Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Telecommunications Local topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge relocation of proposed 5G cell installation away from two Forest Hills elementary schools

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A public commenter asked the council to oppose placement of a 5G cell site near PS 144Q and Our Lady of Mercy Catholic Academy and suggested relocating service to a commercial corridor instead; district staff said they would follow up with local elected officials and community boards.

Several residents used the public‑comment period of the April 3 meeting to raise objections to an announced plan to place a 5G cell installation near two Forest Hills schools.

Kevin Lee, who identified himself during public comment, urged the council to oppose locating the installation adjacent to PS 144Q and Our Lady of Mercy Catholic Academy and suggested the Metropolitan Avenue/Meals campus corridor as a higher‑demand placement. "Please do not place this tower next to two elementary schools where it's neither needed nor welcome," Lee said, proposing locations near businesses and bus stops on Metropolitan Avenue where public use and benefits would be higher, including to small businesses and commuters.

Vanessa Sparks (Community Board 12) and other community members said they would bring the matter to their local boards; Sparks told the council that in the Jamaica area community members had previously raised similar concerns and that elected officials had been variably responsive. In person, parent Jessica Zielo also opposed the facility near her child’s school and said she planned to take the issue to the community board.

District staff acknowledged the concern and said the district would work with local elected officials and community boards to pursue follow‑up. The CEC did not take a formal vote on the item at the April 3 meeting.

The remarks came during the public‑comment segment and were recorded for the council’s agenda file. Several council members said they would seek updates from local officials and district staff outside the meeting.

Because the matter involves a proposed private‑sector site and related city approvals, the CEC noted it would coordinate with community boards and local elected officials rather than acting unilaterally.