30 More Muttontown Residents Move to Block AT&T Cell Tower
Roughly 30 Muttontown, New York, residents seek to intervene in the infrastructure fight between AT&T and the village because their homes “would be adversely affected, both aesthetically and economically,” if AT&T were permitted to build a 165-foot-tall cell tower in…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
the community, said the residents’ attorney, Andrew Campanelli, in a declaration Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-05524) at U.S. District for Eastern New York in Central Islip in support of their motion to intervene. Campanelli makes many of the same arguments as a previous resident intervenor, Russell McRory (see 2210200034), alleging AT&T is colluding with village officials to build the tower against the objections of the local zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The residents' and the defendants' interests are “not identical,” said Campanelli. “I submit that the interests” of plaintiff AT&T “are in line with the interests of all the defendants except the ZBA,” he said. “The ZBA is the only defendant that may not support a resolution to this action that would allow AT&T to build its tower.” The ZBA “is represented by the same attorneys for the other defendants who want AT&T to build its tower,” he said. “This conflicted representation will pave the way for a settlement among the existing parties that will be against the interests of the village residents,” and that’s their biggest worry, said Campanelli. He cited 11 local wireless infrastructure cases in the Eastern District alone that were settled “without any input from the resident property owners who stood to bear the greatest adverse impact from the proposed installations.” AT&T and village officials told the court this week that they oppose McRory’s motion to intervene (see 2210310037). Before filing their motion to intervene, the 30 residents sought consent from all existing parties in the case, “but were unsuccessful in getting consent from all of them.”