Residents lobbying for stricter restrictions on wireless communication facilities in West Windsor blasted Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh and Planning Board Chairman Marvin Gardner at the March 1 Township Council meeting prior to the introduction of an ordinance on the matter.
Alleging that Hsueh and Gardner were influenced by wireless communication companies like Verizon to create an ordinance catering to their needs, the handful of residents present urged the council to forego “railroading” the ordinance through.
The residents want the measure to include a provision to bar new cell phone towers or antennas within 1,000 feet of homes. That provision was not included in the ordinance introduced 4-1, with Councilman Charles Morgan voting no. A public hearing is to be held Monday, April 6.
“This is a travesty; this is Verizon’s best shot,” said resident William Andersen, who, along with his wife, drafted his own ordinance. He accused the mayor and chairman of “caving to money interests that have apparently intervened since the first meeting” on the matter.
Hsueh and Gardner, however, insist that they have never taken a penny from any cell phone company.
“Everyone knows that I do not meet with developers or any applicant in advance of an application that may come before us unless there are others representing the township present,” said Gardner. “I emphasize the word ‘never’ so that I am not placed in a position of my actions being characterized as an appearance of impropriety.”
“I resent the fact that residents suggest that the mayor or myself, or any elected official, would even consider to participate in some of the allegations that are suggested,” Gardner added.
Three of the residents who spoke at the meeting — Andersen, Jane Lifset (Andersen’s wife), and Amy Chanson — presented the council with a petition they have been circulating for months, which now has 400 signatures — 200 of which have specified being in favor of the 1,000-foot restriction.
The ordinance “couldn’t be worse for homeowners,” said Lifset. She told the council the ordinance allowed for “unlimited future need” and allowed noise at levels comparable to a vacuum cleaner placed three feet from their homes, or equivalent to a busy street. “This is in our backyards.”
Chanson said Gardner and Hsueh were absent during the first Planning Board meeting on the matter, when the residents left feeling optimistic that an ordinance fitting their needs would be drafted. “The second meeting changed everything,” she said.
She said she could not understand why the township could not adopt an ordinance as strict as those in Princeton and Millstone. “There are many towns that have successfully compromised. Why would the mayor not support the citizens?”
“The inference was that in some manner my views altered the thinking of the Planning Board,” Gardner responded after the meeting. “It should be noted that once again, misinformation was being provided to the public. The record would show that I was not at that December 2 (second) meeting, and in fact, was more than 1,500 miles from West Windsor.”
“Each and every member who sits on the Planning Board has never been asked to vote in a certain way by me in my role as chairman,” Gardner said. “Anyone who wishes to question any member of the Planning Board with respect to this issue is more than welcome to do so. I have too much respect, nor do I think it’s appropriate, to ask my fellow members to vote or conduct themselves in a certain way.”
Referring to cell phone companies, Andersen said, “you’re allowing these people to spread their wings and go to every tower in this town. Eventually we’re going to have cell phone facilities in every single tower.”
He added: “Don’t sell out to Verizon; Verizon’s fingerprints, hand prints, body prints are all over this case.”
Alice Maniere said she was “very concerned about what you are railroading through.”
Gardner said after the meeting that, “Residents need to deal with the facts, and should refrain from smear tactics and character assassination in conducting themselves in any public forum. If anyone has any evidence that suggests criminal wrongdoing, they should immediately bring such evidence or allegations to the prosecutor’s office.”
“I’ve never met or spoken to anyone connected with Verizon, other than via telephone with a sales representative from Verizon with respect to service at my home,” Gardner said.
West Windsor police officer and resident Frank Bal approached the podium and asked if he could light a cigaret, to prove a point that he could not do so because it was barred from public places because of its health implications. He told the council he taught D.A.R.E. to fifth graders in the community and read what appeared to be a list of the effects from smoking, including miscarriage and cancer. “Oh, I’m sorry,” he said sarcastically. “I was reading the dangers linked to living near a cell phone tower.”
Morgan said that if the signatures on the petition represent 1.5 percent of the population in town asking the council to “look at this harder,” then council should forego introduction and send it to an agenda session for discussion.
Councilwoman Linda Geevers, however, said that the board has spent many hours going over the residents’ concerns, and that the ordinance review has already cost tens of thousands of dollars. It has “not been an ordinance that is railroaded through.”
Morgan pressed on, arguing that the council should take a closer look at the matter because “we’re the elected officials; the Planning Board are not.”
Councilwoman Diane Ciccone said the council sent the matter to the Planning Board for its expertise, and now the council has received its recommendation. “The Planning Board felt the 1,000-foot restriction is a policy decision we have to make.”
Township Attorney Michael Herbert explained that if the council makes any changes and introduces an ordinance that is different from the planning board’s version, it will have to go back to the Planning Board for review — again. “It’s like a ping-pong match,” he said, adding that there will be more costs associated with it, too. If the ordinance is simply voted down, the current ordinance will remain in effect.
Ciccone said that at least by introducing the ordinance, council can discuss the issues with the residents at the public hearing.
After the introduction, Chanson asked the council to sit down with the residents and have a roundtable discussion to try to come to a compromise. “We do want what’s best for the town,” she said. “This forum doesn’t seem to be cutting it.” The council did not indicate whether it would do so.
The ordinance came to the council after almost a year of discussion at the Planning Board, tallying $20,000 in professional fees.
When the board voted in January to send the ordinance to the council, it left the “policy decision” on the 1,000-foot restriction up to the governing body. This is because the council has given specific direction to the board to stick to a co-location policy, limiting new facilities to current towers.
In the board’s previous discussions, residents complained about noise pollution created by allowing wireless communications facilities to operate near their homes. Originally, the board included language that prohibited new equipment to operate during normal hours if it created additional noise at the adjoining property lines. But because the language was deemed “too ambiguous,” the board rewrote the language.
Now the ordinance requires cell phone companies to comply with noise levels specified under the township’s noise ordinance, which allows up to 50 decibels of noise at night and up to 55 decibels during the day.
Taking a page out of the board’s recent approval of a T-Mobile application last May (which sparked the ordinance revision), the board also prohibited equipment shelters over new wireless communications facilities, upsetting some of the cell phone company advocates.
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 is permitted on and at the base of existing towers, but the new draft changes this use from a permitted use to a conditional use.
Under the ordinance, applicants are required to provide an analysis for the need for the service. The alternative analysis must show that there are not suitable alternatives with less of a visual impact.
The board rejected the idea of including a prohibition on wireless communication facilities from being located within 1,000 feet of a home, maintaining that such a regulation would be too restrictive and in violation of federal communications regulations. The restriction would “prohibit wireless facilities on virtually all towers,” Herbert said.
