Emotions ran high last week as Edison residents who live in the vicinity of Menlo Park Elementary School on Monroe Avenue made it clear that a cell tower is not welcome in their backyard.
T-Mobile Northeast LLC, based in Parsippany, appeared before the Zoning Board of Adjustment on Oct. 19 seeking a use variance to co-locate wireless communications equipment onto an existing public utility structure owned by PSE&G on Elizabeth Avenue. The facility is in a residential zone.
The board held off on making a decision on the cell tower, which would be 155 feet in height, whereas the utility structure is 167 feet.A
t least 30 residents came to the meeting to express the concern that T-Mobile would potentially disturb the natural gas pipeline that runs through the neighborhood. They also fear the cell tower would have a negative effect on property values, and possibly pose a health concern due to radiation.
The residents also felt it was unsafe to locate a cell tower close to a school.
“We all know what happened in 1994,” said resident Alan Dudas. Just before midnight on March 23 of that year, a portion of a 45-mile-long gas pipeline owned by Houston-based Texas Eastern Transmission exploded as the result of a rupture at the spot where it runs alongside the Durham Woods apartments. Eight buildings in the apartment complex were leveled, and property damage totaled $25 million. Some 1,500 residents were displaced.
Residents at the meeting brought up an ordinance that the township adopted in 1995 as a result of the explosion, prohibiting digging within 75 feet of a pipeline.
“This was put in place to protect us,” Dudas said. “[The proposed construction] is 37 feet from the pipeline. This will put us all at risk.”
Board members said the ordinance was not put in place to create a hardship for applicants.
Hank Bignell of Bignell Planning Consultants, a professional planner for the township, said he was involved in devising the ordinance.
“It was never the intent of the ordinance to create a complete prohibition to not build within the 75 feet of a pipeline,” he said.
Donna Sestito said she has lived in the area for 27 years and has a vivid memory of the pipeline explosion.
“We took the kids up to Clifton, and from there we still could see the flames shooting up,” she said.
Residents asked if board members and officials could guarantee their safety. Board members answered that they have considered many similar cases in the past, and provisions have been set where applicants dealing with an area that is within 75 feet of a pipeline must hand-dig around the area instead of using large equipment. They said representatives of the township would be on-site to supervise the activity.
Reason for T-Mobile’s application
John Edwards, attorney for T-Mobile, said the company is seeking to fill a gap in service in the area, as required by the Federal Communications Commission. Katherine Gregory, the applicant’s professional planner, said the company did not find any other zones in the area that would allow them to co-locate and fill the existing gap.
“We have proved that we have a gap in service and that there were no alternative sites where we could utilize other existing structures,” she said. “Another good thing is we would not have to build a monopole in the area. This site makes sense, since there is an existing structure already. Why not use it — the residents are already acclimated to the structure.”
Gregory said the attachment of wireless communications equipment would not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood in regard to noise and odors.
“The only impact will be visual, but [the equipment] will barely be seen,” she said.
Gregory also said the proposed attachment would enhance public safety in the area, since the gap in coverage affects 911 service in the area.
Some residents came to the podium with their cell phones, informing the board that they use T-Mobile and have had no problems with service in the area. They also noted that the T-Mobile website indicates that the area in question has good reception.
However, Daniel Penesso, professional radio frequency engineer for the applicant, said testing of the site was not done by using a cell phone in the area, but based on “scientific empirical data.”
“This [application] will provide a seamless connection by the wireless provider to achieve contiguous reliable coverage [up to FCC standards],” he said.
Penesso said the service gap stretched about a mile along Grove Avenue and across the neighboring streets.
Edwards explained that the information depicted on the website does not show the accurate coverage of the area, and noted that the website has a disclaimer stating that it “maps approximate anticipated coverage outdoors, which varies by location.” It further states that the map “may include limited or no coverage areas, and does not guarantee service availability.”
Edwards and Penesso stressed that their coverage tests are aimed at complying with FCC standards, which is different from what is shown on the network’s main website.
As for radiation concerns, David Collins of Pinnacle Telecom Group testified that his analysis showed the maximum level of radiation that would emanate from the co-location was 0.0364 percent, which he said is 1,700 times below the federal allowable limit.
The board’s attorney, Patrick Bradshaw, explained to the public that once the board hears testimony from the applicant’s expert that radiation is not an issue, they cannot consider it when making a decision on the application. However, Bradshaw said members of the public could hire their own expert to testify against the applicant’s expert.
“The board then can consider that expert’s testimony,” he said.
The residents asked the board for more time so that they could look into hiring a real estate appraiser and a lawyer. The board granted that request. The next meeting on the application is scheduled to be held at 7 p.m. Nov. 30.