Council approves revised cell tower ordinance
Restrictions call for buffer, setbacks from residential properties
BY JENNA O'DONNELL Staff Writer

TINTON FALLS - The controversy regarding cell tower placement in the borough appears to have been resolved as the Borough Council approved an amended ordinance "to include wireless telecommunications" at the end-of-year meeting on Dec. 27.

Council members unanimously voted to approve the amended ordinance and the related resolution.

The original ordinance, which the council had previously declined to approve after finding that the language was not specific enough,was redrafted and introduced at the Nov. 27 council meeting.

The council introduced a new draft of the ordinance reflecting thePlanningBoard's comments and the inconsistencies the board found.

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

In response to one of the use requirements stating, "No more than one wireless communication tower shall be located on any one property, regardless of zone or ownership," Councilman Gary Baldwin commented on the issue of limiting towers to be erected in an already approved location, specifically on the limitation of three carriers to a tower.

"What if a fourth carrier wanted to also erect a pole on that piece of property, is that permissible?" Baldwin asked. "Wouldn't it make good sense to try to put as many towers as possible on land that's considered appropriate for having cell towers?"

James Berube Jr., director of law for the borough, addressed Baldwin's concerns.

"If there was a fourth carrier interested, theoretically they could seek another property within the zone. Why should we allow two properties to be consumed instead of getting the fourth on a monopole?" Berube asked. "There is a provision in here for colocation on existing towers and structures."

"The Planning Board could use the argument that there is an existing structure, even onemonopole tower, that could handle the fourth and should be permitted there as opposed to anywhere else."

Notable changes that distinguish the approved ordinance from the previous version include the necessity of a 500-foot buffer between the wireless telecommunications equipment and any adjacent or nearby residential property; the inclusion of the previously prohibited lattice cell tower design by request of borough police and fire departments or EMS; and amending theminimum setback of a wireless telecommunications monopole from any residential zone line as well as residential property.

The restrictions and guidelines set in the ordinance are a result of the controversy that surrounded the Tinton Falls Board of Education's (BOE) proposal to locate a cell tower at the Mahala F. Atchison Elementary School property last fall.

After a year of discussions and deliberations, the BOE voted against placing a cell tower on the Sycamore Avenue school property. The 7-2 vote ended a fewmonths of controversy fueled by parents and teachers who were opposed to the proposed cell tower on school grounds.

The cell tower became a Board of Education issue after the borough tried unsuccessfully to locate a site for a revenue-generating cell tower on municipal property. The borough then approached the BOE about locating a tower on school property.

BOE Business Administrator Tamar R. Sydney-Gens said the revenue generated by the tower, which would be shared by the school district and the borough, would be $30,000 per carrier, or $90,000 if there were three carriers.

"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.