Over-ruled board makes tower pick

Tower

By: Eileen Oldfield – Staff Writer
Under orders from a judge, the zoning board chose a 90-foot flagless-flagpole design for a T-Mobile cell tower to be built on Kennedy Boulevard, despite the members finding none of the three options available to be particularly attractive.
"If you say no to all of them, then they are just going to get their choice," board member Judy Sherwin said when she seconded a motion on the decision at the Aug. 18 meeting.
In June, Hunterdon and Somerset County Superior Court Judge Peter Buschbaum overturned the zoning board’s 2009 decision barring the tower, which the cell phone carrier had appealed. The ruling meant the zoning board would have to allow the tower construction, but would be able to choose the type of pole and site plan design.
"I wish the judge who decided this would have sat in today and given us a little guidance," board member Raymond Charneski said as he voted.
The zoning board unanimously approved the flagless-flagpole design for the tower for a 600-square foot space leased from Manville Rubber Products, according to Manville Borough Administrator Gary Garwacke.
The board faced three designs for the tower, which would have six antennas and radio equipment on the ground below it. The first design would have been an 80-foot monopole, where the antennas on the top of the tower would be visible. The second design would have been an 80-foot monopole disguised as a tree, while the third design was meant to mimic a flagpole with the antennas concealed within the pole.
Since the antennas would need to be positioned on top of each other but with space in between them to work correctly in the flagless flagpole, the chosen design will be 10 feet higher than the other two designs.
One resident, Joe Valent, of Jackson Avenue, asked why the borough was not fighting the court ruling, which board attorney Carl Picazio said involved the high cost of fighting the ruling. Mr. Valent remained displeased about the ruling, and did not offer any opinion on the site plans when asked, however.
"I did voice my opinion but it was obviously squashed," Mr. Valent said. "If the citizens can’t speak up, how can they move forward to protect themselves?"
"I just don’t want to be bombarded with RF (radio frequency waves)," he added. "No matter what they put there, it’s no good."
The board discussed the options before voting on the flagless flagpole. Most of the board members said they preferred the monopole and flagless flagpole to the tree.
"I personally don’t like the tree option," member Kathye Quick said. "I think it’s ridiculous. It doesn’t hide anything when you have a bionic tree."
Tim Hepworth, however, noted that all the poles were unattractive, and joked about choosing the fake tree. He did vote in favor of the flagless pole during the vote, however.
"I like number two (the pole disguised as a tree)," Mr. Hepworth said. "If it’s going to be there, it’s going to be ugly. You may as well see how ugly."
The zoning board must memorialize the decision before construction on the antenna could begin, and a resolution of approval is slated for the board’s Sept. 8 meeting, Mr. Garwacke said.