Board Hears Only From Engineer In Second Hearing on T-Mobile Application

With about 100 residents piled into the courtroom Tuesday, only one more expert was able to speak for a T-Mobile application to build a cell tower and antennas at the Green Knoll Volunteer Fire Company on North Bridge Street.

Engineer Gregory Nowak spoke in front of the Bridgewater Township Zoning Board of Adjustment about the specific details of the proposed tower, outlining the building plans and need for a few variances to comply with township regulations.

But residents were not appeased by the plans for a small flag at the top of the tower, and requested additional information about noise control and lighting that is expected to be ready when the applicant goes before the board again Sept. 21.

According to Nowak, the application is for a 125-foot tower adjacent to the fire company, and enclosed in an eight-foot high fence.

The township's ordinances only allow for a six-foot high fence, so the applicant has requested a variance to cover this.

"The cables in the cable bridge [at the base of the tower] are six feet high, so, to shield them from public view, we need an eight-foot high fence," Nowak said.

The plan, Nowak said is to have six directional antennas on the pole, as well as two GPS antennas. These, he said, will all be mounted within the structure so they are not visible to the naked eye.

But Jeff Foose, of Forestview Drive, questioned whether other companies could still place antennas on the outside of the pole in the future, to which Nowak said it would be possible.

T-Mobile attorney Jennifer Carillo-Perez said that should not be considered with this application request.

"Our plan is solely to put antennas on the inside, so any others are not part of our application," she said. "Any other antenna application would have to come before the board."

For the antennas themselves, Nowak said, three of them will be at 120 feet above grade, while the other three will be at 110 feet above grade. The two GPS antennas will be set at 30 feet above grade.

"We are placing them in a radio-frequency friendly environment, which is the flagpole," he said.

As for lighting, Nowak said, the applicant is suggesting a utility light in the fenced-in area around the pole to provide lighting for a technician that will be visiting the site about every four to six weeks.

"And because of the flagpole, there are light fixtures for the flag," he said.

Board member James Scott questioned the need for the lighting, asking how much light wattage there would be, and how it would affect residents. In addition, other board members questioned if the applicant had considered regulations for lighting from the Federal Aviation Administration.

"And if the flag is removed, will light be required?" asked Bridgewater Township Planner Scarlett Doyle.

Nowak said lighting is required by the FAA when the pole is a certain height, but that the applicant would research the information before the next meeting. He said the pole is not tall enough to need the extra light.

"And can you design a pole so the flag could go up and down?" asked Nancy Gladfelter, of Mountaintop Road. "Then the pole doesn't need light, so it doesn't have to be an eyesore."

Carillo-Perez said the pole has not actually been designed yet, so the board could choose to not have a flag at the top, which would eliminate the need for a light.

Many residents and board members also questioned about the noise of both the electrical equipment, and the blowing flag. Nowak said the applicant would research that information as well, and have it available for the next meeting.

"I think we are going to need a noise impact study," said Chairman William Vornehm.

Board attorney Lawrence Vastola said all additional studies must be submitted to the board secretary by 10 days before the next hearing, and all new information will be made available to the public for review prior to the meeting.

Also questioned was whether the cables—which, in the plan, would stick up a few feet from the ground, thereby needing a taller fence—could actually be built underground instead.

"To do that, we are talking about going through the foundation of the tower," Nowak said. He said the applicant would look into the possibility of doing this.

Board member Felipe Pedroso also questioned the stability of the tower, and whether it would stay standing in heavy "hurricane-like" winds.

"If we had a hurricane, would the tower stand up?" he asked. "How much wind can it tolerate?"

Nowak said the tower is being built in compliance with all township standards, so it will hold.

"It will be built in compliance with any building that is built in Bridgewater," he said.

Carillo-Perez said the applicant would also provide a design plan for an already-constructed pole in another town that follows the standards set for this application.

Aside from the lighting and noise as possible disruptions to residents—and for which Carillo-Perez said the applicant will present information at the next meeting—Holmes Court resident Andrew Leven questioned whether the engineer has been out to the actual site to see the area.

Nowak said he has investigated the area, and has determined that the nearest residential property line is 114 feet away from the tower.

But Leven questioned whether there is another structure like the proposed tower in the neighborhood.

"Are there any other structures exceeding 35 feet in that neighborhood?" he asked.

Above all, residents emphasized that there is nothing of similar height to the proposed tower, except the trees on the surrounding properties.

The applicant will be back before the board Sept. 21 with testimony from the next of its professionals.