Council drafts revised cell tower ordinance
New rules would bar towers in residential areas, require buffers
BY MELISSA KARSH Staff Writer

TINTON FALLS - After months of controversy surrounding the proposed placement of a cell tower on the property of a borough school, a new facet to the cell tower saga seemed to go unnoticed by residents at the Nov. 27 Borough Council meeting.

The council unanimously declined to approve a proposed ordinance amending the borough's land use ordinance to include wireless telecommunications equipment in favor of introducing a revised measure that members said is more consistent with the master plan.

Before the vote, no members of the public came forward to comment on the measure, which seemed to surprise council members and "I can't believe this" could be heard coming from the council dais.

"We can have an ordinance in general for a cell tower because anybody can put a cell tower anywhere. So this ordinance says where it can't be put and where it can be put," said council President Michael Skudera at the Nov. 27 council meeting.

The Tinton Falls Planning Board had previously reviewed the proposed ordinance and found that it was inconsistent with the master plan because it would allow other uses in residential zones, and added that the language of the ordinance was not specific enough.

Skudera summarized the position of the Planning Board at the Nov. 27 council meeting.

He said, "One of the issues from the Planning Board perspective was that the current ordinance we have allows cell towers on borough-owned property, some of that borough-owned property is in residential areas and they felt the mix of residential and business wasn't {consistent} with the master plan."

Councilman Duane Morrill said he agreed with the decision of the Planning Board and suggested adding a provision in a revised measure to reflect the overwhelming position of residents that fought the proposal to place a cell tower behind Mahala F. Atchison School on Sycamore Avenue.

"I'm wondering do we, in light of all that's gone on around the school district with putting it behind the schools and stuff, do we want to take and put in some kind of guidelines and make sure that we don't run into a problem like that again, where it's going to be affecting the children of Tinton Falls?" asked Morrill.

Borough Attorney James Berube said the proposed ordinance, which was not adopted by the council, would have supported the cell tower application that was voted down by the Board of Education - but just by coincidence.

"The borough needed a comprehensive ordinance to regulate telecommunications in all zones. We needed to look at the larger scope of where in the town these uses were appropriate and under what conditions and restrictions and that's what generated the discussion and the original draft. That was happening concurrent with the school board's application," said Berube.

Following the discussion, the council introduced a new draft of the ordinance reflecting the Planning Board's comments and the inconsistencies they found.

The ordinance, drafted by the board planner Paul Gleitz of Heyer, Gruel and Associates, includes some changes in language and more detail regarding tower placement.

Skudera said the new ordinance does not include cell towers in residential areas.

The first change is reflected under the use requirements section of the ordinance where the new ordinance includes the condition that a 500-foot buffer between the wireless telecommunications equipment and any adjacent or nearby residential property must be provided in order for the equipment to be placed on publicly owned, leased or controlled properties.

A second change in that section is the condition that lattice towers, a type of cell tower design, are allowed only at the request of the borough police department, fire department or EMS, whereas in the original ordinance those types of towers were completely prohibited.

The Planning Board also had questions about the number of towers allowed on one site, which is addressed in the new draft, which states, "No more than one wireless telecommunications facility shall be located on any one property, regardless of zone or ownership."

The draft also addresses another Planning Board recommendation, amending the minimum setback of a wireless telecommunications monopole from any residential zone line as well as residential property.

Planning Board Chairman Joel Davies had previously said that the setback should be amended to include residential properties as well as residential zones, because residential properties are dispersed throughout the borough in other zones.

Other specifics are spelled out more clearly in the new draft which includes a maximum height for a monopole of 150 feet, an increase from three to four in the minimum number of service providers allowed on a monopole and an increase from 2,500 to 3,600 square feet in the maximum size the equipment compound can be.

The objectives of the ordinance remained the same and some of them include minimizing the number of cell towers in the borough; encouraging co-location; encouraging locating towers where they would minimally impact the quality of life in an adverse way; and minimizing the visual impact of the towers.

The new ordinance that was first introduced Nov. 27 still needs to be reviewed by the Planning Board before it can come back before the council for final consideration and a vote.