Cell tower application has unresolved issues

BY REBECCAMORTON Staff Writer

MARLBORO — A vote on an application that proposes the construction of a wireless telecommunications tower on an Amboy Road parcel has been delayed until September.

During the Marlboro Zoning Board of Adjustment’s July 19 meeting, an application being presented by representatives of T-Mobile Northeast LLC wrapped up, but with only six board members who were el- igible to vote on the matter in attendance that evening, a vote on the application was postponed.

Board Vice Chairman Matthew Weilheimer was present but had to recuse himself from hearing the T-Mobile application.

Board member Ira Levin was absent from the hearing.

Board member Frank Yozzo arrived after the hearing began and T-Mobile’s attorney had requested a vote at a later time.

Hearings on the application filed by TMobile began in the fall of 2010. The firm is seeking approval to construct a 150-foottall monopole on a piece of property on Amboy Road, Marlboro. The applicant is seeking a variance for the expansion of a non-conforming use and bulk variances from the zoning board.

Attorney Reginald Jenkins, representing T-Mobile, was accompanied by three professionals who were prepared to answer questions from the public. No member of the public had a question.

Jenkins had a follow-up question for the applicant’s radio frequency engineer, Joseph Menio, about decreasing the height of the tower. At the previous hearing, zoning board members asked if the tower could be constructed at 100 feet and still address the gap in coverage T-Mobile customers experience in the area.

Menio said he examined the matter and determined that if a 100-foot-tall tower was constructed on Amboy Road, another 100- foot-tall monopole would be necessary at the nearby intersection of Route 18 and Route 520 to fill the gap.

Planner Timothy Kronk, representing TMobile, was asked to provide some followup in regard to the number of communications towers in the United States. Kronk said he located an article from 2005 which stated there were 176,000 monopoles across the country.

Board members have expressed concern about the fall zone proposed in the T-Mobile application.

The fall zone is the area into which the tower would fall if something caused it to collapse. The concern comes if the size (or lack thereof) of the fall zone causes it to encroach on a neighboring property.

While the design of the poles is to collapse in on itself in the event of a failure, the board members expressed concern about what would happen if things did not go according to plan.

Board member Jennifer Bajar noted that fall zone concerns are valid, but she pointed to the number of poles that have been constructed around the country and the very small number of failures that are known to have occurred.

Bajar suggested that perhaps after previous failures, the design of the towers was changed to address whatever problems had occurred in those situations.

Board Chairman Michael Shapiro said the fall zone is an issue for him and said he does not want to put anyone’s life at risk.

Previous testimony revealed that if the tower collapsed and did not fall in on itself as designed, it could fall across Amboy Road.

Another issue remains regarding the current uses on theAmboy Road property. The property is not owned by T-Mobile, but by a private individual.

At the present time there is a landscape operation on the property that had been granted a non-conforming use variance at one point. Although a communications tower is a permitted use in the Industrial Office Research zone and it is not related to the other use on the site, the applicant still had to apply for a variance to expand a nonconforming use.

Questions have been raised as to whether there are already two uses at the site and whether the addition of a cell tower would constitute a third use on the property.

Previously, Jenkins said if there are any uses on the site that are not permitted, the township has the jurisdiction to police such matters.

Zoning board attorney Ron Cucchiaro said correspondence was sent to the property owner, Christopher Petruzzelli, who responded by saying he could not attend the July 19 meeting.

A neighboring property owner, Angelo Mallozzi, said he was uncomfortable with the proposed location of the cell tower on the Amboy Road property.

While his 33 acres are undeveloped, Mallozzi expressed concern about the impact of the tower’s fall zone if his land is ever developed.

The cell tower was initially planned for a northern part of theAmboy Road site, but after hearing some concerns from the board members, the applicant was able to have the tower moved to the southern portion of the parcel.

Then the property owner changed his mind, resulting in a return to the original location on the northern portion of the tract.

Mallozzi asked why the cell tower could not be placed on the southern portion of the property, but with the property owner not present, the resident’s question could not be answered.

Shapiro said he was uncomfortable with the matter because Petruzzelli had not been heard from during the T-Mobile proceedings.

Jenkins said he would ask the property owner to attend the next hearing, but could not guarantee the owner would appear. Jenkins represents T-Mobile and not Petruzzelli.

The matter was carried to the zoning board’s Sept. 20 meeting.

— Contact Rebecca Morton at [email protected]