NOVEMBER 14, 2024
SPRING LAKE — The mayor and borough council hosted the final 5G Verizon application meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 12, in H.W. Mountz Elementary School gymnasium. The meeting included presentations from the attorney representing a residents’ group, Spring Lake Against 5G Towers, as well as other legal and financial professionals, in addition to comments from those in the audience.
At the beginning of the meeting, Mayor Jennifer Naughton announced that Verizon recently filed a lawsuit against the Borough of Spring Lake in federal court, asserting the company’s right to install six 5G small-cell utility poles along Ocean Avenue as per the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Mayor Naughton said the borough council members and attorneys have not had the time to review the suit in its complete detail but are continuing to review it as of now.
Verizon was invited to have representatives attend the meeting Tuesday, but did not respond.
“Our goal is to close the record on this. You may be thinking ‘what happens next steps after the presentation tonight and your comments,’ Mayor Naughton said, “Our intent is to close the record on this – going forward, we have a lot to digest. We have your written submissions, orals, comments, presentations and comments (from Tuesday) and now we have all the legal issues to understand and unpack.”
The council plans to meet in an executive session on the legal issues at the Dec. 3 public meeting, and following that, the mayor said it plans to have its decision on the acceptance/denial of the application at the last meeting of the year on Dec. 17.
“In that process and in consultation with our professionals, it’s possible that our timeline will change. If anything, the timeline is not going to go longer, it would be shorter,” Mayor Naughton told The Coast Star, adding that members of the public will be informed prior to any potential changes to the schedule.
In January, Verizon submitted an application to the borough to install six 5G small cell utility poles, 40- to 50-feet tall, in the right-of-way along Ocean Avenue.
Under a borough ordinance, such installation is not permitted along the beachfront, Mayor Naughton said. Verizon is seeking waivers from the ordinance to proceed with installing the polls. Ocean Avenue is a shared jurisdiction with Monmouth County, and Verizon has also sent an application to the county.
Over the last number of months, the borough has been in contact with the telecommunications company about the period of time allotted for it to respond to Verizon’s application to the borough to install the towers, typically 90 days, referred to as a “shot clock” by Verizon. The time period had been extended by Verizon several times, and the borough’s most recent deadline to accept or deny the application was Oct. 15.
5G PRESENTATION
Spring Lake Against 5G Towers, a group formed by borough residents, has hired a legal team to represent the group in opposing the installation. The Children’s Health Defense legal team, (chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., on leave), includes Scott McCollough of McCollough Law Firm, along with others like George Crimmins of Greenbaum, Rowe Smith & Davis, property attorney Raymond J. Went of Nehmad Davis & Goldstein and Katherine Tantinan of Federal Appraisal LLC.
Crimmins discussed the municipal land use law and said the largest issue he sees is Verizon’s noncompliance with the borough’s land development ordinance, “more specially, Verizon’s failure to obtain site plan approval and conditional use variances from the planning board.”
He said Verizon’s application does not mention the requirements under the borough’s ordinance or the land use law, which allows the municipality to have a say about development on its own land.
“To obtain site plan approval and additional use variances, an applicant is required to do many things, this includes: submitting a site plan for the planning board to review; providing public notice of the application and the fact there will be a hearing on it; having the borough and the board’s professionals review the plans and then make recommendations regarding those plans,” said Crimmins.
“Then Verizon needs to appear at a hearing before the board where the public gets the opportunity to be heard on its comments and concerns about the application, but then most importantly, Verizon is required to prove to the planning board that it meets all of the legal requirements of a site plan approval…, said Crimmins, adding that Verizon must state that it’s allowed to receive exceptions and prove its entitlement to variances.
He also said there is concern over the location of the second pole and its proximity to a home/property line and the potential effects it could have on “community’s health, safety and welfare.”
A research study conducted by the Federal Appraisal reviewed a number of real estate brokers, research and news articles and court cases regarding impacts on property values.
All 14 brokers stated they believe property values would be negatively impacted.
Of 18 research studies and news articles, there were four that said there would be 0% impact, one said a positive impact and 13 said a negative impact.
“These negative impacts on values – cell pole simulated technologies still remain, as they have deep concern on health for the public; construction and repair periods will affect noise and traffic to the area; proposed cell towers cause a stigma inherently affecting property values by increasing marketing times (as well as to adjacent properties); and most importantly, these proposed towers created unsightly views affecting the aesthetics of Spring Lake’s ocean and beachfront views and to those adjacent to residential properties,” said Tantinan.
The research found that there is a 3% property value impact on residential properties within a 1,000-foot proximity of the proposed cell towers.
Kelley Badishkanian, the founder of Spring Lake Against 5G Towers, spoke on behalf of the group.
“I stand here today as a voice for our community, which has come together to express serious concerns about this project. Through my work in the community, we have gathered 125 letters of opposition…each reflecting the deep frustration and fear many people feel about the impact of these towers will have on our town,” she said.
Badishkanian said residents are concerned about the effects of the boardwalk, aesthetics, property values, health and safety of residents, and she urged the borough to reject the proposal and stand with the residents in “preserving the beauty, character and value of Spring Lake.”
Several other residents took to the microphone to express their worry over the plan, from a variety of perspectives, including health and safety impacts, historical effects, potential physical damages such as from car accidents or fires that the poles could cause, and the aesthetics – how the pole’s stature would affect the beachfront charm of the town.