After five hours of testimony during a heated continuation of a public hearing for minor site plan approval for a cell tower to be placed on top of an existing PSE&G electric pole, the Planning Board said it was handcuffed into approving the application because it complied with local ordinance.##M:[more]##
The approval permits the location of a T Mobile wireless communications facility at an existing electricity transmission tower located southeast of the intersection of Penn Lyle Road and Cedar Street. The application was initially discussed on April 1, but the issue was carried over after residents raised health concerns associated with having a cell tower transmission facility located near their homes. Residents also requested that the Planning Board give them time to research the issue on their own.
But residents’ arguments during the May 27 meeting, which focused on disproving the actual need for the cell tower based on T Mobile’s argument that there is gap in service in the area, were deemed irrelevant by the Planning Board, since it had come to light before the continuation meeting that no variances were needed for the application to be granted.
The only issues the board could consider were whether the cell tower had a negative impact on the area, which the board found it did not. Thus, denying the application would leave the township open to litigation, board officials said.
Residents also argued that there were many other existing poles close in proximity to the site on which the cell tower could be placed without having adverse affects on their quality of life, namely the aesthetic aspects.
During testimony, however, T Mobile’s experts testified that “We have significant gaps (in service), and the gap is centered around the proposed site,” said Mohammed Alsamna, a radio frequency engineer with T Mobile. The gaps affect service around Village, South Post, and Meadow roads, and a big area around the site. “This site will cover most of the gap, but it’s not going to cover all of the gap,” he said.
T-Mobile’s facility will consist of nine wireless communications antennas attached to a tower insert installed within the existing 111-foot tower, and extending 6.5 feet above, bringing the total tower to 117.5 feet.
The original proposal stated that the communication equipment will be contained in an equipment shelter located within a proposed compound also enclosing the tower with an 8-foot tall fence. Because of the fence’s height, T Mobile would have needed a variance, but before the meeting, it agreed to lower the fence to 7 feet, making it comply with the ordinance.
Dr. Kenneth Foster, also an expert for T Mobile, said there was a federal FCC limit to the amount of human exposure to radio frequency energy the tower would emit. The application “complies by a very large margin,” he said. “It’s 1,”000 times below the FCC limits.”
Douglas Cowan, T Mobile’s civil engineer, testified that even if T Mobile chose one of the other towers located in the area, “it would be moving from one residential proximity, backyard, to another backyard,” Cowan added. If the application were not approved, T Mobile would have to construct a new tower as opposed to using an existing tower. “There’s existing access, an existing tower, no trees need to be removed, and it isn’t affecting any wetlands,” he said.
He said there were hardly any detriments other than the “minor visual” addition to the pole. Other than that, it caused no traffic, did not require a need for water or sewer service, did not cause pollution, produced no noise, and had no impact on the number of students in the school district, he said.
Township planner John Madden said that no variances were needed because “the result of reducing the fence to 7 fee makes it an accessory structure facility that is allowed.” He also said that the goal of the township’s ordinance was to eliminate freestanding towers and keep them on existing ones, so “this application is consistent with the policy of the township in the past.”
Township officials also said that because the application does not increase the degree of nonconformity with regard to lot width, it also does not need a variance, as originally thought.
T Mobile also testified that statistics showed that there were 379 dropped calls in March in one area, and that there were almost 1,”040 dropped calls in one month to the southwest of the site. Their experts also said that ideally, they would have liked to see an entirely new tower at least 150 to 160 feet high placed in the area, but instead looked for an existing tower.
However, residents in the area argued that they had conducted their own research by testing the service from 117 intersections and driving around the “gap” area. Not one of them was dropped, and they could carry on their conversations clearly. They presented a map to the board based on their research.
They also said they felt it was unfair that they did not know the variance issue had been resolved prior to the meeting and had prepared their arguments based on the need for the cell tower, as opposed to impact on the community.
Woodbury Court William Anderson, who acted as a spokesman for a majority of the residents, asked how T Mobile’s map showing the gap in service was created. “We didn’t have any of the underlying data of how this map was made,” he said. He proceeded to cross-examine both the board’s expert and T Mobile’s consultants.
However, Planning Board Chairman Marvin Gardner said that the issue of “need” could not be considered. “You need to understand that much of what we heard and the questions that were asked are not relevant and will not be considered when the Planning Board makes a decision on this,” he said, adding that the board still wanted to give residents a chance to voice their concerns.
Still, residents pleaded their case. Columbia Place resident Amy Chanson said the residents would see the antennas every day as they leave their homes. “That is not tranquil to me and my family, and that is an eyesore,” she said. She said that T Mobile officials even said they could put it on other sites, and not in a residential neighborhood. “Let them put it in open space where it won’t bother anybody,” she said.
Gardner said, “we’re handcuffed and if we go against our own ordinance, T Mobile could take us to court, and I don’t know how long it would last, but it would probably cost a lot of taxpayer money,” and the township would probably lose.
T Mobile also agreed to using four outdoor cabinets instead of constructing an equipment shelter, agreed to no lighting of the tower unless there was a light with a timer that could be activated by service personnel or unless required by the FAA, and agreed to installing a solid covering on the fence to cover some of the visual impacts.
