Cell Tower Opponents Make Case at Board of Adjustments Meeting

Summit and Springfield residents presented arguments against T-Mobile’s proposal to build a 175-foot cellular tower near the Summit border at a Board of Adjustments hearing on Wednesday, June 22.

Hearings over the tower , with T-Mobile presenting expert testimony and legal arguments asserting that they need to build a tower in that location to fill a gap in their coverage. Summit and Springfield residents and officials have opposed the proposed 175-foot tower, calling it an eyesore and a potential public health risk. The tower would be built on property owned by the Knights of Columbus.

The team from T-Mobile rested its case at the May board meeting. The June meeting was the second time residents had a chance to present testimony. As they have during questions of T-Mobile experts and at other points in the hearings, the residents argued that the tower would devalue surrounding homes without bringing any new value to cell phone coverage.

Several residents of the neighborhood surrounding the proposed tower site said negative public perception cell phone towers would bring down their home prices. Real estate agent Kim Crites-Carloto, of Prudential’s Summit office, appeared as an expert witness to the effect of cell phone towers on selling a home.

T-Mobile attorney Constantine Stamos questioned Crites-Carloto’s expertise, saying she had not sold enough homes near cell towers to be qualified to give testimony.

Crites-Carloto related selling a union county home near a cell phone tower that many buyers “rejected out of hand.”

Summit City Councilors Ellen Dickson and Michael Vernotico provided testimony, with Dickson reminding the board that Summit’s Common Council voted unanimously against the cell tower. Vernotico reiterated his concerns that the tower’s height would necessitate nighttime lighting.

Springfield Environmental Committee Chair Denise DeVone testified about the environmental impact of the tower, saying that the construction would cut down two-four old growth trees, and that the tower would be placed at the entrance of a natural greenway path.

“The only people who would benefit from the tower are people on their cell phones on Rte. 78,” DeVone noted. “And you’re not supposed to use your cell phone while you’re driving.”

In previous testimony, T-Mobile had emphasized the benefits for people involved in accidents on 78. Summit resident John Li presented evidence he purported to show that reception on 78 was already fine. In a series of photographs, he demonstrated that he was able to get 4-5 bars on his five-year-old T-Mobile phone while driving on 78.

In previous hearings, a number of residents and Board members had questioned why T-Mobile did not consider a Union County property nearby the Knights of Columbus site. T-Mobile had said the County did not respond to their overtures. At the June hearing, they submitted correspondence they had with the County where the County said they could not build on the property, which houses a maintenance facility, because of Green Acres regulations.

Springfield’s Consulting Township Engineer Robert Kirkpatrick suggested that, based on Springfield’s work with county property, the Green Acres regulations could be negotiable. Stamos objected, saying arguing with the county was a waste of time.

“The law is clear,” Stamos said. “The county is not interested.”

Board members disagreed, and asked T-Mobile representatives to again contact the county.

The Board meets again on July 27, when they are expected to vote on the Tower.