Attorney Francis Paresi, representing Atlantic Communications, outlined the plan to relocate the proposed tower to the southeastern corner of the property to mitigate disruptions to a nearby horse farm and to comply with zoning setbacks. The suggested site, surrounded by conservation land, aims to leverage a natural vegetative buffer to minimize visual impact. However, this adjustment did not quell public apprehension, as many residents, including East Hampton city councilor Tamara Smith, voiced fears of the tower encroaching on residential neighborhoods and altering the landscape.

Smith’s resolution opposing the cell tower underscored the imbalance between the project’s burdens on local residents and its financial benefits to private corporations. She emphasized that East Hampton residents, who would bear the brunt of the tower’s impact, lack voting power in Southampton’s municipal decisions. The resolution urged the Southampton Planning Board to thoroughly evaluate alternative sites, visual impacts, and potential effects on property values before granting project approval.

Lisa Coughlin, a Southampton resident, shared her personal concerns, highlighting the tower’s potential to disrupt her family’s quality of life. She pointed to the natural environment as a key factor in choosing her home and argued that the tower would alter that setting. Coughlin also raised alarms about potential health risks associated with electromagnetic fields emitted by cell towers. She stressed the absence of long-term studies on these effects, particularly on children, and questioned the necessity of the tower given her family’s lack of cell service issues.

Beyond visual and health concerns, residents like Connie Denim and Chris Marchetto echoed worries about property devaluation and questioned the project’s genuine necessity. Marchetto’s sentiments, articulated in a letter, criticized the proposal as driven by corporate interests rather than community needs. This sentiment resonated throughout the meeting, with residents questioning the urgency for improved cellular service and calling for evidence of existing service inadequacies.

As part of the ongoing review process, a balloon test was proposed to assess the tower’s visual impact from its new location. The test, scheduled for mid-July, aims to provide residents with a tangible understanding of the tower’s presence in the landscape. The applicant expressed a commitment to revising the site plan and conducting the test, acknowledging the importance of weather conditions for its execution.

The planning board was urged to consider the peer review process and its timeline to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. Board members emphasized the need to adhere to federal “shot clock regulations,” which require decisions within 150 days of application submission. The applicant’s willingness to amend the site plan rather than file a new application reflects a desire to meet procedural timelines while addressing community concerns.

Suggestions included leveraging existing towers within a two-mile radius, such as one on Lane Drive in Southampton, and utilizing power company poles for antenna attachments despite maintenance challenges.

Environmental considerations also played a role in the discussion. Residents emphasized the potential impact on local wildlife, particularly migratory birds at risk of collisions with cell towers. The presence of a local wildlife sanctuary further fueled calls for a detailed environmental impact assessment before moving forward with the project.

The meeting concluded with the planning board acknowledging the complex path ahead for the proposed cell tower project. The need for thorough due diligence, comprehensive reviews, and transparent communication with the public was emphasized as pivotal to navigating the proposal. The board’s next regular session was scheduled for July 20th, with the subsequent hearing set for August 19th to allow for continued deliberation and community input.