Voice Stream engineer estimates that in order to achieve full telecommunications coverage, a total of four new cellular sites eventually will be needed in Hopewell Township, along with one in Hopewell Borough
By: Marianne Hooker
At its Sept. 12 meeting, the Hopewell Township Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a site plan and several bulk variances for a set of antennas to be located on a cellular telecommunications tower.
The board already has granted approval for the tower in question. It will replace an existing tower at the Union Fire Company in Titusville. The current application was for collocating a set of antennas belonging to Voice Stream Wireless on this tower, and expanding the equipment shed at its base.
The board also heard a brief presentation introducing another Voice Stream tower application, which will be heard next month. This application is for construction of a new 150-foot tower, which will require a use variance. The proposed site is in a commercial zone at 255 Route 31, near the corner of Route 518.
The three-hour meeting was noteworthy because this was the first telecommunications tower application to be heard since the passage a year ago of the township’s ordinance regulating such towers. For the first time, an applicant responded to the question board members have posed at many previous tower hearings, namely, how many more tower applications can the township expect? The Voice Stream engineer estimated that in order to achieve full telecommunications coverage, a total of four new cellular sites eventually will be needed in Hopewell Township, along with one in Hopewell Borough.
Proposed new tower
The meeting began with a short introduction to next month’s tower application. Attorney James Mitchell made the presentation on behalf of Voice Stream Wireless. He said the site in question is in a nonresidential area that is well suited to the proposed use. The applicant chose to postpone presenting its full case because the board did not have a full complement of members present. A total of five affirmative votes are required for approval of a use variance.
Stephen Goodell, the board’s attorney, said this brief presentation did not provide a forum for the public to speak. Nevertheless, the board heard a statement from Jim Schulz, who is a neighbor of the proposed tower. Mr. Schulz said the site in question is a very unspoiled area with regard to wildlife and vegetation, and it is part of the headwaters of Stony Brook. He characterized the proposed tower as "an unbelievable image of sprawl."
Union Fire Company collocation
Mr. Mitchell also presented the Voice Steam application for collocating new antennas on the Union Fire Company tower. This tower has been approved for construction by the township Zoning Board, although it still needs approval from some state-level review entities. Mr. Mitchell said the application requires municipal approval before it can proceed to the next level of review. The variances being sought were for front and side yard setbacks, maximum lot coverage, and a vegetative buffer zone at the rear of the site.
Mr. Mitchell said telecommunications providers are under economic and regulatory pressure to provide reliable service to their clients. In order to provide effective service in this area, Voice Stream Wireless needs a site near the river for its antennas. The search ring for this site was an area along Route 29 between Route 95 and Pleasant Valley Road. Mr. Mitchell said the fire company tower was the only existing (or soon to be existing) structure within the search ring that could meet their needs.
Plans call for the proposed tower to be rebuilt to a height of 120 feet, and the Voice Stream antennas would be located at the 97-foot level. Nick Damiano, an engineer who has worked on numerous cellular sites, said the applicant was requesting approval for a new platform with a total of nine antennas. Each antenna would be approximately 8 inches wide and 54 inches long. Voice Stream also was requesting approval for a 6- by 10-foot concrete slab to expand the existing equipment shelter. The rebuilt shelter would have a tan-colored sheet metal exterior. As now planned, the entire tower compound would measure about 37 by 46 feet.
Instead of the chain-link fence that previously was approved, the applicant is proposing to surround the installation with a wooden stockade fence. Mr. Damiano said the tower would be an unmanned facility, but it would be protected by remote monitoring. No lighting is proposed for the top of the tower.
Members of the public had questions. One asked whether artificial tree foliage could be added to the tower, to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Mitchell said the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission has expressed opposition to this approach, on the theory that this type of camouflage stands out too much during the winter.
Michael Soltys, an engineer who specializes in electromagnetic fields, said the proposed facility would comply with all state and federal standards regarding emissions. Mr. Soltys said his calculations were made assuming the tower was occupied by three major telecommunications tenants, in keeping with its design. (Nextel Communications has made application to be the third tenant on the proposed tower. Sprint, the initial tenant, already has had its installation approved. In addition, the tower will house some equipment serving local public safety personnel.)
Mr. Soltys submitted into testimony a report on the proposed installation by his colleague, Dr. Kenneth Foster. He said the outputs from the proposed antennas would be less than 1 percent of the limit imposed by the FCC. The highest exposure to these emissions would be within 500 yards of the tower. Compared to the proposed installation, Mr. Soltys said that a person would have greater exposure to electromagnetic radiation by standing next to the door of a microwave oven, or using a hand-held cell phone.
Jim Zdimal, a radio frequency engineer, described the procedure used to plan for additional cellular sites. Signal propagation maps are created using computer software, which takes into account variations in the surrounding topography. Once a site has been identified that could fill existing gaps in coverage, tests are done whereby a temporary crane is put up at the site, and equipment is used to send forth a signal. Someone then drives around the area with a laptop and a receiver, to ascertain the adequacy of the resulting coverage. Mr. Zdimal said the data from these real-life tests are used to calibrate their model. This insures that the software-driven predictions are similar to the real effect of a new installation.
At this point, township board member Jon Edwards asked whether there was a legal definition of reliable coverage for cellular communications. Mr. Zdimal said that cellular carriers’ licenses must be renewed every five years by the FCC. These licenses can be revoked if a carrier has not made significant progress toward improving its reliability. In general, reliability is defined as the ability to connect reliably with the national network of land lines. A service gap in an area with many users is considered a lack of reliable coverage; for example, near the site of the proposed installation there is not reliable coverage along Route 29 now. However, there is no precise legal standard for what constitutes reliable service.
Mr. Edwards asked what software the applicant used to generate its signal maps, and whether the township could see a demonstration of how it works under different scenarios. He was told that Voice Stream could produce coverage maps to show the effects of various alternatives. However, the software itself, which is called Odyssey, is on a network, not a personal computer. Mr. Edwards asked if the board could look at the actual data from signal tests, but the Voice Stream representatives said that this is considered competitive information.
Mr. Edwards said he had concerns regarding travel along Route 29, which is the state’s only official scenic byway. This is already a road with a high accident rate, and he questioned the value of having more people using their cell phones while driving on Route 29. Mr. Mitchell said the applicant’s policy is to encourage the use of hands-free telephone sets by drivers. Voice Stream has not made any legal objection when states have restricted the use of cell phones in vehicles.
After this exchange, Mr. Edwards returned to the issue of software. He said the board should not accept a single view with regard to the proposed installation, but should seek some iterative way to examine the applicant’s software. Citing his own experience as a computer professional, Mr. Edwards said software can sometimes be used to favor a certain approach, and presentations can be made to optimize certain views. To the extent that they feel comfortable doing so, he asked the board to look more closely at the software used to support this application.
Mr. Edwards concluded by saying the proposed tower would exacerbate existing safety problems along Route 29. He said, "The idea of facilitating this tower does not seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the town." Board member Richard Willever said he would like to see more limits placed on cellular towers. However, he questioned whether the board was in a legal position to restrict the proposed installation.
At this point Don Haines, of Chase Hollow Road, asked how many more cellular towers the residents of Hopewell Township could look forward to in the foreseeable future. The Voice Stream representatives said that six telecommunications licenses have been issued for this area, and five of the licensees are now active in the market. Mr. Zdimal said that in addition to the site under discussion, and two other existing towers, he projected a need for four newly built sites in the township, and one in Hopewell Borough. He noted earlier that cellular carriers try to minimize the impact of their installations by seeking the least intrusive host structure available.
Mr. Goodell then outlined the legal considerations surrounding the Voice Stream application. He noted that the application is for a collocation on a (soon-to-be) existing tower, which is an approved use. The tower in question will be located in a non-residential zone. Although the application requires approval of a site plan and some bulk variances, it does not require a use variance, nor does it require an enhanced quality of proof. Voice Stream’s Route 31 application, on the other hand, will need a use variance. Mr. Goodell said that the Route 31 application may be appropriate for a more rigorous level of inquiry by the board.
The applicant’s final witness was planner Douglas Cowan, who described the tower site as a mixed-use area with some residential uses. He noted that there is a large grade change at the rear of the property. The proposed tower will be located about 12 feet higher than Route 29, and it will not be visually prominent to passing motorists.
Mr. Cowan said the site was particularly desirable for the proposed use because it has access and parking, and it would be a collocation on an existing tower. From a visual standpoint, it represents a very minimal addition. The proposed installation would have no issues with regard to water, sewers, traffic, noise, or lighting. Mr. Cowan said that wireless service is of benefit to the public good because it contributes to the 911 emergency response system.
He then outlined the variances the proposed installation would require. The antennas would project six feet into the 100-foot front setback required by the zoning ordinance. In addition, the installation would project nine feet into the required 50-foot side yard setback. By granting variances to these setback requirements, the board only would duplicate what they already have approved for the proposed tower.
In addition, the installation would require a variance for the 20-foot buffer of vegetation that is normally required between a tower and the property line. When the host tower was approved, the compound was located right at the rear property line, which abuts a wooded area of Washington Crossing State Park. The final variance required was for maximum lot coverage. Under terms of the zoning ordinance, the maximum lot coverage for this type of installation would be 65 percent. The tower installation that has already been approved would have a lot coverage of 67.4 percent, and the addition of a concrete pad for Voice Stream’s expanded equipment shelter would raise the lot coverage ratio another 6 percent.
With regard the landscaping question, Mr. Goodell recommended that the Board impose a condition requiring the applicant to present a landscaping plan that is acceptable to the township’s professionals. The board voted unanimously to approve Voice Stream’s site plan, subject to this condition, and members also gave unanimous approval to the bulk variances.
Other business
In other business, the board granted two extensions for administrative purposes, a 180-day extension for Pennington 31 LLC, and a 60-day extension for Christa Hoge. The board also adopted resolutions of memorialization to formalize its approval last month of applications by Susan Smits, Timothy Perkins, and Adam Sawicki and Michele Ruiz.

