[ back ]
New cell phone tower under discussion
(by Megan Burrow - January 30, 2008)
The contentious debate over whether to allow the building of a second cell phone tower in the
Township of
Washington continued at a special Jan. 22 zoning board meeting. Representatives from New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC and Omnipoint Communications, Inc. both stated their case to the members of the board and to over 40 concerned members of the public in attendance.
The discussion has been a long time coming. The companies first presented their plans for an additional tower more than two years ago. Since then, the location of the proposed site has been changed and the board has experienced a turnover of many of its members.
Originally, in 2005, the companies approached the borough about the possibility of building a tower on municipal property. The proposal was in response to an ordinance passed several years ago mandating cell phone towers be built on public land in the township. In Dec. 2005, a letter was sent to the borough proposing three possible municipally owned sites the companies felt would be appropriate – two different ball fields and the land near the fire station. At a Jan. 16, 2006 meeting with the governing body, the possibility of building the tower near the municipal building was discussed and a site visit was planned.
Although the companies liked the site and sought approval to go ahead with the project, the borough never reached a decision on the matter. In a phone interview, Councilman Robert Schroeder said the discussions were stalled because of public opposition to the project and concerns among council members that “no guarantee was made that there would be no more towers built in town after this one.” Because the municipal building is located in a residential zone, there would also have been restrictions on the height of the tower. “Many of the questions that we had weren’t properly answered,” Schroeder said.
Since the council never released a bid for the project, despite what Michael Levine, the attorney working on behalf of Cingular called “extensive and exhaustive efforts over the past two years,” the companies are now moving forward with an alternative plan. They hope to build a tower at 620 Pascack Road, a lot of about five acres where the tennis courts are currently located.
The proposed 124-foot “stealth” pole conceals all of its coaxial cables internally, causing it to resemble a “flag-less flag pole,” according to Levine. The associated equipment compound would contain the radio equipment carriers. The companies are seeking a land use variance to bypass the ordinance requiring towers be built on municipal property, as well as a height variance. While acknowledging the health concerns on the minds of many residents, Levine advised the board that after the initial demonstration has been made successfully, the board cannot legally deny an application on the basis of these worries.
Lawyers and experts did most of the talking Tuesday night, as members of the public, patiently waiting for their turn to express their views on the matter, learned they would have to wait until all the testimony has been given. They may have to wait quite a while, as the testimony is expected to stretch out over several more meetings. Two radio frequency specialists are still expected to give testimony, as well as an expert on health and safety.
In addition to the experts Cingular and Omnipoint provided, Bruce Eisenstein, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at
Drexel
University , was at the meeting acting as an expert on behalf of
Washington
Township . Eisenstein is an expert in telecom signal processes and wireless communication. Since 1994 he has been engaged in a consulting practice helping municipalities make decisions on the approval and location of cell phone towers.
Currently there is only one tower in the township. It is located near the Garden State Parkway and a ridge that runs along the parkway interferes with the signal, causing dropped calls and inconsistent service, especially in the area east of the parkway along Pascack road.
Wireless signal strength is measured in negative decibels. Negative 85 is stronger than -95, -75 is stronger than -85, and so on. In Eisenstein’s opinion, -85 is sufficient signal strength for phones to function properly and provide adequate service. He testified that at –85 the signal would meet the grade of service that the Federal Communications Commission standards mandate.
Cingular’s radio frequency expert, Shahad Hussein, testified that the company would like to reach a signal strength of –75, which works better for data services, voice video, video streaming, Internet, and audio streaming, services that with the rise in popularity of Blackberries and iPhones, more and more customers are demanding.
Negative 75 would also function better for customers who typically use their mobile phones indoors. To reach this level of service however, Hussein said that eventually another tower would most likely have to go up in addition to the one Cingular is currently lobbying for.
“We would still have to find a site where we can lease, zone, and build,” a process that could take years, he added as a caveat. Eisenstein pointed to Hussien’s statement as an example of the problem with establishing –75 as the desired signal level - to reach it additional towers will inevitably be needed.
Christopher Ferrara, an attorney representing Joseph A. Ferrara, a resident who lives on Amherst Drive just across the brook from the proposed tower, took exception to much of Hussein’s testimony and questioned him on whether any additional towers are truly necessary. “This is not a radio signal boutique where you can simply come in and say I want this or I want that,”
Ferrara argued.
Vice Chairman of the board, Donald Stern, commented near the end of the meeting, “What we have to decide is, is this a corporate win, a public win, or a win-win situation. There is a balance that must be struck.”
The discussion will continue at the next public zoning board meeting, Tuesday, Feb. 26.
Megan Burrow's e-mail address is burrow@northjersey.com.
[ back ]
