Zoning Board, Tight Residential Neighborhood Say T-Mobile Should Look Into Other Sites For Cell Tower

Facing a coalition of 50 upset neighbors on the Ridgewood/Ho-Ho-Kus border, telecommunications giant T-Mobile has been asked by the Ridgewood Zoning Board of Adjustment to consider other sites to place a 120-foot cell tower to increase its coverage in the village.

The application, which originally sought a 140-foot tall tower designed to resemble a tree, has been reduced by 20 feet in height with the amount of antennae reduced by half, down to six on the site at the corner of First Street and Barnett Place.

Including the five-foot-tall "branches," the structure would be 125 feet.

Despite a reduction in the scope of plans, neighbors are irate the telecom company would place a tower in a residential-zoned neighborhood only 40 feet from homes.

"T-Mobile is trying to put cell towers everywhere in the state, in residential areas," said Laura Lutz, a resident of Barnett Place. "I think they picked us because we’re not the nicest neighborhood, it’s near a business district, and they want to set a precedent."

Members of the zoning board, however, seemed to favor the investigation of sites that would present less immediate impact to a neighborhood.

"At the firehouse, even though it's in a residential neighborhood, the nearest house is significantly farther away, and there are other commercial uses to the property already," said Diana Ruhl, a zoning board member.

"It looks like the issue here is putting in cell phone towers in residential areas," said board member Shiroy Ranji, asking the applicants if they'd explored the firehouse, and train station and postal office in Ho-Ho-Kus.

"All these are potential sites," he said, ones that may be more appropriate than a tightly-packed residential neighborhood. Both the firehouse and applicant site are in the same R-2 zone.

Documents obtained by Patch show that AT&T has been in discussions to place a tower at that site, which Village Manager Ken Gabbert reported could bring six-figure sums in revenue to village coffers. In an e-mail on Saturday, Gabbert said the Engineering Division is writing the bid specifications with proposals out for review with a return date of late summer. 

"Once the bid process was OK'd by the council we ended any specific questioning from communications firms," he said. "The next session will be a bidder's meeting after the specifications are released."

The existing tower would be removed should a bidder be found and allowed to construct a tower, possibly as tall as 140 feet. Both sites, as is common, would be looking for co-locators in different carriers.

T-Mobile representatives said that with six companies holding FCC licenses (including AT&T, which is likely to merge with T-Mobile should it pass federal scrutiny), "everybody could go on this pole." Any changes would require a variance back at the zoning board.

Another possible site singled out as "more preferred" than the parcel on First Street and Barnett is the Ho-Ho-Kus Train Station, which had been in discussions with T-Mobile for a cell tower before talks dropped off months prior. T-Mobile did not provide a reason as to why negotiations soured.

However, radio frequency engineer and applicant expert witness Ben Shidfar said that the train station was actually the "preferred site." A site acquisition witness did not testify Tuesday due to time constraints.

Nevertheless, while applicant attorney Frank Ferrarro said T-Mobile will look around at other sites, but it's not going to look too hard.

"We're going to demonstrate a good-faith effort to find a location that is more preferred under your ordinance," Ferraro said. "We are not going to knock on every door simply because a potential alternative site may exist."

Coverage area

Shidfar spent about an hour noting what gaps in coverage currently exist in the Maple Avenue area and what varying tower heights would address. The engineer testified to the zoning board that while coverage still does not get over the ridge to the west–the original reason for the 140-foot proposal– in-vehicle and on-ground (house) coverage "improved tremendously" for about a mile to the north, south, southeast and southwest.

Towers at 100-feet and 80-feet would reduce coverage by at least "a quarter-mile," Shidfar said as a point of comparison.

Although a new site in Midland Park is up and running, it would not fill any of the coverage gap T-Mobile is seeking, Shidfar said. There are two other T-Mobile sites in the village that are currently operational; one is near Rt. 17 on Franklin Turnpike and the other in the south/southwest section of the village. Neither reportedly reach the North Maple Ave. area where coverage according to the maps was a mix of yellow and green.

Shidfar said while the yellow indicates calls often can be made, the reliability is "less" and there's no guarantee a call can be made throughout its duration. He conceded that those driving on N. Maple can make a phone call.

T-Mobile, per its FCC license requirement, is to provide "reliable" coverage to its users though no federal standard of what constitutes reliable has been made.

But the village zoning board's consultant, Ronald Graiff–who has "danced" with Shidfar in many other municipalities–said he found the center of the "search ring," (area lacking the most coverage) was actually located in Ho-Ho-Kus, not Ridgewood.

Shidfar also backtracked when board member Rhul pointed out that commercial buildings he cited were already within a green "strong coverage" zone, saying he was "more concerned with residential" coverage.

Members of the board again took issue with the advertised coverage area according to T-Mobile's marketing, which appears to show greater coverage than what the application described.

Shidfar and Ferraro each said the application better demonstrated the coverage gaps, as the map was "more granular" and included obstacles limiting service, such as the ridge to the west of the site. "It's sixteen times more accurate," Ferrarro said.

Eric Gross, an attorney on Barnett Place and T-Mobile customer, questioned the problem with existing coverage.

"We’ve never had a call dropped, never had a problem," he said at the conclusion of the meeting. "If they had pile of complaints from customers, I’d have more sympathy."

Possible health issues

Neighbors of Barnett Place, Mulberry and First Street unleashed a barrage of pointed questions to T-Mobile's expert witnesses, accusing two of being "guns for hire" and questioning not only the rationale for building a tower at that location but also possible health implications.

Jennifer Dinoto-Hroncich, whose house is 40 feet from the proposed half-acre site, grilled applicant witness Glen Pierson, telling the expert she didn't think it was a good idea to have children taking a bus 75 feet from the tower, given recent Swedish studies that suggest cell phone use could be linked to cancer, a point resident Deanna Hoffman expounded on.

Pierson responded by saying he "hasn't read the Swedish studies" but said if there are health problems associated with radio towers as determined by the World Health Organization, "they'll change the standards if something goes wrong."

Pierson, in turn, also said that the tests conducted by his firm revealed a worst-case scenario emissions on the proposed tower would be no higher than .649 percent of the 100 percent standard. Chances are, added the zoning board's expert consultant Graiff, the emissions would be considerably less than that.

Pierson also said that there's great difference in how "microwaves"–which are not dangerous, he said in response to a 30-minute pseudo-questioning/history lesson by board member Jacques Harlow–affect a person by cell phone or cell tower.

Because of proximity, the waves from a cell phone when on are 25-40 gigs higher and focus toward the head. Radio towers, on the other hand, hit the body uniformly and are placed much further away.

Overturning rejected cases

Concerned neighbor Laura Lutz cautioned the zoning board to be careful in how it approaches the case.

"T-Mobile is going in other towns and getting turned down, but then they appeal and because they have so much strength, it’s easily overturned," she said. "It’s hard for us to go against them because they have these hired guns and we’re just a group of 50 neighbors, doing the best we can."

Added Beth DiLorenzo, of Barnett, "I hope they come back with information that the fire station is available. It’s less intrusive."

Neighbors were not permitted to offer public comment at the conclusion of the meeting due to time constraints.

The next public meeting is scheduled for late September and will include Shidfar's testimony as well as at least one other witness.

Laura Bertocci contributed to this article.