Residents, council members decry 5G kiosk/tower siting process after installations near homes and schools

Residents from Queens and Brooklyn told the City Council's technology committee they were not adequately informed before wireless small-cell and Link5G kiosk installations began in their neighborhoods, and several speakers said equipment was placed too close to homes and a school.

Councilmember Andrew Ressler and other members raised specific complaints about an installation on Juno Street outside PS 144 in Queens and an installation in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Parents and neighbors said they received only brief notices by email and that the franchisee or city did not contact property owners directly before work began. "There was an email to my office and a letter to the borough president but no conversation with the property owners," said Councilmember Ressler during the hearing.

Several residents described visible equipment less than a dozen feet from bedroom windows and playgrounds. Resident Ari Honig said a yellow caution label on a unit stated "keep back 7 feet; public exposure limits may be exceeded within this distance" and noted the device sits roughly 12 feet from a bedroom window. Stanley Chan and Tracy Appleton said the tower at the corner of Norman Avenue is within feet of a kindergarten playground and asked the council to require better siting practices and fuller community outreach.

OTI and franchisee representatives said the franchise agreements require a community outreach process that includes notices to council members, community boards and borough presidents and that CityBridge (operator of Link5G) and providers undertake a formal 60-day comment period and state historic-preservation review where applicable. An OTI official said the agency and the franchisee routinely attend community board meetings and will relocate proposed sites in cases where applications fail siting or historical-review criteria.

Residents and at least one council member said those steps are too weak in practice. Councilmember Jennifer Gutierrez said she would pursue legislation to create specific, time-bound community-engagement requirements for siting telecom equipment if the city cannot provide stronger outreach and accountability. Community advocates argued for early, in-person outreach to impacted homeowners and tenants, and for clearer notice and appeal rights when equipment is proposed adjacent to residences or schools.

Why it matters: The dispute highlights a recurring policy tension between rapid wireless network deployment and community transparency. Council members told OTI and franchisees they expect clearer rules and more proactive outreach to reduce neighborhoods' frustration over installations placed close to homes, playgrounds and schools.

Evidence: Multiple resident testimonies during the technology committee hearing; OTI staff described the 60-day outreach process and franchise provisions; residents produced photographs and cited caution labels on equipment boxes.