Cecil grapples with cellphone tower rules
CECIL – A public hearing on development ordinances Monday offered a closer look at why Cecil Township supervisors are holding up companies planning to build cellphone towers.
Proposed ordinances would change setbacks for cellphone towers to 150 percent of the height of the tower from any property line or 500 feet from any home, or whichever is greater.
Both Crown Castle and TowerCo – competitors in the cell signal delivery business – are appealing supervisors’ decisions in Washington County Court denying approval of new or replacement towers under old ordinance setbacks of 1,000 feet.
Representatives from Crown Castle pleaded their case to make the setbacks less restrictive, but made no specific request.
“The topography is very difficult here. And if you’re going to stick hard to those numbers, it will be difficult for new or existing towers to be replaced. You can’t just tear one down first to build a new one. You have to keep one standing to keep service while tearing down the old one,” said Bob Wratcher, attorney for Crown Castle, which is trying to build a new tower behind the state Department of Transportation storage building on Lewicki Road. The TowerCo location under appeal is at 216 Cumer Road.
A handful of Crown employees said restricting further cellphone towers would inhibit the availability of cellphone signals for emergency calls to 911. Residents said they wanted clear views and assurance that a tower wouldn’t be placed near their property.
“(Crown officials) haven’t done enough besides saying it’s better for your business why we should lessen standards for how far a tower can be away from a property owner’s land, and preventing them from using their property as they see fit,” Supervisor Cindy Fisher said.
Solicitor Christopher Voltz said setting up protected but reasonable setbacks would be a mutual benefit for all parties moving forward.
“Cecil Township, even with further setbacks, would have more land tracts available than other townships with less land and more restrictive setbacks,” Voltz said.
“We’re only about 30 percent developed right now, so if you were making this argument when we would be 70 percent (in the future), I don’t see it being that tough,” said board of supervisors Chairman Tom Casciola.
No votes were taken on updating ordinances. The proposed changes go before the planning commission for review.
The board also reopened a public hearing from Feb. 15 on a proposed residential development. NVR Inc., the parent company of Ryan and Heartland Homes, is seeking to build a 260-unit mixed townhome development on 126 acres of land along McConnell Road.
The hearing was ultimately continued to a third and presumed final hearing at 7 p.m. April 11 after the board aired concerns about visibility and dangerous turns from Muse-Bishop and Burnside roads, as well as concerns about the inclusion of cul-de-sacs.
“It’s not the length or location of the cul-de-sacs, it’s the cul-de-sacs themselves we have a problem with,” said Casciola.
In other business from a March 7 meeting, two settlements were announced. The township is paying $30,000 to Plavchak Construction following a dispute stemming from 2008 over preparations to Klinger Road athletic fields in which Plavchak claimed it was not fully compensated for work and the township said in court documents it wasn’t satisfied with the work. Voltz also announced that the township would receive $5,000 from Dennis Fleeher Contracting following a dispute from a 2011 contract over a project on Valleycrest Drive.
Supervisors also approved, by a vote of 4-0, two separate contracts for the Coleman Road storm sewer project. Both contracts, totaling $451,826, were awarded to R&B Contracting for sections from Grange Road to Route 980 and from Route 50 to Grange Road. Supervisor Cindy Fisher was absent at the March 7 meeting. Supervisor Eric Sivavec was absent Monday.