Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pelham hears Extenet presentation for three pole‑mounted small cells; company says RF exposure is well below standards
Summary
At a public hearing, Extenet representatives described three proposed pole‑mounted installations in Pelham, said the sites comply with standards (each at roughly 3% of applicable RF limits) and confirmed proof‑of‑service mailings to about 1,300 households; trustees asked for documentation and the hearing was closed for board consideration at a future meeting.
The Village of Pelham Board of Trustees opened a public hearing on June 9 on an application by Extenet to install communications equipment on utility poles at three locations in the village and heard a presentation from the applicant’s representatives.
Chris Fisher, representing Extenet, described three existing installations and three proposed sites (Harmon & Young; Cliff & 2nd Street East; Colonial & Pelhamdale). Fisher said the pole‑mounted equipment is low powered, intended to serve a concentrated area for carriers including Verizon and T‑Mobile, and that technical analyses show each site operates at about 3% of the applicable safety standard. He described the equipment as roughly a 40‑inch tall, 24‑by‑18‑inch equipment box mounted about 10–12 feet up the pole and said the company uses pull‑attachment agreements with Con Edison to place equipment on utility poles.
Village counsel and trustees pressed for documentation proving compliance with state and federal requirements, and Jerry Merrick, the village’s counsel, said the village has sought to draft as strong a code as legally allowed and thanked the applicant for providing detailed information. Extenet confirmed proof‑of‑service mailings went to roughly 1,300 households and that notices extended into neighboring Pelham Manor to ensure coverage of affected residents.
The board closed the public hearing by voice vote and will consider a resolution at a future meeting; trustees asked staff to ensure compliance documentation and the planning materials are included in the packet for that decision.
No vote on the underlying application occurred during the June 9 meeting.
