Variance for tower sought to close gap in coverage
By Bob Fleming
MARLBORO — The public hearing on a Sprint Spectrum application which seeks to close a gap in cellular telephone coverage in the southern section of the township by constructing a wireless communications tower on Brushneck Road continued at the zoning board’s May 10 meeting.
Sprint Spectrum is seeking preliminary and final site plan approval, as well as a use variance and other variances, to construct a 150-foot-high monopole wireless tower with associated equipment cabinets, within a 30-by-30-foot fenced-in area at 14 Brushneck Road near School Road East.
A use variance is required to construct a wireless telecommunications facility in a residential zone, where it is not a permitted use. The subject property is zoned R-80 (2-acre residential) and consists of approximately 5.6 acres. It is owned by Patricia and Rosario Calanni, Matawan.
Approximately 15 area residents were in attendance as objectors at the May 10 public hearing.
Edward York, senior radio frequency engineer for Sprint, continued with his testimony on behalf of the applicant.
"Three new overlay maps that will illustrate the need for additional site coverage for the area have been prepared and will be presented tonight," York said. "We need to provide coverage in this area to meet our Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensing requirements."
York presented the map overlay exhibits, which included the removal of two tower sites from the western section of the coverage area, potential additional coverage from a water tank at the Gordons Corner Water Company facility on Mohawk Drive and a hypothetical site near the intersection of Route 18 and Route 537, to close the gap.
"These overlays were requested at the last meeting and are now available to show a narrowing of the coverage gap, but not an elimination of it entirely, without the proposed site on Brushneck Road," York said. "The water tank site would add an additional 1 mile of coverage, but 2 miles would still be in the gap."
York testified that if there were a site available near the intersection of Route 18 and Route 537, it would help to close the gap, but he said there is no site available there.
He said he knows that at least one other wireless carrier, Omnipoint, has a coverage gap in the same area as Sprint.
Board member Joseph Castellucci questioned the need for additional new towers in the vicinity of the gap area, citing his own experience with cellular phone use there.
"I have service with Comcast and don’t have problems with coverage in this area, which I drive through every day," Castellucci said. "How are they able to provide coverage in the same gap area and Sprint is unable to?"
York said he was unable to answer coverage questions for other carriers and that based on his research and experience, he was unable to see how such coverage is provided by another carrier with the current configuration of wireless communications facilities in the area.
Board Chairwoman Sherry Hoffer asked York what alternatives Sprint will have to provide coverage if the board doesn’t approve its application and if Sprint loses on appeal of that decision in court.
"We have to have a site in this area, even if not the particular one which is the subject of this application," York replied.
Steven Hambro, of Monmouth Junction, the applicant’s attorney, added that is the purpose of his client’s application and the alternative being pursued.
Discussion regarding the FCC’s definition of coverage area ensued between board members and the applicant’s professionals.
"What exactly must Sprint and other carriers do to provide coverage in a licensed area?" asked board Vice Chairman Eric Menaker.
York replied, "We are obligated to find a way to provide total coverage in Marlboro since we are licensed for coverage here."
Hambro attempted to narrow the response to his client’s responsibility, saying, "Our obligation is to determine there is a gap for Sprint, not whether other carriers provide coverage in these gap areas."
Hambro’s response failed to satisfy board members’ questions regarding coverage options, such as co-location on another carrier’s telecommunications towers and how other carriers are presumed to provide coverage in the same gap area.
The public hearing is scheduled to continue at a special meeting on June 19 at 7:30 p.m., at which time Hambro is expected to conclude the applicant’s case. Attorney Gerald Sonnenblick, of Freehold Township, representing Diamond Estates and Emerald Estates, two developments slated to be built in proximity to the proposed tower site, and other objectors are then expected to present testimony.

