A legislator in New Jersey's 12th District, covering parts of Monmouth and Mercer Counties

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Requesting Residents' Help in Fair Haven

I am writing to ask for your help in determining the best course of action in relation to a critical issue affecting Fair Haven. With your guidance, I hope to help the borough to achieve an end result which is acceptable to a majority of residents.

For several years, the Borough Council has been trying to decide on the best placement for a cellular tower. Most recently, the governing body agreed on a location on Fisk Street. Several residents have contacted me to protest this placement. At the same time, I understand that when Fair Haven Fields, the Department of Public Works, the police station and other locations were discussed, there was also some opposition. In addition, the Church of the Nativity has discussed privately installing a cell tower on the church property.

Many of us, myself included, have been unclear whether Fair Haven must accept a cell tower at all within its boundaries, or whether we can decide that “no tower” is the best option given our concerns. My office has thoroughly researched this issue.

We found that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows a municipality to control the placement of a cell tower, but prohibits an outright ban. If a municipality does not approve a site on public land for the construction of a tower, then a cell carrier can identify a private location. While the approval of land use boards is required to proceed on private property, if this approval is denied or delayed for an unreasonable time the cell carrier could bring legal action. This would be costly and probably a losing battle for Fair Haven.

Although I am not happy with this conclusion, it appears to be a reality we need to face as we consider the road ahead. Verizon has notified Fair Haven that they intend to wait until October for a public site to be approved, before proceeding on private property.

If a cell tower must go forward, ideally Fair Haven should benefit from the revenue that would be generated. If a cellular company were to construct a tower on private property, Fair Haven would have far less control over its location than if public property were used, and would not be able to benefit financially.

However, the potential health and safety issues pertaining to cell towers, effects on neighborhood aesthetics, property values and other factors are far more important than any potential financial gain. In this sense, the location of a tower (as far from homes as possible) should take precedence over any effort to capture revenues.

In examining possible public sites for the cell tower, it is clear that using a parcel of Fair Haven Fields would be the best alternative since it is not in close proximity to homes and would require only about .2 acres from this 77 acre space. But as you may know, Fair Haven’s application to pursue this alternative was denied by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection since this land is preserved as open space under the state’s Green Acres program. This decision was made despite Fair Haven’s offer to contribute approximately .57 acres of land at the end of Hendrickson Place (historically used for leaves) into the Green Acres program in exchange for the .2 acres that would be needed, in addition to making other concessions.

The primary reason is the policy that preserved open space should never be used for any type of development, unless it is an essential project and there are truly no other alternatives.

The DEP has maintained that there are other public and private sites within Fair Haven which would be viable locations. Implicit in their position is the notion that community opposition, in and of itself, does not make a location a non-viable alternative. They have also stated that the property offered in the “swap” is not suitable for open space and recreational uses. On this point, I have written to the DEP proposing that initial revenues from a cell tower could be used to improve the property.

In the end, I think it will be difficult to prove to the DEP that there are no other viable locations. Even as we continue our advocacy, the mere fact that Verizon is speaking with Church of the Nativity implies that the church location is viable – even if residents of the Gentry and elsewhere have valid concerns about it.

The DEP has also reminded us that we would need to seek approval from the National Park Service as well, since some federal funds were used at Fair Haven Fields.

I have had numerous conversations with Governor Corzine’s office, the administrator of the Green Acres program, and with DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, requesting that they reconsider this decision. At this point, a change seems unlikely. I would very much like to advocate for Fair Haven on this issue, but there doesn’t seem to be an easy solution at this point. I would greatly appreciate any guidance or suggestions you may have, and I will continue speaking with the Borough, the DEP and Verizon to try to work toward a solution.

I will make sure to keep everyone for whom we have an e-mail address up to speed on any developments. Please feel free to contact me at anytime via e-mail at AsmPanter@njleg.org or at the address and phone number listed above. Thanks for your help.

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assemblyman Panter,

As residents of Fair Haven, our family very much appreciates your involvement and your position on this matter.

As a family with three kids – and the forth one on its way – we are very concerned about the potential health and safety issues pertaining to cell towers. The effects on neighborhood aesthetics and property values are additional concerns. All of these are clearly far more important than any potential monetary gain for the borough. If a cell tower in our Borough cannot be avoided, the location of the cell tower must be as far away from the closest residential homes as possible – for the benefit and the well-being of Fair Haven residents. We feel that this is the single most important criteria in selecting a possible cell tower site, far more important than any potential financial gain. In this sense, we strongly oppose the placement of a cell tower at the previously considered borough-owned sites, including the corner of William Street/Hendrickson Place, Department of Public Works, Police Station and Fisk Street. All of these locations are in the very midst of a residential area, with family homes being only a few feet away. None of these locations is suited for placement of a cell tower. The privately-owned site at Nativity Church is close to a residential neighborhood, too.

You rightfully state that if a cellular company were to construct a tower on private property, Fair Haven would have far less control over its location than if public property were used. However, what good is it if the Borough has control over the placement of a cell tower, just to erect it in the very middle of a residential neighborhood, just a few feet away from family homes where children grow up?

We strongly support your suggestion that initial revenues from a cell tower could be used to improve Green Acres property. We would even support a proposal of having all of the revenue going to improve the Green Acres property – as long as it helps keeping the cell tower out of residential areas.

We are very encouraged by your involvement and very much appreciate your help and support on this important matter. Let’s work together to find a solution that keeps a cell tower as far away from any residential home as possible - for the well-being of our great Fair Haven, for the kids and families in our town.

4:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assemblyman Panter, I also live on Hendrickson Place in Fair Haven. The Atlantic Highlans Hearald published an article on 6/15/06 pertaining to the cell tower at the Boro Hall in Union Beach. I've driven past the tower and I think it is far less obtrusive then that proposed by Verizon for Fair Haven.
Just because Verizon desires a tower 133 feet high does not mean Fair Haven is obligated to approve it. We are only required to consider cell service in our town, not surrounding towns. We also do not have to consider a tower large enough to handle all the carriers Verizon would like to lease space to. These other carriers are not applicants in this proceeding. I agree that the Green Acres property is by far the best location to date. It has access to Ridge Road, a main thoroughfare, and is furthest from residential homes. One last point. The FCC fact sheet dated 4/23/96 pertaining to Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that the FCC would work with the Government, both Federal and State in siting cell towers on state property. I think Section 704 strongly supports our stand on swapping Green Acre property. Thanks for helping.

6:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assemblyman Panter,
I live right across the street from one of proposed cell tower sites and I'm concerned for all the reasons already posted. Additionally, I keep hearing that Green Acres land is untouchable whereas my family's right to live safely and without concern for our health is secondary to Verizon's need to run a business. I'm really having a tough time understanding this and appreciate your support in directing this critical issue to the appropriate parties so it gets the attention it deserves.

Stephen Bland

7:07 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assemblyman Panter,
I live approximately 100 feet from one of the proposed cell tower sites and I'm concerned for all the reasons that have already been posted. Additionally, I continue to hear that Green Acres land is untouchable whereas my family's right to live safely and without concern for our health is secondary to Verizon's need to run a business. I'm really having a difficult time understanding this and appreciate your support in directing this critical issue to the appropriate parties so that it receives the attention it deserves.

Regards,
Jennifer Muscarello

1:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need your help! The borough of Fair Haven arguably needs a cell tower within its borders to improve communication for our part of Monmouth County, a reasonable proposal to swap Green Acres property has been denied at least twice and in their zeal to protect open spaces, are forcing the cell tower to be placed in vibrant neighborhoods close to many children. The DEP/Green Acres decision makers need to meet with us as a community if need be to forge a solution that achieves the need to protect open spaces and our neighborhoods. We need this to be approved by Green Acres
We need your understanding and support to have the DEP change their position. This is not a matter of politics but one of safeguarding the people from the unknown risk associated with towers. Thank you for your time.

Jim Van Cleef
119 Hendrickson Place

8:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assemblyman Panter, Thanks so much for getting involved in this issue. I live on William Street, and one of the cell tower sites is less than 100 yds away from my front porch. I also have three small children. We moved to Fair Haven from Chicago, IL four years ago and have fallen in love with the wonderful quality of life that Fair Haven offers to its residents. One of the main factors influencing this quality of life is the safe environment that it provides for children. I feel that the proposed cell tower sites directly impacts the safety of these children. While I know that this point is not a valid argument in preventing the location of a tower, I do believe that there are negative health effects associated with living in close proximity to these structures. I believe that the best solution is to site the tower on land located in Fair Haven Fields and support the proposed Green Acres land swap. I agree with Ellen Iovino's comment that Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 may provide additional support our request for the Green Acres land swap.

Best regards, Karen Saad

10:14 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assemblyman Panter,

You should not assume, as you apparently do, that all residents of Fair Haven are in favor of placing the proposed cell tower in Fair Haven Fields. I, for one, think that this is a bad idea. It is also unnecessary since there are viable alternatives, the most conspicuous one being the site at the Church of the Nativity on Ridge Road. The residents of the Gentry are opposed to this site because they are concerned that the tower, if placed there, will lower their property values. This is their primary concern although they are likely to claim that other concerns (health, etc.) precede this. However, I believe that this concern is unfounded since the site would be at least a hundred yards from the nearest homes and would border these homes on only one end. Furthermore, the area is populated with tall trees which would hide the tower from these homes as Verizon demonstrated earlier. A cell tower was previously built within 150 feet of homes in a residential district of Rumson and it had no detrimental effect on property values.

More importantly, I believe that allowing the tower to be built on Green Acres land would set a harmful precedent and would permanently weaken the Green Acres program. The state of New Jersey is densely populated and will only become more so in the future. There will always be pressure to develop protected open spaces brought by homeowners and others who wish to push such development out of their own neighborhoods. Protecting the interests of such homeowners should not override the mandate the Green Acres program has of protecting the broader interests of the taxpaying public whose funds support these open spaces.

Thank you very much,

Anonymous

1:01 AM

 
Blogger Mike Panter said...

I appreciate you writing with respect to this issue, which has been a very difficult one to resolve. Ultimately I do not believe there will be any true consensus (meaning unanimity). I understand your points, and as you may know I have spent all of my time in the legislature as a member of the environment committee so preservation of open space has been a key focus of mine.

The public also clearly supports more open space, since the referendum was passed to increase he amount of money allocated to the Garden State Preservation Trust, which supports Green Acres and farmland preservation. Although I grew up in Fair Haven on Hendrickson Place, I now live in Shrewsbury where we have a cell tower about 200 yards from my home near our baseball field.

I agree that the precedent of allowing anything to be built on preserved land is a problematic one. For this reason, I would only support the placement of a cell tower on the edge of FH Fields if even more land was added to the park in return. I believe the current “swap” proposal is that .5 acres would be added to the preserved space in return for .2 acres needed to build the tower. The .5 acres contains two lots which could otherwise be used for home construction.

I honestly can not say for certain what the potential health risks are from having a tower nearby since I’ve read studies on both sides of the issue. Verizon told me that they have evidence that property values are not impacted, but in my mind if I am choosing between two similar homes and one is next to a tower I would probably buy the other first.

One thing which continues to bother me is that I do not believe Verizon has any legal obligation to build a tower at all. Instead they seem to be making the business decision that even if a majority of FH residents do not want one, they would like to ensure that people driving through town do not encounter “dead spots.”

I welcome your input, and please give me a holler anytime if you’d like to discuss in more detail. Thanks for writing.

3:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It defies logic that a residential community that is less than 2 miles square can insist on a cell tower but only on the condition it not be near any residential housing. Our Green Acres parks belong to the people of the State of New Jersey not the residents of Fair Haven. Providing cell service is a private enterprise not a government function. The fact that the town passed an ordinance that no cell tower can be erected on non-borough property without a variance has only muddied the waters. If Fair Haven council does not have the political will to put the tower on its property, it should grant a variance to those private property owners seeking a variance. The point is that Green Acres should not be open to the commercial enterprise of the Town of Fair Haven. It already serves us as intended, public open space, not as alternative Fair Haven town property.

9:05 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home