Andrew Martins, Managing Editor
More than a year of hearings on a plan to construct a 126-foot tall cell tower near a residential area ended in applause yesterday, as the Hillsborough Township Zoning Board of Adjustments unanimously voted to deny the application.
For more than two hours, the board deliberated on a number of positive and negative aspects surrounding the proposal from Verizon Wireless, which sought to build a monopole tower on the property of the Woods Road Fire Company No. 3 firehouse.
“On behalf of my clients, we’re thrilled with the result. We believe that the board appropriately considered all of the criteria under both state law and federal law,” attorney Robert F. Simon, who represented a group of residents who live near the firehouse, said after the decision. “[They] accurately addressed the applicant’s burden of proof in determining that the application should be denied.”
A representative from Verizon attorney Warren Stilwell’s office declined to comment.
For those in attendance who had been following the application since early last year, the board’s determination was an affirmation of their concerns.
“Obviously, the positive outcome for the homeowners in the area is incredible. I think that the board did an incredible job of being very thorough through this,” Hillsborough resident John Moretti said.
This latest decision is now the second instance where a cellular service provider was denied a chance to construct a tower on the firehouse property.
Under the proposed plans from Verizon, the telecommunications company needed to seek a number of variances before construction was to take place. Primarily, the plans called for the ability to place the monopole cell tower and its equipment closer to homes than the prescribed 1,000 foot distance.
Verizon also requested a variance to come within 2,000 feet of the Woods Road Elementary School (the proposed tower would be 940 feet away), and to exceed the allowable maximum 35-foot height for a structure in the zone.
Though the zoning board had the township’s Master Plan and existing ordinances to consider, Zoning Board Chairman Dr. Steven Sireci said the nature of the project made their decision making more complicated.
“The complication here is that there is federal law, there is state law and there is local law in the form of ordinances,” he said. “They are not necessarily consistent with each other and part of the complexity of a decision like this is to try to get something as consistent as possible with three separate levels of law.”
To that end, Sireci had board members go over a list of positive and negative criteria and put their positions on each point into the record. The thought process, according to Sireci, was to reduce the potential for a judge to overturn the decision based on an insufficient amount of detail from the board if an appeal was made by Verizon.
When it came to the usefulness of increased cell coverage for the area, the board admitted that Stilwell and his lineup of expert witnesses sufficiently proved there was a need. What he was not able to convince the board, however, was that the proposed location was suitable for that need.
Board member Helen Haines said she specifically remembered testimony from both Verizon radio frequency engineer David Stern and the board’s independently hired radio frequency expert, Dr. Bruce Eisenstein, that showed the cell tower would not cover the entire area.
The board members later said they were bothered by the fact that there were alternate sites that could potentially address the gap more efficiently but had not been aggressively sought out by Verizon.
“Could they have done a better job? Absolutely,” board member John Stamler said. “Was it reasonably done and in good faith, I would say ‘yes’ but it could have been done a lot better. It’s not the board’s responsibility to suggest sites.”
Fellow board member Steve Monte said he did not “believe that Verizon did [their search] in good faith.”
Noting conflicting testimony about the proposed project’s impact on property values from the testimony of Simon and Stilwell’s appraisers, the board determined that there would be a visual impact for residents in the area.
“It defies imagination that visual detriment can be reduced by stealth options when considering we are describing a 126 foot and potentially higher pole. Period,” board member Philomena Cellilli said. “No matter what you do…it’s a negative visual impact and specifically in a residential area.”
Sireci did, however, mention that aesthetic concerns held no weight in court.
Cellilli, who has a background in real estate, also stated that despite the conflicting testimony on whether the tower would negatively impact nearby property values, she believed it would have a detrimental result for homeowners.
“There is no comparable property that was presented in evidence to show that the value of a home would decrease or increase in value if there is [a cell tower] in an existing residential property,” she said. “We don’t know how it’s going to impact the property, but in my experience, it will decrease the value of the property.”
Ultimately, the board determined that neither side provided any concrete proof that the tower would negatively impact property values.
The board also considered safety issues in regard to the structure itself, eventually deciding that there were some concerns to having a tower as tall as the one proposed so close to homes.
Ultimately, the discussion came down to the project’s impact on the township’s Master Plan, with the board deciding there were too many variances needed for the project to get off the ground.
“I feel that the negative impact outweighs the benefit of the good,” Monte said. “The application is just asking for too many zoning changes.”
Moving forward, the zoning board will have to draft and approve a resolution certifying its decision. After that, there will be a window for appeals from Verizon.
Regardless of what happens, Moretti said the group of residents who challenged the application will continue the monitor the situation.
“I am hoping that this is the end. This has been a lot of stress on the homeowners in the area…it has brought much negative press to the firehouse and it has not helped the community,” he said. “That being said, I have met so many new neighbors and made so many new relationships. A good thing that came out of this unfortunate thing was getting to know my community and neighborhood much better.
