In February 2001, Verizon Wireless came before the Village of Mineola Board of Trustees for a special use permit to erect nine four-foot high antennas on top of a 91-foot high Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) utility tower as well as an equipment shelter, located at the intersection of Betty Lane and Arlington Road. After residents in the area, the mayor and the board raised concerns about the impact antennas would have on the quality of life of area residents, the board turned down the application. However, the board's decision was reversed by federal court and the board was forced to grant Verizon a special use permit to erect the antennas.

At the time of the hearings concerning the Verizon antennas, residents voiced concerns of possible health risks associated with increasing wave emissions with additional antennas. The most outspoken resident against the influx of cell phone antennas into the village has been ex-chief of the Mineola Fire Department Walter Crosby.

Mr. Crosby, a 40-year resident of Maple Place, the location of a tower that has cell phone antennas on it, explained that he has watched a number of his neighbors succumb to cancer over the years.

However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has forbidden local municipalities from denying applications for cellular phone antennas based on health risks since the FCC assumes jurisdiction over environmental effects of the radio frequency emissions from telecommunications facilities.

Counsel for Verizon was recently successful in U.S. District Court in overturning the board's decision. According to Village of Mineola Attorney John Spellman, the court determined that the board gave too much testimony on health effects, which are beyond the scope of consideration. "Even though our decision stated that we didn't consider that, there was just too much stuff in the record including comments by some folks that kind of led the court to believe otherwise," Spellman said.

The board cited that the proposed site would violate the minimum separation distance of 200 feet from residentially zoned property pursuant to Chapter 31 of the village's code. Also, the board believed the location of the tower proposed for use by the applicant violates the minimum setback from the adjoining public right of way pursuant to Chapter 31.

However, in her decision dated March 28, 2003, judge Joanna Seybert wrote that "although the board expressly stated that health concerns expressed by village residents played no part in its denial, the record shows that these concerns permeated throughout both the first public hearing and the SEQRA determination."

Furthermore, the judge wrote that "throughout the hearing on February 21, 2001, the board repeatedly asked Verizon to address concerns of potential health risks. The mayor was particularly focused on the issue."

The court ordered that the village issue Verizon a special use permit to erect the antennas. The mayor and the village board voted unanimously to issue a special permit for the site in order to comply with the court's ruling.

Counsel for Verizon is also claiming to have incurred $41,000 in legal fees for the case and has a motion pending before the federal court to have those awarded. If the court rules that the village is responsible for any of Verizon's legal costs, the village has a $10,000 deductible in its insurance policy so that the village would have to pay $10,000.

In addition to denying Verizon, this past February, the Village of Mineola also denied Omnipoint's application to affix six groups of panel antennas for cellular phone reception 170-feet up on a 265-foot tower located on Maple Place.

According to Spellman, the village was just served with another lawsuit by Omnipoint. During the hearings for the Omnipoint application, Omnipoint representatives believed that the location would be ideal to fill a gap of service in Mineola that may prevent Omnipoint customers from making or receiving calls on their cell phones.

However, the village board voted to deny the application. The village board, particularly Mayor Jack M. Martins, who was then a trustee, questioned Omnipoint as to whether a gap in service in fact exists. Mayor Martins then questioned a drive test that Omnipoint conducted to illustrate that there was indeed a gap in service.

From the village's standpoint, the hope is that the court will find that the village's reason for denying the application was not based on health concerns. Mayor Martins said the decision was based on Omnipoint's inability to show there was a gap in service.