They have a case. But did they file it in time?
An 11-year-old lawsuit filed by a group of Upper St. Clair residents opposed to the construction of a 350-foot cell phone tower will go to court next month.
Commonwealth Court ruled in 2002 that the lawsuit should go to court. But Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge W. Terrence O'Brien must first decide if the initial lawsuit was filed on time.
The remaining plaintiffs -- many of the original group are no longer part of the case -- want the tower torn down. Charles McCullough, Upper St. Clair's attorney, has repeatedly argued that the tower is essential for public safety because of the emergency communications it provides for the community.
"We feel confident that we filed (the lawsuit) within a timely fashion," said David Toal, the plaintiffs' Millvale-based attorney. The plaintiffs declined to comment through Dino Kristakis, secretary of their Deerfield Tower Legal Defense Fund.
"The town gets no revenues," Toal said. "You have to wonder why the town did it anyway."
"We're at the top (of the tower)," said Douglas Watkins, Upper St. Clair's manager, describing the frequencies the tower provides for police, fire, emergency medical services and public works. "That's one of the reasons why we agreed to this."
Municipal revenues from leasing land to cell tower companies vary. Houston-based Crown Castle International owns many of the cell towers located in the region. The company typically leases the land from municipalities.
Some townships, such as Hampton, secured a contract with Crown Castle that yields considerable income.
"We wanted a very aggressive lease agreement," said Hampton Manager W. Christopher Lochner. His township gets $43,000 a year from Crown Castle for the 10-year-old tower. Every five years that fee increases by 20 percent. The lease is for 75 years.
Upper St. Clair receives $2,400 a year from Crown Castle. The lease is for 100 years.
In an effort to resolve the lawsuit in 2006, Crown Castle officials offered to restructure the lease so that Upper St. Clair would receive a lump sum of $600,000 and an annual fee of $30,000, which would increase by 20 percent every five years. That lease would be for 60 years.
The plaintiffs rejected the offer.
Hampton's tower is seen as a "necessity," Lochner said. It sits within Hampton's 129-acre municipal complex. "Aesthetically, it's not the best thing in the world. So the township should get something back for having to look at it. We kind of swallow hard and put up with it. Now that it's here you don't even notice it."
Those most upset with Upper St. Clair's tower live in the Deerfield Manor neighborhood, which sits across the street from Boyce Mayview Park. The tower rises above the tree line. For Redfern Drive residents, such as Missy Moore, the tower is an eyesore.
"They could've made it look better, like a tree, for example," said Moore, 34, who's been in her house for about a year and a half. "Upper St. Clair has strict zoning rules. So it goes against the grain that they put it there."
Christine Thomas, 39, has lived in the nearby neighborhood, Hidden Valley Manor, for the last year.
"I guess I knew (the tower) was there, but I didn't really notice it," she said.
National WorkerRF Safety Crisis Video Our nations’ workers and the welfare of their families
are at risk! Watch the video to see how.
Unwanted cell phone tower case in Upper St. Clair may finally go to court
Source: Pittsburgh Tribune- Review
