Residents Say Officials Not Listening to Concerns About Proposed Dock Watch Hollow Cell Tower

Residents opposed to the construction of a proposed continued to take their case to the Board of Adjustment on Monday night, this time peppering the applicant’s planner with questions on the tower’s impact on local aesthetics and appropriate land use.

But after two hours and 19 minutes to cover the planner’s testimony and citizen comments, Zoning Board President Foster Cooper pushed further testimony on the issue to the board’s March 7 meeting.

The majority of resident concerns generally fell into two categories—opposition to commercial usage of land purchased  with open space funds whose funding source is taxpayer money, and  destruction of community aesthetics.

“Any property that is purchased by open space funds has to be open to the public,” said Jeffery Foose, a Bridgewater resident who lives near the Dock Watch Hollow Quarry. “How is this inherently beneficial to the public that we can conceivably have ice falling on people in the park from a cell tower?”

Foose noted that Somerset county purchased the property off Dock Watch Hollow Road in 2008 for $822,000.

“Do you have anything to say about loss of public access to property that is purchased with funds statutorily dedicated to public outdoor recreation and conservation purposes?” asked Robert Moss, of Bloomfield, who has recently joined the cause.

“I understand where you are coming from and the emotion behind it,” said board chairman Foster Cooper. “The county made a decision to buy the land with taxpayer funds, which is not something that this board had purview over. The relevance to our decision is limited.”

Both the applicant’s land use planner, Ronald Reinertson, and the applicant’s attorney, Greg Meese, refused to offer comments on potential uses of the quarry beyond the proposed cell tower.

“Going back to the first hearing T-Mobile has been interested in this location for years,” Reinertson said. “Their original interest was with the AT&T application on Washington Valley Road that was turned down several months ago. But in later consultation with the township, it was discussed that possibly the quarry would be a much more suitable location.”

Previous testimony from engineer Glen Pearson contained the applicant’s rationale for placing the tower at the site purchased by the county with open space tax funds. He testified that the location provided the broadest coverage for the surrounding neighborhoods.

At recent meetings, residents have attempted to look for ways to subvert the applicant’s attempt to build the tower by questioning the technology used to broadcast cell signals and seeking alternative locations for signal transmission placement.

Some past discussions centered on the potential use of a nearby Spectra Energy tower on Arvindale Road and the use of a Distributed Antenna System (DAS), which could be mounted on existing telephone poles at sites around the quarry.  

According to Foose, Spectra refused to let the applicant use its tower, and the board had not sufficiently vetted discussions on DAS systems.

A lack of vetting appeared to be a familiar theme on Monday night as Reinertson and Meese remained tight-lipped on resident concerns about the need for the tower in the first place.

“Have you done any financial analysis to see what the impact might be on homes in the area?" asked Warren resident Alan Davidson. “And have you done studies that indicate the demand for this type of service in the area?”

“I have not done any studies,” Reinertson, who has worked on countless similar cell tower cases—20 for T-Mobile alone—said.

Other issues raised Monday night came from several of the surrounding residents, who felt that the tower would be an eye sore and too much to bear.

“If I drive down my road, Ridge Road, I will be able to see the tower in full view,” said Warren resident Hong Jiang. “So what do you propose for the benefit of the 20 or so homes on Ridge Road to address the aesthetics? To me, it’s a big visual impact.”

“The tower itself cannot be seen by the majority of the public,” Reinertson responded.  

After the hearing on the proposed cell tower was complete, resident gathered in the courthouse foyer. Much of the discussion centered around what the anticipated next steps might be for the March meeting.

The citizens currently do not have an attorney representing their cause.

“Everyone saw the reaction in there,” Foose said. “I don’t think they are listening to us.”