The central issue revolved around the need for the tower to improve Verizon’s service in Hillsdale, particularly given the inadequacy of existing nearby towers. The engineering team highlighted that a 120-foot centerline height was necessary to provide strong in-building coverage, overcoming the limitations of current towers which offer limited service due to height and distance constraints. Despite assurances of compliance with federal electromagnetic exposure standards, which they claimed were below permissible limits, residents raised questions about safety and health impacts.

Public sentiment was mixed, with some residents opposing the tower’s location, raising concerns about its proximity to the swim club and potential safety hazards during severe weather. Questions about the tower’s structural integrity and the implications of ice or debris falling during storms were addressed by professionals who assured that the tower was designed to bend rather than collapse. Despite these reassurances, skepticism remained, fueled by videos showing ice falling from similar structures.

The council also explored alternative solutions, including small cells and Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), though Verizon representatives argued that these options were less effective for wide-area coverage in Hillsdale. Small cells, while useful for capacity in high-density areas, were deemed unsuitable due to logistical challenges such as encumbered poles and insufficient backup power for emergencies. Discussions revealed a preference for macro towers in addressing the region’s broad coverage needs, with small cells considered supplementary rather than primary solutions.

In addition to technical and safety concerns, financial implications of the tower were discussed. Under the proposed lease agreement with Verizon, the borough stands to benefit from a $5,000 initial payment and an annual $48,000 fee, including a 2.75% escalator. However, some residents questioned the long-term value of these financial incentives, arguing that they should not outweigh the potential negative impact on the community’s aesthetic and health concerns.

They acknowledged that while theoretical models suggested small cells could fill coverage gaps, technical limitations and community resistance made macro towers the preferred choice.

Public comments highlighted a desire for clearer communication and transparency regarding the technical aspects of cellular coverage. One resident, for instance, requested access to drive test data and questioned the standards used to define poor coverage. The council acknowledged the need for more detailed information and committed to ensuring regulatory frameworks were followed in the installation process.