Omnipoint wants to place a telecommunications tower, 125 feet high, adjacent to the property owned by Valley Oil on Somerset Street
By: Catherine P. Moscarello
A lean agenda masked a meaty session of the Hopewell Borough Planning Board at its regular meeting May 1.
Convened first as the Planning Board and later reconvened as the borough’s Zoning Board of Adjustment, the group approved two certificates of appropriateness for changes to structures at 2 and 102 W. Broad St. that board member, Mark Kirby, presented. Both certificates were for improvements in keeping with the historic nature of the two buildings.
In the role of the Zoning Board, the group focused on an application by Omnipoint Communications to place a telecommunications tower, 125 feet high, adjacent to the property owned by Valley Oil on Somerset Street, near the restored railroad station.
Three members of the Planning Board, Harry Agin, David Knights and Mayor George Padgett, recused themselves from this portion of the meeting on the chance that once the matter is decided, an appeal might be filed.
With only five members remaining, the board heard incomplete testimony on the issue that poured out for several hours, ending with an adjournment due to the late hour. The public hearing will resume at the next public meeting of the planning/zoning board on June 2.
Flanked by professionals hired by the borough for their expertise on telecommunications and planning issues, zoning board attorney Tom Reynolds gave a brief summary of the application and the ground rules governing the public hearing. The application was first filed in fall 2001 but was ruled incomplete. In the interim, the borough adopted an amendment concerning permitted and conditional use zoning placement of telecommunication towers. The ordinance was adopted on Feb. 4 and became effective Feb. 14, after which Omnipoint supplemented and completed its application.
Two variances come into play in the zoners’ consideration of a ruling for a nonpermitted use and for allowing a structure that clearly exceeds the current borough height limit of 45 feet. Mr. Reynolds cautioned board members that the applicant must present sufficient proof of both positive and negative criteria: that the use serves the public welfare and that the site is well-suited for its proposed use and that the variance will not impair the Master Plan nor be detrimental to the public good.
Borough engineer Dennis O’Neal opened the testimony that was recorded for the record by a certified court reporter. Mr. O’Neal described five areas totaling about 70 acres of the 480-acre borough where a telecommunications tower could be placed as a conditionally permitted use and gave the topography and geography of the location in question.
James Mitchell of the Allen Zublatt law firm represented Omnipoint and gave some background on the company’s application. As VoiceStream, the company purchased licenses in 1996 for wireless communication within the Philadelphia, Delaware and South Jersey area with Hopewell as the northernmost edge of its licensed region. "We are proposing the construction of this tower as a flagpole-type structure where no antennas are visible but rather are housed within the structure itself."
Testimony by Mr. Mitchell’s first witness, professional engineer Vladislov Parasov of Henkels & McCoy, described the lot at Valley Oil as suitable for the unmanned site where a remotely monitored monopole, 44 inches in diameter could be constructed on a caisson sunk approximately 40 feet into the ground. The proposed design includes a 50 by 50-foot fenced-in area, landscaped and covered with crushed stone where several "cabinets" would be built on concrete slabs. The monopole would have provisions for two other wireless carriers.
The professional planner engaged by the borough, Allen Schectel of Coppola and Coppola, raised the issue of ice forming on the tower and questioned the safety factors of having such a structure built 165 feet away from the fuel oil storage tanks at Valley Oil.
Other unanswered factors concerning the viability of the site included the fact that the soil there is fill dirt, the site of a former pond and the question of whether such a tower could fall. Harry Agin, borough zoning officer, who lives on Somerset Street, questioned whether the cabinets, housing computer equipment for the tower, are explosion proof.
Additional testimony on behalf of Omnipoint was offered by Dr. Kenneth Foster, a civil engineer who has written over 100 scholarly papers and two books on the subject of electromagnetic fields (EMF). Dr. Foster is a member of the national council charged with setting limits on exposure to radiation frequency and testified that, even in the worst case scenario, EMF radiation from the proposed tower complies by a huge margin with both state and federal regulations.
Some of the most dramatic statements and reaction occurred during the testimony of landscape architect, Douglas Cowan. Using actual and digitally enhanced photos taken in December 2001, Mr. Cowan demonstrated that a 130-foot crane, placed at the site to simulate the proposed tower, was only visible from five separate areas in the borough even in winter with minimal tree coverage near the site. Under intense questioning by board members Mark Samse, Mark Kirby and Paul Buda, Mr. Cowan acknowledged that "Hopewell Borough is a very special location … rare, historic, precious, delicate, beautiful and peaceful. We don’t want to disturb that but we don’t have a better alternative." Mr. Kirby noted that VoiceStream has a history dating back only to 1996, "Hopewell was founded in 1703." Mr. Samse objected strongly to recurring references to the tower as a flagpole. "Hopewell Borough is unique and you would be hard-pressed to tell us that we won’t notice this thing. It would have a major impact on the unique character of this town."
Prior to the 11:30 p.m. adjournment, attorney Reynolds accepted a petition opposing the construction of the tower presented by Jean Holton, secretary of the Hopewell Homeowners Association. Mr. Reynolds commented that petitions in matters of this type have limited probative value without the sworn testimony of a single individual who would be subject to cross-examination and questioning.