Why Spring Lake Said No: Unmet Legal, Environmental, and County Approval Standards
By Jim Lonergan
Published December 4, 2024 at 2:56 PM
Last updated December 5, 2024 at 2:06 PM
SPRING LAKE, NJ - At the December 3rd Spring Lake Council meeting, the governing body, through Resolution R-24-196, denied Verizon’s waiver request to permanently place six cell towers along Ocean Avenue. This action follows Verizon’s federal court complaint filed in November alleging the Borough “effectively denied” its application to install six cell towers to improve coverage during select summer weekends.
The Borough's decision, detailed in a 37-page public document, can be summarized by a number of key points:
1. Compliance with Jurisdictional Law - Of the six proposed cell poles, Spring Lake Borough has jurisdiction over only one. The other five fall under Monmouth County’s authority. The County has twice rejected Verizon’s application—first on August 8th, deeming the May 10th submission “insufficient,” and again on October 4th, citing “incompleteness” in the September 18th re-submission. Under New Jersey law, both Borough and County approvals are required for such installations on County-owned roads. Verizon currently lacks consent from either authority. Click HERE for an earlier article framing the issues.
2. Adherence to Environmental Regulations - Verizon is also required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Despite multiple requests from the Borough, Verizon has not confirmed that any/all NEPA requirements have been met, leaving another critical requirement unresolved.
3. Resolution Status - As of the December 3rd meeting, the Borough formally denied Verizon’s request for non-compliance with local ordinances. Verizon has yet to submit an approved application to Spring Lake from Monmouth County, and we are awaiting feedback from Monmouth County if Verizon even re-submitted a completed application for consideration, which is two months after the County's last rejection.
The Spring Lake Council’s decision underscores the need for Verizon to meet all legal and environmental requirements before proceeding with the proposed cell towers.
4. Is there a real need? Verizon is legally obligated to demonstrate the necessity of its waiver request by providing data and additional technical support, yet it has not fulfilled this requirement. In its application, Verizon claims that “over the summer months, particularly on weekends and holidays, there is an increase in demand,” which allegedly overwhelms the network and inhibits residents and visitors from making calls, sending texts, or accessing the internet. However, the company has yet to provide any data to substantiate these claims.
The waiver seeks permanent 5G poles to address what Verizon describes as a temporary, seasonal surge in demand during specific summer weekends. Similar to a previous case involving the neighboring town of Belmar, Verizon has failed to submit evidence to justify this need. Councilman Hale, remarked, “We have yet to see data proving the proposed infrastructure is required. As a Spring Lake resident and Fire Chief, I’ve never encountered communication issues along the beachfront.”
Even if Verizon could prove demand for these limited weekends, temporary solutions already exist. One such option is Cell on Wheels (COWs)—portable units frequently used to boost network coverage during emergencies or events. Council President Brendan Judge noted, “Short-term needs could easily be addressed with COWs, which we use during the Spring Lake 5 when we host 12,500 runners plus thousands more supporters. I’m not convinced Verizon even considered alternatives.”
Moreover, Verizon’s assertion that inadequate coverage inhibits residents and visitors from making calls, sending texts, or accessing the internet lacks supporting data. Residents, who experience the area year-round, and specifically during the summer months when many residents return to Spring Lake, have not reported massive outages or significant service degradation during the cited periods. The absence of evidence raises questions about the validity of Verizon’s claims and the necessity of permanent infrastructure for what appears to be a limited, seasonal issue, if any at all.
Despite multiple invitations from the Borough to meet and address public questions, Verizon failed to respond. The Borough also proposed and researched alternative solutions, such as deploying Cell on Wheels (COWs) to manage temporary summer demand spikes. However, Verizon dismissed or ignored these suggestions. This included a short term proposal to use one or more COWs in 2025 as a temporary measure—contingent on Verizon providing evidence that its current network is unable to meet user demand. So far, Verizon has not substantiated its claims or engaged in meaningful dialogue, raising concerns about whether it is acting in good faith to push its agenda.
5. Good Faith, Bad Faith, Want vs Need, or hiding behind the Telecom Act of 1996? - Multiple invitations by the Borough to meet with and answer public questions went unanswered by Verizon. Alternative options the Borough suggested and did significant research on that could be considered were shot down for a variety of reasons or went unanswered, including the use of COW's mentioned above to handle temporary summer spike as a temporary stop-gap (that assumes Verizon could prove its inability to meet user demand under its current network).
In the end, Spring Lake denied the Verizon application for a number of reasons, including:
Timing of the Borough's Decision
Verizon's federal court complaint claimed the Borough “effectively denied” the application by unreasonably delaying its decision. The Borough disputes this assertion:
a) Verizon's application lacked sufficient information for proper evaluation.
b) Verizon was aware the Borough was actively reviewing its application.
c) The Borough acted in good faith throughout the process.
Failure to Consider Alternatives (7 offered by the Borough)
Verizon did not seriously consider alternative solutions proposed by the Borough, such as using Cell on Wheels (COWs) for temporary demand spikes.
Lack of Supporting Evidence
Verizon failed to provide adequate evidence to justify a waiver of the Borough Code.
Negative Impact on Property Values
Evidence from experts indicated the proposed cell towers could negatively affect property values in the area.
Monmouth County Approval Required
Five of the six proposed poles are under Monmouth County’s jurisdiction. Verizon has not secured the necessary County approval to proceed.
Failure to Meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements
Verizon has yet to confirm, nor is there evidence they are close to confirming compliance with NEPA, a prerequisite for the project.
Ownership and Rights-of-Way Issues
According to Verizon, SQF would own at least five of the six poles. However, SQF has not been listed as an applicant or co-applicant and has not proposed entering into a rights-of-way agreement, as required by Borough Code.
The Borough's decision reflects its commitment to upholding local regulations, protecting property values, and ensuring proper oversight of public infrastructure projects. For a detailed view of the 37-page document, click HERE