Omnipoint defends use of parcel for tower

BY VINCENT TODARO
Staff Writer

EAST BRUNSWICK — Testimony on a controversial plan to install a cell tower on Cranbury Road is expected to conclude in June, when the Zoning Board of Adjustment is likely to render a decision.

The board last week held the latest in a series of hearings regarding a proposal from Omnipoint Communications Inc. for a 150-foot monopole at 469 Cranbury Road. Representatives of the cellular service provider told the board the tower is needed to fill coverage gaps, and that a search to find a better location was fruitless.

Many residents have expressed opposition to the application because of the site’s close proximity to existing homes. While township ordinance states that cell towers must be at least 1,000 feet from the nearest residential home, residents have noted that the proposed tower would be less than 150 feet from one.

Residents and board members have questioned why the tower is being proposed for this site, and what the affect would be on the property values of nearby homes. During last week’s hearing, experts for Omnipoint sought to allay those concerns.

Speaking on behalf of Omnipoint, Heather Brittain, of SBA Associates, testified that the cellular provider had searched vigorously for other sites on which to place the antennas. That effort included asking numerous local businesses if they were interested in allowing their site to be used. However, the company was unable to illicit any real interest.

Omnipoint has argued that it needs to fill holes in its coverage area. The new tower would have at least 12 antennas, and other wireless companies could add antennas to the tower in the future.

Neighbors said the cell tower would not only bring down property values, but also present an eyesore and a potential health risk.

Brittain said the company learned it would be impossible to comply with the township’s 1,000-foot setback requirement, because there were no parcels in the company’s “search area” that are that far from a residential area.

Mark Tinder, a state-certified real estate appraiser who also testified on behalf of Omnipoint, said his study revealed that cell towers do not adversely affect nearby property values. The study looked at areas throughout New Jersey and did not turn up an instance where a new cell tower had caused a depression in market values.

“When you go to sell your house, if you do, there’s nothing to suggest you will have to accept less,” he said.

Tinder also said the cell tower use would be a passive one, and therefore would not require municipal services. There would be no odors, lights or traffic that would upset the area, he said.

Alvin Fayman, a resident who lives near the property in question, asked why the carrier did not use a municipally owned site for its antennas.

Brittain said the township was not interested in having a carrier locate on a township-owned facility.

She noted that no other property in the search area was significantly further from existing residences.

“We can move it, and then we have other neighbors here [expressing opposition to an application],” she said.

Resident Susan Streisand said she does not see why the township would go against its own zoning and approve the application. The 3.2-acre site, where Soma Travel Agency is located, is within the township’s OP-2 office professional zone.

The board will hear concluding testimony and is expected to vote on the matter at its June 16 meeting.

Resident Susan Streisand said she does not see why the township would go against its own zoning and approve the application. The 3.2-acre site, where Soma Travel Agency is located, is within the township’s OP-2 office professional zone.

The board will hear concluding testimony and is expected to vote on the matter at its June 16 meeting.