Planners nix cell towers in residential zones

TINTON FALLS - The Planning Board moved last week to restrict expanded uses in residential zones, including wireless telecommunications equipment.

"The use of wireless telecommunications equipment in a residential zone is inconsistent with the master plan," said board Chairman Joel A. Davies at the Oct. 24 meeting. "We want residential uses in residential zones. We don't want to bring in anything new in the zone."

Among the inconsistencies the board found within proposed ordinance 07-1232, also known as the cell tower ordinance, is that it would allow other uses in residential zones, and the language of the ordinance is not specific enough.

The board also had questions about the number of towers allowed on one site and about the height of the surrounding fencing in the ordinance.

"This ordinance was drafted with the intent primarily to limit visual impact. … The FCC [Federal Communications Commission] says you can't ban them [cell towers] entirely, but you are allowed to make planning decisions as to the appropriate locations and the appropriate development in terms of communities," said board planner Paul Gleitz of Heyer, Gruel and Associates.

Gleitz also said, after reviewing the ordinance, that it was consistent in some ways with the master plan, which he said has virtually no mention of wireless telecommunications.

According to Davies, who was first to voice his concern that the ordinance was inconsistent with the intent of the master plan, the Borough Council should take more time to work on the ordinance.

"The purpose and intent of the master plan ... was to ensure that residential zones were residential in nature and that there wasn't a creeping in of other uses, especially in a residential zone," said Davies.

It is unclear at this point whether the current controversy over locating a cell tower at a borough school may be impacted by the Planning Board decision.

The Board of Education (BOE) proposal to locate a cell tower on the grounds of the Mahala F. Atchison School on Sycamore Avenue has been the subject of controversy in recent weeks, culminating with a contentious public hearing at the Oct. 9 BOE meeting.

At the meeting residents voiced their opposition to the proposed cell tower and delivered a petition containing around 300 signatures to the school board.

The petition created tension between the school board and the Tinton Falls Education Association (TFEA). The TFEA filed an unfair labor practices charge against the board for instructing the superintendent to send a memo prohibiting staff from signing or distributing the petition opposing a cell tower on school grounds.

A vote on the cell tower is scheduled to take place at the Nov. 12 or Nov. 19 school board meetings.

The proposed ordinance considered by the Planning Board included provisions for use requirements bulk standards, conditional use standards for locations, visibility standards and site plan requirements.

Some objectives of the ordinance included

zones minimizing the number of cell towers in the borough; encourage co-location; encourage locating towers where they would minimally impact the quality of life in an adverse way; and minimize the visual impact of the towers.

Under use requirements the ordinance states that wireless telecommunications equipment is only permitted on publicly owned, leased or controlled land.

The ordinance defines this land to include "those lands owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the municipality, the BOE, the county, the state, a public utility authority and other such public authorities."

Board member Gordon Brown highlighted a major concern regarding using municipal land that was zoned as residential for placement of such structures.

Davies elaborated by saying that he thought the idea of the ordinance was to keep the structures away from residences and not out of residential zones.

He highlighted one of the sections of the ordinance titled bulk standards, which provides that the minimum setback of a wireless telecommunications monopole from any residential zone line should be 500 feet.

Davies recommended that the setback should be from residential property, not a residential zone, because residential properties are dispersed throughout the borough in other zones.

Although the Planning Board was not looking at specific properties where a cell tower may be placed, board member Jack Cunningham noted that the area next to Mahala F. Atchison School, the proposed site of a cell tower, is zoned as residential agriculture.

Another concern of Lori Paone, the borough's zoning/code enforcement officer, was the height of the fencing around the telecommunications equipment compound being at least 7 feet and no more than 8 feet in height.

Paone said this is inconsistent with the rest of the fences in the borough, which are normally 6 feet in height.

The acting board attorney, who was filling in for board attorney Dennis Collins, instructed board members on how their decision would affect the Borough Council.

"If you find it consistent, it is an easier burden for council to pass the ordinance. If you find it inconsistent, they would just need a majority of the whole membership of the council to pass the ordinance and they would have to state the land use reasons why they feel the ordinance should pass, despite the Planning Board's finding that it's inconsistent."

There was no public hearing included in the discussion of the ordinance at the Planning Board meeting. The public will be able to comment on the ordinance when it comes before the Borough Council at the next meeting on Nov. 27.