Springfield Township Board of Zoning Appeals denies Verizon plan for 195-foot tower

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP ― A zoning variance for a 195-foot cellphone tower proposed by Verizon was rejected by the Springfield Township Board of Zoning Appeals in a unanimous vote on Wednesday night.

The tower was being proposed for Springfield Township-owned property at 400 S. Lexington-Springmill Road, at the rear of Fire Station No. 2.

Steve Arnett, zoning board of appeals chairman, told the crowd of concerned residents who attended the 7 p.m. meeting at the Springfield Township Fire Station at 3400 Park Avenue Wes that the variance request was rejected because the tower would not meet the required 64-foot height restriction in residential areas and is in violation of the minimum 500-foot restriction from land used for residential purposes.

Arnett reluctantly allowed residents to share their concerns about the location of the proposed telecommunications tower but told them they should address those concerns with the elected, paid members of the Springfield Township trustees.

Arnett shared with residents that the same situation occurred in the township in 2017 with Verizon but with a different agent on Cookton-Range Road. The variance was denied but the company took the case to Richland County Common Pleas Court and now retired Judge James DeWeese ruled in favor of Verizon.

DeWeese said at the time that "no witnesses were present on behalf of the township zoning board and no witnesses or concerned residents appeared or were present for the trial."

DeWeese said in the court record the zoning board failed to consider certain sections of the zoning regulations when they denied the variance, which would cause undue hardship to Verizon.

Court documents show the zoning appeals board showed no substantial evidence the 270-foot tower would be contrary to public interest. The tower being considered Wednesday night was 75-feet shorter at 195 feet, compared to the 2017 tower.

Local residents voice concerns

Local resident Greg Newman, who lives across from the Lexington-Springmill Road fire station and the location of the proposed tower, said the lease on the township-owned property should have never been signed by the township trustees in the first place.

"I have no idea what health effects. Nobody knows. But if it were anywhere else, would you want it in your yard, across from your house?" Newman asked.

Michael Sarris, a representative of Verizon Wireless & Verizon Bridge Development, said the tower is needed to improve coverage and capacity. He did say Verizon was aware of the height restrictions when they signed the lease on the property.

Gino Mollica read a statement from Camelot Lane resident Troy Sapp, who could not be at the meeting because he is an Ontario Councilman and council had prior obligations. Sapp's opposition to the location of the tower included saying he believes it would greatly reduce home values in close proximity by as much as 20%.

"With the township receiving $10,000 per year from Verizon, that might not cover what the township will lose in tax dollars coming in and also a reduction of tax dollars going into the city of Ontario," according to Sapp, who was speaking for himself and his family.

"If this cell tower goes up, I will do everything I can to make sure everyone in close proximity gets with the Board of Revision to reduce their property taxes. Besides home values there's not been enough research on long-term health effects this can cause on youth and the elderly who live close by," Sapp's statement said. He also addressed the first responders who will be staying at the fire station beneath the cell tower up to 24 hours a day.

While the board denied the variance request, many in the crowd remain concerned that Verizon will succeed in getting the tower located at the site through the courts.

Mike Casto, who lives a block north of the cellular tower, said the proposed tower is 44 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty and in the “back yard” of an upscale Ontario residential area on Camelot Drive. He is concerned about possible health hazards connected to living next to a cellular tower.

Health risks, safety concerns, property values

About 20 residents from Ontario and Springmill Township opposing the proposed zoning variance cited health risks and safety, lessened property values, and lack of transparency on behalf of the trustees and their lease.

Casto said that residents recently learned that the township trustees signed a 10-year contract, about three years ago, to lease the property to Verizon and very few, if any, of the adjacent property owners had any knowledge of the plan. That lease runs to at least the year 2033 plus can be renewed for an additional 20 years.

Casto said he wants the board to document their statements for future use should Verizon take the matter to the courts. And he implored them to get legal counsel before making a decision.

"I'm trying to provide you with evidence because when the common pleas court hears this case they're going to want to hear a transcript of the proceedings and that wasn't done on the one on Cookton-Grange Road. It wasn't done properly. It says so in the judgment entry. They're going to want to know other evidence. I want to provide you with my statement and my evidence as to why that tower shouldn't go there," Casto said.

Arnett argued that the board didn't have the money to hire an attorney.

Casto reminded Arnett that the board had to hire legal counsel when Verizon took them to court in 2017 and then when they lost, the court ordered the board to pay hundreds of dollars in court costs.

Ontario resident Sam Zimmerman, a local law intern who lives on Camelot Lane behind the fire station, came to the meeting with his father Brian Zimmerman.

"I think he's (Casto) right. I think he's got a point. He wants to ensure that there's a record, because he wants to have your decision enforced," Zimmerman said. "... He's looking at DeWeese's opinion and he's looking at some of the factors that DeWeese was taking into account and he felt like the board didn't do its due diligence by explaining all of the reasons why it made the decision it did (six years ago)."

Zimmerman said the board needs more evidence more than the reasons or conditions it didn't meet the height and distance requirements Verizon was asking the variance for.

"They're (Judge Robinson or Judge Naumoff) going to review your ruling and they're going to apply what are the reasons this board made the decision," Zimmerman said.

Arnett argued back and forth with residents while the other four members remained basically silent.

"You can do all the research you would like to do but the deal is present it to the proper people and that ain't us," Arnett said. "We are not your paid representatives, your elected paid representatives. That's not us. They are your township trustees. Go to their meeting, present your case to them. We are doing here tonight what we've been charged to do," he added.

Arnett told residents the zoning appeals board would accept any statements from residents and staple them to the board action document Wednesday night.

lwhitmir@gannett.com

419-521-7223

X (formerly Twitter):@LWhitmir

This article originally appeared on Mansfield News Journal: Proposed Ontario cell tower would be taller than Statue of Liberty