FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP — The goal of providing service “to all devices, in all venues, at all times” is the reason why Verizon Wireless is seeking municipal approval to construct a cellular communications tower on property at 391 Monmouth Road (Route 537), Freehold Township.
The application was heard by the Freehold Township Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 28 and will be continued on July 23 in the municipal building, Stillwells Corner Road.
The cell tower that is being proposed by New York SMSA Limited Partnership (Verizon Wireless) is not a permitted use on the land that is zoned for low-density residential development. Verizon Wireless is seeking a use variance for the facility.
Verizon Wireless is proposing to construct a 120-foot-tall monopole (a single tube tower) on a 1.91-acre parcel in a residential zone near Francis Mills Road and Blueberry Hill.
The monopole would be contained in a 50-by-50-foot compound that would also contain a 12-by-26-foot equipment shelter, according to previous testimony.
During testimony on May 28, radio frequency expert David Stern, who is representing Verizon, said Verizon has an FCC license to provide service in this part of Monmouth County. He said Verizon is upgrading its network and moving to new 4G technologies over the next few years.
“Our design goal is to provide service to all devices, in all venues [cars, homes, stores, etc.] at all times,” Stern said.
Stern testified that 45 percent of Americans now only have a wireless phone at home and that 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones and, because of that, wireless providers must have reliable service at all times.
He said Verizon currently has antennas at five locations in this section of Freehold Township and in neighboring Millstone Township and Jackson. The proposed tower on Route 537 will fill a gap in coverage on Route 537 and Francis Mills Road in Freehold Township, and on Paint Island Spring and Stillhouse roads and several other streets in Millstone Township, according to Stern.
“We know that with the exception of YMCA Camp Topanemus, which we cannot use, this is a residential area,” Stern said. “We tried to select a site that would fill in the gaps in service. We knew we would have to cast a large net to find a candidate we could work with.”
He said the property owner at 391 Monmouth Road expressed interest in working with Verizon. Other property owners also expressed interest, but those sites ranked lower than 391 Monmouth Road based on radio frequency measurements and other considerations, Stern testified.
He said 391 Monmouth Road is a previously cleared site. Several other sites that could have been considered as a location for the tower would have required extensive tree removal, Stern said.
According to previous testimony, there is an existing single-family home on the property and the home’s driveway will serve as the access road to the communications compound. The home is occupied and would remain occupied if the tower is constructed.
Attorney Dennis Galvin, who represents the zoning board, said that in addition to the use variance that would permit the tower, the applicant is seeking bulk variances that will have to be considered by the board members.
Residents Mike Cavanaugh and David Silverman asked questions of Stern, and Silverman reviewed the variances the applicant is seeking.
“Verizon is asking for an unusual number of variances,” he told the zoning board members.
Professional real estate appraiser Mark Tinder was next to testify and said he was retained by Verizon to examine if the firm’s proposal would have a negative impact on neighboring properties.
Tinder said the three closest homes are 290, 360 and 360 feet away from the proposed monopole and said there are no other residences closer than 500 feet to the tower.
He said he examined several potential impacts and reached the following conclusions: The character of the use being proposed (a communications tower) is a passive use; there will not be any significant change at the property where the tower is built; the surrounding area will remain residential and rural in nature; and the closest homes are physically removed from the site with a buffer in between.
Considering those factors, Tinder’s conclusion — based on towers at other sites near residences that have sold and would show an impact on home values — was that no reasonable impact will be felt by neighboring homeowners if the tower is built at 391 Monmouth Road.
Tinder’s conclusion elicited an audible response from residents in the audience and prompted zoning board member Kevin Asadi to say, “The people sitting behind you don’t buy that the presence of a cell tower has no impact on the value of a home.”
Tinder said he cannot gauge the impact of a monopole that has not been built, but he said the residential market in New Jersey has thus far not reacted negatively to the presence of cell towers.
Tinder is expected to return at the July 23 meeting when he will be cross-examined by attorney Ron Gasiorowski, who is representing resident Teng Teng Kleiner, an objector to the Verizon Wireless application.