Planning Board Testimony

The Hillsborough Township testimony came after involvement with Bridgewater, as a referral, both were on behalf of the objectors to the respective towers, both in the same county. Many of the applicant principals (attorney, radio expert, tower company) in both cases were the same. In Hillsborough, the application by AAT was to replace an existing 192 ft tower with a 350 ft tower. The objecting client was an attorney with property adjacent to the tower in a wooded area of a hill approximately 540 ft high (Sourland Mountain)

Engineering for many people means building things. Objecting to a tower construction after having engineered many was seemingly hypocritical and contrary. So, careful consideration was given. Why do they need a 350 ft. tower on top of a 540 ft. hill with the surrounding land in the township at 50 - 100 ft? Why wasn't the present 192 ft. tower sufficient?

The thrust of the objection came from the attorney client. From previous testimony, the applicant's radio expert stated to the effect that there would be improved emergency communication for the Emergency Response System (ERS) departments (Police, Fire, and EMS). The ERS were presently on a 192 ft. tower on the same hill as the applicant. Before taking the case, 250K scale maps (half of NJ) were looked at and the mountain appeared as a knoll. The applicant's claim seemed reasonable, without doing any calculations.

On the way down to meet with the client, to give him the bad news, both tower sites were looked at as well as the municipal complex. Well, the hill was much larger than the map seemingly indicated, more of a plateau. The ERS tower was on the edge of the plateau and the applicant's tower more towards the middle. The ERS tower closer to the municipal complex and Hillsborough population concentrations.

So further study was conducted with 24K maps (10X magnification over the 250K). To understand the situation, think of a table with a light on the edge and a similar light in the middle, but twice as high. You are trying to illuminate just below the table, on the edge. There is going to be a shadow in both cases, but the light on the edge will have less of a shadow. That is what the calculations showed. How to get rid of the shadow? Put another lamp on the floor.

One of the pieces of damning evidence presented were pictures of the two present towers on Sourland mountain and another of the applicant's tower on a different hill in the county, all 192 ft. The number of antennas were strikingly different on the applicant's two towers and the ERS tower. The applicant's present tower on Sourland mountain had few antennas whereas their other tower was covered with antennas. Both towers marketed by the same company with the same zeal?

The Board decided to reject the application.

Testimony with Radio Propagation Calculation Methodologies

AAT tower on Sourland mountain:

---

Bridgewater was the original tower objector involvement, 2nd testimony, a 440 ft. free standing tower on 540 ft Watchung mountain. It took one and a half years to complete. The other site of the previously mentioned AAT tower. The applicant was Pillar-of-Fire, a religious organization from Zarepath. There were three separate objectors, Tri-Township Committee for a Beautiful Ridge, Warren Township, and Bernards Township. The Pillar-of Fire tower is 226 feet on 540 ft Watchung Mountain.

Originally, the new tower was planned to be placed on County property (less than 500ft from the original site) and was almost rubber stamped, circumventing the Bridgewater planning board, until the county was sued by Joseph Murray & Associates representing Tri-Township Committee for a Beautiful Ridge.

The original reason given by their radio expert, the same as in Hillsborough, to the County and Pillar-of-Fire for the tower was to comply with the stricter radiation standards of the FCC, as their present tower did not. Pillar-of Fire has an FM radio station which radiates 37 KW horizontal & vertical from an elliptical antenna ( 4 bays). This expert has an acknowledgement in the FCC OET Bulletin 65 radiation guidelines. The reason given to the FCC - WAWZ is requesting the facilities proposed to improve its real world signal by increasing the antenna height to overcome terrain obstructions. No mention of radiation hazard. A report of a radiation hazard will cause a knee jerk reaction to most people - "by all means put up a higher tower!."

Droit Technologies made several inquiries to the FCC about how the present station could comply with the new radiation standards and was given several methods (a different antenna, fence the facility to the radiation limit & provide warning signs, change the spacing of the antenna bays, take a field measurement instead of relying on a worst case calculation).

Politics were thrown into the mix with free tower space for the County and Bridgewater police, owned by a religious entity, and even Bell Atlantic testified on the behalf of Pillar-of-Fire. Testimony from The New School (Greenwich Village, NYC) with graphic representations of what the new tower would look like from different perspectives, the president of Pyrod towers, radio expert, noise engineer, police, county, and all the principals. Politics on the objectors side had to do mostly with the tower bringing down housing prices (typically $500K or higher) and an eye sore.

When presented to the Bridgewater planning board, the site was re-located to a different parcel of land. They needed a variance since the tower, if it fell, would not be confined to their property and other variances were needed as well.

The reasons for the tower height given to the Bridgewater planning board was "To comply with the FCC mandate from 47 CFR 73.315c to put up the highest tower possible", "Better coverage for WAWZ as shown by exhibit A-40, Bridgewater police, and the County", and "The FAA limited the tower height to 440 ft". To the Bridgewater planning board, the radio expert stated that their present tower was not a radiation hazard, yet nothing was changed from the County application.

Exhibit A-40 was a coverage comparison for the present tower and the new, except different antenna polarizations were used, horizontal for the present, vertical for the new. The FCC only considers horizontal polarization for FM. An apple & orange comparison.

Thoughts of the OJ Simpson trial came to mind for length. The Board decided to reject the application.

The Board's decision was, appealed , and the Honorable Robert E. Guterl affirmed the denial of Plaintiff's application.