Board denies Verizon cell tower application
Marlboro panel's attorney says board's rejection may be difficult to defend
BY REBECCA MORTON Staff Writer
F or the moment, Verizon Wireless will not be building a 150-foot-tall monopole transmission tower at the Marlboro Township Municipal Utilities Authority (MTMUA) property on Harbor Road, Marlboro. Verizon's application was denied by the Marlboro Planning Board on June 18.

The attorney who represented Verizon promised an appeal of the board's decision.

Residents who were present for the hearing applauded the board's late night decision, as members voted 7-0 to deny the cell tower application. Board alternate Joshua Pollak, who was sitting in for member Rohit Gupta, abstained on the matter.

The construction of a pole on the MTMUA property is a permitted conditional use in that area of Marlboro. The proposed pole would be a site of co-location, allowing a total of five carriers to use the location.

David Stern, Verizon's radio frequency expert, explained that following an investigation, a gap in coverage was discovered in Marlboro that was hampering Verizon's wireless communications service.

The main site providing service to Marlboro is a water tank on Route 18, Stern said, identifying additional sites in Marlboro on Tennent Road and Union Hill Road. Additional sites in Old Bridge, Manalapan, Colts Neck and Matawan also provide service to the township.

Marlboro's radio frequency expert, Bruce Eisenstein, weighed in on the gap in service that Stern discussed and pointed out that the proposed site of the tower would fill in much of the gap.

"My sense is, what they have done, they have come up with an appropriate solution to this problem by locating the system where it is," Eisenstein said of the proposed Harbor Road location for the tower.

Eisenstein gave an overview of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and what that entailed for the application. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is very strict in requiring that providers need to fill in a certain area of coverage in a specific time frame to renew their licenses, Eisenstein explained.

Major highways were used first, then moves were made to tower structures, but it comes to a point when the construction of towers will have to enter residential areas, Eisenstein said.

He said planning and zoning boards may not prohibit the construction of these types of facilities, they may not discriminate against providers and they may not consider the potential health effects of radio waves coming from the communications towers.

"This is not an arbitrary thing that Congress put in. The FCC has studied the health effects of radio waves now for over 70 years," Eisenstein explained, describing the conservative parameters for emissions the FCC has created. He added that the Telecommunications Act limits the amount of action a board can take.

Attorney Richard D. Stanzione, representing Verizon, informed board members that the firm had received a bid to construct the monopole from the MTMUA and designed it in compliance with its specifications, including the allowance for five carriers. At 150 feet in height the pole still fits in Marlboro's ordinance on wireless towers, he said.

Stern testified there are no other poles in the area that would help fill the gap in coverage and said he believed other carriers would make use of the monopole on the MTMUA property.

Stern discussed emissions testing that had been conducted at the site and informed board members that the numbers fell below the FCC standards.

"With 100 percent being the standard, that which you can have emissions in the environment of the site, we found the Verizon wireless site would be approximately one-tenth of 1 percent," Stern said, noting the numbers were calculated at the maximum possibility of emissions.

Marlboro's planner, Richard Cramer, went over the application and said it met the conditional use standards, but noted that Verizon was seeking relief from some of the township's standards on wireless towers, such as setback from residential uses and fall zone.

Engineer Anthony Suppa provided testimony on the points where the applicant was seeking variances. The closest property line to the proposed monopole was 150 feet to the south, with no homes present, Suppa said, noting the closest residential use was 206 feet.

The township's ordinances require a tower to be located no closer than 500 feet to any residential zone. Suppa said there was no location on the MTMUA property that would grant a 500-foot setback from a residential area.

In relation to the fall zone, the township requires a setback of 150 percent of the height of the tower from any adjoining lot line, which in the case of this pole would be requiring 225 feet, the applicant's professionals testified.

Suppa explained that the poles are designed to crumble in the event of a failure rather than fall like a tree. When asked of any known failures, Suppa said he knew of none in the area, only during Hurricane Katrina in the southeastern United States did monopoles fail, and even then as a result of a building falling onto the structure.

Township Councilman Frank LaRocca, who sits on the board, asked about the possibility of a more aesthetically pleasing option such as the style of cell tower modeled after a tree.

Cramer said a tree monopole at 150 feet would be about twice the height of the existing tree line.

LaRocca then posed the question of other options, such as two or three smaller poles to better fit in with the area being considered.

Since the smaller poles could not be colocated it would not be just two additional poles, but would end up being additional poles for each carrier, Eisenstein responded.

Concerned residents who live near the MTMUA's Harbor Road property spoke out against the application, citing a variety of reasons, including health concerns and a possible decline in their property values.

Planning Board Attorney Michael Herbert reminded everyone that the board members could not legally consider those reasons in their ultimate decision on the application.

Resident Jeff Corman said he purchased his home with the understanding that the MTMUA property was not able to be built upon. Had he known that a board might grant variances that would result in the construction of a cell tower, Corman said he would not have purchased the property.

"It is insane, it is a residential area," Corman said of the possibility of a cell tower being built on Harbor Road.

Joe Chaplinski, who also lives near the site, expressed his feelings against the proposed tower.

"I don't want to live on Route 9, I don't want to live on Route 18, and I don't want to live underneath power lines," Chaplinski told board members.

Bruce De- Shaw provided board members with a list of possible other locations that exist where the tower could go.

As members of the board began their discussion on the tower, most expressed their dislike of breaking the 500- foot setback to the residents.

Vice Chairman Gerald Bergh spoke of how he is surprised when applicants come before the board with all their research and yet it turns out there may be other possible areas of location.

Discussing the future should the application be denied, Bergh said, "We may be delaying the inevitable and while several may be inconvenienced now, several hundred may be inconvenienced later. Somewhere down the line at some point in time it's going to come home to roost."

Hearing that the consensus of the board appeared to be moving toward a denial of the Verizon application, Herbert cautioned the board members and said that from a legal standpoint, if they denied the application and the applicant decided to pursue litigation, it would be extremely difficult to defend the board's position, given the testimony provided by its own expert and the FCC regulations.

Herbert cited a case in Ringwood in which the municipality lost its ordinance pertaining to setback as a result of litigation.

T

he board members subsequently

voted to deny the Verizon application and Stanzione said an appeal will be filed in court.