Midland Park June 27, 2012 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • Page 3 A Superior Court judge ruled last month that a flaglessstyle cell tower may go up at the site of the Sears shopping center at 80 Godwin Ave. in Midland Park. Judge Menelaos Toskos reversed a Midland Park Board of Adjustment decision of February, 2011 denying the application of Verizon and T-Mobile to erect a 110 ft. monopole capable of supporting four locators on the property. He remanded the case back to the board only for site plan consideration and “the imposition of reasonable restrictions.” At its last meeting, the board of adjustment voted to authorize its attorney to appeal the decision and to request a stay on the project. The borough council, however, on the advice of its attorney, has decided not to fund any further action, according to Borough Clerk/Administrator Addie Hanna. In his 17-page decision, Judge Toskos said that the board Court reverses cell tower denial for Sears site had failed to present qualified expert testimony to show that the proposed monopole would have an adverse effect on aesthetics or on the property value of neighboring properties, that alternate sites were suitable and available, or that there would be a substantial impact on noise, sewage, traffic or other concerns. “Verizon and T-Mobile presented substantial and uncontroverted evidence concerning the particular suitability of the site chosen. No one, either from the objectors or the board, produced any qualified expert testimony to support the denial of the variance,” the decision says. “It was undisputed that a cell tower is needed to fill a gap in Midland Park. Despite that need, the borough does not permit cell towers on any property not owned, leased or controlled by the borough. The Sears Shopping Center is in the center of the area of need, and is a large property in a commercial zone. The stealth monopole and equipment compound will utilize only a small portion of the parking lot. No parking spaces will be lost. Plaintiff not only condidered other sites but also the availability of the DAS alternative. All the experts agreed that DAS was not a feasible alternative. With regards to an alternative site, the record indicates they were considered, but none (was) suitable or available. Obligating plaintiffs to continue to further attempts to find an alternate site would be ‘fruitless and a waste of time,’” the decision concludes. Judge Toskos commended the board for “the cooperative and forward looking approach it took towards the application,” but nevertheless found that the denial “lacked any rational basis and was unsupported by competent evidence in the record.” The judge also rejected oral arguments made (continued on page 20)