to place antennas
on two towers
to be heard Oct. 29
AT&T proposal
to place antennas
on two towers
to be heard Oct. 29
By sandi carpello
Staff Writer
Vinnie and Joanne Small did not mind moving into a new home just 43 feet away from Monroe’s 160-foot-tall water tower on Buckelew Avenue almost six years ago.
"It’s no big deal. It blocks the sun," said Vinnie Small.
However, the Smalls no longer feel that way, since AT&T Wireless presented a plan to construct four cellular antennas on top of the tower.
The Smalls are among nearly 200 township residents turning up at meetings of the Zoning Board of Adjustment to fight AT&T’s applications for use variances to build antennas on the water towers on both Buckelew Avenue and Half Acre Road.
The residents also turned out at a meeting of Monroe’s Municipal Utility Authority (MUA) last week to express their feelings. They said the radiation-emitting antennas will pose a health and safety risk to the community, bring down property values and ruin the aesthetics of the Heritage Chase development.
AT&T representatives gave testimony at a Sept. 24 Zoning Board meeting in an effort to obtain the use variances. The hearings will continue at the board’s Oct. 29 meeting.
Andrea Ryan of Regent Drive has been organizing the protest and said she works on her cause nearly 16 hours a day, researching the effects of cellular antennas on residential communities, writing letters to elected officials, and e-mailing and corresponding with other residents. She said she started a Web site, www.nocelltowers.com.
"When we moved into the area, we had a choice of where we wanted to live, and the water tower was already there," said Ryan, who noted that she has recently stopped using her cellular phone. "We did not choose to live next to a cell tower."
Residents are concerned that cellular technology has not been around long enough for the full effect of the equipment to be known.
"It’s scary. They haven’t done long-term studies," said Tracy Hrymoc, who said she has been doing extensive research on the subject.
Several studies performed by the Federal Communications Commission determined that the amount of radiation emitted from cellular towers is minuscule. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 supports this belief, prohibiting governing bodies to deny cellular companies’ permission to construct antennas based on health reasons.
Some residents say they are not buying it.
"It poses a health risk, but no one knows what it is," Vinnie Small said. "Instead of addressing it, they put it behind you and say, ‘Well, now we have this FCC law, so you can’t even fight it on that aspect.’"
Dr. Ian Gilson, a physician from Milwaukee who says he has done extensive research on the subject of cellular antennas, said there is no actual data that suggests cellular towers are a cause for concern. However, tests have caused abnormalities in rats, he said.
Ryan said she is not planning to fight the proposal on the health basis, instead she says there are several other reasons why she believes the antennas would be a detriment to the community.
After taking photographs of cell towers in nearby communities, Ryan said she found the towers are not aesthetically pleasing.
"It really changes the face of our area. It’s ugly as hell. I feel like I am back in Jersey City," Ryan said.
Ryan said the homes in both the Heritage Chase and the Highlands developments cost between $200,000 and $500,000. The cellular antennas will decrease those values significantly, she said.
Nick Dukas of Central Jersey Appraisers in South Brunswick said, when reached by Greater Media Newspapers, that being located directly behind a cell tower is indeed a detriment to a property’s value. If a home is located within 200 feet of one, the property value could decrease by 4 to 6 percent, he said.
Ryan said AT&T is coming in where it is not wanted.
"AT&T is invading space and saying, ‘We’re coming here whether you like it or not because I have the FCC behind me,’" she said. "There is no law protecting the citizens, none whatsoever."
Mike Rogers of the MUA said the township currently has contracts with cellular providers AT&T and OmniPoint, which has an existing tower on Abeel Road.
According to Rogers, the providers approached the township expressing interest in renting cellular space on public property. In AT&T’s case, the company offered to pay $2,500 per antenna per month, which would generate approximately $120,000 per year for each tower.
He said it is too late for the MUA to withdraw from its contract with AT&T, and noted that the case is entirely up to the Zoning Board.
"We are not in a hurry to get sued [by AT&T]," he said of the suggestion that the MUA pull out of the contract.
Rogers told the residents that the MUA would not incur any new contracts with any other providers due to the concerns of residents.
The residents present at the meeting expressed dissatisfaction, saying the MUA was unsympathetic to their plight.
"Our goal was to remind them that they are a public company, serving the public need. As a public servant, you have the obligation of protecting the citizens," Ryan said.
Both Ryan and Vinnie Small said they would not back down. If the Zoning Board grants the variance to AT&T Wireless, the residents say they will sue the township.
At last month’s Zoning Board meeting, AT&T witnesses testified that the new antennas were needed due to coverage gaps in the area.
Ryan said she conducted a test with an AT&T phone in those areas and that the reception was very clear.
AT&T attorney Judith Babinski was not available for comment for this story.
The Zoning Board’s next meeting is Oct. 29 at 7 p.m.

