No Action Taken on Springfield Cell Phone Tower

SPRINGFIELD–Contractors testifying on behalf of T-mobile faced a skeptical board and public when they presented their arguments for a proposed cell phone tower near the Summit border.

Summit residents and officials have . The tower would be built on property owned by the Knights of Columbus on Shunpike Road.

Ben Shidfar, a telecommunications expert contracted by T-Mobile, argued that the tower was needed at that height and in that location to fill a coverage gap in the area. He presented the Springfield Board of Adjustment a series of maps illustrating the areas where T-Mobile service was strong and where it was not reliable."

T-Mobile has three towers in Springfield as well as locations in Summit, including a transmitter at The proposed tower would fill in coverage for an area south of 78 and East of Summit Road, where Shidfar said there was a gap in coverage. He said that gaps in coverage could be hazardous, saying that with current coverage, T-Mobile may be unable to reliably make 911 emergency calls on stretches of Interstate 78.

“You can’t hold a call,” Shidfar said. “It’s not an adequate service area.”

Board of Adjustment members seemed unconvinced that the Knights of Columbus location was the only viable place for the tower. Several alternate locations were proposed, with Shidfar and T-Mobile attorney Constantine Stamos arguing that the site under question was the one best suited to fill in the gap in coverage. T-Mobile first looks for existing structures where they can put up antennas.

Other sites had been considered, but either declined, did not respond or were found to be unsatisfactory. Joseph Oates, a site acquisition specialist employed by T-Mobile, testified about the finding and contacting locations.

T-Mobile is seeking a variance in Springfield’s building codes, which cap construction at 40 feet. A Board member asked if a tower shorter than the proposed 175-foot one T-Mobile wants had been considered. Shidfar said that going down to a 150-foot pole pulled back service by three quarters of a mile.

Board members voiced concern that the proposed tower would not completely fill in the coverage gap area. Board chair Margaret Bandrowski asked if they might face another tower proposal to supplement this one a couple of years down the road.

“It seems that these towers are popping up like roses,” Bandrowski said.

T-Mobile also applied to the Millburn Zoning Board for variances to build a similar 140-foot cellular tower behind the Short Hills Terrace apartments at 806 Morris Turnpike last year. The proposed tower would have been about 80 feet from the property line, adjacent to the train tracks. It also would have been 80 feet from the apartment building, which is tucked back from the road. The tower would have looked like a tree, similar to other masked cell towers in the region, including one along the Garden State Parkway in Clark. However, after a large showing of local residents opposed to the project, T-Mobile withdrew its application.

T-Mobile has also recently applied for variances to build towers in and .

Summit and Springfield residents attended the meeting to show opposition to the project.

John Li, a Summit resident who lives within 400 feet of the proposed tower and has voiced strong opposition to the tower, contested the claim of spotty coverage. He noted that T-Mobile’s website deemed the same area to have “moderate” coverage.

“There’s a discrepancy,” Li told Patch after the meeting.

Li said he had personally driven in the area said to have a coverage gap, and that his five-year-old personal cell phone with T-Mobile had consistently shown four and five bars of service. In addition, he dismissed the concern over 911 calls, saying that T-Mobile’s service plan allowed customers to use competitors’ signals when they roam out of T-Mobile’s coverage area.

Mayor Jordan Glatt told Patch on Tuesday that common council sent a resolution to Springfield stating the city's opposition to this proposal.

“It would be nice if our friends in Springfield would do the neighborly thing and not place this unsightly tower on our boarder," Glatt said. "There is a reason they have chosen an area as far away from their residents as possible to place this tower. That’s because their residents don’t want it.  Let’s be clear: Summit’s residents don’t want it either."

The meeting ended without a resolution and was carried until April 27.