constructed in our vicinity.”

Additionally, he said, the Town would stand to make some money in the arrangement, perhaps $30,000 to $35,000 per year, which would make up a substantial portion of the proposed 3 percent property tax increase proposed by the Budget & Finance Committee this week in a first draft of the 2013 budget. “And there are people around here who would like improved service from AT&T,” he added of the potential benefits.

“I wish you would have approached this with an open mind, rather than focusing on your concerns about security issues,” he concluded.

But council members were, almost without exception, firm in their opposition to the proposal, offering multiple reasons for that position. Dorfman noted that the board of the Bethany West Recreation Association – representing the nearest community to the water plant – had voted unanimously in opposition to the placement of the antennas on the standpipe. And Killmer – who noted he had attended every hearing on the issue at the county and municipal level – voiced his skepticism about AT&T’s assertion that the locations on Route 1 and at the water plant were the only way to deal with their need for more antennas in that area.

“The expert engineers testifying for Sea Pines Village made it clear there are other alternate ways for AT&T to provide service here at other locations … on existing poles,” he said. “There are other ways of meeting the needs of their customers without building another tower or utilizing Bethany Beach’s water tower.”

The council then voted unanimously to reject the proposal from AT&T and Velocitel.

A decision in the appeal by AT&T of the unanimous Sussex County Board of Adjustments ruling against allowing the tower south of town limits has not been announced. A finding against AT&T would leave the company looking for another location for the equipment, while one in their favor could result in construction of a taller, permanent tower in the prominent location between Arby’s and Sea Pines Village.