Cellphone towers may be necessary in today’s fast-paced, interconnected world.

But for many Lakewood residents, the notion of having a 180-foot cell tower near the heart of their village is simply a bridge too far. Specifically, they claim, it brings an obtrusive and unwanted eyesore to a community passionate about its scenery.

On Tuesday, the Lakewood Zoning Board of Appeals again discussed an application submitted by Up State Tower Co., LLC, in conjunction with Blue Wireless, to erect a 180-foot cellphone tower off of Glenwood Avenue on property owned by the Lakewood Fire Company.

The tower, according to attorney Matthew T. Kerwin, who represents Up State Tower Co. LLC, and Blue Wireless, is expected to fill a glaring gap of coverage for Blue Wireless users in the Lakewood community, while also fulfilling Blue Wireless’ commitment to provide service as per its FCC license.

Myra V. Blasius, deputy chairperson of the Zoning Board, reminded members that they had to determine whether the application satisfied four criteria: that the proposed tower is necessary to cover an actual gap in cellular service of the provider; that a tower of 180 feet is the minimal height necessary to meet reasonable service objectives; that the applicant considered alternative sites; and that the proposed tower is the least intrusive design possible.

Kerwin argued that a 180-foot tower was necessary to fill a critical gap of coverage in the center of the village, a point he had illustrated in a series of propagation maps showing the span of the proposed tower’s coverage. If the 180-foot tower was reduced to just 150 feet, he said, then 53 percent less geography would be covered and 41 percent less of the population.

Any reduction in height, he said, would lead to inadequate and unreliable service.

Kerwin also addressed the alleged intrusiveness of the tower, indicating that Up State Tower Co. LLC recently conducted a balloon experiment, in which they flew a weather balloon to rest 180 feet in the air at the proposed location of the tower.

After participants in the experiment took photos of the balloon from various parts of the village, the company was able to superimpose an image of the tower to give residents an idea of how it would look like from different vantage points.

Blasius countered that the vantage points were seemingly “cherry-picked” by the company to make the tower look more unobtrusive. She argued that photos from Hartley Park, the lakefront and even on the lake itself were necessary for people to see.

A number of community members followed suit in their dissent, with one insisting that Blue Wireless doesn’t even have a sizable customer base in the area to warrant a tower. Another resident, David Barger, said the tower runs counter to everything the community cherishes in its aesthetics.

“Most all of us have worked for years to try to make the village look better,” he said. “These towers are nothing but ugly. We’re a lakeside community. Our major industry is resort business … we depend on things looking good.”

Blasius requested Kerwin provide more information on his client’s FCC license requirements, specifically regarding the amount of coverage necessary to satisfy these requirements.

The board also requested Kerwin provide more evidence that school districts and property owners were consulted during the search for alternative sites.

Finally, Blasius asked Kerwin to consider the feasibility of having two 90-foot towers instead of one 180-foot tower.