Dallas Township Zoning Board delays decision on cell tower

DALLAS TOWNSHIP – Following lengthy testimony regarding a cellphone tower Verizon Wireless seeks to build on a residential property, the Zoning Hearing Board voted to continue Monday night’s hearing until May 15 when they will announce their decision.

The Dallas Township Municipal Building was packed with local residents who opposed the proposal, most of whom were represented by attorney, Mark McNealis.

Also in attendance were board members, Mary Barbara Gilligan and Olin Smith, Zoning Secretary Tammy Miller and board solicitor Donald Karpowich.

The cellular company’s proposal to build a 150-foot cellphone tower at 281 Overbrook Ave., a residential property owned by Edward and Jane Rome, was initially denied back in August of last year.

Following an appeal, Verizon asked the board for three variances: allowing the tower in a residential zone, a waiver of lighting requirements that comply with Federal Aviation Administration recommendations and allowing the tower to be built closer to other property boundaries than the zoning ordinance calls for.

Over the course of the hearing representative for Verizon Wireless Rich Williams presented several witnesses that spoke to the reasons why the company chose a residential property as the site for its tower, the benefits of the tower and why they should be allowed these variances.

Civil Engineer John Bosco, whose firm is a consultant for Verizon, spoke to the safety of the proposed tower and how it wouldn’t endanger any nearby properties because it’s designed to “collapse in on itself.”

In discussing the land, Karpowich questioned why a soil report, as well as design specifications, weren’t submitted at the time of the initial application.

“It says you have to meet the supplemental section,” Karpowich said, in regards to the zoning ordinance. Without those reports, Karpowich questioned whether the design of the tower, as well as the proposed company building it, could be relied on.

Williams argued that the hearing was technically a variance hearing and not a permit hearing and that Verizon wasn’t required to submit certain reports, such as the Solar Report, until land development.

“I do need to show compliance with it, but not at today’s hearing,” Williams argued.

Carl Humenik, a site acquisition specialist, spoke about how the property was chosen and why other properties in the area were not. Humenik said he spoke with several businesses and residents in the area in regards to building a tower and their property and that it didn’t work out.

Several residents in attendance said they were never contacted by Verizon regarding the company building a tower on their land.

“I have a whole group of people behind me and not one of them has been contacted by you or Verizon or anyone about putting a cell tower on their property,” said McNealis.

Humenik countered this by saying that if he didn’t contact them, their property was likely not viable.

Andrew Pettersohn, a radio frequency engineer, spoke about how Verizon does not have adequate coverage in the area and that this new tower will increase that coverage for Verizon customers.

When asked by McNealis what Verizon’s hardship was that would constitute a use variance, Pettersohn said that the hardship was technological.

“Pennsylvania law is clear that a gap in service does not constitute an unnecessary hardship, that justifies a use variance,” said McNealis

Williams objected, saying that wasn’t a “correct recitation of the law,” and while it may apply to state law, it doesn’t apply to federal law.

Toward the end of the meeting, McNealis had the residents he’s representing state their names for the record. All of his clients seemed to be in agreement that the tower would be an “aesthetic issue” and would devalue their properties.

Several residents also took the time to say that they were customers of Verizon and never experienced an interruption in their service.

A motion was passed to close the record, as well as continue to the hearing on May 15. At that time, the board will give a verbal announcement of their decision.

Each party has 30 days following a written decision to file an appeal.