MILLSTONE – Verizon Wireless is appealing a decision issued by municipal officials which denied the company’s initial request to place antennas on an existing cellular communications tower at 663 Route 33, Millstone Township.
The officials ruled that New York SMSA Limited Partnership (Verizon Wireless) must seek variances in order to place the antennas and other equipment at that location.
Verizon Wireless wants to place 12 antennas, nine remote radio heads, an 865-square-foot equipment compound and a propane generator at the Route 33 location without having to seek variances from the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
The existing monopole at 663 Route 33 is 154 feet in height, according to Verizon Wireless. The proposed antennas and remote radio heads will have a maximum height of 133 feet.
The company’s appeal of the municipality’s ruling was scheduled to be heard by the zoning board on June 28.
The hearing did not take place because Verizon Wireless is preparing an application to seek the required variances if its appeal is denied, according to the board’s attorney, Gregory Vella.
Because the application regarding the variances was not deemed complete by June 28, Verizon Wireless’ appearance before the board was moved to July 26, Vella said.
The company’s appeal to the zoning board follows the municipality’s decision to deny its application proposing the expansion of the Route 33 communications facility. Verizon Wireless sought administrative approval for the expansion, submitting its request on March 3 and March 24.
In a letter dated April 7, Township Engineer Matt Shafai denied Verizon Wireless’ request for administrative approval for the proposed expansion. The letter was sent to attorney Lynne Dunn, of the firm Hiering, Dupignac, Stanzione, Dunn and Beck, Toms River, who represents Verizon Wireless.
In denying the request, Shafai said bulk variances are required for Verizon Wireless’ proposal because the proposed compound area is outside an existing one and because it does not meet the township’s required accessory structure setback, and because the proposal does not meet certain zoning requirements.
In addition, Shafai said the site plan needs to address certain conditions such as tree buffering and storm water detention capacity.
Dunn submitted an appeal of Shafai’s decision on April 28. She said Verizon Wireless asserts that an administrative approval of the application for the new communications equipment is appropriate.
A reason cited for the assertion is Verizon Wireless’ satisfaction of the eligible facilities request requirements, which were presented in the testimony of the matter, according to Dunn.
The property at 663 Route 33 is owned by Richard and Barbara Joule, according to the appeal, and Verizon Wireless leases a portion of the property. The Joules have given Verizon Wireless consent and authorization to make applications and to seek permits for the development of a wireless communications facility at that location.
