T-Mobile is taking a New Jersey municipality to court over its refusal to issue a permit to build a cell tower at a school. • The Register

T-Mobile is taking the municipality of Wanaque, New Jersey to court for refusing to approve the company’s plans to build a cell tower.

In a complaint (PDF) filed last week, T-Mobile accused the municipality of Wanaque of denying its cell tower application on invalid grounds. The cell tower in question is to be built on part of a local high school, under the terms of a 25-year lease that T-Mobile successfully bid for in 2009.

T-Mobile’s original cell tower plan was approved in 2010, but construction never began due to “financial priorities” that likely had to do with the ongoing recession at the time, as well as to accommodate improvements to the high school’s athletic fields.

It has been paying rent since then, T-Mobile claims, and in March 2023 it finally decided to resume operations. It submitted a new application, paid $2,600 in fees and provided local radio frequency documents to show a lack of service that could be remedied with a different tower, which T-Mobile said was the “least intrusive” solution.

The complaint says problems began shortly thereafter. The following May, the borough’s financial consultant asked T-Mobile to consider other cell tower locations. T-Mobile rejected this proposal, arguing that the commune cannot submit such a request when it concerns a telecommunications building.

Documents show that about a week later, T-Mobile representatives attended a meeting with the Wanaque Planning Board. They were told there would be no official public meeting that day because the borough council had passed a resolution earlier this month stating that T-Mobile had to get approval from the mayor and borough council to approve the lease, which was required by the phone company. We have been paying for over ten years at this point.

T-Mobile again stated that because it was trying to build a cell tower, or telecommunications building, these demands were illegal. She also complained about the waste of time and money resulting from the lack of information about the council’s resolution.

For the next few months, T-Mobile cooperated with the local government until October, when the municipal council finally approved the lease agreement.

Wanaque planning board says cell towers are ‘unsafe’

According to the telecommunications giant, this was not the end. In December, the planning board finally held a public meeting where T-Mobile made its case that adding another cell tower would fill a dead zone in Wanaque. However, that meeting ended without any action being taken because the mayor apparently recommended that the planning board take a completely different course of action.

T-Mobile documents show that the mayor’s plan was to call a new public meeting to “address the concerns of all residents” regarding the approval of the lease, which T-Mobile said had already occurred. The company said it was also asked to provide data on the health and safety impacts of the cell tower, which T-Mobile has already provided to Wanaque.

T-Mobile expressed particular doubts about management’s statement about health concerns because, as its arguments in the lawsuit show, it does not constitute a legal reason to deny a cell tower application under federal law.

In January, the board and T-Mobile held another meeting that sparked controversy because the board’s lawyer wanted to appoint an expert to testify on public safety issues. To T-Mobile, it sounded awful like an expert was discussing health issues, so it once again argued that such reasoning was legally irrelevant to approval. The lawyer assured the telecommunications company that his witness would only discuss “alternative technologies.”

However, the filing continued as, as the next meeting in February approached, T-Mobile said it learned that the expert witness was a professor who had written articles on radio waves and their effects on health. He also obtained a copy of the witness’s PowerPoint presentation, which T-Mobile said “was almost entirely related to RF’s health issues.”

Naturally, T-Mobile objected to the expert’s planned presentation, which was intended to discuss precisely what she believed was out of the question. Ultimately, the presentation was changed and the board voted four to three to approve T-Mobile’s application, although many residents present at the meeting mocked the decision, or at least that’s what T-Mobile claimed in its application.

The complaint said the three who voted against the motion made a classic argument that the cell tower would be dangerous to children. “My answer is no, I don’t think it’s a good idea,” said one board member. “I’m worried about the children.”

“They don’t want to talk about health issues, and I understand why,” he continued, “because the FCC set these standards, which is… it’s terrible.”

Although the application was ultimately approved, the board’s attorney quickly lobbied for its repeal, and last May the board again voted four to three, but this time to deny T-Mobile’s application. At this point, more than a year has passed since T-Mobile submitted its application for 2023.

Board members who voted against the motion once again cited children’s safety. One board member said he “can’t believe this is safe and… healthy for the children in our city.” Another said “it’s (not) safe for kids.”

“We are fighting a federal government that has made serious mistakes from the very beginning,” argued a third board member. “And they… all of a sudden 40 or 50 years later they come back and say, you know, I think we screwed up. Well, I think they screwed it up with the regulations.”

In total, T-Mobile has filed five charges against the Wanaque Planning Board and is demanding that the company withdraw its rejection of the application and immediately approve it, as well as pay damages and legal fees. He also wants a permanent injunction prohibiting the city from “taking any further action” that impedes the operations of a company that provides services in the area.

We reached out to both T-Mobile and Wanaque for comment. As of press time, neither has responded. ®