Members of the Planning Board spent three hours debating ways to regulate new wireless communication facilities coming into West Windsor, as well as the merits of maintaining the township’s co-location policy.
Much time was spent debating how to regulate noise impact and whether the board should allow the construction of new towers in currently unpermitted areas to offer more options to carriers. Currently, those carriers are permitted only to co-locate their facilities on existing towers — most of which are utility poles located in residential areas.
One issue that the board did not have a chance to address during the three hour public hearing on December 2 was a main concern of residents who want the board to prohibit cell phone facilities from being placed within 1,000 feet of residential homes — even if they are proposed to be located on existing towers.
Planning Board members voted to continue the meeting at a later time, most likely in January. The new draft of the ordinance permits new wireless communications facilities on the roof of or in office buildings only, and if they are on the roof, they must be screened. The co-location of facilities are permitted on and at the base of existing towers, as the ordinance was previously written, but the new draft changes this use from a permitted use to a conditional use.
The ordinance review was triggered by a decision in May, 2009, in which the board said it was handcuffed into approving an application for a T-Mobile wireless communications facility on an existing electricity transmission tower because it complied with local ordinance.
Under the new draft, the applicants are required to provide an analysis for the need for the service, a description of alternatives explored — including alternative technologies, and an explanation of why the alternative proposed was chosen — and a comprehensive plan for the entire service area the proposed facility is intended to serve, with the fewest number of future sites feasible. The alternative analysis must show that there are not suitable alternatives with less of a visual impact.
Planning Board attorney Gerald Muller also reviewed a draft ordinance written by residents Jane Lifset and William Andersen, who included the 1,000-feet prohibition in their own ordinance, as well as a set of locational priorities for new facilities — the highest of which is the land or structures owned by the township.
The second highest priority would be given to existing communication towers not owned by public utilities, and the third were those public utility towers, so long as they are 1,000 feet from a residential home. The fourth priority included other existing buildings and structures, so long as they, too, are at least 1,000 feet from residential structures. But the Lifset-Andersen ordinance also allowed the applicant to ignore that 1,000-foot restriction if any of those options were insufficient.
Like the residents, Muller agreed that the lowest-impact facilities would be on publicly-owned towers or buildings, but said the board’s ordinance — which used input from ordinances from other towns and from the residents’ ordinance –essentially establishes a priority list, but uses other language to do so.
He also said the 1,000-foot restriction proposed by the residents, and their provision to allow for an exception, would be unnecessary because most, if not all of the sites, in town already fall within 1,000 feet of residential homes. Most carriers will find reasons for needing to place the facilities on the towers within 1,000 feet of the homes, he said.
Resident Amy Chanson presented the board with an addendum to the petition given to the board six months ago with over 380 signatures from West Windsor residents urging a 1,000-foot restriction. “They do not want the cell phone towers in their backyards,” she said. “We would like you to preserve our town and protect our citizens. We’re all brilliant people here, and I think we can come up with better solutions.”
Lifset told the board her main concern was about the potential noise generated by the facilities, and a revision that would permit the maximum decibels allowed under the township’s noise ordinance. According to Lifset, that maximum is 50 decibels at night and 55 during the day. Some residents are located near more than one tower, and having two towers at the maximum would be about 110 decibels during the day — the same level of noise as a chainsaw, she argued.
Planning Board members debated how to regulate noise for more than an hour before Muller suggested that no equipment should, during normal operations, produce additional noise, at all times, at the adjoining residential property lines. This means that carriers would have to test the noise levels already existing without their facilities and ensure that no additional noise will be added in the area.
Lynne Dunn, an attorney who represented Verizon in a previous application, described her concerns as well as information from laws and ordinances in other areas. She said she does not think the board’s discussion of limiting the noise levels “will pass judicial muster.” She also pointed out that the way the language is worded with regard to location of the towers, others could imply the township is trying to direct facilities to municipal land as a revenue-raising tactic.
She engaged the board in a variety of other suggestions, including references to ordinances in Millstone Township and Princeton, and cases in which other towns have allowed new towers to be built — aside from solely allowing co-location on existing towers — to give carriers more options away from residents.
Another organization — PCIA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association — presented a similar argument in a letter, stating that facilities should be allowed on top of industrial and commercial structures, and not just office buildings. Lifset agreed with this argument, saying it would allow carriers to build their facilities elsewhere, and not necessarily near residential neighborhoods. Muller and the rest of the board seemed to be amenable.
The board directed Muller to examine other ordinances, including the Millstone ordinance, before the next meeting, so that the board could discuss all options. “The quality of life is really what’s important here,” said board member Diane Ciccone.
