Cingular Pennsylvania application on township zoners’ Jan. 4 agenda

HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP ZONING UPDATE

By Marianne Hooker
   The Cingular Pennsylvania application, discussed at length at the Dec. 7 meeting of the Hopewell Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, was continued to the next meeting, which will be held on Jan. 4.
   At its Dec. 7 meeting, as at previous sessions, the board heard testimony from Cingular, which is proposing to build a cellular tower on a site at 86 New Road, to take the place of an existing tower that is in poor condition.
   Following Dec. 7 testimony, board members asked Cingular to address several concerns:
   — Sally Brenner said the board did not have actual drawings or photo simulations of the proposed installation. She said she would not be comfortable approving such an application without seeing what it would look like.
   — Chairman William Connolly said plans for the tower have changed quite a bit since first proposed. For purposes of comparison, he asked the applicant to provide drawings of the various types of towers, antennas, and mountings that are being considered.
   Mr. Connolly also said the board would want some landscaping to screen the proposed installation on the ground. He would like the applicant to choose a spot for the tower that meets the "fall zone" requirements, and that has adequate separation from nearby residences. They should try to come closer to complying, even if it is not possible to comply 100 percent. He also suggested that the vacant building on the site be abandoned as a residential use.
   Mr. Connolly said the location of the police antennas on the existing tower was recently downgraded by the owner. He asked Cingular to guarantee that in the future, police and emergency services would always be given the location on the tower that would best fit their needs.
   Mr. Connolly also itemized the exhibits the applicant would need to provide the board before it could come to a decision on the application.
   — Board member William Cane asked Cingular to confirm that no flashing light would be needed at the top of an 180-foot tower.
   THE PRESENT TOWER houses antennas for police, fire, and emergency services, along with dispatching equipment for the Hopewell Valley school district. It also serves some private telecommunications providers.
   The proposed new tower would have room for all these tenants plus Cingular, and could provide a location for other cellular providers as well. In order to build the replacement tower, Cingular is requesting a use variance and several bulk variances.
   Attorney Gary Forchner presented the case on the applicant’s behalf. He said Cingular is proposing to build either a 155-foot or a180-foot-high tower, depending on what the board is willing to approve. The 155-foot height would be adequate for the needs of Cingular alone; however, they are willing to build the tower higher in order to improve communications for the various public safety and emergency services.
   David Stern, a radio frequency engineer who has worked extensively with police telecommunications systems, described the configuration of the antennas on the existing 155-foot tower. It is arranged so all the transmitting equipment is at one height, and all the receiving equipment is at another. If the tower is replaced by a 155-foot tower, the police antennas would be mounted at the same levels where they are at present. The Cingular antennas would be mounted about halfway between them, at 147 feet.
   If a 180-foot tower is built, the police repeater system would have its own antenna for both transmitting and receiving, with a centerline of 188 feet. The fire communications equipment would be at a different level. Although the tower itself would not exceed 180 feet, the antennas attached to it could extend as high as 196 feet. On a tower of this height, the Cingular cluster of antennas would be mounted at the 177-foot level.
   Mr. Stern said different types of towers can accommodate different types of mountings for the antennas. For omni antennas, a monopole tower creates some signal distortion unless the antennas are mounted at least 6 feet away from the tower. With a guyed tower, these antennas can be mounted somewhat closer to the tower.
   Dr. Bruce Eisenstein, the board’s advisor on cellular telecommunications, said the visual impact of antennas is greatest at the top of the pole. He questioned the need to position the antennas as the applicant had proposed.
   Mark Rubin, another radio frequency engineer representing Cingular, said he had been asked to do some hypothetical calculations involving an alternate site for the tower. If the tower were built at a site that was proposed on the Trap Rock Quarry property, it would need to be 350 feet high in order to fill the gaps in Cingular’s coverage.
   Mr. Rubin said Cingular’s standard configuration of antennas involves mounting them around a triangular platform. However, in order to minimize the visual effect, they are not proposing such a layout for this tower.
   Board Chairman Connolly asked Mr. Rubin about the "stealth" antenna, which could be mounted practically flush with the tower. Mr. Rubin said that with this type of antenna, only one carrier can be mounted at each height. When there is a horizontal separation between the antennas and the tower, it is possible to add more antennas and more carriers. Thus, there would be a greater potential for collocation of service providers.
   OTHER COMMENTS — Bob Totten, a neighbor whose property adjoins the New Road tower site, said the board should be seeking to reduce nonconforming uses within the township, rather than to expand them. He characterized the Cingular proposal as "an extreme variance request." The site in question is in the Mountain Resource Conservation zone, which he felt should be afforded special protection. He said there are 20 homes within a quarter-mile radius of the New Road tower site. He would like to see the proposed tower moved to the Trap Rock site instead.
   — Mark Smith, another neighbor, recalled earlier testimony from retired police Lt. Frank Fechter, who said that in a test of police communications, the Trap Rock site provided very good coverage. He said public safety is a core function of local government. He said the proposed tower would not provide a full solution to the needs of the police. He also said the tower would need to be visited by service personnel, which would bring additional traffic into the neighborhood. All in all, he felt that a better location for the tower could be found and asked the board to deny Cingular’s variance request.
   
   Mr. Smith introduced planner Jason Kasler to testify on his behalf. Mr. Kasler focused primarily on the negative aspects of the proposed tower, including the bulk variances that would be required. The present application would create a situation where there are two principal uses in a residential zone, contrary to what is stipulated in the township’s 2004 cell tower plan. If the proposed tower ever failed, Mr. Kasler said, it could damage his client’s property. He said some of the guys for the existing tower are only 5 feet from the property line.
   Mr. Kasler said the site in question is not particularly well-suited to the proposed use and that there are other places in the MRC zone where a tower could be located without impinging on residences. For example, there is a site on Poor Farm Road where the owner is interested in hosting a tower on her property.
   — Joan Verplanck, who lives at 48 Poor Farm Road (also in the MRC zone), suggested her property as an alternate location for the proposed tower. There are two homes on the site already, but there is a lot of extra room. The property in question abuts some preserved open space. Much of the land on her lot is undevelopable because of a lack of road frontage. Robert Casey, board attorney, told Ms. Verplanck that the board must rule on the case at hand, rather than pursuing "what-ifs."
   — Peter Zakia, another neighbor, said visitors to the tower could introduce a security risk. He described the plan for replacing the tower as "unconscionable," and said, "This is not what a neighborhood is about."
   — Morris Docktor said he wanted to maintain the rural and residential character of the neighborhood, where he has lived since 1983. He said the tower is a commercial venture. But, he would find it acceptable to replace the existing tower with another one exactly like it.
   — Neighbor Pat Witkowski pointed out that when the tower was first built, it was used by a ham radio operator. Over the years, there has been an intensification of commercial activities on the site. He said the proposed tower would not solve the problem of police and fire communication needs.
   — Marie Del Grande, a neighbor, asked the board to consider other options. She suggested the owner might strengthen the tower that is there now. If it is necessary to build a new tower, the applicant should find a location with the least possible impact on the neighbors.
   — Planner James Miller, speaking for the applicant, said the benefits of the proposed replacement tower would far outweigh its negative impacts. He said the new tower would not change the intensity of use on the site to a significant degree. It would be very similar to the pre-existing nonconforming use. Based on the radio frequency testimony, he stated that the site is especially well suited to the proposed use. He said that once in place, antenna sites like the one proposed have little need for maintenance. As a rule, they are visited about once every four to six weeks. He also noted that the area around the tower site is heavily wooded. In his view, the tree cover would help to minimize the visibility of the proposed tower. With regard to the visual impact, he said the nearby homeowners already are accustomed to having a tower on the site. Several testified that they moved in after the tower was built.
   In ruling on a use variance, a board must use a balancing test that considers both positive and negative criteria. Mr. Miller said the benefits to public safety and educational services, along with enhanced communication capabilities for the cell phone-using public, constitute the positive aspects of the proposed tower. He said the bulk variances are justified as a "flexible C" application. Mr. Miller also said a single tower in the area would be better than two towers. If the cellular antennas are not mounted here, in all probability another tower would be built for them somewhere else.
   Looking at the negative aspects of the variance request, Mr. Miller said the proposed tower structure may have a slightly wider profile, and it would have a few more antennas. It also could be somewhat higher, depending on the height the board approved. He said the courts have not found an increase in the height of a tower to be a significant change in use.