Residents renew opposition to proposed Bay Avenue cell tower, urge alternatives

Residents at the Ocean City Council meeting continued heated opposition to a proposed 120–125-foot cell tower near Bay Avenue, arguing the placement infringes on nearby homes and saying the city rushed approvals to accommodate the carrier.

“My house, I bought 2 years ago brand new… I couldn't believe for a moment that you guys would put a 120 foot cell tower in a residential zone at the gateway of this wonderful community,” resident Gene McCaffrey told the council, saying he lives five houses down from the proposed site. He accused the council of insufficient transparency and of moving too quickly to accommodate Verizon’s proposal.

The complaints drew support from other residents. “They're just under 1,100” signatures, resident Greg Sirianni said of a petition opposing the site, arguing that alternatives had been developed and not fully vetted. Sirianni said community members had identified roughly 91 possible alternative locations and urged the council to pursue options that would serve Verizon’s coverage needs without siting a tower close to homes.

Archie Sirianni told the council that a judge’s stipulated settlement referenced the Compass Building rooftop and associated equipment as an intended placement for antennas and questioned whether the city had followed required processes to solicit bids for alternate sites. “Judge Scahill’s words” were cited by Sirianni to describe a prior court directive; he urged the city to revisit rooftop placement and to consider incentives—no lease fees or tax forgiveness—to persuade property owners to host equipment.

Speakers repeatedly described the council’s earlier actions as “spot zoning” and said residents feel their concerns were sidelined. Several commenters referenced ongoing litigation tied to the project and warned they would return in force to future meetings if alternatives were not pursued.

Residents also asked how to get direct responses from the council outside public comment. A resident, Tom Sirianni, asked whether emailed questions had been received and whether the public must request agenda items to secure back-and-forth dialogue; the meeting record shows the public comment period remained a one-way forum without a responsive exchange at that time.

The council did not take formal action on the tower at the meeting. Council discussion later included a request from a council member to place the Boardwalk Subcommittee report on a future agenda, but council members did not adopt a new directive related to the tower during this session.

What happens next: residents said they plan to return to council meetings and continue petitioning and legal efforts while urging the council to pursue alternatives that avoid locating a tall tower immediately adjacent to residential properties.