NO TO THE CRANFORD SWIM CLUB CELL TOWER

The Westfield Leader 04/08/2010

2010-04-09T13:06:00.002-04:00

Cranford Cell Tower Decision Is Upheld by Superior Court
By CHRISTINA M. HINKE

CRANFORD – The township board of adjustment’s (BOA) decision to ban erecting a 120-foot cell phone tower on the property of the Cranford Swimming Club was upheld last month by the state Superior Court.

State Superior Court Judge Douglas Fasciale, of Westfield, on March 19 wrote that the decision of the BOA is affirmed. The judge heard arguments from Omnipoint in court on January 15. In his letter, Judge Fasciale wrote, “Omnipoint failed to prove the particular suitability of the site by demonstrating the need for a facility on the property. Omnipoint failed to submit reliable evidence of a coverage gap at the 1900 MHz frequency. The proposed site contravenes the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance to restrict telecommunication to nonresidential zones, may negatively impact nearby property values and will have a negative visual impact of the surrounding area, which includes a recreational park.”

“We’re really happy with the decision. I think it’s the right decision for our community,” BOA Chairman Robert Hellenbrecht told The Westfield Leader last week. The proposed site for the tower borders both Westfield and Cranford, and from October 2007 through December 2008, residents of both municipalities,as well as the county, fought Verizon Wireless, Omnipoint Communications, New Cingular PCS, and Sprint Spectrum, which pulled out mid-way through the hearings, in their joint application to install the monopole. The cellular companies cited there was a gap in coverage in the area, and the swim club, located on County Park Drive, was the only
property approached that was willing to provide space for a tower. Union
County College and Dreyer Farms, both across from Nomahegan Park, were other locations approached by the cellular companies.

In December 2008, the BOA unanimously decided that the applicant did not prove a significant gap in coverage and that the detriments to the residents surrounding the area of the proposed cell tower location outweighed the benefits.

Omnipoint filed an appeal to the board’s decision in early 2009 citing, “there was no competent expert testimony or other evidence disputing any of the plaintiff’s testimony or evidence, only net opinions unsupported by any factual analysis or study.” As part of its appeal, Omnipoint produced in court an FCC ruling that was adopted on November 18, 2009, after the BOA denied the application. According to the judge’s letter, Omnipoint can apply for a new application for a zoning variance based on the FCC ruling and “the BOA will need to address that request.”

Article Courtesy of GoLeader.com

Cranford Patch 04/02/2010

2010-04-03T13:54:00.003-04:00

Cell Phone Tower Project Defeated
A state Superior Court judge has rejected a mobile phone company's request to build a cell phone tower on the property of the Cranford Swim Club
By Kristin Thorne
April 2, 2010

After more than a year of meetings, petitions and hearings, many Cranford residents are pleased that a judge has decided to reject a request to build a cell phone tower on the property of the Cranford Swim Club.

In December 2008, the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment rejected an application by Verizon, AT&T Wireless and OmniPoint Communications – also known as T-Mobile – to build a 120-foot tower on the private club's property on County Park Drive. The companies said there was a gap in coverage in the area.

OmniPoint appealed the decision and the case made its way to the Superior Court of New Jersey. Late last month, the court decided to uphold the Cranford Zoning Board's ruling.

Cranford Mayor Mark Smith said OmniPoint failed to prove that there was a gap in coverage.

The decision is a victory for many Cranford residents who had been fighting the proposal for some 15 months. They created a website to rally support against the tower. A petition on the site received more than 270 signatures. Smith said he, not as a municipal official but as a resident of Cranford, signed it as well.

Residents argued that the cell phone tower shouldn't be built in a residential zone. They said it would drastically reduce their property values by creating an eyesore in a scenic part of town. The swim club's property is located adjacent to Lenape Park and near Nomahegan Park. Residents said the tower would extend 60 feet about the tree tops and would destroy the natural aesthetics of the parks.

Roxanne Graham of Cranford wrote on the online petition, "This lovely area near the park is what sold us. We would have thought twice about buying had we known this tower would be our neighbor."

Another concern for residents was the potential health risks of living near the tower.

"This poses a health hazard to the hundreds of children growing up in this upscale community. This belongs on Route 22 or some other non-residential area," wrote Mark Glickman of Westfield. Since the tower would have been close to the Westfield border, people there also got involved in the fight.

Residents can now take an even deeper sigh of relief because Smith said the Superior Court judge dismissed the suit with prejudice, meaning OmniPoint can't bring the petition back again.

Article Courtesy of Cranford.Patch.com

Wireless Estimator 03/28/2010

2010-03-28T13:49:00.001-04:00

Judge in Sync with New Jersey Zoning Board's Monopole Denial

In a March 19 letter of opinion, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Douglas Fasciale upheld a 2008 decision by the Cranford, N.J. Zoning Board of Adjustment which rejected a 120-footMonopole cell tower at the Cranford Swimming Club.

The Zoning Board of Adjustment rejected an application in 2008 by Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile, as a cooperative to build a 120-foot monopole tower on the grounds of the club near the Cranford-Westfield border.

The carriers proposed building the tower on the only non-residential property in the area in a segment of the property less than 20 feet from the shared property line with homes in Westfield.

The application, which was heard in a series of 10 meetings that stretched for 14 months, was ultimately rejected when the board unanimously found that the cellular providers had failed to prove a significant gap in coverage.

While the cellular carriers claimed that the tower was essential to providing coverage for the area, residents from both Cranford and Westfield joined together in listing their objections, saying that the tower would irreparably damage their property values and way of life.

Objections to the tower were also raised by representatives of Union County, claiming that the tower would have a lasting negative impact on Lenape Park.

Article Courtesy of WirelessEstimator.com

Cranford Chronicle 03/27/2010

2010-03-27T13:42:00.002-04:00

A definite victory for all of the hundreds of residents who fought this battle spanning over two years! Thank you again to all who contributed in fighting this cell tower!

Superior Court Upholds Cranford Zoning Board’s Rejection of 120-foot Cell Tower, Ending Emotional Application
By Leslie Murray
March 27, 2010

CRANFORD - The 2008 decision by the township Board of Adjustment which rejected a 120-foot cell tower at the Cranford Swimming Club (CSC) has been upheld by the Superior Court of New Jersey.

In December 2008, the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment rejected an application by Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile, as a cooperative to build a 120-foot monopole tower on the grounds of the club near the Cranford-Westfield border.

The providers proposed building the tower on the only non-residential property in the area in a segment of the property less than 20 feet from the shared property line with homes in Westfield.

The application, which was heard in a series of 10 meetings that stretched for 14 months, was ultimately rejected when the board unanimously found that the cellular providers had failed to prove a significant gap in coverage.

While the cellular carriers claimed that the tower was essential to providing coverage for the area, residents from both Cranford and Westfield joined together in listing their objections, saying that the tower would irreparably damage their property values and way of life.

An appeal was filed in New Jersey Superior Court in February 2009 by Omnipoint seeking to have the decision overturned. The appeal was filed on behalf of Omnipoint by attorney Gregory Meese. Township Board of Adjustment David Weeks represented Cranford in the claim.

In a March 19 letter of opinion, Judge Douglas Fasciale dismissed the compliant with prejudice, barring Omnipoint from filing additional action on the claim, and upheld the decision by the board.

Fasciale wrote in the opinion that Omnipoint “failed to prove the particular suitability of the site” and that the board was appropriate in the decision. He further rejected a claim by Omnipoint that an FCC Declaratory Ruling filed on November 18, 2009 would support their case for a cellular tower because the ruling was filed after the board had rendered their decision.

However, Fasciale said that FCC decision could be introduced should the wireless carrier file another application for that site.

The decision by the Superior Court brings to a close a heated and emotional application. Residents from Cranford and Westfield packed the municipal building for hearings on the applications. A group comprised of a few dozen residents banded together to hire an attorney to represent their objections in the application.

Residents launched a campaign against the application during the hearings and on their front lawns with signs that urged for the tower to be rejected.

Objections to the tower were also raised by representatives of Union County, claiming that the tower would have a lasting negative impact on Lenape Park.

While resident’s voiced their objections, the cellular providers made the claim that CSC was the only non-residential property in the area of Springfield Avenue and Kenilworth Boulevard willing to host a tower and would help to provide consistent cellular coverage in the area.

This week Cranford Mayor Mark Smith praised the decision by the courts. While the Township Committee did not take action on the issue, Smith said the governing body was confident in the decision by the Board of Adjustment.

“I’m pleased to hear that (the decision was upheld),” Smith said. “I think it shows that the system works.”

Article Courtesy of NJ.com

Wireless Estimator 08/25/2009

2009-09-18T21:16:00.004-04:00

Cell Tower Rejection Can be Permissible on Aesthetic Grounds, Court Rules

PLATTE COUNTY, MO - The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a tower proposal can be denied based upon aesthetic concerns.

In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court affirmed Platte County's denial of a permit for a 153-foot tower that Sprint PCS sought.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires local governments to provide written reasons for denying telecommunications towers. Judge Steven Colloton, joined by Judge Raymond Gruender, said a four-paragraph explanation from the Platte County Commission was "adequate to the task." The paragraphs essentially mirrored the county zoning code.

The Platte County Commission objected to the proposed tower because its size, location, and relationship to surrounding screening and landscaping were such that the tower would “dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent development and use of neighboring property.”

However, Judge Kermit Bye dissented, saying the county's reasoning wasn't specific enough, and that "a reviewing court is left to speculate as to the real reason or reasons for the commission's decision."

Sprint wanted to place the tower on a 7.5-acre parcel of land owned by Our Savior Lutheran Church. The land was zoned for agriculture. The county zoning staff opposed the move, arguing that the tower would "visually dominate an otherwise residential area." Neighbors feared it would affect their property values.

The case marked the first time the 8th Circuit has addressed what satisfies the "in writing" requirement of the Telecommunications Act. Several other circuits have said the written denial needs to give a sufficient explanation of the reason for the rejection.

However, the 4th Circuit found that a "denied" stamp on a form met the requirements of the law.

Article Courtesy of WirelessEstimator.com

The Westfield Leader 03/12/2009

2009-03-14T19:59:00.000-04:00

Cranford Cell Tower Ruling Appealed by Omnipoint
CHRISTINA M. HINKE
March 12, 2009

CRANFORD – David Weeks, the attorney for the Cranford zoning board of adjustment, told The Scotch Plains- Fanwood Times he filed a response recently denying the allegations in the recent appeal of plaintiff Omnipoint Communications, Inc., which was denied their joint application under the name New York SMSA Limited Partnership, also formed with Verizon Wireless, New Cingular PCS, and Sprint Spectrum (which pulled out mid-way through the hearings), to build a 120-foot monopole on the border of Cranford and Westfield to close the gap in cell phone coverage in the area.

In December, the board had denied the application to build the tower after hearing cases made by both the applicant and those opposed of the monopole that went on for over a year.

Omnipoint appealed that the board’s decision to deny the application was “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and otherwise without basis in law or fact...” The complaint noted that “there was no competent expert testimony or other evidence disputing any of Plaintiff’s testimony or evidence, only net opinions unsupported by any factual analysis or study.”

It said the Cranford Swim Club property situated in a residential zone was the “only available site” to erect the tower and was the “least intrusive.”

Mr. Weeks called it “a standard, routine appeal.” He has not received a court date from the Union County State Superior Court, but surmised that the court would hear the case in six to nine months.

Local Source: Cranford News 03/11/2009

2009-03-11T19:56:00.001-04:00

Tower: Verizon Appeals
By Paul Greulich
March 11, 2009

CRANFORD, NJ - Less than three months after the local Zoning Board denied an application seeking height and setback variances to erect a 120-foot-tall cell tower on the Cranford Swim Club property, Verizon Wireless, has filed an appeal in superior court

The applicant hopes to overturn the board’s decision.

The lawsuit was filed Jan. 29. Within a few weeks, the Zoning Board filed a response denying the allegations. “We believe the board made a sound decision, and its decision should be upheld,” said Zoning Board Attorney David Weeks.

Board Chair Robert Hellenbrecht did not return repeated calls for comment. Verizon Attorney Gregory Meese could not be reached for comment. CSC is closed until summer and no representatives were available.

The application process has spanned more than a year, drawing significant opposition from Cranford and Westfield residents.

State and county officials also opposed the site as a location for a cell tower due to environmental concerns.

The board unanimously opposed the plan on the basis there might not be a gap in coverage and that the tower would have a negative affect on the surrounding parks and residences. “Cell towers can be located anywhere, but you can’t move a park,” Zoning Board member Jeffrey Pistol said.

Weeks said the appeal did not come as a surprise. “Cell tower companies typically appeal any decisions they lose before local boards,” Weeks said.

No date has been set for the proceedings to begin. “The court will have to make a determination,” zoning officer Robert Hudak said. “I’m guessing that’s the next step.”

Paul Greulich can be reached at 908-686-7700 ext. 121, or at editorial@thelocalsource.com.

Cranford Chronicle 02/11/2009

2009-02-12T09:29:00.003-05:00

Not unexpected, the attorneys for Verizon have filed an appeal in court against the decision made by the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment:

Coop Appeals Zoning Board Decision to reject Cranford Swimming Club Cell Tower Application
by LESLIE MURRAY
February 11, 2009

CRANFORD - The cooperative of cellular providers who saw their bid to build a cell tower on the grounds of the Cranford Swimming Club (CSC) rejected by the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment have filed an appeal.

On Dec. 8, 2008 after 14 months of testimony was given over the course of 10 meetings, the highly contentious application by Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobil, to build a 120-foot monopole cell tower at CSC was unanimously rejected by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Although the decision was praised by residents, the applicant filed an appeal in New Jersey Superior Court on Feb. 5 seeking to have the decision overturned.

Cranford's zoning standards state that an applicant has 45 days following the date the resolution of decision was published to appeal. According to the Zoning Office, the decision on the CSC application was published on Dec. 31, 2008.

This week, Cranford Zoning Officer Robert Hudak said his office received notice of the appeal on Feb. 6.

Zoning Board chairman Robert Hellenbrecht said a resolution was passed during the Feb. 9 meeting appointing Board Attorney David Weeks to represent the board during in the appeal.

The cellular providers, who formed New York SMSA Limited Partnership to make the joint application, claimed that they needed the tower to fill a gap in cellular coverage.

Greg Meese, attorney for the applicant, who maintained throughout the hearings that his client needed the tower to meet service demands, introduced testimony during the application that CSC was the only property in the cellular providers search zone that was willing to host a tower.

However, residents in both Cranford and Westfield turned out in force to object to the application saying that tower would detract from their property value and ruin the quiet of the neighborhood which abuts Lenape Park. Some of the most vehement objections came from residents who share property lines with CSC who pleaded with Zoning Board to reject the application.

During the course of the application, residents turned out to voice their objections and a group of some 40 residents hired an attorney, John Schmidt of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, to represent their concerns.

The application also drew objections from Union County and the state. County attorney Norman Albert introduced testimony that the tower would negatively impact the neighboring Lenape Park and the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office asserted that the Rahway River Parkway Historic District, which was formally identified by the National Register of Historic Places in September 2002, would be damaged if the tower was erected.

The board ultimately agreed with residents saying the application failed to prove a significant gap in coverage and that the negative impact on the residents who live in the area surrounding CSC would be significant and outweighed any benefit from the tower.

This week, Weeks told the Chronicle that in their appeal the cellular providers claim that the board's decision was "arbitrary and capricious."

He said he would file a response to the appeal within the time allotted.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for The Chronicle. She can be reached at (908)464-5214 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

Suburban News 02/07/2009

2009-02-09T22:26:00.002-05:00

Letter to the Editor

Residents Express Gratitude for Help with Cell Tower Issue

by The Schuvart family and Residents of Cranford/Westfield adjacent to Lenape Park
February 07, 2009

To the Editor:

This letter is to express our gratitude to the many wonderful people who helped in the rejection of the 120-foot cell phone tower that was proposed on the border of Cranford and Westfield at the Cranford Swim Club. First of all, our sincere thanks to the Cranford Zoning Board who unanimously denied this project at a meeting on Dec. 8, 2008. We are also deeply appreciative to The Board of Chosen Freeholders led by Bette Jane Kowalski with Norman Albert, Union County attorney, and his witness Victor Vinegra, who together helped us greatly in this case.

John Schmidt, our outstanding attorney, and the many fine people he called to testify, has guided us through this long and arduous process to the rejection of this proposal by the Zoning Board.

Many concerned people working together helped us overcome this threat to our homes, neighborhoods and Lenape Park. Audrey and Joe Muratore, residents of Cranford, provided invaluable assistance. We are grateful to the six hundred plus people who signed our petition against this cell tower application. Special thanks to the people who faithfully attended the Zoning Board meetings, both residents affected and others to support us such as Barbara and Frank Krause of Cranford, Vicky Kimmins and Jo Neylan, Westfield Council members, as well as those who wrote letters to the newspapers and those who spoke against this tower at the many meetings.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the people of the press who faithfully covered our long ordeal. The Cranford Chronicle and the Suburban News unfailingly published our meeting dates, provided news coverage and printed residents concerns in letters to the editor. The Westfield Leader provided press coverage and printed the letters of residents opposed to the tower construction. Leslie Murray of the Cranford Chronicle and Christina Hinke of the Westfield Leader both wrote excellent detailed accounts of the Zoning Board meetings.

Sara Magnola, editor of the Cranford Chronicle, Gregg Marx, former editor of the Cranford Chronicle, Ellen Dooley, editor of the Suburban News, Paul Greulich, formerly of the Cranford Eagle now with the Local Source as well as Robert Missick, formerly of The Star-Ledger and Ron Angeles of The Star-Ledger have all helped us put important notices and articles in their papers. We thank them for their interest and help in keeping the public informed.

It is distressing that newspapers are facing a financial crisis at this time and sadly, some are not surviving. They help immeasurably in getting out the news to the people, especially the local news. They are also a voice for those citizens who want to express an opinion, suggestion or objection. A free press is one of our most precious freedoms and it should be supported so that it will never disappear.

Once again we are very grateful to the many good, fair and interested people who assisted us over these long months to arrive at this place. We will never forget your kindness and help.

Cranford Chronicle 02/05/2009

2009-02-05T22:22:00.002-05:00

Letter to the Editor

Rejection of CSC Cell Tower Thanks to Work of Many
by Schuvart family & Residents of Cranford/Westfield
February 05, 2009

To the Chronicle:

This letter is to express our gratitude to the many wonderful people who helped in the rejection of the 120-foot cell phone tower that was proposed on the border of Cranford and Westfield at the Cranford Swim Club. First of all, our sincere thanks to the Cranford Zoning Board who unanimously denied this project at a meeting on Dec. 8, 2008. We are also deeply appreciative to The Board of Chosen Freeholders led by Bette Jane Kowalski with Norman Albert, Union County Attorney, and his witness Victor Vinegra who together helped us greatly in this case.

John Schmidt, our outstanding Attorney, and the many fine people he called to testify, has guided us through this long and arduous process to the rejection of this proposal by the Zoning Board.

Many concerned people working together helped us overcome this threat to our homes, neighborhoods and Lenape Park. Audrey and Joe Muratore, residents of Cranford, provided invaluable assistance. We are grateful to the six hundred plus people who signed our petition against this cell tower application. Special thanks to the people who faithfully attended the Zoning Board meetings, both residents affected and others to support us such as Barbara and Frank Krause of Cranford, Vicky Kimmins and Jo Neylan, Westfield Council members, as well as those who wrote letters to the newspapers and those who spoke against this tower at the many meetings.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the people of the press who faithfully covered our long ordeal. The Cranford Chronicle and the Suburban News unfailingly published our meeting dates, provided news coverage and printed residents concerns in letters to the editor. The Westfield Leader provided press coverage and printed the letters of residents opposed to the tower construction. Leslie Murray of the Cranford Chronicle and Christina Hinke of the Westfield Leader both wrote excellent detailed accounts of the Zoning Board meetings.

Sara Magnola, editor of The Cranford Chronicle, Gregg Marx, former editor of the Cranford Chronicle, Ellen Dooley, editor of the Suburban News, Paul Greulich, formerly of the Cranford Eagle now with the Local Source as well as Robert Missick, formerly of The Star-Ledger and Ron Angeles of The Star-Ledger have all helped us put important notices and articles in their papers. We thank them for their interest and help in keeping the public informed.

It is distressing that newspapers are facing a financial crisis at this time and sadly, some are not surviving. They help immeasurably in getting out the news to the people, especially the local news. They are also a voice for those citizens who want to express an opinion, suggestion or objection. A free press is one of our most precious freedoms and it should be supported so that it will never disappear.

Once again we are very grateful to the many good, fair and interested people who assisted us over these long months to arrive at this place. We will never forget your kindness and help.

Schuvart Family & Residents of Cranford/Westfield Adjacent to Lenape Park

The Westfield Leader 01/15/2009

2009-02-04T20:56:00.002-05:00

Letter to the Editor

Thanks for Coverage of Cell Tower Application

Many thanks for your coverage (correspondent Christina M. Hinke) of the Cranford zoning board meetings concerning the proposed 120-foot cell phone tower located on the border of Westfield and Cranford at the Cranford Swim Club. There have been many long meetings and many testimonials to cover, but your articles for The Westfield Leader were always clear, concise and correct and helped greatly to clarify the key issues for many residents.

With the unanimous decision by the zoning board to deny this proposal, we feel encouraged that this threat to our homes and neighborhoods as well as Lenape Park has lessened considerably. Thank you again for your excellent reports of the Cranford zoning board meetings in The Leader and we wish you all the best in 2009.

Schuvart Family and Nearby Westfield/Cranford Residents

Cranford Chronicle 01/30/2009

2009-01-30T17:34:00.000-05:00

Letter to the Editor

Drew Kept Promise by Denying CSC Cell Tower
by John R Shaw
January 30, 2009

To the Chronicle:

I read Ms. Barone's letter on Chris Drew's courage and leadership in opposing the cell tower application and could not agree more.

By calling for the denial of the cell tower application, Chris Drew demonstrated real integrity. Mr Drew kept his campaign promise to maintain Cranford's small town character by opposing the cell tower proposal.

Having able and committed volunteers on our land use boards is extremely important to the welfare of our town. Chris Drew and the others who followed his lead to vote against the cell tower application are owed a debt of gratitude.

John R Shaw
Cranford

Local Source: Cranford News 12/30/2008

2008-12-30T18:34:00.002-05:00

Cell Tower Rejected
By Paul Greulich
December 30, 2008

CRANFORD, NJ - A cell tower will not have a home on the Cranford Swimming Club grounds, officials agreed after more than a year reviewing the application.

The township Zoning Board rejected the project in a unanimous vote at its Dec. 8 hearing on the application, which drew dozens of community members eager to voice their concerns during a block reserved for public comments.

Residents applauded the decision.

Officials opposed the plan on the basis that there might not be a gap in coverage and that the tower would have a negative affect on the surrounding parkland and residences. “Cell towers can be located anywhere, but you can’t move a park,” Zoning Board member Jeffrey Pistol said.

The applicant, Verizon, sought height and setback variances to erect the pole at the site in a residential area, near the county-owned Lenape Park and the historic Rahway River Park district. The tower would have been 120-feet-tall.

Resident Steve Cohen said concerned community members have spent money, missed trips and lost time with families while battling this application. “All of our lives have been disrupted by this proposal,” Cohen said.

He suggested the Swim Club broke its promise to be a good neighbor to surrounding residents by allowing Verizon to erect the pole.

Another resident, Tom Graham, said the tower and maintenance equipment also proposed in the plan would have been too close to residential properties.

“I…can’t believe it’s coming to this point where we would consider this,” Graham said, noting the township failed to consider the affect the project would have on neighboring towns, such as Westfield.

The potential impact on the County-owned Lenape Park, as well as nearby Westfield residents, drew Freeholder Bette Jane Kowalski and Westfield’s Second Ward Councilwoman Vicki Kimmins to the hearing.

Kimmins sympathized with the Zoning Board, saying she understood the difficulties it faced.

An attorney for the group of local residents who opposed the plan, John Schmidt of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook and Cooper, said Verizon did not provide thorough information on the coverage the tower would provide.

“This applicant failed to show not only a significant gap in coverage but any gap in coverage,” said Schmidt.

Verizon’s attorney, Greg Meese of Price, Meese, Shulman and D’Arminio based in Woodcliff Lake, said the proposal was based not on everyday usage, but on the maximum usage that could be expected in the future.

“You don’t base your building codes on withstanding the average wind, you base them on a strong wind,” Meese said.

Cranford may not have seen the last of this proposal.

Once the Zoning Board passes a formal resolution denying the application, the applicant has 45 days to appeal the decision in court, which Schmidt said is the likely course of action for Verizon. “With the amount of litigation that has gone on in the past involving cell towers, I am confident this will be appealed by the carriers,” he said.

Meese and representatives from the Cranford Swim Club could not be reached for comment.

Norman Albert had represented Union County’s interest with regard to Lenape Park.

Article Courtesy of LocalSource.com

The Westfield Leader 12/18/2008

2008-12-17T22:59:00.002-05:00

Residents Made Difference In Denial of Cell Tower
By Christina M. Hinke

CRANFORD — The earnest voice of residents weighed on the township zoning board of adjustment’s unanimous, Monday, December 8, decision to reject a 120 foot cell tower monopole proposed in a residential neighborhood at the Cranford Swim Club.

The 10-hearing heated debate between the applicant, SMSA Limited Partnership, consisting of Verizon Wireless, AT&T and T-Mobile, and a team of Westfield and Cranford residents represented by their attorney John Schmidt, had heard testimony by the applicant’s radiofrequency expert Glenn Pierson citing a gap in coverage.

Board member Christopher Drew told The Westfield Leader that after hearing testimony by residents at the November meeting that cited their own test of cell phone service in the “gap” that showed they could make calls inside buildings and outside without a problem that, “I think you have to trust the people on the ground. Who better to judge than the folks who are affected by it?” “Based on testimony I felt it was the right thing to do,” he said. The application sought seven variances, including use, height and setback. “It was way too much all the way around. A bad place, a bad project and, quite frankly, I’m very happy for the residents.”

Jo Ann Neylan told The Leader she and Vicki Kimmins attended the meetings to support the Westfield residents as second ward representatives of the Westfield Town Council. “We’re happy that the residents were satisfied [by the board’s decision to deny the application]. We just hope that the technology in the future is as such that they don’t have to have so many cell towers around,” Ms. Neylan said. Ms. Kimmins said the zoning board “really listened to the residents. How it affected them personally — it really counted... All those voices together really made a difference,” she said.

“I think the decision was a correct one. Too close to a residential area and too close to a park.” Robert Hellenbrecht, chairman of the Cranford board, said, “My belief was that there was not a significant gap in service and weighed against the detriment, we as a board felt compelled to deny it.”

Mr. Schmidt, in his closing remarks, said, “The evidence in this case says the application should be denied.” He also said when his radiofrequency expert requested to review the data that was relied upon for Mr. Pierson’s evidence of a gap of coverage that “there was none.” The applicant’s attorney, Gregory Meese, said drive test data showing his applicant having a significant gap in coverage along Kenilworth Boulevard and Springfield Avenue is updated regularly and is why the old data was erased and he said the data didn’t change.

Norman Albert, a representative for the County of Union and a Cranford resident, asked the board to consider its “common sense” when weighing the detriment a cell tower would have on property values, siding that a tower would decrease the value of a home.

John Schuvart, a Westfield resident who, along with his wife Jenny and son Michael, was among a group of some 90 people who hired Mr. Schmidt, said the tower “would have cost the neighborhood property value loss… This is almost everybody’s single investment in their lives.” “If you want to be in the cell phone business, you got to pay the price. But don’t lean on us,” Mr. Schuvart said. He told The Leader that residents spent about $40,000 to $50,000 to battle the case. “It’s so sad that things are handled this way, that it puts so much stress on people, the residents. We have lost some of our lives, our health. Every night my last thoughts were ‘how the heck are we going to fight this cell tower?’ Isn’t that a shame?” said Mr. Shuvart, who has owned his home for over 40 years. “We pay our taxes every quarter, we’ve been good citizens, we raised our children here. To be confronted with this in this time in your life is so sad. Our neighbors are mostly older. It’s tough. It’s disrupting our lives. It’s going to take us a while to get over it. My wife says she doesn’t think she’ll ever get over it. There is so much they could have done to make it easier.”

Frank Krause, a Cranford resident, said the decision to deny the application “certainly was saving the value of the land” for the residential lots in Westfield and Cranford surrounding the proposed site, the swim club property and the Union County Green Acres parkland.

Cranford resident Marjorie Meise told the board “before I left today my daughter, a college student, said to me ‘you go mom, you bring forth your voice…, but it’s not going to change a thing.’” “I said…‘People’s voices count…’” In a final statement by Mr. Drew at last Monday’s hearing, he said to Ms. Meise, “Please tell her and all of her friends that they can always make a difference and that her mom absolutely made a difference today.”

“We’ve (the board) never had the participation and we’ve never had the strong opinion of so many residents. I take that to heart and I take that serious,” board member Ronald Marotta said.

“I felt this was an unfair application for the residents to have this tower behind their homes. No one else in the state and the country has experienced this…these people have been asked an unusual burden,” board member Carolyn Youngs said. “I think it’s really unrealistic to have these cell towers within a couple miles of each other.”

Mr. Meese did not return phone calls inquiring about his client’s decision to appeal the board’s decision.

Cranford Chronicle 12/10/2008

2008-12-10T19:35:00.003-05:00

Board Rejects 14-Month Long Cranford Swimming Club Cell Tower Application
By Leslie Murray
December 10, 2008

CRANFORD - After 14 months of testimony given over the course of 10 meetings, the application to build a 120-foot monopole cell tower at the Cranford Swimming Club (CSC) was unanimously rejected by the Zoning Board of Adjustment during the Monday, Dec. 8 meeting.

In voting on the application, which drew serious objections from Cranford and Westfield residents as well as from Union County representatives, board members agreed that the application, a cooperative effort by Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile, failed to prove a significant gap in coverage. What's more board members also said that the negative impact on the residents who live in the area surrounding CSC would be significant and outweighed any benefit from the tower. The decision was met with a boisterous round of applause from the audience.

Drawing about 60 members of the public, the end of the final meeting of the long and contentious application was marked by public comments and the closing statements made by attorney for the applicant Gregory Meese and the attorneys representing the objectors - John Schmidt who represented a group of residents and Norman Albert who represented Union County.

As they spoke, residents from the area surrounding the swim club asked the board to reject the application, saying that the tower would be utterly detrimental to their quality of life.

Saying that residents were being unfairly saddled with the tower because of a decision by the swim club, Ellen Miller said she could only guess that the club would use the lease payments from the tower to pay for upgrades in the facility.

"I am a former member of the Cranford Swimming Club and I have paid my dues. Now I feel I'm being asked to pay dues again," Miller said.

Offering a visual aid of where the tower would be from one property line, resident Tom Graham took out a tape measure and stood 14 feet from the podium, asking the board to protect the residents.

Call the evidence presented by the applicant unimpressive, Norman Schwartz said that adding a cell tower in the neighborhood would urbanize the suburban neighborhood no matter how the cellular providers suggested camouflaging it.

"I don't care if it has branches on it. I don't care if it has nests on it. 'Welcome to New York City,'" Schwartz said. "I'm pleading with you: just vote no."

Offering support, Linden resident Joseph Sarica said that as the mail carrier for the area he understood why residents chose the quiet, calm neighborhood.

"They're good people. They're hardworking people. They don't deserve this," he said.

The concern of residents also drew support from Union County Freeholder Bette Jane Kowalski and Westfield Councilwoman Vicky Kimmins, both of whom encouraged the board to reject the application.

The meeting became more heated as the attorneys offered their closing statements, taking to task the witnesses and the testimony that had been offered throughout the application.

Offering his statements first, Albert said that the applicant had failed to make their case. He specifically took aim at the testimony regarding attempts to find alternate sites for the cell tower, calling the efforts "wholly inadequate."

"The detrimental impact on the residential area and a county park land ... is really incontrovertible," Albert said.

In his closing statement, Schmidt criticized the entire application saying that not only had the applicant failed to prove a gap in coverage but that the experts offered testimony that was based on data that did not exist.

"I submit that that this applicant has failed to show not only a significant gap in coverage but any gap in coverage," Schmidt said.

Furthering his statements, he said that by allowing a cell tower in a residential area, the board would be setting a dangerous precedent.

"You're going to open the door with this application and you are not going to be able to close it," Schmidt said.

Firing back, Meese said that in making the application the cellular carriers had proposed a tower in "the least obtrusive site" in an area that needed cellular coverage.

"They have an (FCC) license. They have the need for the site. They have investigated all other possible sites," Meese said. "Clearly the benefits outweigh the determents."

However the board members disagreed, saying that the applicant had failed to prove that there was a gap in coverage that would be filled by the proposed cell tower.

Making a motion to reject the application, board member Christopher Drew said the applicant had failed to make their case.

"Quite frankly, I don't think a significant gap in coverage has been proven," Drew said, drawing a round of applause.

Seconding the motion, Robert Bovasso said that in addition to not making the case that residential property values would remain unaffected, the application had not appropriately proved that the coverage was needed. "I don't believe that a gap in coverage had been demonstrated. It's too speculative," he said.

Offering his comment, board chairman Robert Hellenbrecht said that he "(did not) believe this tower is going to solve any big problems."

"I believe that the determents substantially outweigh the benefits," Hellenbrecht said.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for The Chronicle. She can be reached at (908)464-5214 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

Zoning Board Voices Resounding “No” to Cell Tower Application

2008-12-09T09:09:00.002-05:00

On Monday, December 8, 2008 the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to deny, in full, the application set forth by Verizon Wireless (et al) to construct a 120' cell tower on the property of the Cranford Swim Club, 201 County Park Drive, Cranford.

Following several hours of public comment consisting of resident after resident voicing opposition to this cell tower application, the attorney(s) for the county, the residents and the applicant presented their final statements to the board.

Deliberations by the Zoning Board began at approximately 11:15pm and included comments, discussion and questions from the board as well as instruction from the Zoning Board attorney, David P. Weeks.

Mr. Weeks reviewed several points of the application, including, but not limited to:

1. The tower is not a Permitted Use in an R-1 Zone (Single Family Residential Zone);
2. The applicant is seeking to place a 120’ tower where the height limit is 30’ in a Residential (R-1) Zone. This is a staggering 90’ height variance request;
3. In total, the application includes eight bulk variances;
4. The applicant is requesting a Use Variance, which would allow a cell tower (Commercial Use) in a Residential Zone;
5. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow two Principal Uses on one singular property;
6. Citing Court Rulings; a cell tower is not an inherently beneficial use (i.e. a church, school, etc.); therefore it is treated as a Commercial Use.

The board began deliberations with comments from several members. There was a unanimous agreement by the board that the applicant failed to prove that a significant gap in coverage exists in the proposed area. Additional comments by the board included:

1. There would be a negative impact on the surrounding parkland by introducing such an intrusive structure to the existing landscape;
2. The cell tower would result in a diminution of home values in the surrounding are by 10%-15%;
3. Approval of this application would set a dangerous precedent for all Residential Zones in the Township of Cranford and would have a detrimental impact on the Zoning Map of the Township of Cranford;
4. The application is unrealistic and the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to justify constructing of a cell tower so close to residential homes;
5. The negative criteria far outweighs the positive and the granting of this application would cause substantial detriment to the public good;
6. Both the county and the state are strongly opposed to this application;
7. This structure would introduce an intrusive use into a Residential (R-1) Zone;
8. The proposed tower would not fill any alleged “gap” of coverage in the area due to overwhelming evidence that no such “gap” exists.

The Zoning Board Chair, Robert Hellenbrecht, went on to say that it is the board’s job to protect the general welfare of the residents and the community, conserve the value of the land in our township as well as to prohibit Principal Uses in zones which they are strictly prohibited by the land use laws of our township.

Following an hour long deliberation, the Zoning Board Members; Robert Hellenbrecht, Carolyn Youngs, Ronald Marotta, Christopher Drew, Robert Bovasso, Jeffrey Pistol and Barbara Ginsberg voted unanimously to deny this application in full.

CSC Cell Tower Unanimously DENIED!

2008-12-09T00:28:00.001-05:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment voted unanimously this evening to DENY, in full, the application set forth by Verizon Wireless (et al) to construct a 120' cell tower on the property of the Cranford Swim Club, 201 County Park Drive, Cranford.

For more information on the reasons for denial, please be sure to check back as further updates will be posted tomorrow!

A huge thank you again to each and every resident who spoke up in opposition to this tower. Your voices were finally heard!

CONGRATULATIONS EVERYONE!

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 12/08/2008

2008-12-07T18:40:00.000-05:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a continuation hearing for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal on Monday, December 8, 2008.

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, December 8, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

PLACE: Cranford Municipal Building [Room 107], 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey

*THIS WILL BE THE FINAL MEETING!*

At this meeting, public comment in opposition to the application will continue, the attorneys will make their final closing statements and the board will begin to deliberate on the application with a decision possible.

*A DECISION BY THE BOARD MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING!*

As this application is now passing the year-long mark, we would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every resident who stood strong with their ongoing support, dedication and continued involvement in this cause.

As the application comes to an end, we must now continue to make it clear that this cell tower application must be denied!

I urge all residents who did not have a chance to make their statement during public comment at the last meeting to take the opportunity at this next meeting. It is crucial that each and every resident have a chance to be heard!

Thank you again to all! You're overwhelming support has been amazing!

See everyone at the meeting!

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

This Zoning Board meeting will also be televised live on Cranford's TV-35. Please tune in if you cannot make it to the meeting!

Cranford Chronicle 12/07/2008

2008-12-07T18:38:00.002-05:00

Final Cell Tower Meeting in Cranford
Cranford Chronicle
December 07, 2008

CRANFORD - On Monday, Dec. 8, at 8:15 p.m. there will be the final cell tower meeting by the Cranford Zoning Board, at the Cranford Municipal Building, located at 8 Springfield Ave., Cranford.

The meeting is regarding the proposal to erect a 120-foot cell tower, a large building and related structures at the Cranford Swim Club, 201 County Park Drive which is on the Cranford/Westfield border.

This area is zoned strictly residential and is also adjacent to Lenape Park, a County Park used by residents of many nearby towns.

This is the last meeting on this proposal and comments from the community will be listened to by the Zoning Board and a definitive decision will be made.

All interested persons are urged to attend and participate before this decision is final. Call the Cranford Zoning Department at (908) 709-7216 for confirmation or with questions.

Suburban News 12/03/2008

2008-12-03T20:50:00.000-05:00

Cell Tower Final Meeting

Cranford – On December 8 at 8:15 p.m. there will be the final cell tower meeting by the Cranford Zoning Board, at the Cranford Municipal Building, 8 Springfield Ave., Cranford, regarding the proposal to erect a 120-foot cell tower, a large building and related structures at the Cranford Swim Club, 201 County Park Drive which is on the Cranford/Westfield border.

Be advised this area is zoned strictly residential as is also adjacent to Lenape Park, a County Park used by residents of many nearby towns.

This is the last meeting on this proposal and comments from the community will be listened to by the Zoning Board and a definitive decision will be made.

All interested persons are urged to attend and participate before this decision is final.

Call the Cranford Zoning Department at 908-709-7216 for confirmation or questions.

Wireless Estimator 12/02/2008

2008-12-02T09:47:00.001-05:00

Residents, Cities, County and State Synchronized Against Defeating Swim Club Monopole Application

CRANFORD, NJ - After a year of nine meetings on a contentious application to construct a cellular tower at the Cranford Swim Club, the public will still have to wait for a decision on a 120-foot monopole to be erected at the rear of the swim club property on the border of Cranford and Westfield.

According to attorney Greg Meese and other experts for the cellular providers, the tower is necessary to fill a gap in coverage and to meet service demands.

Residents in both communities have objected, saying they do not experience a lack of cellular coverage and that the tower will negatively impact their property values. The application has also drawn objections from Union County and the state.

Article Courtesy of WirelessEstimator.com

Cranford Chronicle 11/30/2008

2008-11-30T19:52:00.002-05:00

After Year, Application for CSC Cell Tower Continues
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD - In the ninth meeting on a contentious application to build a cellular tower at the Cranford Swimming Club (CSC) the public had their first opportunity to comment on the application, though a decision on the application will likely have to wait until December.

The application calls for a 120-foot monopole tower and a cluster of communication equipment to be constructed at the rear of the swim club property on the border of Cranford and Westfield by a cooperative of cellular providers including, Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile.

According to attorney Greg Meese and other experts for the cellular providers, the tower is necessary to fill a gap in coverage and to meet service demands.

However, residents in both Cranford and Westfield have objected, saying they do not experience a lack of cellular coverage and that the tower will negatively impact their property values. A group of objectors have hired attorney John Schmidt of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper to represent their concerns.

The application has also drawn objections from Union County and the state, with county attorney Norman Albert saying the tower would negatively impact the neighboring Lenape Park. The claim has received backing from the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office who asserted that the Rahway River Parkway Historic District, which was identified by the National Register of Historic Places in Sept. 2002, would be damaged if the tower was erected.

During the Monday, Nov. 24 meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, before a crowd of approximately 50 people, Schmidt presented four residents who testified that they conducted cell phone tests.

Audrey Muratore, Maria Polyvioe, Elaine Puma, and Marjorie Meise all recorded the results from a series of calls which they made from their AT&T and Verizon Wireless cell phones, within the area that the application has indicated as having limited coverage.

With the exception of Meise who testified that one call was dropped as she headed toward Broad Street in Westfield from Gallows Hill Road, all of the women said they had no issues with coverage during their test calls.

"This is what I use 90 percent of the time," Muratore said of her cell phone. "I've never had a problem."

Meese objected, saying, "I think the case law is clear that this type of anecdotal evidence is not relevant."

As the testimony continued, the ringing of a cell phone distracted from the meeting briefly.

"Guess it works here," one resident remarked, drawing a laugh from the audience.

Addressing one of the main issues of the application, board chairman Robert Hellenbrecht asked if there was any way for the board to know if the test calls were made on the 800 megahertz service, which the cellular carriers have said is reliable in the area, or the 1,900 megahertz service that the application is seeking to expand.

Per testimony given earlier in the application, witnesses for the cellular providers have said that as service demands increase a greater number of calls are carried on the less reliable 1,900 megahertz service.

Schmidt and witnesses for area residents have said that the carriers have effectively admitted that they need to boost capacity not coverage. In seeking this tower witness for the objectors have said the cell providers are overlapping coverage instead of expanding it.

On Monday, Schmidt said both he and the witnesses could not say what frequency was used for the calls.

Calling his only witness for the application, Albert introduced testimony by planner Victor Vinegra of Harbor Consultants.

Speaking about the work he has performed for Union County related to Lenape Park, Vinegra stated that the trail system in the park is an integral part of the county's greenway and if erected the tower would be "a visual blight somewhat on the park."

"Looking to buffer this would be very difficult because of the height of the tower," Vinegra said. What's more, Vinegra criticized statements previously made by the applicant's planner citing that a willing landlord for the tower and the property's location near a park should be considered as part of the planning criteria for the application.

"That's a business reason, not a planning reason," he testified.

Cross examining Vinegra, Meese said that Verizon Wireless was in the process of appealing the decision by the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office. Meese also said that that for his testimony Vinegra had "ransacked the case law for the cases that made a juicy bill board."

Answering back, Vinegra said that like the planner for the applicant he testified to relevant cases related to cell tower applications.

In closing, Meese recalled radio frequency engineer Glenn Pierson's testimony. Rebuffing the residents who testified about their investigative calls, Pierson said that all but three of the 16 test calls were made within the existing area of coverage.

Questioning Pierson again, board vice-chair Jeffery Pistol asked about a seeming contradiction between the advertised coverage by cellular providers and the coverage maps presented as evidence.

"I'm confused as to how they can represent one thing on the advertisement and another thing here," Pistol said.

Pierson responded that he could not testify about the advertisements because he had not conducted the tests used to produce the material.

During the public comments on the application no residents spoke in favor of the application.

Speaking out against the application Austin Habiv said that the applicant had offered "distorted information" thorough out the case.

"We can't afford to have this in our community," Habiv continued.

Furthering the criticism, Cranford resident Frank Krause called the application "totally flawed, inaccurate, and incomplete."

Roxanne Graham said that she and her husband bought their home because of the serene neighborhood.

"Unfortunately our picturesque view is going to be gone once this thing goes up in our backyard," she asserted.

Saying that residents such as herself in the community are good neighbors who do not complain about the noise from the swim club, Mary Valenzano pointed out that members of the Cranford Swimming Club could quit the club if the sight of the cell tower bothered them, but residents of the area did not have that luxury.

"Please say no. It's the right thing to do," she urged the board.

Paul Fuller said that like most others he has a Blackberry that works well from within his house.

He continued on to say that the swim club is being a bad neighbor and by allowing the tower, it will also be facilitating the mistreatment of residents.

"It's kind of like they want their cake but I have to pay for it and then watch them eat it," Fuller said.

At the Dec. 8 meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, public comment will continue, the attorneys will make their closing statements and the board will deliberate on the application with a decision possible.

The Westfield Leader 11/27/2008

2008-11-28T17:07:00.003-05:00

Westfield, Cranford Residents Voice Resounding ‘No’ to Cell Tower
By CHRISTINA M. HINKE

CRANFORD — Residents of Westfield and Cranford on Monday had their first chance to make comments to the Cranford planning board regarding the application for a 120-foot cell tower proposed for placement at the Cranford Swimming Club on County Park Drive, which borders on Westfield. In this yearlong battle, Westfield and Cranford homeowners who live adjacent to or near the swim club have opposed the application to erect a cell phone tower.

The applicant, SMSA Limited Partnership, composed of Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile, seeks use, height and setback variances to place the monopole and an equipment shelter in a residential zone at the Cranford Swimming Club.

Austin Habib of Manitou Circle in Westfield said to the board, “you have the right to disapprove” the application based on the interests of the community, adding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cannot force the municipality to approve it. He voiced concerns of the possible health risks of frequencies the tower would emit, noting how government in the past had said certain materials, such as mercury, were harmless, only to learn later that they were harmful to humans. He also said research he found on the Internet stated that monopoles can reduce a home’s value by up to 50 percent.

Mark O’Neil of 56 Manitou Circle said, “for me, it began with the presumption that it is not allowed.” He said there is “sufficient reason” to not approve the application. He called the board’s imminent decision a “balancing test” of legality and the community perspective. He said a realtor said to him recently that a couple heard about the cell tower case and dropped out of looking at a home in the area. “It’s perception. It affects the value of everyone’s house.” Mr. O’Neil said, “It’s not a constitutional issue,” adding, “we have land lines for phones, cable lines for phones. Certainly cell phone service doesn’t rise to the level of need of a water line or electrical line.” “Look at how many people are against this application. The majority should weigh on your minds,” he said. He called the tower an “eyesore.” Mr. O’Neil said if the cell tower was approved, the swim club would be changing its use to a commercial property by renting its space and profiting off of the lease. “At the end of the day, it is fundamentally unfair,” he said.

Paul Fuller of Cranford reiterated Mr. O’Neil’s statement, saying this application is not a variance but a rezoning issue. “We are looking to you guys to help us stop this,” he said. “It’s a bottom line majority issue...You haven’t shown it’s beneficial to the neighborhood.”

Myron Kesselhaut of 44 Manitou Circle lives the closest to the proposed location of the tower and said he bought his home 40 years ago because he had a “pristine property.” He said if the tower goes up it would be 14 feet from his yard where his grandchildren play and would impinge on his view. “I want my grandchildren to play with no problems,” he said. “I want to enjoy my final days there.”

Charles Rauch of 20 Manitou Circle cited visual and noise pollution and lowered property values as the impact to the neighborhood surrounding the tower site. The rapid improvements in technology and how technological devices have been made smaller for the same or more use are proven, he said, adding that the same could happen to how cell phone service is provided.

Frank Krause of Cranford said one variance was “overlooked,” citing the tower site is 15 feet from county parklands, where 50 feet is required.

Andrea Bergman of 40 Nomahegan Court in Cranford said the board should vote no, “if you on the board truly represent the residents of Cranford and not the big money interest.”

“Please say no. It’s the right thing to do,” said Mary Valanzano of
Nomahegan Court.

Prior to resident comments, Michael Shuvart, a resident of Manatoa Circle in Westfield, was recalled to the stand. He testified about advertisements he saw for the three cell phone carriers and how each of their websites has a user option to type in an address to see the result of coverage in the area. He said all three carriers showed sufficient coverage in the proposed cell site location.

The applicant’s attorney, Gregory Meese, stated that footnotes on the ads said maps produced may include no service areas, limited or no coverage areas and does not guarantee service, coverage and availability.

John Schmidt, the attorney representing the residents opposed to the application, said the maps stated that they showed the strongest coverage numbers resulting in good or better coverage.

Mr. Schmidt then called four residents to testify on behalf on their own call test, of which they made a handful of calls from various places in the area in question to research the reliability of the cell phone service. Mr. Meese objected to each person’s testimony saying it is not relevant and does not stand up in court.

All but one phone call was noted as going through and not being dropped. Later, Glenn Pierson, a radio frequency expert for the applicant, was called to redirect comments on this data. He said of 16 of the calls he looked at, all but three were in the existing coverage area on the Verizon map that showed good coverage.

Norman Albert, an attorney representing the County of Union, called Victor Vinagra of Harbor Consultants as a planning expert to testify on the effect the tower has on the county parkland at Lenape Park. Mr. Vinagra presented a PowerPoint display of photographs he took of the park and the views from the tower site into the yards of the neighboring homes, and a trail system map.

He said the view from the homes would see the base of the tower and 10 feet above it. The trail connects Echo Lake Park with Nomahegan Park and extends behind the swim club. It is part of the Union County Greenway, which is part of the New Jersey Greenway. Mr. Vinagra said the county is commissioning to expand the greenway. The tower affects the long range planning the county has for its park system, he said. The visual effects the tower would have from the greenway would have a “negative impact on the county park system,” he said.

This sentiment was shared by the Rahway River Parkway Historic District in a letter, he said. He said the tree buffer was not good year-round and the height of the tower extends above the tree line, which he said is about 70 to 80 feet. He said the applicant has failed to make a case to approve the tower placement and it does no meet the zone plan. “Not being able to negotiate a deal with other property owners is not a reason to grant the application,” Mr. Vinagra told the board. He said just because Lenape Park cannot be developed for residential use does not mean it cannot be developed for park activities. He said the fact that the tower’s proposed site abuts 270 acres of open space “pushes the impact” a monopole would have on the area and “does not negate the impact.”

The next board meeting on the cell tower will be held Monday, December 8, at 8:15 p.m.

Cranford Chronicle 11/23/2008

2008-11-24T13:54:00.001-05:00

Cranford Cell Tower Meeting November 24, Decision Pending
by The Chronicle

CRANFORD - On November 24, at 8:15 p.m. there will be a meeting of the Cranford Zoning Board at the Cranford municipal building, 8 Springfield Ave., Cranford, to determine whether the Zoning Board will allow the construction of a 120-foot cell phone tower and related buildings at the Cranford Swim Club, 201 County Park Drive, Cranford.

This area is zoned strictly residential and is adjacent to Lenape Park, a county park, used by residents of many towns.

Comments from the audience regarding this proposal will be listened to by the Zoning Board and a final decision may be made.

All interested persons are urged to attend this very important meeting. Call (908) 709-7216 for additional information.

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 11/24/2008

2008-11-20T21:26:00.001-05:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a continuation hearing for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal on Monday, November 24, 2008.

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, November 24, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

PLACE: Cranford Municipal Building [Room 107], 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey

At this meeting, Mr. Schmidt (attorney for the residents) will make his closing argument of opposition to this cell tower proposal. Norm Albert (attorney representing Union County) is expected to call one witness to testify as well.

Should the attorneys both complete their witness testimony, the Zoning Board may begin to hear public comment. This will be the most vital portion and we urge everyone to stand up before the Zoning Board and have their voices heard!

This has been a long battle and we must now make it clear that this cell tower application must be denied!

See everyone at the meeting!

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

This Zoning Board meeting will also be televised live on Cranford's TV-35. Please tune in if you cannot make it to the meeting!

Cranford Chronicle 10/10/2008

2008-10-10T18:46:00.003-04:00

Cell Tower Application Could Continue Into 2009
by Leslie Murray
Friday October 10, 2008

CRANFORD - Nearly a year after the application began, the controversial effort to build a cellular tower at the Cranford Swimming Club (CSC) continued this week.

The Oct. 6 meeting marked the eighth time the application, by a cooperative of cellular providers, Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile, has been heard by the Board of Adjustment. It calls for a 120-foot monopole tower on the rear of the swim club property at the border of Cranford and Westfield.

Representing the applicant, attorney Greg Meese and other experts have maintained the carriers have a gap in coverage and need the tower to meet service demands.

Residents in both Cranford and Westfield have objected, saying the tower will negatively impact their property values and could be a health risk. A group of the objectors have hired attorney John Schmidt of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper to represent their concerns.

The application has also drawn objections from Union County and the state, with county attorney Norman Albert saying the tower would negatively impact the neighboring Lenape Park and the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office asserting, in a letter that the Rahway River Parkway Historic District, which was identified by the National Register of Historic Places in Sept. 2002, would be damaged if the tower was erected.

During the meeting Monday, Meese cross-examined radio frequency engineer Ronald Graiff who testified in August that an overlap in cell tower locations was a bad practice.

This week, real estate appraiser Thomas Kacheiriess testified that witness John Gillooly drew an improper parallel between the County Park Drive location and a cell tower on Brown Avenue in Springfield last June.

Kacheiriess said that Gillooly's testimony "didn't show the difference in the locations" citing that in addition to having a cell tower the Brown Avenue site was also near a commercial office park, a marked difference from the Cranford site.

"The location they found in Springfield was already impaired by an industrial area that was there long before there was a tower," Kacheiriess testified.

When he was cross examined by Meese, Kacheiriess affirmed his comments that he could not find a precise match to the Cranford location, including the cases that Meese sited in Upper Saddle River and Ramapo.

Some of the strongest objections of the evening came when Schmidt introduced Michael Shuvart as a lay witness. Board attorney David Weeks said that because Shuvart testified only to photos that were taken in his presence and zoning maps that he requested, it was admissible.

Saying that Shuvart was not an engineer and could not guarantee that items were to scale, Meese questioned him as a witness in general.

Schmidt said he would have a few more lay witnesses when the application is continued to November 24, 2008.

The application, slated to continue in November, could extended into 2009 with several witness still left to testify on behalf of the objecting residents.

The Westfield Leader 10/09/2008

2008-10-09T10:31:00.004-04:00

Hearings for Cell Tower Near To an End in Cranford
By CHRISTINA M. HINKE

CRANFORD — The 120-foot cell tower application drawing strong opposition from Westfield and Cranford residents is nearing its end. Attorney John Schmidt, representing the Westfield and Cranford residents opposed to the cell tower, questioned his last witness at Monday night’s Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing for the application of SMSA Limited Partnership, composed of Verizon, AT&T and TMobile, for a cell phone monopole and equipment shelter at the location of the Cranford Swim Club on County Park Drive.

Mr. Schmidt’s radio frequency engineer expert Ronald Graiff was recalled to the stand for Gregory Meese, the applicant’s attorney, to cross-examine Mr. Graiff. Mr. Meese asked questions about Mr. Graiff’s familiarity with the testimony given by Mr. Meese’s radio frequency expert, Glenn Pierson. Mr. Meese questioned him about the drive test data, which measures wireless signal performance that Mr. Pierson supplied to Mr. Schmidt at an earlier meeting. “I have seen no drive tests in testimony,” Mr. Graiff responded. “I saw calculated coverage.”

Mr. Graiff said that “the stack of paper” given in response to Mr. Schmidt’s request for the data had no meaning because “the algorithm used to analyze was not presented.” “Mr. Pierson danced around at how they were done,” he said. Mr. Meese responded saying, “You made no effort to make a request of this data in another form?” “When someone asks for drive test data it is provided in a map with overlays,” Mr. Graiff said, noting in his experience in cell phone tower cases this form of the information is provided.

“I thought, quite frankly, it was a smart expletive way to get Mr. Schmidt the data,” he said. Then Mr. Meese and Mr. Graiff got into a word definition argument as Mr. Meese questioned what Mr. Graiff thought the definitions were for seamless, “without seams,” he replied; ubiquitous,” the same, he replied; “reliable,” “there is no hard measure of reliability,” he responded. Mr. Meese presented new data to the board that showed the capacity of calls made during legal holidays. “He doesn’t list the holidays he (Mr. Graiff) testified to [at the last meeting],” objected Mr. Schmidt, noting Mother’s Day as an example.

Then Mr. Meese brought up the topic of cell site placement. Mr. Graiff said cell carriers “typically place it (the tower) in the search ring.” “It is not in the search ring,” he said regarding the proposed site placement of the monopole.

A search ring is a hole identified through analysis of drive test data that shows the area to place the tower to achieve the service results desired. Mr. Graiff also said a carrier could place antennae on two 50- or 60-foot buildings to “get the coverage they needed.” Though he said it is not ideal. He said there were building sites to the south and the east that were suitable, but could not recall the exact locations.

Mr. Meese said Mr. Pierson testified to the need to go further north to achieve the desired coverage. Mr. Graiff also said, “There is no fact that states the antennae has to be above the tree line to propagate.” At the last meeting Mr. Graiff testified that there is no evidence stating “that calls will fail when you get outside of that sea of green,” referring to the area that has cell phone coverage. He also said that because of “confusing testimony” that he could not say there was a gap in coverage.

After Mr. Meese’s hour-and-15-minute cross examination, board member alternate Ronald Marotta said to Mr. Meese about not receiving a test data map, “This has been going on a long time. Something like that (drive test map) would have helped move this forward.”

Cranford resident Leonard Waldman informed Mr. Graiff that the test drive data received is not the original data because in an earlier meeting Mr. Pierson said the data was purged from the system due to space issues on the hard drive, and so he used data available at the time of the request.

Mr. Schmidt also called Thomas Kachelreiss, his real estate appraiser expert to the stand. He said he reviewed the Springfield site referred to by the applicants’ appraiser. He called the area the cell tower is located in an “industrial park.” He said since this area has had industrial use for some time that the home values there are already diminished due to that zone and so an appraiser cannot use it in a paired sales analysis.

Mr. Meese’s real estate appraiser used this analysis for testimony. He also said he could not find a cell tower “solely in a residential area.” He said the applicant only mentioned areas that are school zones. Mr. Meese then said that some of these school locations surround residential areas.

Mr. Meese asked about the tower in Mendham, which he said “is a three acre residential zone in a residential property.” “There haven’t been any sales in 2,000 feet of that property,” Mr. Kachelreiss responded as to why he did not do an analysis there.

Board member Christopher Drew told the appraiser that Union County College’s public safety director sent a letter to the board stating its reasons for not wanting a tower on its grounds. The college was approached by the applicant before the swim club. Mr. Drew asked the appraiser why he thinks the college would not want it on its property.

“I would think they would be opposed because of their Astronomy department,” he answered, saying the tower would cause interference. Then board chairman Robert Hellenbrecht asked Mr. Kachelreiss to give the board “something with more meat” and not opinion.

Mr. Kachelreiss said the homes in Springfield in the area of the tower are larger in size than those in the Westfield/ Cranford area in question, but the values of the homes in Westfield and Cranford are higher. He also said the quality and maintenance were not equal, inferring that Westfield and Cranford were of higher caliber.

Cranford resident Marjorie Meise asked Mr. Kachelreiss if he thought the homes in Westfield and Cranford, in the vicinity of the tower, would decrease in value and he said “yes.” She also said the homes in question do not have acres of land like the area in Mendham.

Then Mr. Schmidt called his final witness, Michael Shuvart, a resident of Manatoa Circle in Westfield. He showed the board pictures and a map of the area where the tower would be placed and of the area in Springfield. It showed a line from the tower to where the setback from property should be at 360 feet. The proposed setback of the tower is 14 feet.

The next meeting is set for Monday, November 24, when Mr. Meese will cross examine Mr. Shuvart, and if time allows residents can come before the board with comments.

Local Source: Cranford News 10/01/2008

2008-10-05T11:47:00.003-04:00

Tower Plan a Year-Old
By Paul Greulich
Wednesday, October 1, 2008

CRANFORD, NJ - The end is nowhere in sight for the controversial Zoning Board hearings on a proposal to erect a 120-foot tall cell tower on the Cranford Swim Club grounds, an application reaching the one year anniversary of its introduction this month.

The applicant, Verizon, is seeking height and setback variances needed to erect the pole in a residential area, near the county-owned Lenape Park and the Rahway River Park historic district.

Zoning Board Chair Robert Hellenbrect said he expects more hearings on the project, anticipated to extend well into 2009. He said he never expected the application process to last so long, but he is not surprised.

“After the first meeting, when so many people turned out, I knew it was going to be a long one,” Hellenbrect said.

The first hearing on the application was Oct. 15, 2007. Area residents’ concerns focused on aesthetics, the location of the pole in relation to their property lines and the adjoining park, and the health hazards associated with living near the tower, a factor that remains a topic of concern despite not yet having been scientifically substantiated.

The residents hired attorney John Schmidt of Lindabury, McCormick & Estabrook in Westfield to represent them in the matter.

Hellenbrect pointed out the application involves a lot of technical details, which have generated a lot of questions.

"The applicant has finished his portion of testimony. Presently the lawyer, who represents a good number of people, is presenting his witnesses," Hellenbrect said.

County officials are expected to take a turn, offering their view of the proposed tower on Oct. 6, depending on scheduling.

County Counsel and Cranford Democratic Chair Norman Albert, will represent Union County's view on the issue.

“I’m disappointed its gone on this long, but I’m not surprised,” Albert said. “I think the appropriate thing to do would be to withdraw this application as inappropriate for the neighborhood and for Cranford and the county.”

"The county attorney will present a witness and that may well wrap up the portion of the hearings associated with testimony," Hellenbrect said. "And we will then open it up to public comments."

Among the most vocal opponents of the cell tower proposal have been some members of The Shuvart Family, who live near the site, on Manitou Circle.

Michael Shuvart acknowledged the lengthy nature of the application, but said he felt a lot of progress had been made in recent meetings toward bringing out what he described as "discrepancies" in the application.

"It's time for us to provide our witnesses," said Shuvart, who noted the residents onsulted with a radio frequency engineer and a real estate appraiser.

Hellenbrect said that while meeting attendance has fallen off somewhat since the hearings became televised in April, residents have continued to follow the process.

"There has been a considerable amount of interest through the entire hearing," he said.

Hellenbrect disagreed with statements made suggesting the cell tower has become the longest-running application to come before the Zoning Board.

This distinction, he maintains, is held by a four-year-old application for a gas station at the end of Orchard Street.

Schmidt, Verizon attorney Gregory Meese and representatives from the Cranford Swim Club did not return calls for comment.

The next hearing on the application will be held at 7:30 p.m. on Monday at the Municipal Building, 8 Springfield Ave.

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 10/06/2008

2008-09-26T20:00:00.000-04:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a continuation hearing for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal on Monday, October 6, 2008.

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, October 6, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

PLACE: Cranford Municipal Building [Room 107], 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

This Zoning Board meeting will also be televised live on Cranford's TV-35. Please tune in if you cannot make it to the meeting!

Action Alert! Write to Your Local Newspaper Today!

2008-09-09T19:15:00.002-04:00

For those who wish to write letters to the editor of your local newspapers voicing your concerns and opposition to the cell tower application at the Cranford Swim Club, I have compiled a list of the appropriate links.

Please click the appropriate link below to the newspaper that you wish to submit a letter to:

The Suburban News

Cranford Chronicle

Union County Local Source

The Star Ledger

The Westfield Leader

The Scotch Plains - Fanwood Times

Union County Local Source: Submit Your Own Cell Tower Updates & News

If there are any other newspaper links that you would like to see added to this list, please email me at residents.act@gmail.com and I will gladly add all additional links.

Thank you again to everyone for all of the support that we have received! Please continue to spread our online petition - we greatly appreciate each and every signature!

Continue the fight Cranford!

Cranford Chronicle 08/29/2008

2008-08-30T20:56:00.003-04:00

Objectors to Cranford Cell Tower Bring in Attorney
by Leslie Murray
Friday August 29, 2008

CRANFORD - The contentious application to build a monopole cell tower at the Cranford Swimming Club (CSC) continued this week as the attorney for a group of objecting residents presented testimony from a planner and a radio frequency engineer.

The August 25th meeting marked the seventh time the application by a cooperative of cellular providers, Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile, has been heard by the Board of Adjustment. The application calls for a 120 foot monopole tower on the rear of the swim club property at the border of Cranford and Westfield. At least one more meeting will be required before a decision on the application is rendered.

The tower was initially proposed at 130 feet but was reduced when Sprint Mobile dropped out of the application. Greg Meese, attorney for the applicant, and experts have maintained the carriers have a gap in coverage and need the tower to meet service demands.

Residents in both towns have objected, saying the tower will negatively impact their property values and could be a health risk. A group of objectors have hired attorney John Schmidt of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper to represent their concerns.

The application has also drawn objections from Union County and the state, with county attorney Norman Albert saying the tower would negatively impact the neighboring Lenape Park. In a letter to the Cranford Zoning Board, written last year, The New Jersey Historic Preservation Office asserted the Rahway River Parkway Historic District, which was formally identified by the National Register of Historic Places in September 2002, would be damaged if the tower was erected.

This week Schmidt presented testimony from planner Peter Steck and engineer Ronald Graiff that conflicted with the initial testimony given when the applicant gave concluding testimony from expert witnesses.

Speaking about the variances that had been requested in the application, which include exceeding the maximum height for a tower, less than the required set back from a residential zone, and less than the required front yard and side yard setbacks, Steck said the applicant had used the standard setbacks for areas that allow cell towers as a permitted use. However, because the area is an R-1 residential zone and the tower use is not permitted, Steck called it "improper to apply the standards (for a tower in) a non-residential area." What's more, he said the board could demand more stringent set backs at the site if they deemed it necessary.

Steck also objected to the testimony by William Masters, Jr., planner for the applicant, which supported the tower because it offered a benefit to the public at large.

"In my opinion, this is not an inherently beneficial use," Steck told the board. He added that he believed the neighboring county park land was "just as sensitive as a residential area and possibly more sensitive", a direct contradiction to Masters' comment that fewer residents would be impacted because the tower was near the park. "It will, in my opinion, dramatically affect the quality of that recreational area," Steck said of the tower's impact on Lenape Park.

Questioned by Meese about other suitable sites for such a tower, Steck said it was not his task to find alternate sites and while he did agree with Meese's assertion that the surrounding plots were too small to accommodate a cell tower "in (his) opinion size is not the only issue."

Answering a question from board chairman Robert Hellenbrecht regarding the total impact of the tower, Steck said that noise and other traffic at the site currently are seasonal and the noise of children at both the park and the swim club are not generally considered offensive, but "a cell tower is foreign" to the area.

When Steck concluded his testimony, the audience of nearly 50 people broke into a round of applause. The group also lauded the testimony by Graiff.

As Graiff testified about the two issues that impact wireless service - coverage "the ability of a system ... to provide a receivable signal" and capacity "the system's (ability) to handle what's delivered to it" - and began to speak on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules regarding cellular communications, Meese objected.

Graiff replied that though he wasn't an attorney he had been on the FCC rule-drafting committee and would not offer an interpretation of the rules, but would only read them to the board. Board attorney David Weeks said the testimony was admissible.

As he testified, Graiff said it was unclear if the application was about coverage or capacity. What's more he objected to the testimony by the applicant's radio frequency engineer Glen Pierson that the current cell sites in the area would reach maximum capacity by 2010.

"Forgive me, but it's nearly impossible to design anything, from a cellular network to a power grid ... to the maximum capacity," Graiff said. "I'm not questioning the grid design. All I'm questioning if that someone can make the bold statement ... that this cell site will run out a capacity by 2010," he said.

Calling the potential tower at CSC "poor cell site placement", Graiff said that using the information provided by the applicant, he saw a 62 percent duplication in coverage for T-Mobile, a 52 percent duplication of coverage for AT&T, and nearly a 50 percent duplication in coverage for Verizon.

When the application continues on October 6, Meese will cross examine Graiff and another expert witness is expected to testify before the public is allowed to comment on the application.

The Westfield Leader 08/28/2008

2008-08-30T18:07:00.000-04:00

Attorney Calls Witnesses Against CF Cell Tower
By CHRISTINA M. HINKE

Specially Written for The Westfield Leader

CRANFORD — The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment held its seventh hearing for the application of SMSA Limited Partnership, composed of Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile, for a proposed cell phone monopole at the location of the Cranford Swim Club, on Monday night, before a room filled with about 50 residents.

The Westfield and Cranford residents opposed to the tower hired an attorney, John Schmidt, and he called his first two witnesses. Peter Steck, a planner since 1976, gave testimony based on the applicant’s planner’s testimony. Mr. Steck said the township’s ordinance states that telecommunications facilities are restricted to “non-residential areas,” emphasizing that the restriction is not just for a residential zone, but the area.

He concluded that the applicant’s planner did not provide a burden of proof as to the visual impact of the 120- foot monopole from Lenape Park. Because the park’s walking trail has no trees and is at the top of a berm, he said visitors on the trail would “see the tower more than residents” in the area and that the parkland is “even more sensitive” than residential. He maintained it would “dramatically affect the quality of that recreation area.” Mr. Steck said, “Your code states the visual impact is significant.”

Board Chairman Robert Hellenbrecht asked what other sites in the area would be deemed as having a visual impact, such as a pool, referencing the swim club. Mr. Steck responded that a monopole is “foreign.” He also said the tower’s proposed placement is in the 50-foot buffer zone that the swim club must provide per the ordinance so as not to encroach on the homes in its vicinity. “I don’t think that the applicant provided evidence to the board to approve this application,” Mr. Steck said. He stated that most of Lenape Park is located in a wetlands area and that, depending on the species of wildlife that live in the wetlands, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requires either a 50-foot or a 150-foot buffer from a monopole.

Mr. Steck said there was no testimony given by the applicant that wetlands existed. He said if the DEP requires a 150-foot buffer than the tower would not comply, but there would not be a problem with the 50-foot buffer. He said it is not his job to provide the proof that the tower would be or not be in compliance; it is his job to state that the applicant did not present this information. According to the Union County website, Lenape Park has a Bluebird sanctuary and Tree Swallows have been sited there.

Mr. Steck also acknowledged that the Rahway River corridor extends into Lenape Park and that the state recognizes that this district is eligible national historic consideration. He said the applicant’s planner did not bring this to the board’s attention.

Mr. Schmidt also called Ronald Graiff, a radio frequency engineer licensed since 1975. He said there was no evidence saying, “that calls will fail when you get outside of that sea of green,” referring to the area that has cell phone coverage. Mr. Graiff also noted the applicant has stated they are applying for 1950 PCS band coverage. Nowhere does it state that they are applying for capacity, he said. Glenn Pierson of PierCon, a radio frequency expert for the applicant, had testified at earlier meetings as to the capacity problems cell phone carriers will see by 2010.

Capacity is the ability of a cell phone carrier to serve a multitude of call at once, and if it cannot handle the capacity, then a call would not go through, but would at a later time when the lines were not busy. Mr. Graiff also disagreed with Mr. Pierson’s calculations on capacity that the carriers would max out in capacity by 2010; Mr. Pierson took the “super capacity” dots from the graph he presented and “extrapolated that” to reach his conclusion, according to Mr. Graiff. Mr. Graiff believed he should have used the “mean line.” “If I tried to design for that kind of peak, I would go bankrupt,” he said of Mr. Pierson’s chart, and noted that Mr. Pierson used times of the year where people tend to make more calls, such as holidays.

Mr. Graiff also called the proposed area for the tower “poor cell site placement,” showing an overlay map he drew based on Mr. Pierson’s data. He also said that all three carriers have duplicated coverage in the range of 42 to 63 percent, where “good engineering” calls for 10 to 12 percent. He also said that because of “confusing testimony” that he could not say there was a gap in coverage.

The applicant’s attorney, Gregory Meese, will question Mr. Graiff at the next meeting on October 6. He is expected to question the witness for an hour to an hour and a half. Mr. Schmidt also has one other expert witness to testify.

Cranford Chronicle 08/24/2008

2008-08-24T19:30:00.000-04:00

Cell Phone Tower Meeting

To The Chronicle:

There will be a meeting of the Cranford Zoning Board in the Cranford municipal building, 8 Springfield Ave., on Aug. 25 at 8:15 p.m. The subject is Verizon's proposed 120-foot cell tower, which Verizon wants to locate on the Cranford Swim Club property, located on the Westfield/Cranford border. All interested persons are urged to attend.

Jenny Schuvart
Westfield

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 08/25/2008

2008-08-19T12:20:00.000-04:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a continuation hearing for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal on Monday, August 25, 2008.

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, August 25, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

PLACE: Cranford Municipal Building [Room 107], 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey

The attorney for the residents will begin calling expert witnesses to testify at this meeting. If time allows; the attorney for the county will also call witnesses to testify on this date.

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

This Zoning Board meeting will also be televised live on Cranford's TV-35. Please tune in if you cannot make it to the meeting!

The Westfield Leader 07/17/2008

2008-07-17T08:56:00.002-04:00

Applicant Closes Case for 120-Foot Cranford Cell Tower Bordering WF
By Christina M. Hinke

CRANFORD — In the sixth hearing for the cell tower application before the Cranford zoning board on Monday, the applicant’s attorney, Gregory Meese, closed his case.

At the next meeting on August 25, John Schmidt, the attorney representing the residents opposed to the application, will bring his expert witnesses to the stand.

The applicant, SMSA Limited Partnership, composed of Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile, seeks a use, height and setback variance to place the 120-foot monopole and an equipment shelter at its base in a residential zone at the Cranford Swimming Club located on County Park Drive and bordering Westfield. It was announced last month that Sprint dropped out.

Another variance was added to the application on Monday. During Mr. Schmidt’s address to the applicant’s planner, William Masters, Mr. Schmidt began reciting parts from Cranford’s Master Plan. The plan specifies that in a residential zone, only one principal use is allowed per site.

Board vice chairman Jeffrey Pistol requested the board attorney add this as another variance to the application, since the tower would be a second principal use should it erect on the swim club property.

At the last meeting, Mr. Masters said the shelter to house the telecommunication companies’ equipment would stay the same size “in case of an additional carrier in the future.” At the meeting this week he amended his testimony, stating that the size would reduce by 360 square feet to 2,400 square feet to account for the loss of Sprint.

Mr. Masters said this does not change the side-yard or front-yard setbacks because the unit would sit on the east side of the lot in an interior side of the property. He said the site is suited for a telecommunications tower, citing proximity to major traffic corridors, such as Kenilworth Boulevard and Springfield Avenue, the size of the swim club property, which he said is 3.02 acres, the proximity of the club to Lenape Park, some 270 acres of open land that is Green Acres property that cannot be developed for residential purposes, and a willing landlord.

He also said the landlord picked the spot on the property where the tower would sit. Mr. Masters presented an aerial photograph of the proposed area to place the tower, and several posters with photos showing simulations of views with the tower in place.

The simulated photos depicted a red helium balloon erected at the approximate height where the tower is proposed. Then he took the same photograph and digitally added in a tower where the balloon was shown. His pictures were taken from areas on Nomahegan Court, Springfield Avenue, Lenape Park, the swim club, and Manatoa Circle in Westfield.

“It would have some negative impact, but I don’t think it would be substantial,” Mr. Masters responded to Mr. Schmidt’s question of the impact of the view of the tower from a home. Mr. Masters said “it’s possible the view will change once the 14 trees are removed.”

Mr. Masters also gave the board photos showing a simulation of a tree pole, a pole that is outfitted to appear like a tree. Mr. Meese said the applicant is willing to use a tree pole should the board decide to approve the application and make that a condition of approval.

“I believe this board can grant this variance without substantial detriment to the public good,” Mr. Masters said. “Other than the park and Union County College, I saw no other sites that were more particularly suited [to place the tower],” Mr. Masters responded to a question from the board.

Mr. Schmidt asked Mr. Masters if the cell tower is an essential service as described in the Master Plan and Mr. Masters said he “agrees it is not an essential service.”

About 35 residents were in attendance, a drop from previous meetings.

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 07/14/2008

2008-07-12T12:35:00.000-04:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a continuation hearing for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal on Monday, July 14, 2008.

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, July 14, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

PLACE: Cranford Municipal Building [Room 107], 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

This Zoning Board meeting will also be televised live on Cranford's TV-35. Please tune in if you cannot make it to the meeting!

Cranford Chronicle 07/11/2008

2008-07-11T10:17:00.000-04:00

Cranford Chronicle
July 11, 2008

This Week's Events

Monday, July 14, 2008 - CELL TOWER HEARING - the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment continues a lengthy hearing on a proposed cell tower at the Cranford Swimming Club on the Westfield/Cranford border.

8:15 p.m. Municipal building, 8 Springfield Ave. (908) 709-7216.

Cranford Chronicle 07/11/2008

2008-07-11T08:33:00.000-04:00

Cranford Chronicle
Letter to the Editor

July 11, 2008

GOP Candidate Lays out Position on Tower

To The Chronicle:

I am one of two Republican candidates in the upcoming election for seats on the Cranford Township Committee. The other Republican candidate is Mr. Christopher Drew. This letter is in response to the letter of Mr. Myron Borden that appeared in the June 20, 2008, edition of your publication, but is really addressed to all Cranford residents, particularly those living near the Cranford Swimming Club, which is the site proposed for construction of a cellular phone tower. In his letter, Mr. Borden asked the Republican candidates to "come out against the tower."

I cannot envision anyone opposing a legally-enforceable restriction that prevents location of a cellular tower near residences. I unequivocally and unreservedly favor adoption of an ordinance prohibiting cellular towers in our community, or at the very least, in, near or within visual sight of residential and commercial areas, to the extent that it would be legally enforceable. As Mr. Borden points out, these are unsightly structures which would detract from surrounding areas that are intended to be visually appealing. They also give rise, I think quite understandably notwithstanding whatever contrary expert opinion may prevail at the moment, to genuine fears of adverse health effects. The presence of children only heightens this concern. Nor do these structures belong near our downtown, the Centennial Avenue business district or similar commercial areas. They would undermine the aesthetics that our community has long worked hard to develop to attract customers. Property values would undoubtedly diminish too.

Prohibiting cellular towers does not mean that telecommunication companies or property owners that seek to lease or sell to them could not seek variances from the ordinances as are now being sought, however. With or without such an ordinance, future applications like the current one are inevitable. It is the purpose of the Board of Adjustment to decide requests to deviate from the zoning ordinances, including outright legally-enforceable prohibitions.

I am unaware of the views of my running mate, Christopher Drew, on this topic. We have not even discussed the subject. That is because Mr. Drew sits on the Board of Adjustment that is considering this very application. As a part of this board, it is incumbent upon him, despite his candidacy, and all other members to analyze the arguments, scrutinize the evidence, and decide the application based only upon the law as applied to the facts substantiated at the hearings. To furnish his personal perspective at this juncture would be not only imprudent, but could conceivably jeopardize any result of the process that is consistent with whatever opinion he expresses. Certainly Mr. Borden and his neighbors would not want any favorable result in the present cellular tower application compromised. Yet that might follow if Mr. Drew were to respond. As a result, Mr. Drew has correctly refrained from comment.

MARK P. DUGAN
Cranford

Record Press 06/30/2008

2008-07-01T11:58:00.002-04:00

Even at 120 Feet, Fight Continues Over Cell Tower
Monday, June 30, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD - Ten feet shorter, but still a whole heap of trouble: that's the tale of the proposed cell tower at the Cranford Swimming Club.

As the Zoning Board of Adjustment held the latest in a series of hearings about the controversial tower Monday night, a group of about 60 neighbors again crowded council chambers to object to what they see as a threat to their home values and their quality of life.

The consortium of wireless phone companies that hopes to use the tower has lost one member, announced Greg Meese, attorney for the applicant. Sprint Mobile has dropped out, leaving behind Verizon Wireless, AT& T and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile. As a result, the tower would have to be only 120 feet, not the 130 originally proposed. (Meese also noted that Sprint's decision was not based on the vocal opposition to the plan -- the company has taken similar steps on applications around the state, he said.)

While the wireless carriers have maintained that they need the tower to meet current and future service demands, residents in Cranford and Westfield have banded together in opposition and hired attorney John Schmidt of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper to represent their concerns. Union County has also objected to the application, saying the tower would be detrimental to the Rahway River Parkway, with attorney Norman Albert representing the county at the hearings.

At Monday's session, Meese attempted to introduce additional testimony from radio frequency engineer Glen Pierson. He presented raw data that had been requested in March by Schmidt, the residents' attorney.

But Schmidt quickly questioned the timing of the presentation, saying that he had been "blind-sided unfairly." Surmising that the data would have been ready for a cancelled meeting in May, Schmidt said he could not be expected to review the thick pile of material and question Pierson when he received the information just as the engineer began his testimony. At the request of board Chairman Robert Hellenbrecht, Meese agreed to have Pierson available for testimony at the next hearing.

After Pierson stepped down, the bulk of the session was given over to a real estate appraisal. John Gillooly of Integra Realty Resources presented a study that compared the sales of homes in proximity to a monopole cell tower both before and after the tower was constructed.

Explaining that he could not study the area in question because a cell tower does not currently exist there, Gillooly used as a point of comparison Brown Avenue in Springfield, a neighborhood where a cell tower was built in 2004 and that he called "roughly similar in its construction and design" to the area around County Park Drive, where the swim club is located.

In his review, Gillooly said, he found that the value of homes with a direct view of the tower and those without such a view appreciated at nearly the same rate.

Questioning the study, board member Jeffery Pistol gained a round of applause when he asked if Gillooly had taken into account buyers who might avoid an area altogether specifically because of a cell tower.

"Mountain Avenue in Springfield is different than the Boulevard in Cranford because it's a more commercial area," Pistol added.

"Yes, it's not identical to the subject area, but it's similar," Gillooly responded.

Board member Carolyn Youngs also questioned the comparison as it related to the distance between the cell tower and surrounding homes. Quoting the report, she said the closest homes in Springfield were about 600 feet from the tower there -- more than twice the distance from the proposed tower to some homes in Cranford and Westfield. She also questioned if the appreciation rate was the result of market demands that existed regardless of the tower's presence.

"My study shows there's not a big difference," Gillooly said. "If the cell tower had an impact, you would see it in the sale prices."

Given a chance to cross-examine Gillooly, Schmidt asked whether the appreciation rates were really that similar -- according to the study, homes with a direct view of the tower appreciated in value by 9.6 percent, while those without a view grew in value by 13 percent.

Gillooly interjected that the two appreciation rates "are relatively close in appraisal methodology" and he would be likely to round both figures to 10 percent.

Westfield resident Austin Habib discounted the report entirely, saying that "the neighborhoods are not compatible."

Cranford resident Paul Fuller advanced the same line of argument, asking how far the study area in Springfield was from Route 22. When Gillooly said he was uncertain, a member of the audience interjected, saying the site was just two-tenths of mile from the highway. Continuing, Fuller said the two locations - one near a highway in Springfield, the other in a "basically rural" section of Cranford and Westfield - were not comparable.

After Gillooly's comments, the board heard limited testimony from planner William Masters Jr. about the changes to the application caused by the Sprint's withdrawal. Masters will resume his testimony at the next hearing, on July 14. The board also has the application scheduled for hearings on Aug. 11 and 25.

After the applicant concludes its case, Schmidt and Albert will present their own expert witnesses, and the public will also have a chance to comment before the board makes a decision.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for NJN Publishing. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

Cranford Chronicle 06/27/2008

2008-06-27T21:30:00.000-04:00

Even at 120 Feet, Tower Brings out Opposition
Friday, June 27, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD - Ten feet shorter, but still a whole heap of trouble: that's the tale of the proposed cell tower at the Cranford Swimming Club.

As the Zoning Board of Adjustment held the latest in a series of hearings about the controversial tower Monday night, a group of about 60 neighbors again crowded council chambers to object to what they see as a threat to their home values and their quality of life.

The consortium of wireless phone companies that hopes to use the tower has lost one member, announced Greg Meese, attorney for the applicant. Sprint Mobile has dropped out, leaving behind Verizon Wireless, AT& T and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobil. As a result, the tower would have to be only 120 feet, not the 130 originally proposed. (Meese also noted that Sprint's decision was not based on the vocal opposition to the plan -- the company has taken similar steps on applications around the state, he said.)

While the wireless carriers have maintained that they need the tower to meet current and future service demands, residents in Cranford and Westfield have banded together in opposition and hired attorney John Schmidt of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper to represent their concerns. Union County has also objected to the application, saying the tower would be detrimental to the Rahway River Parkway, with attorney Norman Albert representing the county at the hearings.

At Monday's session, Meese attempted to introduce additional testimony from radio frequency engineer Glen Pierson. He presented raw data that had been requested in March by Schmidt, the residents' attorney.

But Schmidt quickly questioned the timing of the presentation, saying that he had been "blind-sided unfairly." Surmising that the data would have been ready for a cancelled meeting in May, Schmidt said he could not be expected to review the thick pile of material and question Pierson when he received the information just as the engineer began his testimony. At the request of board Chairman Robert Hellenbrecht, Meese agreed to have Pierson available for testimony at the next hearing.

After Pierson stepped down, the bulk of the session was given over to a real estate appraisal. John Gillooly of Integra Realty Resources presented a study that compared the sales of homes in proximity to a monopole cell tower both before and after the tower was constructed.

Explaining that he could not study the area in question because a cell tower does not currently exist there, Gillooly used as a point of comparison Brown Avenue in Springfield, a neighborhood where a cell tower was built in 2004 and that he called "roughly similar in its construction and design" to the area around County Park Drive, where the swim club is located.

In his review, Gillooly said, he found that the value of homes with a direct view of the tower and those without such a view appreciated at nearly the same rate.

Questioning the study, board member Jeffery Pistol gained a round of applause when he asked if Gillooly had taken into account buyers who might avoid an area altogether specifically because of a cell tower.

"Mountain Avenue in Springfield is different than the Boulevard in Cranford because it's a more commercial area," Pistol added.

"Yes, it's not identical to the subject area, but it's similar," Gillooly responded.

Board member Carolyn Youngs also questioned the comparison as it related to the distance between the cell tower and surrounding homes. Quoting the report, she said the closest homes in Springfield were about 600 feet from the tower there -- more than twice the distance from the proposed tower to some homes in Cranford and Westfield. She also questioned if the appreciation rate was the result of market demands that existed regardless of the tower's presence.

"My study shows there's not a big difference," Gillooly said. "If the cell tower had an impact, you would see it in the sale prices."

Given a chance to cross-examine Gillooly, Schmidt asked whether the appreciation rates were really that similar -- according to the study, homes with a direct view of the tower appreciated in value by 9.6 percent, while those without a view grew in value by 13 percent.

Gillooly interjected that the two appreciation rates "are relatively close in appraisal methodology" and he would be likely to round both figures to 10 percent.

Westfield resident Austin Habib discounted the report entirely, saying that "the neighborhoods are not compatible."

Cranford resident Paul Fuller advanced the same line of argument, asking how far the study area in Springfield was from Route 22. When Gillooly said he was uncertain, a member of the audience interjected, saying the site was just two-tenths of mile from the highway. Continuing, Fuller said the two locations -- one near a highway in Springfield, the other in a "basically rural" section of Cranford and Westfield -- were not comparable.

After Gillooly's comments, the board heard limited testimony from planner William Masters Jr. about the changes to the application caused by the Sprint's withdrawal. Masters will resume his testimony at the next hearing, on July 14. The board also has the application scheduled for hearings on Aug. 11 and 25.

After the applicant concludes its case, Schmidt and Albert will present their own expert witnesses, and the public will also have a chance to comment before the board makes a decision.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for the Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

The Westfield Leader 06/26/2008

2008-06-27T12:19:00.000-04:00

Sprint Backs Out of Cell Tower Proposal in Cranford
By CHRISTINA M. HINKE

CRANFORD – Gregory Meese, attorney for SMSA Limited Partnership, the applicant proposing a cell phone tower at the Cranford Swimming Club on County Park Drive, presented revised plans during the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on Monday, showing the height of the monopole reduced by 10 feet, from 130 to 120 feet, because Sprint backed out of the deal. This height difference changes the required setback of tower height distances from 162.5 feet to 150 feet and alters the minimum setback to a property line, which is now 360 feet, reduced from 390 feet. The application is still not within the required setbacks.

William Master, a professional planner hired by the applicant, said the compound area for the remaining, three telecommunication companies’ equipment would stay the same size “in case of an additional carrier in the future.” Mr. Master will continue his testimony at the next meeting on Monday, July 14. John Gillooly, a real estate appraiser certified since 1992, spoke on behalf of SMSA and gave most of the testimony that evening.

He presented a paired sales analysis, which he said is a study of a sale of one property and a resale of the same or “very similar” property. He studied all “same” properties in his report. He said that since there was not a cell tower in the Cranford area in question, he looked at a “comparable location” that had a monopole. He chose 51 Brown Avenue in Springfield, north of Route 22. The tower was built in April 2004, and is “one mile from the subject’s location,” according to Mr. Gillooly.

Someone in the audience later shouted that it is two-tenths of a mile from Route 22, according to a satellite image the person had. The Springfield tower is located in an industrial zone, whereas the tower SMSA is proposing would be located in a residential zone, with the tower 246 feet from the nearest home in Westfield.

In his report, dated June 16, 2008, he showed two sets of data, those homes with a view of the tower and those without. He looked at all sales prior to and following April 2004 to determine the appreciation rate, a measure of increase in the value of a sale. He said he eliminated homes that were “substantially renovated,” which he listed as having a remodeled kitchen, a finished basement or an addition, among other things, from the first sale. This information, he said, was either obtained from a building permit issued or disclosed from a real estate agent. He also removed homes that were sold for one dollar and cases where a property was sold as part of an estate sale.

His findings determined that homes with a view of the tower increased 1 percent on average per month, or 12 percent per year, and homes without a view were the same, on average. The median rate of appreciation was 0.8 percent per month for homes with a view and 1.1 percent for homes without a view. The mean was 0.6 to 1.7 percent with a view, and 0.7 to 1.3 percent without a view per month.

Jeffrey Pistol, vice chairman of the board, asked Mr. Gillooly many questions and made comments. “You would expect to find an increase,” Mr. Pistol said of any property sale over a given time period. “It doesn’t tell us anything,” Mr. Pistol said of Mr. Gillooly’s data. Mr. Pistol added, “People know if there is a cell tower, view or not, and they may choose to look in another neighborhood. That’s the real type of analysis you should have done.” The audience clapped in response. “Just by looking at these addresses…it is more of a commercial area than Kenilworth Boulevard in Cranford,” he said. He also asked why he did not look at a comparable neighborhood without a tower to see the difference in appreciation.

Mr. Gillooly responded by saying there is not a comparable area. Mr. Gillooly told The Westfield Leader that no one had asked him to examine rates of appreciation in the Cranford/Westfield area that would be affected by the tower placed at the swim club during that same time period he calculated for Springfield to see if appreciation rates were below, same or higher than the same period in Springfield. This could give the board a way to compare the “comparable area” affected by a tower to the Cranford/Westfield neighborhood. He also said that he couldn’t compare this area to the one he calculated in Springfield because “there still could be a location difference.”

In sum, he said, “I have never found an impact” to the rate of appreciation due to a cell phone tower in proximity to a residential zone.

Westfield resident Austin Habib asked Mr. Gillooly what the prices were of the residences in his market area. He answered with numbers ranging from $380,000 to $630,000. Mr. Habib shot back that homes in the Westfield and Cranford area are in the $600,000 to $850,000 range. Mr. Habib also said “many times you don’t need a license for it [remodels].”

Norman Albert asked Mr. Gillooly if views of Manhattan or a waterfront could have a tax impact on a home, and he answered yes, it may.

Cranford resident Frank Krause later asked if a cell tower could negatively impact the tax revenue to a township by a lower tax assessment of homes with a view of a tower, and Mr. Gillooly said that was not his area of expertise. Mr. Krause also raised the question of how the members of the swim club, each an owner of the club because they buy a bond to join, could be impacted by their share in a sale should the swim club dissolve and the property be sold off.

The board said Mr. Gillooly did not have to answer since he testified to no data such as this.

Earlier in the night, Glenn Pierson, expert engineer for the applicant, gave the opponent’s attorney, John Schmidt, a pile of raw data used for Mr. Pierson’s earlier charts of gaps in coverage for each cell phone carrier that was requested before.

Mr. Schmidt said he was “blindsided” by Mr. Pierson giving him these records in the hearing, knowing he had his own witness to speak on behalf of this information. Mr. Pierson had possession of the data months earlier. Mr. Schmidt’s witness will speak at a later meeting.

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting Tonight!

2008-06-23T11:15:00.000-04:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a continuation hearing for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal tonight, Monday, June 23, 2008 at 8:15pm.

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, June 23, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

PLACE: Cranford Municipal Building [Room 107], 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

See everyone at the meeting!

Cranford Chronicle 06/20/08

2008-06-22T13:19:00.000-04:00

Cell Tower Hearing Continues Next Week
By Leslie Murray

Cranford - The next hearing on the controversial application to build a monopole cell tower at the Cranford Swimming Club will be held at 8:15 p.m. Monday, June 23 before the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment. The hearing will take place at the Cranford municipal building, 8 Springfield Ave.

The application, which began in 2007, involves a cooperative effort by Verizon Wireless, Sprint Mobile, AT&T and Omnipoint to build a 130-foot tower on the swim club property. The wireless phone carriers have said they need the tower to fill a gap in coverage.

Residents in both Cranford and Westfield have objected to the plan, saying the tower would be an unsightly intrusion in a residential area and could have detrimental consequences for health and public safety. Union County has joined in the objection, saying the tower would have a negative impact on neighboring Lenape Park.

The most recent hearing on the application was in March. Another hearing had been scheduled for May, but was postponed. A real estate appraiser, a radio frequency engineer and a planner are slated to offer testimony on behalf of the project.

Cranford Chronicle 06/20/2008

2008-06-20T20:27:00.000-04:00

Cranford Chronicle
Letter to the Editor

June 20, 2008

Committee, Candidates Should Oppose Cell Tower

To The Chronicle:

How would you like to walk out of the front door of your home and have to look at a 13-story tower with the paraphernalia of four cell phone companies, one on each side of it?

This is exactly what more than 100 homes in my neighborhood will be faced with if the Cranford Swimming Club is granted the seven variances they are asking for. Their members are apparently willing to do this so that they will pay lower membership fees.

They are doing this even though their children will be playing each summer within 25 or 50 feet from potentially dangerous electro-magnetic rays emanating from the tower. They are doing this even though all their neighbors' property values may be decreased. Is this the acceptable thing for neighbors to do? Would they do this if their own homes were within sight of such a tower? I don't think so.

I would like the Cranford Township Committee to pass an ordinance prohibiting such towers from being built in any residential area in Cranford. No one should have a 13-story tower within sight of his or her home. The cell phone executives go home to their beautiful surroundings; we live here 24 hours a day. We would be doing the right thing for Cranford.

This issue should not be a political one.The Democratic candidates have come out against this cell tower. The Republican candidates should also come out against the tower. Their views should be made public.

Myron Borden
Cranford

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 06/23/2008

2008-06-14T08:13:00.000-04:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a continuation hearing for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal on Monday, June 23, 2008.

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, June 23, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

PLACE: Cranford Municipal Building [Room 107], 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

Cranford Chronicle 06/13/2008

2008-06-13T08:48:00.000-04:00

Extra Meeting Broadcasts Take Toll on TV 35 Staff
Friday, June 13, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD - Earlier this year, in an effort to make local government more transparent to the public, the Township Committee decided to have meetings of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment taped and broadcast on TV 35. But now, it seems the additional workload has created an unforeseen strain on the station's limited staff.

Station manager Ed Davenport told the committee that a variety of issues, from staffing shortages to technical obstacles, have sprung up since the station began taping and broadcasting the extra meetings.

Discussing the six land-use meetings that have been taped thus far, Davenport said only one has been taped from start to finish, because the meetings often extend late into the night and the cameras in the meeting room can only record for three hours at a stretch. That technical limitation, he told the Township Committee, has caused complaints from applicants who complained it was unfair to tape only some parts of the hearings.

In an attempt not to tax the station's staff -- Davenport and two of his assistants receive small stipends, while the other workers, many of them students, are volunteers -- Davenport has been taping the meetings on his own. That means he is responsible for moving the cameras, operating the control room and staying to the end of the meetings to shut down the camera equipment, which is linked to the meeting room's sound equipment.

"I just physically can't do it," he told the committee. The situation could become more challenging on June 23, when the Board of Adjustment continues its hearing on a proposed cell tower at the Cranford Swimming Club, he said. That controversial application has drawn large and vocal crowds.

Davenport did not explicitly ask the committee to reverse its policy of taping the land-use meetings, but the ensuing discussion did not appear to produce a solution to the problem.

Commissioner Mark Smith suggested that the committee hire professional videographers to record the meetings, but Deputy Mayor David Robinson objected.

"It's a great idea to show (the meetings) but it can't be at an additional cost," Robinson said.

Mayor Bob Puhak suggested a drive to recruit new volunteers specifically for those meetings. Davenport said that could help, but he added that all volunteers are required to go through the station's regular training process. Volunteers would also have to attain some level of expertise before being left in charge of the operation during a meeting, he said.

Offering another course of action, Smith proposed that the station cut back on other community shows, such as call-in programs, and shift its resources to the land-use meetings.

"If we don't have enough resources to tape the Planning Board and Zoning Board, which serves as a public record, then shouldn't we reallocate?" he asked.

But Davenport said that might not make much of a difference. The community programs, such as a health talk show featuring registered nutritionists or former Commissioner George McDonough's "Hear and Now," are scheduled at the convenience of the station, he said. By contrast, the land-use boards operate according to their own schedule.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for The Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

Borough of Wood-Ridge Fights Cell Tower

2008-06-13T07:59:00.000-04:00

Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - May 27, 2008

Mayor and Council Fight to Stop Cell Tower from Becoming Valley Boulevard Eyesore

Wood-Ridge, NJ - Mayor Paul Sarlo and the Borough Council have allocated funding for ongoing efforts to stop an 82-foot tall communications tower from being erected behind CVS.

"Due to elements that are inconsistent with the Borough's zoning ordinances, and the character of this community, we denied Omnipoint Communication's request for a variance needed to build this tower on March 7. The Superior Court of New Jersey overturned the denial on April 22," said Mayor Sarlo. "Financial support from this governing body will allow the Borough to move forward with an appeal of the court decision by June 6."

"This is a major quality of life issue for residents on Valley Boulevard, Innes Road and other streets surrounding CVS," Sarlo continued. "Neighors consistently expressed opinions against this project at four public hearings. As elected officials we will continue to fight to protect our residents."

Read the Entire Press Release here.

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting Rescheduled

2008-06-08T21:29:00.000-04:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment has tentatively rescheduled the May 5, 2008 continuation hearing for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal for the following dates:

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, June 23, 2008 & Monday, July 14, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

PLACE: Cranford Municipal Building [Room 107], 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey

The following will be heard:

Application #Z17-07: (Continuation)
New York SMSA Limited Partnership, Applicant
201 County Park Drive, Block 109, Lot 46, R-1 Zone

To permit construction of a telecommunications tower with the following variances/waivers:

Tower not permitted in the R-1 zone (136-33K(6);

To exceed the maximum allowable height for a tower (136-33K(10);

Less than the minimum required setback for a tower (136-33K(10)(b);

Less than the minimum required setback to a residential zone for a tower (136-33K(10)(c);

To exceed the maximum allowable square footage for an equipment cabinet (136-33K(12)(a);

Less than the minimum required front yard setback for equipment (136-30.6);

Less than the minimum required side yard setback (136-30.7)

PUBLIC PORTION - Any interested party may appear at said hearing and participate therein in accordance with the rules of the Zoning Board.

At this meeting the applicant [New York SMSA Limited Partnership/Verizon] is slated to introduce testimony from a real estate appraiser, a radiofrequency [RF] engineer and a site planner.

Please mark your calendars and make arrangements to attend. This meeting is absolutely crucial and we must have a strong residential turnout to show our complete opposition against this cell tower proposal!

All Zoning Board Meeting dates will be confirmed as the tentative dates approach. For further information on all Zoning Board Meetings, please contact the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment (908) 709-7216.

Thank you again for all of your ongoing support!

Zoning Board Meeting Cancelled!

2008-05-02T20:05:00.000-04:00

The Zoning Board hearing which was scheduled for Monday, May 5, 2008 HAS BEEN CANCELLED.

The hearing was cancelled at the request of the applicant [Verizon] and has been tentatively rescheduled for June 23, 2008 & July 14, 2008.

All further updates will be posted as they become available.

Suburban News 5/01/2008

2008-05-01T22:07:00.000-04:00

Letter To the Editor:

There are so many flaws in the Verizon cell tower proposal for the Cranford Swimming Club that it is hard to understand. To put it mildly, among other things, Verizon's presentation to the Board has been incomplete and flawed in many different ways.

For example, the criteria used to establish the bases of their presentation did not properly address the following:

1. That Cranford's zoning ordinance specifies that cell towers are not to be placed near residentially zoned areas, much less on a residentially zoned site, as is the case here. The swimming club is rated an R-1 residential zone.

2. That the zoning ordinance presented indicates a maximum acceptable tower height of 70 feet but forgot that this is a residential zone and consequently 30 feet is the maximum acceptable height. Verizon is asking for 130 feet, or more than four times, the residential ordinance limit.

3. That this proposed cell tower project meets none of the Cranford ordinances for setback distances, i.e. the distance from the nearest residential property, and this is based on a project being placed on an industrial site, not like here, which is a residentially zoned area, where even greater setbacks should apply.

4. That the Cranford Swimming Club site is inadequate in every dimension, overall size and location.

5. Ordinances establish setbacks for a number of reasons such as to preserve the appearance of areas or for safety, like in this case, where there will be many people in close proximity of the tower. Towers have fallen and will again...and cell towers do attract lightning...and some lightning misses...at a swim club???

6. That the Verizon cell tower and its support facilities are, as drawn, less than 15 feet from residential and park property where wildlife, nature trails and people observing the beauty of nature presently exist. The applicable ordinance specifies that no such building/ facility shall be within 50 feet of any property line and the tower must be setback 300% of its height, in this case 390 feet, from any residential lot line. In this case, Verizon has the cell tower only 36 feet from the nearest residential property line.

7. That this is a historic area and by county, state and federal edict is not to be disturbed or encroached upon.

8. And, on top of all the above, Verizon finally admitted they presently have adequate cell phone signal coverage in this area, and they indicated "this project is for the future." However, their projected growth/use curve for the area in question did not appear to support their claim of a future shortfall.

This technology is relatively new and the long-term health effects of such a tower is still in question.

Not discussed at the meetings yet, but also very important, is the fact that if the Cranford Swimming Club cell tower is built, all the homes in the area will see a substantial property value loss. In short, because of all the above and much more, this cell tower project does not belong in this location and should be immediately rejected. I recommend that a team of county, town and industry experts be designated to develop an overall county cell tower plan. Protecting the rights of people is at the core of the whole zoning concept and preserving our parkland green space is of the utmost importance in a heavily populated area such as Union County.

The next scheduled meeting on this cell tower project is being held by the Cranford Zoning Board, in the Cranford municipal building, at 8 Springfield Ave., on May 5 at 8:15 p.m. Call 908-709-7216 for confirmation. All interested persons are welcome.

Jack Schuvart
Westfield

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 5/05/2008

2008-05-01T13:07:00.000-04:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment will be holding a continuation hearing for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal on Monday, May 5, 2008, when the applicant [New York SMSA Limited Partnership/Verizon] is slated to introduce testimony from a real estate appraiser, a radiofrequency [RF] engineer and a site planner.

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, May 5, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

PLACE: Cranford Municipal Building [Room 107], 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey

The following will be heard:

Application #Z17-07: (Continuation)
New York SMSA Limited Partnership, Applicant
201 County Park Drive, Block 109, Lot 46, R-1 Zone

To permit construction of a telecommunications tower with the following variances/waivers:

Tower not permitted in the R-1 zone (136-33K(6);

To exceed the maximum allowable height for a tower (136-33K(10);

Less than the minimum required setback for a tower (136-33K(10)(b);

Less than the minimum required setback to a residential zone for a tower (136-33K(10)(c);

To exceed the maximum allowable square footage for an equipment cabinet (136-33K(12)(a);

Less than the minimum required front yard setback for equipment (136-30.6);

Less than the minimum required side yard setback (136-30.7)

PUBLIC PORTION - Any interested party may appear at said hearing and participate therein in accordance with the rules of the Zoning Board.

Please mark your calendars and make arrangements to attend. This meeting is absolutely crucial and we must have a strong residential turnout to show our complete opposition against this cell tower proposal!

We encourage you to bring along your friends, family members, neighbors; everyone and anyone who is willing to attend. There is absolute power in numbers and we need to clearly show our opposition before the board.

We hope to see you all there!

Cranford Chronicle 3/14/2008

2008-03-14T20:25:00.000-04:00

At Hearing, Lawyers Spar Over Alternate Tower Site

Friday, March 14, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD - The contentious hearing on an application to construct a cell phone tower at the Cranford Swimming Club (CSC) continued this week, as a site acquisition expert for a consortium of wireless phone companies testified about the lack of potential sites in the surrounding area. But the Board of Adjustment did not make a decision, and another meeting has been scheduled for May.

About 50 people attended Monday's hearing, the fourth on an application that has generated intense opposition from neighboring residents and objections from both county and state government.

Verizon Wireless has taken the lead role in a group of four cell companies -- Sprint Mobile, AT& T and T-Mobile are also involved -- that is seeking to build a 130-foot monopole and a 2,760-square foot equipment compound at the edge of CSC's County Park Drive property. The club's property straddles the border between Cranford and Westfield, and residents in both towns have hired an attorney to represent their objections. The residents claim the tower is out of place in the residential area and question the phone companies' assertion of a gap in coverage.

Because of the proposed tower's proximity to county-owned Lenape Park, which is part of the historic Rahway River Parkway, the application has also drawn opposition from the Union County Board of Freeholders and the state Historic Preservation Office.

At Monday's hearing Greg Meese, an attorney for the applicant, elicited testimony from site acquisition expert Claire DiNardo regarding what he called a lack of alternative locations.

Testifying that she was contracted to perform the search in late 2003, DiNardo said that she was given a circular search area about a mile wide, extending from the swim club south to the intersection of Orchard and Tulip streets, and ranging from Nomahegan Park to Fairview Cemetery. Within those confines, there were no properties that met the guidelines of the Cranford telecommunications ordinance -- namely, areas that were zoned for commercial use or had existing tall structures.

DiNardo said that she contacted the Cranford Swimming Club, Union County College, Nomahegan Park, Fairview Cemetery, Dreyer Farms and Sunrise Senior Living Facility during her search, but only the swim club expressed interest.

Beside those locations, "every other property is a single-family type use with a house on it without space for a facility," DiNardo said.

DiNardo said she had sent five letters to Union County College expressing interest in the placing a tower on the college's Cranford campus, but the repeated requests were all rebuffed.

Asked by board member Chris Drew if the college's rejection was unusual, DiNardo said she could not say with certainty. "I can't tell you if there is a specific trend, but I can tell you there are other colleges and universities that have (cell towers)," she said.

Outlining the other responses, DiNardo said she was told by county legal officials that Nomahegan Park was encumbered by Green Acres restrictions and that the Fairview board of directors was not interested. No response was received from either Dreyer Farms or Sunrise, she said.

A last attempt to contact all of the properties that had been previously considered was made in December 2007. "We don't always get a response when people aren't interested," DiNardo said.

Responding to DiNardo's testimony, Norman Albert, an attorney for Union County, argued that the applicant's search had not been as exhaustive as she claimed because at no point had a request for diversion of Green Acres space been made by the phone companies.

Meese, the applicant's attorney, objected to that line of questioning and said that "Green Acres is a red herring" that had no bearing on the application.

Albert countered by saying that there is a process in place for such circumstances and the process had not been completed. "They haven't asked" about adjusting the Green Acres designation, he said.

Albert went on to say that the Sunrise facility is less than 200 feet from the proposed site, which means the property owners there would have been notified of the current application. "You think they would have taken the letter they received from you in December, after they already know about this plan, seriously?" he asked.

DiNardo also faced questioning from John Schmidt, an attorney with the firm of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, which has been retained to represent about 40 residents in the area.

Schmidt asked DiNardo if she had ever been involved in any application to the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for Green Acres diversion. She responded that she had previously been involved in one such request, which was not successful.

The hearing will continue on May 5, when the applicant is slated to introduce testimony from a real estate appraiser, a radiofrequency engineer and a planner.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for the Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

The Westfield Leader 3/13/2008

2008-03-13T09:52:00.000-04:00

Cranford Swim Club Cell Tower Hearing Moves On

By STEVEN REILLY
Specially Written for The Westfield Leader

CRANFORD — The battle over the placement of a cell tower in a residential neighborhood took a step forward at Monday’s Cranford zoning board meeting. Lawyers for both sides presented arguments on the selection process of the Cranford Swim Club as the site for Verizon Inc.’s cell tower.

Greg Meese, an attorney from the Woodcliff Lake law firm Price, Meese, Shulman and D’Armino, represents Verizon Inc., which seeks to install a 130-foot-tall cellular tower and equipment shed on the grounds of the Cranford Swim Club.

Mr. Meese presented Claire Dinardo as an expert witness for Verizon to testify on the need to place the tower on the swim club property. Ms. Dinardo is the president of Arionda real estate consultants out of Haddonfield. She was hired by Verizon as a “site acquisition expert.” According to testimony from Ms. Dinardo, the search for a property to install the cell tower began in 2003 when “radio frequency engineers” identified a “gap” in service for wireless customers in the area.

Ms. Dinardo testified that Verizon targeted an area in Cranford that included the Union County College Cranford campus, Nomahegan Park, Dreyer’s Farm, all in Cranford, and Fairview Cemetery and the Sunrise Assisted Living facility in Westfield, as well as the swim club.

According to Mr. Dinardo, the “search area” identified by the radio engineers consists mostly of one-family homes that do not meet the requirements of the zoning laws to host cell towers. The properties targeted by Verizon “made the spirit of the law.”

“I started with Union County College. That was the first choice for the site,” Ms. Dinardo said. According to testimony, letters were sent to the president’s office of Union County College seeking to place the tower on the campus. Officials from Verizon met with representatives from the college, however, Ms. Dinardo said that the college “was not interested.”

According to Ms. Dinardo, Verizon got the same response from Fairview Cemetery, Sunrise Senior Home and Dreyer’s Farm. The swim club was the only site that agreed to the placement of the tower, she said.

Norman Albert, the deputy Union County counsel, spoke in opposition to Verizon’s application to install the cell tower on the swim club property. Mr. Albert called effectiveness of the letters sent out to property owners by Ms. Dinardo.

According to testimony, Ms. Dinardo’s company sent letters of interest to the property owners in 2003 and began discussions with the college, the cemetery and the swim club.

The college was the first choice for the tower, but college officials declined the offer on three occasions, Ms. Dinardo said. The cemetery also considered Verizon’s offer but declined, she said. Sunrise Assisted Living and Dreyer’s Farm never responded to Verizon’s letter, she said. Ms. Dinardo stated that Verizon did not pursue placing the tower in Nomahegan Park based on the restrictions imposed by the state’s Green Acres open space program.

“We send a certified letter to the property owner or the highest ranking official. It is up to them to respond to the letters,” Ms. Dinardo said. “We are not going to harass people and knock on doors.”

Mr. Albert focused his argument on the letters that were sent out by Dinardo’s company. Ms. Dinardo testified that five letters were sent to the college, three to Union County regarding Nomahegan Park, two to the cemetery and one to the senior home.

Mr. Albert argued that Verizon did not make a satisfactory attempt to find an alternative location for the tower that would be less intrusive as the swim club property. “The county is here to object to the site for the tower based on the negative impact on local residents as well as the proximity to historic lands,” Mr. Albert said.

Mr. Albert questioned Ms. Dinardo on the process to find a site for the tower and the use of the letters. “Did you ever go to a site to discuss a proposal?” Mr. Albert asked. “We have to be careful on how many letters we send. We do not want to border on becoming telemarketers,” Ms. Dinardo said. “The property owners have no legal responsibility to talk to us. Once they say ‘no,’ we leave it at that.”

According to Mr. Albert, Verizon did not seek all the options to find an alternative site before settling on the swim club. “What would happen if the county said it was interested?” Mr. Albert asked. “What would happen if the county said ‘come with us to apply for a diversion from the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection)?’ We don’t know because Verizon never applied.”

Another meeting on the application to place a cell tower on the Cranford Swim Club property is scheduled for Monday, May 5.

Cranford Chronicle 3/07/2008

2008-03-08T20:51:00.000-05:00

Cranford Chronicle
Letter to the Editor

March 7, 2008

Cell Towers Can Destroy Residential Neighborhoods

To The Chronicle:

Recently, while having lunch with some neighbors in Cranford, I heard a woman say, "I wouldn't want it in my backyard." I glanced over, saw three women and determined that they were discussing the proposed 130-foot cell tower to be located on the Cranford/Westfield border, near Lenape Park. Yes, ladies, it doesn't belong in a residential area or anyone's backyard. This is a huge commercial tower with many antennas and a large complex of buildings underneath. It belongs on a highway like the Turnpike, in an industrial park, or in an isolated rural area not near any homes. The idea to put it in a park setting and looming over single-family homes is preposterous!

The greed of the Cranford Swimming Club's potential profiteers shows no concern for the nearby residents and park users. Anyone operating a business adjacent to a residential area would not agree to put such a huge monstrosity on their property, as they would offend their neighbors and alienate potential customers. What is occurring here is unconscionable! We who live here have had to hire an attorney, incurring large legal fees to defend our neighborhoods and property values through no fault of our own.

This is the time to stop this intrusion of these towers in residential areas, as more will follow if a precedent is set. There are already many cell towers in Union County. While the long-term health effects, if any, are unknown, the financial and emotional destruction of neighborhoods is a certainty!

You can help by telling your officials on the planning and zoning boards that this is not what you want for your towns and the park land that many people enjoy. If you would like to contribute toward legal fees to help fight this proposal, send a check made out to A.C.T.-Cranford/Westfield to J. Schuvart, 40 Manitou Circle, Westfield, NJ 07090 or J. Muratore, 106 Kenilworth Boulevard, Cranford, NJ 07016.

There will be a Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting regarding the proposed cell tower at 8:15 p.m. Monday, March 10 at the Cranford municipal building. Call the Zoning Board for confirmation at (908) 709-7216. Come out and show your support for stopping this proposal. We thank you for any help offered.

JENNY SCHUVART
Westfield

Local Source: Cranford News 3/06/2008

2008-03-06T14:42:00.000-05:00

Board Hears Cell Tower Plan

By Paul Greulich
Thursday, March 6, 2008

CRANFORD, NJ - Residents, officials and attorneys are gearing up for another round of hearings on the subject of a proposed cell tower on County Park Drive scheduled for Monday’s Zoning Board meeting.

Since appearing before the board in October, this application has consistently brought large numbers of residents to the council chambers, where meetings running until midnight have become common.

Attorney John H. Schmidt Jr., who represents some 40-50 residents in the area of the proposed tower, said he expects there will probably be still more meetings before a vote is taken.

The applicant, Verizon, is seeking height and setback variances needed to place the 130-foot pole on the grounds of the Cranford Swimming Club in a residential area.

Much of the last meeting was spent on Schmidt’s questioning of Glenn Pierson, one of the applicant’s witnesses and a principal of the PierCon Solutions of Lincoln Park, which provides engineering services for the applicant. Discussion centered on whether there are any gaps in the area’s cellular coverage.

“I like to think I was able to establish that there was no present gap in coverage,” Schmidt said. “If I did that, the application should fail because one of their requirements is to show a gap in coverage.”

At previous meetings, residents have complained that the applicant has presented data in a misleading way. Westfield resident Jack Schuvart said he thought things went well in recent meetings in the efforts to clear up some of the information that was before the board.

“Most of us were rather pleased with the performance of the counsel we’d hired to handle it,” Schuvart said.

Freeholder Bette Jane Kowalski was also present. Kowalski has been the voice of the county’s opposition to the project because of its proximity to Lenape Park. Kowalski said she feels cell towers are a necessary part of life, but finds the proposed location near the park unsuitable.

“I feel a real responsibility for protecting the parks and protecting the people who live near the parks,” Kowalski said. “I hope this can all be worked out and keep the park in its scenic condition.”

Since the proposal appeared, opposition has arisen from the State Historic Preservation Office, which has stated that the tower must be canceled or modified to mitigate its impact upon the adjacent Lenape Park and the Rahway River Park historic district.

The pole would feature four separate antennae servicing companies that include Omnipoint, Sprint and Verizon. Revenue generated for the swim club by having the tower on their property has been estimated at exceeding $20,000.

Area residents’ concern has focused on aesthetics and location in relation to property lines and the adjoining park, but there has also been mention of health hazards associated with living near cell towers, a factor that remains a topic of concern despite not yet having been scientifically substantiated.

Article Courtesy of LocalSource.com

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 3/10/2008

2008-03-02T15:20:00.000-05:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment will be holding a continuation meeting for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal on Monday, March 10, 2008.

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, March 10, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

PLACE: Cranford Municipal Building [Room 107], 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey

The following will be heard:

Application #Z17-07: (Continuation)
New York SMSA Limited Partnership, Applicant
201 County Park Drive, Block 109, Lot 46, R-1 Zone

To permit construction of a telecommunications tower with the following variances/waivers:

Tower not permitted in the R-1 zone (136-33K(6);

To exceed the maximum allowable height for a tower (136-33K(10);

Less than the minimum required setback for a tower (136-33K(10)(b);

Less than the minimum required setback to a residential zone for a tower (136-33K(10)(c);

To exceed the maximum allowable square footage for an equipment cabinet (136-33K(12)(a);

Less than the minimum required front yard setback for equipment (136-30.6);

Less than the minimum required side yard setback (136-30.7)

PUBLIC PORTION - Any interested party may appear at said hearing and participate therein in accordance with the rules of the Zoning Board.

Please mark your calendars and make arrangements to attend. This meeting is absolutely crucial and we must have a strong residential turnout to show our complete opposition against this cell tower proposal!

We encourage you to bring along your friends, family members, neighbors; everyone and anyone who is willing to attend. There is absolute power in numbers and we need to clearly show our opposition before the board.

We hope to see you all there!

YouTube Video

2008-02-25T21:58:00.000-05:00

This YouTube video was posted by Paul Fitzgerald, EMF expert and founder of The Research Center for Wireless Technology. This video was inspired by the residents of Cranford, NJ.

WATCH THE VIDEO

Paul Fitzgerald, a graduate of the New Jersey Institute of Technology, has been studying ElectroMagnetic Fields for over 15 years. In addition to participating in over 100 radio shows and speaking engagements, he has also written a book, "Cell Phone Friend or Enemy".

His YouTube videos may be viewed here.

You may also visit his website, EMF News, here.

What are the Dangers of Living Near Cell Phone Towers?

2008-02-21T22:34:00.000-05:00

Across the United States, opposition to cell towers has continued to grow within residential areas. More than 500 cases have been heard nationwide involving efforts to stop cell phone towers from being placed within residential zones.

Whether these cases are won or lost, the question still remains; are these cell towers safe?

Federal law eliminates one of the key arguments that some residents have against cell sites in their neighborhood; the health factor. To date, no studies have shown absolute and conclusive evidence that radio frequency [RF] emissions are harmful at levels allowed by the Federal Communications Commission. As a result, the law strictly prohibits the rejection of a cell tower based on health risk.

However, there is also a clear lack of evidence showing that these towers are in fact safe. Because of this, a fear of the uncertainty remains among many neighborhoods across the United States.

Although residents cannot argue the health issues associated with living in the vicity of a cell tower, they can make the argument that the perception of a health risk, combined with what most consider to be an eyesore, can drastically lower property values for those living near a cell site.

In recent years, there have been several different views taken on the health risks associated with cell towers.

In 2004, The International Association of Fire Fighters opposed the use of fire houses for cell tower sites “until a study with the highest scientific merit” proves they are safe.

Read their full statement here.

The American Cancer Society’s website states that “because the [cell tower] technology is still relatively new, we do not yet have full information on health effects.” However, the organization also noted there was “no known evidence of a link between low-level emissions and cancer.”

Read the entire report here.

According to the Federal Government, no studies have shown conclusive evidence that radio frequency emissions, a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), from cell towers are harmful.

The Food and Drug Administration states that, "RF [Radio frequency] exposure on the ground is much less than exposure very close to the antenna and in the path of the transmitted radio signal. In fact, ground-level exposure from such antennas is typically thousands of times less than the exposure levels recommended as safe by expert organizations. So exposure to nearby residents would be well within safety margins."

However, the Federal Government also declared cigarettes safe at one time. Why should residents have to be the “test group” to prove whether these towers are safe? How are we to know what the long term exposure studies will show? Why should we be forced by the Federal Government to take that risk?

Cell phone companies also maintain that no risks exist from the towers. "There are no health risks posed by the towers. Independent scientific panels around the world have reached this conclusion," said Russ Stromberg, senior manager of development at T-Mobile.

Would we expect the cell phone companies to say anything less? Big Tobacco raved about the safety of cigarette smoking for years; all the while knowing the underlying risks associated with their product. It came down to one thing; money.

So who are you to believe?

Several studies are now coming forward that seem to tell a different story regarding the safety of cell towers.

A study by Dr. Bruce Hocking in Australia found that children living near three TV and FM broadcast towers (similar to cell towers) in Sydney had more than twice the rate of leukemia than children living more than seven miles away.

Says Dr. Neil Cherry, a biophysicist at Lincoln University in New Zealand:

"Public health surveys of people living in the vicinity of cell site base stations should be being carried out now, and continue progressively over the next two decades. This is because prompt effects such as miscarriage, cardiac disruption, sleep disturbance and chronic fatigue could well be early indicators of the adverse health effects. Symptoms of reduced immune system competence, cardiac problems, especially of the arrhythmic type, and cancers, especially brain tumor and leukemia, are probable."

Biomedical engineer Mariana Alves-Pereira says exposure to cell phone towers can lead to vibroacoustic disease. "From what I understand, some of the complaints are similar in what is seen in vibroacoustic disease patients, which are people who develop a disease caused by low frequency noise exposure," she said. Symptoms can include mood swings, indigestion, ulcers and joint pain.

Dr. Gerard Hyland, a physicist who was nominated twice for the Nobel Prize in medicine, says, "Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate ... Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests."

According to the Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, "Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer's disease, and numerous other serious illnesses."

According to Dr. W. Löscher of the Institute of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy of the Veterinary School of Hannover in Germany, dairy cows that were kept in close proximity to a TV and cell phone tower for two years had a reduction in milk production along with increased health problems and behavioral abnormalities. In an experiment, one cow with abnormal behavior was taken away from the antenna and the behavior subsided within five days. When the cow was brought back near the antenna, the symptoms returned.

In addition, in January, 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for a reexamination of cell phone health risks citing that long-term and low-intensity radio frequency exposure from mobile devices may be dangerous to pregnant women and kids.

Read more about the FDA & Cell Phone Health Risks:
Article 1
Article 2

So the question remains; who are we to believe? Although we as residents cannot fight this fight on the basis of health factors, we must not turn a blind eye to the facts that are presented to us.

Those who know the risks of using a cell phone and continue to use one are doing so by choice. The residents in this area did not choose to live near a cell tower. However, should a tower be placed in our neighborhood, we will have no choice but to reside in the vicinity of a tower without knowing the full extent of the health risks, if any, that we are being exposed to.

I have to ask; why should any person be asked to take that risk?

Cranford Chronicle 2/01/2008

2008-02-01T19:33:00.000-05:00

Cell Tower Applicants Face Some Skeptical Questioning

Friday, February 01, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD - A radio frequency engineer testifying on behalf of a proposed cell tower at the Cranford Swimming Club faced skeptical questioning from opposing attorneys and Zoning Board of Adjustment members, as the legal wrangling over the controversial application continued Monday night.

The proposal, under which a consortium of four wireless phone companies hopes to build a 130- foot monopole and a 2,760-square foot equipment compound at the edge of CSC's County Park Drive property, has galvanized fierce opposition from neighbors in Cranford and Westfield. Verizon Wireless, Sprint Mobile, AT& T and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile, argue they need the tower to fill a gap in coverage, but residents in both towns have expressed concern about the impact the pole would have on their health, aesthetics, and property values.

A crowd of about 100 people filled council chambers for Monday's hearing, the third on the proposal, which lasted about three hours and was dedicated mostly to cross examination. The application has been continued to March, and a final decision is not likely for months.
Radio frequency engineer Glen Pierson had testified in favor of the proposal at a December hearing. He returned to the stand Monday. In response to questioning from the applicants' attorney, Greg Meese, Pierson said that the tower is necessary to address a gap in cellular coverage in the area. Using a graph to back up his point, Pierson said that the anticipated future demand would overwhelm the existing network.

But Board Chairman Robert Hellenbrecht questioned Pierson about the projected amount of wireless traffic over time, noting that the current peak level of call volume had only been hit a few times.

"I don't disagree that traffic is going up and that has to be dealt with, but I don't think it's to a threatening level," Hellenbrecht said.

Pierson responded, saying that special events such as holidays or inclement weather often cause more call traffic. As wireless use increases, that would cause blocked and dropped calls at peak hours, he said.

The hearing became more rancorous when Pierson faced cross-examination from John Schmidt of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, who has been hired by about 40 residents to represent them in the case, and Norman Albert, first deputy counsel for Union County. In addition to the residents' objections, the county has publicly opposed the proposed tower because of its proximity to Lenape Park, part of the Rahway River Parkway Historic District. (The same factor led the state's Historic Preservation Office to draft a letter opposing the tower.)

Schmidt questioned the testing methods that were used and argued that the phone companies have not shared the core empirical data generated by those tests. Without that information, he said, the need for the new tower can not be proven.

Examining the maps that had been presented by Pierson as evidence of a gap, Schmidt also contended that for all of the carriers except Verizon Wireless, the coverage area for the proposed antennas would have at least a 50 percent overlap with existing antennas. Pierson responded that overlapping coverage provides seamless transitions for cell phone users.

Schmidt also attempted to introduce advertisements from the carriers touting their coverage in the area, and Albert asked Pierson if the application were strong enough to be permitted on protected park land. Meese objected that those topics were outside the scope of Pierson's testimony, and the questions were withdrawn.

The hearing will be continued at 8:15 p.m. March 10 in council chambers. At that point, the applicant is expected to introduce testimony from a professional planner and from another witness who will discuss alternate locations considered for the tower.

Leslie Murray is staff writer for the Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

The Westfield Leader 1/31/2008

2008-01-31T19:33:00.000-05:00

Cranford Cell Tower Fight Continues; 484 Sign Petition

By CHRISTINA M. HINKE

CRANFORD — The fight over erecting a cell-phone tower at the Cranford Swim Club continued before a packed house at Monday evening’s meeting of the Cranford zoning board of adjustment.

So far, 484 Westfield and Cranford residents have signed a petition against the proposal, Cranford resident Audrey Muratore told The Scotch Plains-Fanwood Times.

Another 90 people have hired attorney John Schmidt to defend their opposition to the monopole. Gregory Meese, an attorney representing New York SMSA Limited Partnership, clarified the setback variance to the board. He said the setback of the base of the 130-foot-high tower to the nearest residential-property line would be 39 feet. The front-setback requirement is 300 feet or three times the height of the tower, whichever is greater, resulting in a 390-foot frontsetback requirement to a residential property line, Mr. Meese said. The monopole’s proposed site is in a residential zone.

Cranford resident Frank Krause asked Glenn Pierson of PierCon Solutions, a radiofrequency design and engineering consultant testifying on behalf of the applicant, if the pole were to move about 300 feet from its current proposed spot, would it change the effects of cell-phone coverage.

“There is no major difference from a radiofrequency perspective,” Mr. Pierson replied. Mr. Krause suggested that the applicant should consider moving the pole near the pool at the Cranford Swim Club instead of near residential property lines. He said this change would also meet setback requirements.

Marjorie Meise of Cranford also queried Mr. Pierson. She asked if a satellite would be a suitable source of service for cell phones. “[A] satellite signal doesn’t get into a building. It is for outdoor or remote locations,” Mr. Pierson said.

Mr. Pierson also testified about cellphone-connectivity lapses. “It’s not
something you can do with digital or analog. It’s the radio-wave limitations,” he said.

Mr. Pierson presented the board with a graph showing data points of cellular traffic on traditional 800-MHz frequencies from 2006 to 2010. He said, beginning in 2010, a significant amount of blockage would occur on peak days, such as July 4 and during snowstorms or constructions, when cell phones are used more frequently.

Data services, such as text messages, would also block voice coverage, Mr. Pierson said. “We need to build out frequencies,” he said. “Come 2010, 800 mhz will be blocked.” He said 1,900-MHz frequency is being used today as a backup when 800 MHz is busy.

Mr. Pierson said the higher the frequency, the shorter the usable range. So, a 1,900-MHz frequency would cover less of an area than one of 800 MHz, resulting in the need for more towers. He also said that of the four cell-phone-carrier providers that would have cell coverage on the monopole, two operate on 800 MHz. Mr. Pierson also said, in his opinion, that if this tower application were approved, the applicant would require a second tower in Cranford to gain seamless coverage.

However, so far, the coverage maps supplied by the cell carriers shown in the subsequent meetings do not depict coverage of 800-MHz frequencies, as confirmed by Mr. Pierson.

The hearing will continue on Monday, March 10. Mr. Meese is expected to present one or two of his witnesses.

Mr. Schmidt will have his chance to present witnesses at a later date.

Local Source: Cranford News 1/30/2008

2008-01-30T20:36:00.000-05:00

Cell Tower Decision Still a Few Months Away

By Paul Greulich
January 30, 2008

CRANFORD, NJ - Hours of witness testimony and cross-examination by attorneys on both sides of the controversial cell tower application left the issue unresolved Monday night.

The applicant, Verizon, is seeking height and setback variances needed to place the 130-foot pole on the grounds of the Cranford Swimming Club in a residential area.

The meeting ended at 11 p.m., at which point Zoning Board members stated there was no room in the schedule to continue the hearing until March 10.

Attorney John H. Schmidt Jr., who represents some 40-50 residents in the area of the proposed tower, said he expects there will be at least two more meetings before a vote is taken.

Much of Monday’s meeting was spent on Schmidt’s questioning of Glenn Pierson, one of the applicant’s witnesses and a principal of the PierCon Solutions of Lincoln Park, which provides engineering services for the applicant.

Discussion centered on whether there are any gaps in the area’s cellular coverage.

“I like to think I was able to establish that there was no present gap in coverage,” Schmidt said. “If I did that, the application should fail because one of their requirements is to show a gap in coverage.”

Verizon attorney Gregory Meese could not be reached for comment by press time.

At previous meetings, residents have complained that the applicant has presented data in a misleading way. Westfield resident Jack Schuvart said he thought things went well on Monday in the efforts to clear up some of the information that was before the board.
“Most of were rather pleased with the performance of the council we’d hired to handle it,” Schuvart said.

Freeholder Bette Jane Kowalski was also present. Kowalski has been the voice of the county’s opposition to the project because of its proximity to Lenape Park.

Since the proposal appeared, opposition has arisen from the State Historic Preservation Office, which has stated that the tower must be canceled or modified to mitigate its impact upon the adjacent Lenape Park and the Rahway River Park historic district.

The pole would feature four separate antennae servicing companies that include Omnipoint, Sprint and Verizon. Revenue generated for the swim club by having the tower on their property has been estimated at exceeding $20,000.

Area residents’ concern has focused on aesthetics and location in relation to property lines and the adjoining park, but there has also been mention of health hazards associated with living near cell towers, a factor that remains a topic of concern despite not yet having been scientifically substantiated.

“Personally I thought this was more interesting than CSI,” said Cranford resident Edward O’Malley.

O’Malley said that subjects that stir up a lot of emotion tend to take longer to resolve.

“The issue is getting a thorough vetting by the process here, and that’s rather gratifying,” he added.

Paul Greulich can be reached at 908-686-7700 ext. 121, or at theeagle@thelocalsource.com.

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 1/28/2008

2008-01-27T21:41:00.001-05:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment will be holding a continuation meeting for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal on Monday, January 28, 2008. This meeting will be absolutely crucial as attorneys for both the residents as well as the County of Union will be questioning the witnesses that Verizon has presented.

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, January 28, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

PLACE: Cranford Municipal Building [Room 107], 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey

The following will be heard:

Application #Z17-07: (Continuation)
New York SMSA Limited Partnership, Applicant
201 County Park Drive, Block 109, Lot 46, R-1 Zone

To permit construction of a telecommunications tower with the following variances/waivers:

Tower not permitted in the R-1 zone (136-33K(6);

To exceed the maximum allowable height for a tower (136-33K(10);

Less than the minimum required setback for a tower (136-33K(10)(b);

Less than the minimum required setback to a residential zone for a tower (136-33K(10)(c);

To exceed the maximum allowable square footage for an equipment cabinet (136-33K(12)(a);

Less than the minimum required front yard setback for equipment (136-30.6);

Less than the minimum required side yard setback (136-30.7)

PUBLIC PORTION - Any interested party may appear at said hearing and participate therein in accordance with the rules of the Zoning Board.

Please mark your calendars and make arrangements to attend. This meeting is absolutely crucial and we must have a strong residential turnout to show our complete opposition against this cell tower proposal!

We encourage you to bring along your friends, family members, neighbors; everyone and anyone who is willing to attend. There is absolute power in numbers and we need to clearly show our opposition before the board.

We hope to see you all there!

The Star Ledger 1/27/2008

2008-01-27T21:34:00.000-05:00

Static Likely at Hearing on Cranford Cell Tower Proposal

Sunday, January 27, 2008
BY ROBERT E. MISSECK

The next step in the controversial proposal to build a cell tower almost double the legal height and with a shorter setback than usual at a private swim club in Cranford is scheduled to take place tomorrow night.

Verizon Wireless will resume its efforts to persuade the zoning board to approve the seven variances it needs to proceed with the project, which has prompted a growing group of residents opposing the tower to obtain legal counsel to help them in their fight.

Union County, which also is opposed to the tower, will send its attorney to the hearing, scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. in the municipal building, 8 Springfield Ave.

In addition to asking for a variance to build the 130-foot cell tower in a residential area, the applicant also wants permission to build the tower higher than the current limit of 70 feet, have a shorter setback on the property, and allow for a 345-foot equipment shelter with a 2,700-square-foot, fenced-in containment area.

John H. Schmidt Jr., the attorney representing about 50 Cranford and Westfield residents who are opposed to the project, said his approach during the ongoing zoning board sessions has been two fold.

"I don't believe that the cellular tower companies have adequately established a gap in the area coverage for which they claim they need it," he said of the tower.

"But, assuming they can get over that hurdle, they still have to satisfy the zoning board that the variances should be granted by proving the benefits of having the tower far outweigh any negative impact it may have on the surrounding community, which is a residential zone," said Schmidt.

While Verizon Wireless is the primary applicant, the tower would also be used by Sprint Mobile, AT&T and Omnipoint.

The attorney representing the cell tower applicants did not return telephone messages left for him.

Critics of the project said the club wants to use the profits from the tower to help offset membership dues and to make upgrades to the facility.

Residents are opposed to the tower because they believe it would be bad for the area's aesthetics and, therefore, the values of their homes.

State historic preservation officials are also against the project because they maintain its design would harm the area's historical status.

A review of the project by the state Department of Environmental Protection's Natural and Historic Resources, Historic Preservation Office concluded last spring that the proposed tower "will have an adverse effect" on the Rahway River Park Historic District across the street from the swim club property.

Schmidt said that while the DEP has sent a letter to the zoning board stating its position, it is not enough to prevent the project from proceeding.

Freeholder and Cranford resident Betty Jane Kowalski said she learned about the DEP's findings over the summer and agrees with its conclusions.

"The county is opposed to the cell tower because the site is just too close to Lenape Park, which the county owns, and the area is eligible for historical status," she said.

"And it would not be just the tower. They would also have to construct an access road and build a service shed," said Kowalski.

"The swim club property is not an appropriate site for this project," she said.

Schmidt said tomorrow night's meeting will probably not be the end of it.

"The applicant will probably need one if not two more hearings at least after this meeting," he said.

"After the testimony is concluded, the zoning board will then open the proceedings for public comment, and that may not happen until at least March," said Schmidt.

Robert E. Misseck may be reached at rmisseck@starledger.com or (908) 302-1507.

Cranford Chronicle 1/25/2008

2008-01-26T00:01:00.000-05:00

Hellenbrecht Re-Appointed to Zoning Board

Friday, January 25, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD - The Township Committee settled on its annual appointments to the Zoning Board of Adjustment at a special meeting Wednesday night, just days before the board convenes to continue hearing a controversial application for a cell phone tower.

In something of a twist, one of the "new" members was the board chairman last year, who had at first been passed over for re-appointment.

At the New Year's Day re-organization meeting, the committee appointed Richard Brightman to a four-year term on the board, while Jerry DeNigris was appointed to the position of second alternate. Their appointments meant that Robert Hellenbrecht, who was chairman of the board in 2007 and whose term expired at the end of the year, would not be returning.

But during a special meeting on Wednesday, the committee accepted resignations from both DeNigris and Brightman, then turned around and appointed Hellenbrecht to the four-year term. To fill the second alternate position, the committee appointed Brightman. Neither Brightman nor DeNigris served on the board in 2007.

Hellenbrecht could not be reached for comment about his appointment. But in early January, when it appeared he would not be returning to the board, Hellenbrecht said he had told the Township Committee in late 2007 that he was interested in serving again. He said he received a second call confirming his interest; that was followed by a third call offering him the non-voting post of second alternate, which he declined.

Mayor Bob Puhak said despite not initially offering him a voting spot on the board, the committee had been satisfied with Hellenbrecht's service. Puhak declined to discuss the reasons for the initial decision, or the change of heart.

In related news, Puhak said Township Attorney Carl Woodward is drafting a memo regarding the committee's role in hiring the attorneys for both the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board; that topic will be discussed at a later meeting. Starting last year, Cranford moved toward hiring municipal attorneys as independent contractors, instead of employees with pension and medical benefits.

The Board of Adjustment will meet for the first time this year on Monday, Jan. 28. During that meeting, the board will elect a chairman and continue hearing an application from a cooperative of four cellular carriers to build a 130-foot monopole and a 2,760-square foot equipment compound at the edge of the Cranford Swimming Club's County Park Drive property, along the border between Cranford and Westfield.

Verizon Wireless, Sprint Mobile, AT&T and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile, say they need the tower to fill a gap in coverage. However, residents in both towns have expressed concern about the impact the pole would have on health, aesthetics and property values, and have retained an attorney to represent them in the case.

Cranford Chronicle 1/25/2008

2008-01-25T22:42:00.000-05:00

Cranford Chronicle
Letter to the Editor

January 25, 2008

Many Reasons Why Tower is Inappropriate

To The Chronicle:

Briefly, the reasons this tower is totally inappropriate are:

1. Too many important zoning laws would be ignored and too many serious variances required to build it here.

2. The tower would be located in an all-residential area and will set a precedent for more such towers to be erected in residential zones, destroying neighborhoods.

3. Property values would be severely reduced, and nearby owners would have difficulty selling their homes.

4. It would be accompanied by a diesel generator and 225-gallon fuel tank.

5. Unknown health and safety issues.

6. The cell tower and antennas will stand approximately 60 feet above the tree tops, with four to five levels of antennas. Operation of such a tower would be 24 hours daily, seven days a week.

7. It will denigrate the atmosphere of the area and adjacent Lenape Park, which is used by residents from many nearby towns, and have an adverse effect on the Rahway River Parkway Historic District. The Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders adamantly opposes the construction of this cell phone tower at the Cranford Swimming Club site. Natural areas of placid parkland should be preserved for use now and for the future.

It is evident that other areas will be subject to cell phone towers put in residential areas, so let us stop this proposal now and let the elected officials of Cranford and Westfield know this is unacceptable. Please attend the Jan. 28 meeting of the Cranford Zoning Board. Call (908) 709-7216 for confirmation of the meeting.

JENNY SCHUVART

Rahway River Association - Letter to the Editor 1/25/2008

2008-01-25T22:39:00.000-05:00

Cranford Chronicle
Letter to the Editor

Friday, January 25, 2008

Town Should Help Find Solution for Tower Trouble

To The Chronicle:

With a mission of preserving open space, protecting natural resources and improving water quality in the Rahway River watershed, the Rahway River Association is concerned about the proposed 130-foot cell tower being considered for the Township of Cranford.

Located in a residential area adjacent to the county-owned Lenape Park, the proposed tower raises a multitude of concerns that elevates the issue beyond the typical not-in-my-backyard attitude. For the Cranford Township Board of Adjustment, the application may turn on the positive and negative criteria that provide guidance for the individual board members to render a decision. As they consider the application, the board members have an obligation to recognize other mandates and laws that govern their decision-making process.

Of paramount importance is the implication that the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, the state agency mandated to protect the integrity of state and federal historic sites and landscapes, has a direct regulatory role in protecting the Olmsted landscape of Lenape Park from "adverse impacts." Specifically, how will the tower mar the viewshed of Lenape Park from a variety of line of sight perspectives? Does the proposed tower pose a threat to nocturnal migratory songbirds, which are attracted to the high elevated light sources? Inevitably, these attractions result in their collision with the structure itself, which is invariably fatal. Be advised that the Federal Communications Commission conferred upon the state Historic Preservation Office the legal mandate to regulate towers if they impacted historic and cultural resources. SHIPO's declaration of "adverse impacts" cannot be ignored by the Cranford Township Board of Adjustment.

Locating a cell tower on the land of a private swim club surrounded by a residential community is not only incongruent but should have been foreseen as highly unpopular. Such insensitivity is inconsistent with the progressive values of Cranford residents that cherish the Rahway River, fill their parks and are justifiably proud of their community. Efforts to erect a cell tower amid the Cranford Swimming Club grounds suggest that either the facility is suffering some fiscal challenge or is in dire need of some capital improvement. Either way, the Township of Cranford should weigh in with a potential solution.

If money is the primary issue for the Cranford Swimming Club, then the township should negotiate with the organization to sell their development rights immediately to the municipality or Union County. Subject to appraisal, the Cranford Swimming Club could get an infusion of several hundred thousands of public dollars for their land while the township gets an easement prohibiting them from any development in the future. The funds can be used by the swim club for whatever their needs are. As a condition of the transaction, the club can open its membership to the public for a fee, while the land is protected for the benefit of all.

DENNIS O. MIRANDA
Executive Director
Rahway River Association

The Westfield Leader 1/24/2008

2008-01-25T11:44:00.000-05:00

Letter To The Editor

Residents Need to Attend Meeting And Voice Opposition to Tower

There will be a Cranford zoning-board meeting on January 28 at 8:15 p.m. on the status of the proposed 130-foot cell tower located at the Cranford Swim Club property on the Cranford/Westfield border. Briefly, the reasons this tower is totally inappropriate here are stated here forth. 1, Too many important zoning laws ignored and too many serious variances required to build it here. 2, Tower would be located in an all-residential area and will set a precedent for more such towers to be erected in residential zones, thereby destroying neighborhoods. 3, Property values would be severely reduced and owners would have difficulty selling homes near such a site. 4, The tower would have a diesel generator and 225-gallon fuel tank. 5, Unknown health and safety issues. 6, The cell tower and antennas would stand approximately 60 feet above the three tops with four to five levels of antennas. Operation of such a tower would be 24 hours daily, seven days a week. 7, The tower will denigrate atmosphere of area and adjacent Lenape Park used by residents from District. The Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders adamantly opposes the construction of this cell phone tower at the Cranford Swim Club site. Natural areas of placid parkland should be preserved for use now and for the future. It is evident that other areas will be subject to cell towers put in residential areas so let us stop this proposal now and let the elected officials of our towns, of Cranford and Westfield, know this is unacceptable. Please attend the January 28 meeting in Cranford of the zoning board. Call (908) 709-7216 for confirmation of the meeting.

Jenny Schuvart
Westfield

Local Source: Cranford News 1/23/2008

2008-01-23T19:06:00.000-05:00

Board Gets Some More of Cell Tower Plan

By Paul Greulich
January 23, 2008

CRANFORD, NJ - Monday’s meeting of the Zoning Board is expected to feature final testimonial and public comments on the controversial cell tower application that has livened up the board’s meetings the last few months.

The applicant, Verizon, is seeking height and setback variances needed to place the 130-foot pole on the grounds of the Cranford Swimming Club in a residential area.

The township Zoning Board could vote on the application at Monday night’s meeting.

The pole would feature four separate antennae servicing companies that include Omnipoint, Sprint and Verizon. Revenue generated for the swim club by having the tower on their property has been estimated at exceeding $20,000.

Area residents’ concern has focused on aesthetics and location in relation to property lines and the adjoining park, but there has also been mention of health hazards associated with living near cell towers, a factor that remains a topic of concern despite not yet having been scientifically substantiated.

Since the proposal appeared, opposition has arisen from other sources as well. The State Historic Preservation Office has stated that the tower must be canceled or modified to mitigate its impact upon the adjacent Lenape Park and the Rahway River Park historic district.

Freeholder Bette Jane Kowalski, who was the chairwoman last year, said the Freeholder board fully supports this opinion, and is advocating against the construction of the cell tower.

“The park is eligible for landmark status and that means the state sets certain guidelines for what can be done near a park considered a historic place or on the register to be on the list of historic places,” Kowalski explained.

Another consideration is the active bird watching community that frequents Lenape Park where some rare species have been sighted.

Previous cell tower projects in Cranford and other areas have involved towers that utilize existing tall structures, with the upper reaches of the antennae encased in false facades like cupola and chimneys, but Hellenbrecht said that such options appear less likely in this instance.

Kowalski said she feels cell towers are a necessary part of life, but finds the proposed location near the park unsuitable.

Both Cranford and Westfield residents have gotten involved in the issue because the proposed tower would be visible from across the border in the next town.

Zoning Board members Chris Drew and Richard Brightman were not available for comment by press time. Cranford Swimming Club official Jackie McDermott did not return calls for comment.

Paul Greulich can be reached at 908-686-7700 ext. 121, or at theeagle@thelocalsource.com.

Article Courtesy of LocalSource.com

Why Are We Opposing This Cell Tower?

2008-01-17T19:17:00.002-05:00

So, the question has been asked; Why are the residents opposed to the 130' cell tower proposal at the Cranford Swim Club?

The Cranford Swim Club, is a private [members only] swim club which is located at 201 County Park Drive in Cranford, NJ.

It is directly adjacent to the very scenic and historic district [i.e. the Rahway River Parkway Historic District] of Lenape Park, across the street from Nomahegan Park and is located within a Residential Zone [R-1]. The Cranford Swim Club is also directly adjacent to several neighborhoods with many private homes. These towns include Cranford, Westfield and Kenilworth.

The proposed cell tower would extend approximately 60 feet above the tree tops showing up to 5 levels [60 feet] of antennas and other unsightly items.

It would dominate the entire landscape of our parks and all surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, it would drastically reduce the property values of homes as well as jeopardize the ability of homeowners in the area to insure and/or sell their homes.

Verizon is currently seeking EIGHT variances from the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment:

1. A variance to allow a cell tower to be located within a Residential [R-1] Zone. According to the Cranford Land Development Law 136-33K(6), towers ARE NOT permitted in any Residentially Zoned [R-1/R-2] area of Cranford;

2. A variance to allow a 130 foot tower where the maximum allowable height for any tower is 70 feet [Cranford Land Development Law 136-33K(10)] - This tower would extend approximately 60 feet ABOVE the existing tree tops;

3. A variance to have the tower setback only 14 feet from the nearest Property Line whereas under the Cranford Land Development Law (136-33K(10)(b), the required setback for a tower is 125% of the tower height; or in this case 162.5 feet;

4. Under the Cranford Land Development Law 136-33K(10)(c), the minimum required setback to a Residential [R-1/R-2] Zone for a tower is 300% of the height of the tower; 390 feet in this case. Verizon is trying to put the tower WITHIN a Residential Zone - not the required 390 feet AWAY from a Residential Zone;

5. A variance to allow a 345 square foot Equipment Shelter, which would exceed the maximum 200 square foot allowance under law for an Equipment Cabinet [Cranford Land Development Law 136-33K(12)(a)];

6. The required Front Yard Setback for an Equipment Compound/Shelter is 35 feet. Verizon is proposing the Equipment Compound/Shelter be only 15 feet from the nearest front Property Line [Cranford Land Development Law 136-30.6)];

7. The required Side Yard Setback for an equipment compound/shelter is 62.8 feet [10% of the lot width]. Verizon is proposing that the Equipment Compound/Shelter be setback ONLY 13 feet from the nearest side Property Line [Cranford Land Development Law 136-30.7]

8. The Cranford Swim Club is located in a single family residential zone (R-1 zone). Under Cranford Land Development Law 136-31B(6); the number of buildings are restricted in this zone. There shall not be more than one principal structure on each lot in the R-1 through R-5 districts. Because this property already has a principal use structure, Verizon is requesting a variance to allow more than one principal use on the Cranford Swim Club lot. [NOTE: Cell towers are NOT permitted as accessory uses OR principal uses in a residential zone!]

THIS TOWER WILL:
Consist of 4 to 5 Seperate Carriers and Levels of Antennas;
Require a Diesel Generator & 250 Gallon Fuel Tank;
Introduce Unknown Health & Safety Issues into the Immediate Area;
Require Immense Setback & Height Variances;
Drastically Reduce Property Values;
Impede the ability of area homeowners to insure and/or sell their homes;
Destroy the Atmosphere of the Adjacent Lenape Park & Nomahegan Park;
Destroy the Atmosphere of our Neighborhood;
Forever Alter the Character of the Township of Cranford;
Destroy the Natural Aesthetics of the Surrounding County Parks

A clear message must be sent to the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment, governing bodies and cell phone companies that cell towers do not belong near or around ANY residential areas.

I strongly urge everyone to sign our online petition and show your opposition to this proposed cell tower at the Cranford Swim Club.

Please also take a moment to pass along the link to this petition to anyone and everyone who would like to get involved!

We will continue to collect signatures until this application is DENIED.

Please take a moment to sign:

www.petitiononline.com/notocsc

Thank you so very much for your overwhelming support! We look forward to continuing a strong fight against placing cell towers in our residential areas!

We look forward to seeing everyone at the next Zoning Board Meeting!

PLEASE NOTE: THIS TOWER WILL BE PRECEDENT SETTING IN OUR TOWN. IF THE TOWNSHIP ALLOWS THIS TOWER AND ADJOINING EQUIPMENT COMPOUND TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE [R-1], THE FUTURE PRECEDENT WILL THEN BE SET IN STONE. THIS WILL OPEN A HUGE LOOPHOLE FOR OTHER CELL CARRIERS TO COME INTO OTHER RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREAS OF OUR TOWN AND EASILY BE APPROVED TO PLACE A TOWER WHEREVER THEY MAY PLEASE.

WE HAVE ZONING ORDINANCES AND LAWS FOR A REASON. PLEASE SPEAK UP AND DEMAND THAT OUR ZONING BOARD UPHOLD THESE LAWS. THE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD WERE PUT ON THAT BOARD FOR A REASON. THERE ARE ZONING ORDINANCES IN PLACE AND THEY CLEARLY DICTATE THAT THIS CELL TOWER IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE PROPOSED AREA OF THE CRANFORD SWIM CLUB.

STAND UP AND FIGHT CRANFORD! YOU DESERVE TO BE HEARD!

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 1/28/2008

2008-01-09T16:00:00.000-05:00

Update 1/01/2008

2008-01-01T12:45:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year to All!

I hope that everyone had a happy and safe holiday season and I wish everyone all the health and happiness in the world in 2008!

I just wanted to leave a quick update as to the status of the next Zoning Board Meeting for the hearing of the application of the cell tower at the Cranford Swim Club.

The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2008. This meeting will be held at the Cranford Municipal Building at 8:00pm.

Should there be any scheduling changes, I will immediately post all relevant information.

Thank you again to all who have fought so hard to stop this tower from coming into our residential area!

Please continue to sign and pass along our online petition!

Happy New Year!

Action Alert! Write to Your Local Newspaper Today!

2007-12-16T19:55:00.000-05:00

For those who wish to write letters to the editor of your local newspapers voicing your concerns and opposition to the cell tower application at the Cranford Swim Club, I have compiled a list of the appropriate links.

Please click the appropriate link below to the newspaper that you wish to submit a letter to:

The Suburban News

Cranford Chronicle

The Eagle

The Star Ledger

The Westfield Leader

The Scotch Plains - Fanwood Times

If there are any other newspaper links that you would like to see added to this list, please email me at residents.act@gmail.com and I will gladly add all additional links.

Thank you again to everyone for all of the support that we have received! Please continue to spread our online petition - we greatly appreciate each and every signature!

Have a wonderful evening!

The Westfield Leader 12/13/2007

2007-12-14T17:34:00.000-05:00

CF WF Residents Hire Lawyer to Oppose Cell Tower

By CHRISTINA M. HINKE

CRANFORD — Opponents of a proposed 130-foot-high cell tower have hired an attorney to fight the proposal, which would be situated at the Cranford Swim Club. Testimony on the application, which the Union County freeholder board also opposes, continued Monday night at a special meeting of the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment.

New York SMSA Limited Partnership seeks height and setback variances. During the Cranford zoning board’s meeting in October, the applicant’s attorney, Gregory Meese, said the county did not voice concerns over the proposal to SMSA.

On Monday night, First Deputy County Counsel Norman Albert, also a Cranford resident, stood on the sidelines to wait to question the testimonies heard that evening. About 90 Cranford and Westfield residents opposed to the tower have hired their own attorney, John Schmidt. He said he plans to bring in his own professional planner and radiofrequency consultant to testify before the board.

Civil engineer Anthony Suppa, testifying for the applicant, said that due to an order adopted October 2, cellphone carriers must have an eighthour battery backup at the tower’s equipment shelter. Verizon has a generator; thereby, this order does not apply to them, he said. However, Mr. Suppa said, the other carriers that plan to go on the tower – Sprint, Omnipoint and Cingular – only have about a two- to three-hour backup. They are looking into the eight-hour back up to comply with regulations. Mr. Suppa said the shelter would have no increase in size for the new batteries.

Mr. Meese also introduced Glenn Pierson, a radiofrequency design and engineering consultant. He presented topography maps of each carrier’s coverage area and the increase in coverage the proposed tower would bring. Displaying cell-phone coverage maps, he testified that on average,
each carrier has a gap in coverage from Springfield Avenue to Kenilworth Boulevard, the Chippewa Road neighborhood and from Springfield Avenue to Gallows Hill Road to the south.

Mr. Pierson’s maps of one carrier showed coverage for medium-density buildings, such as brick buildings found at schools, another carrier with coverage for low-density buildings, such as non-stone houses, then another with outdoor or in-vehicle coverage.

“How do we know if there really is a gap?” Board Chairman Robert Hellenbrecht asked. “We’re mixing apples and oranges.” “What is the benefit to our community?” he questioned. Mr. Pierson said the holes in coverage in the area, especially at Cranford High School, Union County College and Nomahegan Park, are “substantial” and could cause a threat in case of an emergency.

Mr. Hellenbrecht said students at the high school are not allowed to use their cell phones. Other residents in the audience interjected that there are emergency practices in place and there are landline phones at the high school.

Later, resident Melanie Graceffo said she found it important for students to have cell-phone service at schools in case of emergencies and asked Mr. Pierson about the potential coverage for all area schools. “This application does not touch schools in the south or east by Orange Avenue,” Mr. Pierson said.

The county and opposition attorneys will have a chance to counter Mr. Pierson’s testimony at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, January 28, board officials said. Mr. Pierson also listed the other properties the applicant approached for the tower site: Nomahegan Park, Dreyer Farms, Union County College, Fairview Cemetery, Sunrise Assisted Living, Church of Christ Echo Lake, Lenape Park and the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church. “We’ve looked at every possible place since 2002,” Mr. Pierson said.

He said Union County College and Dreyer Farms declined to have the cell tower located on their properties. Mr. Albert said he would like to see proof of the sites that said “no,” saying he believed the applicant never approached Dreyer Farms. The board also asked for evidence of the reasons behind those sites that declined the applicant’s request.

Update! 12/13/2007

2007-12-13T09:12:00.000-05:00

Good Morning Everyone!

I just wanted to leave a brief post to let everyone know that I am currently putting together a briefing of Monday night's Zoning Board meeting for those who may have been unable to attend or who were not able to stay for the entire meeting.

I hope to have this post up by this evening.

If you have any specific points from the meeting that you would like me to add to the briefing, please email me at residents.act@gmail.com so that I may add them to the post.

Thank you again to all who attended the meeting. We had a great turnout and I am happy to say that we are slowly making progress!

For those who were not able to attend the meeting or who had to leave early; the next meeting has been scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2008.

Please check back often and please continue to sign and pass along our petition! We greatly appreciate all of the support!

Have a wonderful day!

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 12/10/2007

2007-12-08T12:23:00.000-05:00

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a continuation meeting for the Cranford Swim Club cell tower proposal on Monday, December 10, 2007 at the Cranford Municipal Building, 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey to consider the following.

Formal action may be taken.

PUBLIC MEETING – 8:15 P.M.

Application #Z17-07: (Continuation)
New York SMSA Limited Partnership, Applicant
201 County Park Drive, Block 109, Lot 46, R-1 Zone

To permit construction of a telecommunications tower with the following variances/waivers:

Tower not permitted in the R-1 zone (136-33K(6);

To exceed the maximum allowable height for a tower (136-33K(10);

Less than the minimum required setback for a tower (136-33K(10)(b);

Less than the minimum required setback to a residential zone for a tower (136-33K(10)(c);

To exceed the maximum allowable square footage for an equipment cabinet (136-33K(12)(a);

Less than the minimum required front yard setback for equipment (136-30.6);

Less than the minimum required side yard setback (136-30.7)

PUBLIC PORTION - Any interested party may appear at said hearing and participate therein in accordance with the rules of the Zoning Board.

Please mark your calendars and make arrangements to attend. This meeting is absolutely crucial and we must have a strong residential turnout to show our complete opposition against this cell tower proposal!

We encourage you to bring along your friends, family members, neighbors; everyone and anyone who is willing to attend. There is absolute power in numbers and we need to clearly show our opposition before the board.

We hope to see you all there!

The Westfield Leader 12/06/2007

2007-12-06T23:09:00.000-05:00

The following is a brief article excerpt from The Westfield Leader, "County Closes on Purchases of Church Property, Farm", 12/06/2007.

Referencing the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders:

"The board also approved a resolution opposing a cell tower New York SMSA Limited Partnership has proposed for the Cranford Swim Club. The case will resume this Monday at 8:15 p.m. before the Cranford board of adjustment."

Read the entire article here.

Local Source: Cranford News 12/05/2007

2007-12-05T22:25:00.000-05:00

Resistance Gains on Cell Tower Plan

By Paul Greulich, Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 5, 2007

CRANFORD, NJ - Opposition has increased over a proposal to erect a cell tower on the site of the Cranford Swimming Club as the application will be heard again on Monday before the Township Zoning Board.

The December 10th Zoning Board meeting will see the issue revisited as the applicant, Verizon, pursues the height and setback variances needed to place the 130-foot pole in a residential area. The pole would feature four separate antennae servicing companies that include Omnipoint, Sprint and Verizon. Revenue generated for the swim club by having the tower on their property has been estimated at exceeding $20,000.

Citizens’ concern has focused on aesthetics and location in relation to property lines and the adjoining park, but there has also been mention of health hazards associated with living near cell towers, a factor that remains a topic of concern despite not yet having been scientifically substantiated.

Citizens voiced these feelings at the Oct. 15 Zoning Board meeting as well as the Nov. 27 Township Committee meeting.

“If this can happen in our neighborhood, I want everyone to know it can happen in their neighborhood,” one resident said. Township officials encouraged the residents who spoke to make their voices heard before the Zoning Board.

Public Safety Commissioner George McDonough was vocal on his opposition to the tower.

“In four weeks or so I’ll be a citizen and I look forward to joining forces with you,” said McDonough.

The subject of Mayor Michael Plick and Finance Commissioner David Robinson’s status as members of the Cranford Swimming Club was also brought up as a potential conflict of interests. Plick pointed out that the issue is currently before the Zoning Board, of which neither he, Robinson or any other commissioners are members.
“If at any pont in time a conflict should arise, I would recuse myself,” Plick said.

Residents also complained about the amount of time, money and effort it was costing them to oppose the potential project.

“We’re going to have to spend tens of thousands of dollars for an attorney to represent us in this case,” said Westfield resident Jack Shuvart whose home borders the Township of Cranford and in turn the swim club. “It should be thrown out quick. This takes a lot out of our lives.”

Since the proposal appeared, opposition has arisen from other sources as well. The State Historic Preservation Office has stated that the tower must be canceled or modified to mitigate its impact upon the adjacent Lenape Park and the Rahway River Park historic district.

Freeholder Chair Bette Jane Kowalski said the Freeholder Board fully supports this opinion, and is advocating against the construction of the cell tower.

“The park is eligible for landmark status and that means the state sets certain guidelines for what can be done near a park considered a historic place or on the register to be on the list of historic places,” Kowalski explained.

No one on the Swimming Club Board could be reached for comment.

Public Affairs Commissioner George Jorn said it might only be a small contingent in the club’s leadership that is pushing for the project. He pointed out that the club has remained silent despite the concern surrounding the issue.

“They probably know they’re doing something wrong,” Jorn said.

Article Courtesy of LocalSource.com

Record-Press 11/30/2007

2007-12-01T21:42:00.000-05:00

Swim Club Neighbors Angry Over Cell Tower

Friday, November 30, 2007

By LESLIE MURRAY

Cranford - In the quiet stretch of forest that borders Lenape Park, a battle is underway. The fight has been joined between wireless phone companies who say they are trying to meet the growing demand for service, and local residents who say they want to preserve their way of life. Nearly 50 residents from both Westfield and Cranford attended a Cranford Township Committee meeting Tuesday night, asking elected officials there to support strict enforcement of zoning laws.

The application, which will be continued before the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment on Dec. 10, is an effort by a cooperative of four phone companies to build a 130-foot monopole tower and a 2,760-square foot equipment compound at the Cranford Swimming Club (CSC) on County Park Drive, on the border with Westfield.

Verizon Wireless, Sprint Mobile, AT& T and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile, say they need the tower to fill a gap in coverage, but residents in the two towns have expressed concern about the impact the pole would have on their health, aesthetics and property values. While the proposal is for a site owned by the CSC, the application is being presented by the phone companies, which would pay a rental fee to the club for the land if the plan is approved.

Kim Ancin, a spokesperson for Verizon Wireless, the lead company in the application, said the location of the proposed tower is about providing the best service as demand for wireless communications increases. The tower location is not selected randomly, Ancin said. "There's a lot of testing that goes on before a site is ever determined," she said.

But that does little to quell the concern of residents, who say the proposed tower would dwarf everything in the area, transforming the feel of their residential neighborhood. Residents said they have hired an attorney to represent their interests as the application proceeds.

On Tuesday night, Joe Muratore of Cranford told the Township Committee he and his wife bought their home on Kenilworth Boulevard because it was nestled between Lenape and Nomahegan parks. The proposed cell tower "doesn't belong in a residential neighborhood," Muratore said.

His wife, Audrey Muratore, made similar statements on a recent day as she and Westfield resident Myron Kesselhaut toured the area behind Kesselhaut's home.
From his back yard, Kesselhaut can clearly see through a chain link fence into the swim club's property. Kesselhaut said when he bought his home 38 years ago he knew he shared a property line with the club, but he fell in love with an expansive backyard and the natural setting that expands to the wooded area behind his home.

Kesselhaut said the original letter notifying residents of the plan left him confused about the tower's proposed location. After obtaining a copy of the project plans, he and a neighbor were able to pinpoint the location, which he says is just 14 feet from his shared property line with the swim club.

During testimony at the first hearing on the proposal in October, witnesses for the phone company said the tower would be nearly 250 feet from Kesselhaut's back door, but he said that does not take into account the 20-foot deck behind his home.
"I feel they're misleading people as to where (the cell tower) is," added Audrey Muratore.

The neighbors say they are also worried that the height of the tower and a planned diesel generator will create safety concerns that could affect their homeowners' insurance policies. What makes them most angry, perhaps, is their belief that the swim club is not being a good neighbor.

"This shows a total disregard for the surrounding neighborhood," Audrey Muratore said. "The only people who are going to do well by this are the people swimming in that pool."

Kesselhaut said he has been willing to accommodate inconveniences, but the proposal for a cell tower crosses the line. "I hear the noise when they play tennis, but I let it go. They often leave the lights on, which doesn't bother me. But when these leaves are down and those lights are on, I don't have to put the lights on in my house," Kesselhaut said. "I don't think this is fair."

Requests for comment from the president of the swim club, Trudy Allen, were not returned this week, and the attorney for the club, Nicholas Giuditta, referred questions to the phone companies' attorney.

Kesselhaut's complaints were echoed Tuesday night, when Westfield residents John and Jenny Schuvart spoke before the Township Committee. Jenny Schuvart suggested that Cranford form a committee to identify desirable locations for cell towers that are outside of residential areas. "There's something lacking when big corporations can come in and dictate what they want and we have to go out and defend our way of life," she said.

Carl Woodward, Cranford's municipal attorney, explained to the crowd that the Board of Adjustment is an autonomous body that operates without direction from the Township Committee. However, he lauded the group's decision to hire an attorney and said a large turn-out could affect the board's deliberations.

Township commissioners are generally discouraged from commenting on pending land-use applications. Of the three commissioners present Tuesday, only George McDonough spoke about his opinion of the application, saying his personal legal counsel had advised him he could address the issue.

McDonough, who recently lost his re-election bid, said he felt compelled to side with residents. "I agree with you, this is not the kind of thing we want to have in a residential neighborhood," he said. "In about four weeks I will be a (private) citizen, and I look forward to joining forces with you," McDonough said to a round of applause.

The residents in the area are not the only ones objecting to the plan. The State Historic Preservation Office has objected to the location because Lenape Park is part of the Rahway River Parkway Historic District. "The project will have an adverse effect on the Historic District," Preservation Officer Dorothy P. Guzzo wrote. "Please note that this is not a close call. Setting is an integral part of the park experience."

A similar objection came from Union County Freeholder Chairwoman Bette Jane Kowalski, who said she is "not in favor of permitting anything that obstructs the view from a Union County park."

When the application is continued on Dec. 10, a professional planner and radio frequency expert are expected to testify before the Board of Adjustment.

Leslie Murray is staff writer for NJN Publishing. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

Cranford Chronicle 11/30/2007

2007-11-30T14:38:00.000-05:00

Swim Club Neighbors Voice Anger Over Cell Tower

Friday, November 30, 2007
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD - In the quiet stretch of forest that borders Lenape Park, a battle is underway.

The fight has been joined between wireless phone companies who say they are trying to meet the growing demand for service, and local residents who say they want to preserve their way of life. Nearly 50 residents attended a Township Committee meeting Tuesday night asking elected officials to support strict enforcement of zoning laws.

The application, which will be continued before the Zoning Board of Adjustment on Dec. 10, is an effort by a cooperative of four phone companies to build a 130-foot monopole tower and a 2,760-square foot equipment compound at the Cranford Swimming Club (CSC) on County Park Drive.

Verizon Wireless, Sprint Mobile, AT& T and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile, say they need the tower to fill a gap in coverage, but residents in Cranford and Westfield have expressed concern about the impact the pole would have on their health, aesthetics and property values. While the proposal is for a site owned by the CSC, the application is being presented by the phone companies, which would pay a rental fee to the club for the land if the plan is approved.

Kim Ancin, a spokesperson for Verizon Wireless, the lead company in the application, said the location of the proposed tower is about providing the best service as demand for wireless communications increases. The tower location is not selected randomly, Ancin said. "There's a lot of testing that goes on before a site is ever determined," she said.

But that does little to quell the concern of residents from Cranford and Westfield, who say the proposed tower would dwarf everything in the area, transforming the feel of their residential neighborhood. Residents said they have hired an attorney to represent their interests as the application proceeds.

On Tuesday night, Joe Muratore told the Township Committee he and his wife bought their home on Kenilworth Boulevard because it was nestled between Lenape and Nomahegan parks. The proposed cell tower "doesn't belong in a residential neighborhood," Muratore said.

His wife, Audrey Muratore, made similar statements on a recent day as she and Westfield resident Myron Kesselhaut toured the area behind Kesselhaut's home.

From his back yard, Kesselhaut can clearly see through a chain link fence into the swim club's property. Kesselhaut said when he bought his home 38 years ago he knew he shared a property line with the club, but he fell in love with an expansive backyard and the natural setting that expands to the wooded area behind his home.

Kesselhaut said the original letter notifying residents of the plan left him confused about the tower's proposed location. After obtaining a copy of the project plans, he and a neighbor were able to pinpoint the location, which he says is just 14 feet from his shared property line with the swim club.

During testimony at the first hearing on the proposal in October, witnesses for the phone company said the tower would be nearly 250 feet from Kesselhaut's back door, but he said that does not take into account the 20-foot deck behind his home.

"I feel they're misleading people as to where (the cell tower) is," added Audrey Muratore.

The neighbors say they are also worried that the height of the tower and a planned diesel generator will create safety concerns that could affect their homeowners' insurance policies. What makes them most angry, perhaps, is their belief that the swim club is not being a good neighbor.

"This shows a total disregard for the surrounding neighborhood," Audrey Muratore said. "The only people who are going to do well by this are the people swimming in that pool."

Kesselhaut said he has been willing to accommodate inconveniences, but the proposal for a cell tower crosses the line.

"I hear the noise when they play tennis, but I let it go. They often leave the lights on, which doesn't bother me. But when these leaves are down and those lights are on, I don't have to put the lights on in my house," Kesselhaut said. "I don't think this is fair."

Requests for comment from the president of the swim club, Trudy Allen, were not returned this week, and the attorney for the club, Nicholas Giuditta, referred questions to the phone companies' attorney.

Kesselhaut's complaints were echoed Tuesday night, when Westfield residents John and Jenny Schuvart spoke before the Township Committee.

Jenny Schuvart suggested that Cranford form a committee to identify desirable locations for cell towers that are outside of residential areas. "There's something lacking when big corporations can come in and dictate what they want and we have to go out and defend our way of life," she said.

Township Attorney Carl Woodward explained to the crowd that the Board of Adjustment is an autonomous body that operates without direction from the Township Committee. However, he lauded the group's decision to hire an attorney and said a large turn-out could affect the board's deliberations.

Township commissioners are generally discouraged from commenting on pending land-use applications. Of the three commissioners present Tuesday, only George McDonough spoke about his opinion of the application, saying his personal legal counsel had advised him he could address the issue.

McDonough, who recently lost his re-election bid, said he felt compelled to side with residents. "I agree with you, this is not the kind of thing we want to have in a residential neighborhood," he said. "In about four weeks I will be a (private) citizen, and I look forward to joining forces with you," McDonough said to a round of applause.

The residents in the area are not the only ones objecting to the plan. The State Historic Preservation Office has objected to the location because Lenape Park is part of the Rahway River Parkway Historic District.

"The project will have an adverse effect on the Historic District," Preservation Officer Dorothy P. Guzzo wrote. "Please note that this is not a close call. Setting is an integral part of the park experience."

A similar objection came from Freeholder Chairwoman Bette Jane Kowalski, who said she is "not in favor of permitting anything that obstructs the view from a Union County park."

When the application is continued on Dec. 10, a professional planner and radio frequency expert are expected to testify before the Board of Adjustment.

Leslie Murray is staff writer for the Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

Cranford Chronicle 11/30/2007

2007-11-30T14:00:00.000-05:00

Letter to the Editor

Friday, November 30, 2007

Swim Club Cell Tower Just Doesn't Belong

To The Chronicle:

I wished to read the following statement at the Oct. 15 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting held at the Cranford municipal building, but was unable to do so due to time constraints:

My husband and I have lived in Westfield since 1965 and have raised our five children here in the same home. They are good citizens and caring adults. We chose this area because we are nature lovers and wanted our family to enjoy the peace and beauty of the woods and watch the animals and birds who live here. We belonged to the Cranford Swimming Club for many years -- at least 25 -- and our children worked at the club during their summer vacations. They still have many friends in Westfield and Cranford. As our children left to pursue their lives, we resigned our membership.

We have been good citizens, paid our taxes, helped in our community and counted on being treated fairly and protected by our government and its laws. We are in our 70s and hoped to live here until illness or death. We recently began upgrading the landscaping in our front yard and plan to put in new shrubs and lawn.

On Oct. 6, our peace was shattered when we received a certified letter informing us that Cranford Swimming Club, whose property abuts our back yard, was allowing a 130-foot (13-story) cell phone tower and big storage buildings containing electrical equipment to be erected on its property, or as close to Westfield as possible, and practically in our and our neighbors' back yards. The letter stated that at least four cell phone companies were seeking to obtain variances to accomplish this at a meeting to be held at the Cranford Zoning Board on Oct. 15 -- only a few days away!

When we saw their plans, we couldn't believe that this ugly project would be so close to our homes. The massive tower would loom over our residential areas in Westfield and Cranford.

We feel it does not belong here due to its immense size and ugly industrial appearance. It would be plainly visible to people who run, walk, take photos or wish to spend time with nature in adjoining Lenape Park. These people are trying to get away from this type of atmosphere and it would be right in their faces if this were approved. This monster should be -- if anywhere -- in an industrial area, a busy highway, or isolated area with no homes nearby, but not here! It should not be located next to homes in a residential area or destroy the beauty of a park area, of which we have too little of in Union County. Anyone can see it doesn't belong here except if you are blinded by greed!

Cranford Swimming Club and the cell phone companies, Verizon Wireless, Omnipoint, Cingular and Sprint, would be reaping huge financial rewards while the people who live here in Westfield and Cranford will incur loss of property values (some very severe) and have to live with this ugly "Goliath" 24 hours a day. It would destroy our area!

Westfield recently shot down a proposal for a smaller cell phone tower in this area and, at that time, it was determined that adequate cell phone communications existed here.

If this project is approved it would be difficult to stay here because our quality of life would be so diminished. The tower is so high it would loom over our homes and be plainly visible from inside and outside. It would be located 14 feet off our next door neighbor's property. It would have to have some illumination because of its height and noise and pollution possibilities due to 24-hour operation.

We moved here because we wanted to be with trees and nature, not to have an industrial-looking monster imposed upon us. Also, it would be almost impossible to get a fair price for our home because who would want to purchase a house with a cell phone tower looming 13 stories above the property? The financial equity we have built up over the years in our home would be destroyed and the quality of our lives and our neighbors' lives would be severely impacted, both financially and emotionally.

What good are laws if powerful interests can seek variances to go around them or subvert them completely to their own ends? The residents of Westfield and Cranford have to be protected by their zoning boards, or what good are they?

There will be a very important meeting on Dec. 10 at the Cranford municipal building concerning the future of this proposal. Call the Zoning Board at (908) 709-7216 for confirmation and time of meeting.

JENNY SCHUVART
Westfield

Residents Speak Out! 11/27/2007

2007-11-27T21:33:00.000-05:00

Several residents of both Cranford and Westfield were present at the Cranford Township Committee meeting this evening which was televised live on Cranford's local television station, TV35.

Among comments made to the Cranford Township Committee:

Joseph Muratore, 106 Kenilworth Boulevard, spoke in opposition to the cell antenna tower that is being proposed at the Cranford Swim Club. Discussed a law that prohibits the placement of such towers within 390 feet of the nearest residential property. Expressed concern regarding the potential impact this could have on property values. Explained that residents have hired an attorney to assist them with this issue. Feels the Township Committee should designate specific areas within the Township, such as industrial areas, for these types of towers. Also urged members of the Swim Club to voice opposition to proposal.

Deputy Mayor Puhak reminded residents that the Township Committee is prohibited from commenting on issues that are currently before the Board of Adjustment.

Township Attorney Woodward discussed the need for residents to speak before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, explaining that that is where their voices would be most effective. Discussed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations and the local land use law in connection with the construction of cell phone antennas. Explained that any owner of private property can request a variance from the Board of Adjustments at any time. Discussed the quasi-judicial made up of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the application process that must be followed.

Commissioner McDonough stated that he has consulted legal counsel on this matter who advised him that he could provide comment on the issue. Stated that he agrees with the residents and is looking forward to joining forces with them next year.

Jack Schuvart, 40 Manitou Circle, Westfield, questioned why it is the responsibility of residents to hire an attorney to protect them from existing laws. Feels that the applicant is requesting that three (3) to four (4) existing laws be changed or altered to support its application.

Commissioner McDonough explained that the applicant is not requesting that laws be changed, but is seeking variances from the existing land development ordinance. Discussed the variance process. Reminded residents that the Township Committee appoints the members of the Board of Adjustment.

Mr. Schuvart discussed financial and emotional stress residents are facing because of this application.

Donald Graham, 30 Nomahegan Court, feels it is unfair that the proceeds from the cell antenna would be paid to a private club. Feels the proceeds should benefit the Township.

Commissioner McDonough discussed a previous proposal to place a cell tower on the property located behind the municipal building. Stated that residents living on Forest Avenue were opposed to this proposal and voiced their opinions, which resulted in the Township Committee’s decision to reject the proposal.

Genny Schuvart, 40 Manitou Circle, Westfield, stated that other municipalities have formed committees to investigate which locations within a municipality would be appropriate for these types of structures. Feels Cranford should form such a committee. Questioned the validity of zoning ordinances if they are not enforced to protect residents.

Myron Borden, 3 Nomahegan Court, feels the matter should be investigated by the Township Committee to prevent this from happening in other neighborhoods. Discussed the process involved with obtaining a variance. Feels the ten (10) day time frame in which applicants have to notify residents is insufficient. Feels thirty (30) days notice should be required. Suggested the Township Committee adopt an ordinance to change the noticing requirements.

Township Attorney Woodward agrees that ten (10) days notice is insufficient when receiving notice of an application for a variance. Explained that under the State Municipal Land Use Law, ten (10) days is considered adequate notice and Cranford cannot override a State law. Encouraged residents to contact legislatures and request a change to the noticing requirements.

Alvin Rotker, 64 Manitou Circle, Westfield, explained that the applicant is proposing the installation of a 130-foot cell tower fourteen (14) feet from a residential neighborhood. Feels the Township should be aware of the adverse reaction of residents to this application.

Audrey Muratore, 106 Kenilworth Boulevard, discussed the first submission of the cell antenna tower application in 2005 by the Cranford Swim Club. Feels it is unfair that the residents were given ten (10) days notice when this has been occurring for two (2) years. Stated that there are ninety-two (92) cell tower structures located within six (6) miles of the Cranford Swim Club. Expressed concern regarding the affects the structure will have on property values. Feels this issue is a conflict of interest for Mayor Plick and Commissioner Robinson, as they both members of the Cranford Swim Club. Provided a website address for residents to sign a petition in opposition to this matter.

Commissioner Robinson agrees that there is a conflict. Stated that he was unaware of the application until it was presented to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Rita LaBrutto, 104 Arlington Road, discussed the County report in connection with the cell antenna application. Stated that the Zoning Office does not have a copy of the report and she had filed an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request with Union County for a copy. Feels the County should provide the Zoning Board of Adjustment with a copy of the report.

Commissioner McDonough believes that the County report that Ms. LaBrutto is referring to could be obtained from either the County Engineering Department or the County Planning Department. Stated that Freeholder B.J. Kowalski has expressed opposition to the application and mentioned the reasons why.

Carlos Collazo, 68 Manitou Circle, Westfield, discussed the permitted use of the Swim Club’s property. Feels the installation of a cell tower would not be beneficial to the public or in the best interest of the publics’ welfare. Questioned why the property owner of the Swim Club has not sought other uses for the property.

Michael Shuvart, 40 Manitou Circle, Westfield, discussed the Cranford Environmental Commission’s report in connection with the proposed cell tower. Stated that the Environmental Commission’s report indicated opposition to the proposal.

Thank you to all who were present and made their voices heard!

Continue the fight Cranford!

Update 11/27/2007

2007-11-27T21:18:00.000-05:00

A huge thank you goes out to all of the many residents who were present and spoke at the Cranford Township Committee meeting this evening.

I want to personally thank everyone for taking the time out of their busy schedules to come forward and speak publicly about the current fight that we as residents are facing against the Cranford Swim Club.

This meeting was a great opportunity for the residents to share their insight and information with all neighboring townships and communities who may not yet be aware of the cell tower application that is currently pending in Cranford.

For those who may have missed the televised meeting, the Cranford Township Committee meeting will air again on TV35:

Wednesday/Thursday/Friday: 11:00am & 8:00pm

Saturday: 11:00am

Thanks again for all of the great work everyone!

Continue the fight Cranford!

Action Alert! Township Committee Meeting 11/27/2007

2007-11-26T22:56:00.000-05:00

The Cranford Township Committee will hold it's next meeting on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 8:00pm at the Cranford Municipal Building, 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey.

This meeting will be televised on TV35.

During the Public Comment portion, any interested party may speak and participate therein in accordance with the rules of the Township Committee. Five minutes will be allotted to each resident who wishes to speak and make a public comment or statement on the record.

This will be an excellent opportunity to come together as a community and let our governing parties know that cell towers do not belong in our residential areas. It will also be an opportunity to share our story publicly; as many residents are still unaware of the enormity of the cell tower proposal at the Cranford Swim Club.

Please mark your calendars and make arrangements to attend.

We also encourage you to bring along your friends, family members, neighbors; everyone and anyone who is willing to attend. There is absolute power in numbers and we need to clearly show our opposition before this committee.

We hope to see you all there!

Cranford Chronicle 11/16/2007

2007-11-17T11:17:00.000-05:00

Letter to the Editor:

Parties Should Unite to Fight Cell Tower

To The Chronicle:

As a homeowner living on the street where a 13-story cell tower may some day be looming over me, I was happy to read in the newspaper that newly elected Township Commissioner Martha Garcia stated that she will be joining our resistance against it.

I hope that the four other Republican Township Committee members will agree to do the same. That will mean that this is an issue on which Republicans and Democrats will be working together to do the right thing for Cranford residents.

MYRON BORDEN
Cranford

The Westfield Leader 11/15/2007

2007-11-16T21:40:00.000-05:00

Letter to the Editor:

Those Pushing 130-ft. Cell Tower Have ‘Utter Disregard’ for Residents in Area

Verizon Wireless, Omnipoint, AT&T and Sprint have applied to the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment for seven separate variances to permit the erection of a 130 foot cell-phone tower on the Cranford Swim Club property at 201 County Park Drive in Cranford.

The tower would be located in the middle of a residential neighborhood and be adjacent to the walking trail that extends through Lenape Park.

As a resident of the neighborhood surrounding the swim club and as a frequent user of Lenape Park, I am strongly opposed to a cell-phone tower on this location because of the unknown potential health consequences from prolonged exposure to tower emissions, the resultant reduction in property values in the surrounding area and the ever-present eyesore that a cell-phone tower extending 50 feet above the tallest surrounding trees would constitute to all those living in the neighborhood and enjoying Lenape Park.

Locating a commercial structure and conducting a commercial activity in a residential neighborhood is grossly unfair to everyone else who lives in that neighborhood. In purposely choosing to live in a residential area near a county park, my neighbors and I have demonstrated our desire and commitment to share the rights and responsibilities of maintaining that residential community.

Our willingness to comply with residential restrictions and refrain from conducting commercial activities in our back yards evidences our respect for the rights of others around us to also enjoy the quality of life a residential neighborhood
provides.

For one party to be exempt from these rules and in so doing, negatively impact all others in the neighborhood, shows an utter disregard for the rights of everyone living around them. It’s rude, disrespectful, and just plain wrong.

I am perplexed that the members of the Cranford Swim Club, many of whom presumably live in the affected neighborhood, would find it acceptable that its management would offer up its property as a site for a cell-phone tower. It is sadly ironic that a swim club which owes its many years of existence to having been able to locate in a scenic, residential location with ample access to member-families, would now turn on the same community that treated it so well and compromise that residential atmosphere.

I hope that all residents of Cranford and Westfield share my concern and will support my neighbors and me in our opposition to the erection of this tower. I urge all residents to contact their elected officials and to attend the December 10 meeting of the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment at 8:15 p.m. to be held at the Cranford Municipal Building.

Finally, I respectfully ask that the members of the Cranford Swim Club please contact their board management and make it clear that they do not support the erection of a cell tower on their club property.

Mark O’Neil
Westfield

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 12/10/2007

2007-11-09T22:40:00.000-05:00

Meeting Tonight 11/08/2007

2007-11-08T13:01:00.000-05:00

There will be a meeting tonight to further discuss the opposition concerns of the proposed cell tower to be located on the property of the Cranford Swim Club.

WHEN: Thursday, November 8, 2007

WHERE: Cranford Community Center - 220 Walnut Avenue, Cranford

TIME: 7:00pm - 9:00pm

Please R.S.V.P. with your name, e-mail address and phone number to: celltower@comcast.net.

Please join us! We hope to see you there!

Local Source: Cranford News 11/07/2007

2007-11-07T22:36:00.000-05:00

Find Better Spot for Cell Tower

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

CRANFORD, NJ - An application to locate a 130-foot cell tower on the grounds of the Cranford Swimming Club is currently before the Cranford zoning board.

Greg Meese, attorney for the private club filing the application, said the phone companies have stated that the club on County Park Drive is a perfect spot for a cell tower because of the lack of service in that area.

The cell pole would feature four separate antennae servicing companies that include Omnipoint, Sprint and Verizon. Revenue generated for the swim club by having the tower on their property has been estimated at exceeding $20,000 annually.

Neighbors and others have lodged complaints against the tower including possible health hazards and that it is situated in a residential area.

In addition there have been other reasons for the board to vote against the cell tower. Both the Union County Freeholders and the state’s Historic Preservation Office have come out against the proposal. The cell tower at the club is near Lenape Park and the Rahway River Park historic district.

Bette Jane Kowalski, the Union County Freeholder chairwoman, pointed out that the Lenape Park’s eligibility for landmark status along with Rahway River Park’s historic status puts constraints on what can be built in the adjacent property, and in turn means the state sets certain guidelines. The state does not consider a cell tower as an applicable use near the historic district.

Despite the hue and cry of some of the residents and environmentalists about radiation coming from cell towers, a witness for the applicant testified that radio frequency exposure was well below Federal Communication Commission guidelines. And most cell towers have been found to not emit enough radiation to have a major impact in causing health problems.

But the location is still a major problem for the placement of the cell tower and we give credence to the county and the state for their concerns with the tower being located next to a historic district.
To a lesser extent the building of the cell tower could hinder an active bird watching community that frequents Lenape Park where some rare species have been sighted.

The cell tower application will be discussed again at the December 10 zoning board meeting.

We hope that the board decides that there could be other locations more fitting for a cell tower and that would not ruin the aesthetic nature of the residential and nearby park area.

Article Courtesy of LocalSource.com

Update 11/02/2007

2007-11-02T20:30:00.000-04:00

MEETING:

There will be a meeting to further discuss the opposition concerns of the proposed cell tower to be located on the property of the Cranford Swim Club.

WHEN: Thursday, November 8, 2007

WHERE: Cranford Community Center - 220 Walnut Avenue, Cranford

TIME: 7:00pm - 9:00pm

Please R.S.V.P. with your name, e-mail address and phone number to: celltower@comcast.net. We hope to see you there!

PETITION:

An online petition is now up and running! I urge everyone to sign the petition, as well as pass it along to others who would like to sign as well. Please click here to read and sign the petition.

Thank you again to all of the residents of Cranford, Westfield and all neighboring townships. Your overwhelming support has been amazing!

Please do not hesitate to contact me directly, residents.act@gmail.com, with any questions that you may have regarding the meeting.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Cranford Chronicle 11/02/2007

2007-11-02T20:05:00.000-04:00

State: Proposed Cell Tower Threatens Historic Park

Friday, November 02, 2007
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD - A controversial proposal to construct a cell tower on County Park Drive would negatively impact the nearby Rahway River Parkway Historic District, according to a letter from the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office.

The opinion does not carry regulatory authority, and a representative for Verizon Wireless, the lead member of a coalition of cell phone companies hoping to build the tower on the grounds of the Cranford Swimming Club, said the companies are in talks with the state office about how to address the concerns.

Still, the letter may carry some weight with the local Board of Adjustment, which began a hearing on the proposal on Oct. 15. And it is likely to add to the concerns of residents, who were out in force at that hearing and are expected to come out again when the hearing resumes Dec. 10.

The application to build a 130-foot monopole and 2,760-square foot equipment compound has been put forward by Verizon Wireless, Sprint Mobile, AT& T and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile. The companies say they need the tower to fill a gap in coverage, but residents in Cranford and Westfield have expressed concern about the impact the pole would have on property values.

Residents say it would be an unsightly addition to the neighborhood and, though radiation from the antennas would fall well below federal guidelines, they argue it would create health concerns.

The club is located near county-owned Lenape Park, part of the Rahway River Parkway Historic District, which was added to the National Register of Historic Places in September 2002.

In the June 1 letter, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Dorothy P. Guzzo said it is the applicant's "obligation to consider ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the effects of the project." "The project will have an adverse effect on the Historic District," Guzzo wrote. "Please note that this is not a close call. Setting is an integral part of the park experience."

The letter echoes objections from County Freeholder Chairwoman Bette Jane Kowalski, who said previously she is "not in favor of permitting anything that obstructs the view from a Union County park."

An employee in the local Zoning Office said the Historic Preservation Office cannot deny the application itself, though Guzzo's letter will be considered when the Board of Adjustment issues its ruling.

Federal law generally gives municipalities little leeway to ban construction of cell towers, though zoning boards can guide their placement.

When the hearing continues on Dec. 10, a professional planner and radio frequency expert are expected to testify.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for the Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

Monopole Safety Issues Raise Concern

2007-11-02T12:40:00.001-04:00

American Tower 177-foot Monopole Crippled While Being Rehabilitated in Michigan

July 24, 2007 - While working on a reinforcement project to add additional capacity to a Howell, Michigan monopole, a contractor accidentally set the structure's transmission lines on fire, causing the American Tower Corporation monopole to be completely destroyed.

The fire, which started at about 9 a.m., burned itself out by 10 a.m., but left a leaning unstable 177-foot telecommunications tower that served AT&T, Sprint, and carried the internet connections for five Howell schools.

A COW (cell on wheels) is expected be placed in service until a new monopole can be installed.

"AT&T is currently cooperating with local officials and working with the vendor of the structure as they assess the safety of the tower," said AT&T Spokesperson Meghan Roskopf.

Fire officials on site said the project, under the supervision of CommStructures of Pensacola, Florida, required cutting and welding and they believe that the coaxial cable was accidentally set on fire.

Paul Roberts, Vice President of Compliance for American Tower, said there is a very low probability that the tower will topple. He said the steel structure sometimes straightens itself out when it cools following the fire.

"However, we take no chances," Roberts said. "We will keep a 250-foot clearance until we can get a crane out there and it's secured."

The tower is next to the Howell High School bus garage. Buses already parked near the monopole were not in danger, but buses that came in with students had to park farther away than usual to stay out of the way of the fire.

People in a bus garage and those students and teachers in the part of the school complex containing a swimming pool, were evacuated, police said. The school is on Highlander Way, off M-59.No injuries were reported.

Read the entire article here.

Just How Safe are Monopole Cell Towers?

2007-11-02T12:18:00.000-04:00

Industry Investigating Monopole Failures

July 28, 2007 - There have been multiple monopole failures this year such as this Sprint/Nextel monopine that fell in California in early May.

Although some of the structure failures can be attributed to winds in excess of jurisdictional design requirements, some monopoles reportedly failed at wind speeds that should not have caused the poles to collapse.

One commonality is that numerous failures were directly above the base plate or above flange locations.

In an industry where the speed of rumors, misstatements and misunderstandings can make the highest ASCE three-second gust blush with envy, industry observers are quick to fault poor engineering, manufacturing and/or metal fatigue as the usual suspects.

Some structural engineers believe that design aspects of monopole engineering should require a closer look, and the TR14.7 TIA-222 committee agrees since they will be reviewing base plate design methodologies and weld details of the base connection on monopoles. They’ll also be investigating fatigue categories on welded joints. Their findings and recommendations will be included in Revision H of the tower standard. However, it could be a year or two until this area of concern is fully explored.

Would you want this in your backyard?

Read the entire article here.

The Westfield Leader 11/01/2007

2007-11-01T21:51:00.000-04:00

Letter to the Editor:

Stop the Cell Tower Madness And Arrogance in WF and CF

An application for site-plan approval is being sought for a 130-feet-high cellular tower construction on the Cranford Swim Club property adjacent to Lenape Park.

We, more than 100 residents of Nomahegan Hills Westfield and the section of Cranford north of Springfield Avenue, write to state our opposition to the Cranford Zoning Board granting approval. Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and Omnipoint are proposing the construction of this cellular tower.

Construction of the tower in this residential neighborhood would require the zoning board to grant seven major variances, including: A height variance is required for the 130-feet-high tower. The maximum height allowable is 70 feet. Setback variances are required for the tower to be located 14 feet from residential property lines versus 390 feet as required.

The property lines referred to are located in Westfield. A variance is also required due to its proximity to Lenape Park and Cranford residential properties. A variance is required to construct equipment compounds (compressors, electrical, diesel generators, etc.) 14 feet from a front and side residential property line where the setback requirements are 35 feet and 62 feet, respectively.

A variance is required for the 345 square feet Verizon shelter versus 200 square feet allowable. The applicants will seek additional variances from the board as required during construction.

We strenuously object to the proposal for several reasons: The property, though technically in Cranford, is 14 feet from our Westfield residential neighborhood, in the backyard of residents living at 40 and 44 Manitou Circle.

At 130 feet, the tower is an eye sore and will detract from Lenape Park’s visual beauty. The tower will be an attraction for collision with migratory birds. According to the FCC, this is a significant problem. Lenape Park is a bird sanctuary and a bird-watchers haven, This ugly edifice could be a major setback to our Green Acres effort.

The noise from the electrical generators and compressors will be problematic. A study of electromagnetic wave effects on humans, birds and animals does not conclude that these transmissions are safe or unsafe. The same study found a correlation between cellular service use and neuroepithelial tumor development outside the brain. It concludes with a warning: “Unfortunately, our five senses cannot perceive the bulk of the iceberg."

The location of the tower and support buildings could encourage vandalism and represents a health and safety hazard to swim club members. There is a tower located in a Mountainside industrial park about one mile away and our Verizon signal in this
area is very good.

Finally, there would be a significant loss in property values in our area. Our
homes represent our largest asset. Of course, the telephone companies will minimize these possible effects, but the truth is that they don’t know or have data to back up what they claim.

The Cranford Zoning Board has scheduled a hearing for December 10 at the Cranford Municipal Building, 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford at 8:15 p.m. We seek support from Cranford and Westfield residents to stop the construction of this tower in our backyard.

Austin Habib
Westfield
Stop Cell Tower 2

Something Stinks at the CSC!

2007-11-01T21:21:00.000-04:00

According to several different residents in the area, there appeared to be a tremendous amount of activity over at the property of the Cranford Swim Club today.

It all began this morning with the Fox 5 News team investigating the property to do a story on the proposed cell tower. The team was also accompanied by their Fox 5 News Helicopter, which circled the area above the Cranford Swim Club.

In addition, several neighbors of the Cranford Swim Club in Cranford and Westfield were approached by the Fox 5 News team in order to gather information on the proposed cell tower.

At around noon time, residents of County Park Drive noticed Union County Officers arriving at the swim club as well as a HazMat truck and the Cranford Police Department.

They were allegedly investigating a report of hazardous materials being littered among the property of the Cranford Swim Club. Materials including pesticides, gasoline containers containing gasoline, numerous open paint cans thrown in bins, pool sealant, turpentine, etc.

Passersby could clearly see this material through the fence of the swim club. It was carelessly scattered in several different areas of the property. All out in the open, lying on the ground, uncontained.

In addition, there is a large break in the fence maintained by the Cranford Swim Club, allowing anyone to access the property. With all of the dangerous materials out in plain view and with standing rainwater in the pools, this is an accident waiting to happen.

If this is how the Cranford Swim Club maintains their property; with such blatant disregard for the safety and welfare of their surrounding community, just how are we to trust them with a cell tower facility? To my knowledge, the swim club has no security system, no installed camera system, nothing. Just broken fences and seemingly blighted property littered with beer cans, beer bottles, and an array of hazardous materials. How will they monitor activity in the nine months of the year when their club is closed?

I am absolutely disgusted at everything that was brought forward today. I feel completely embarrassed for the Board of Governors as well as the members of the Cranford Swim Club. Embarrassed for the condition of their property and embarrassed for their lack of regard for their surrounding neighbors.

Shame on you CSC! Shame on you!

The N.I.M.B.Y. Factor

2007-11-01T11:22:00.000-04:00

By now I am sure that many of you have already heard several people throwing around the term "NIMBY"; Not In My Back Yard.

Most of the people using this term live nowhere near where this proposed cell tower is to be placed. If they did, I assure you that they would be fighting just as hard as the rest of us to assure that this dangerous structure is not allowed in our residential area.

There is hope though. Lawsuits have been won once these towers are allowed to be placed where they clearly do not belong!

Here is an excerpt from an article that I found:

The 'NIMBY' Factor

"Concern for property values is one factor driving the establishment of the ordinances. Setback requirements prevent residents from having cellular towers in their backyards, or even in their line of sight. The ordinances may protect residents' interests, but enacting those ordinances actually conflicts with the demand for cellular service.

The conflict results in a "not in my backyard" situation, says John Sieber, vice president of engineering for CompComm. "They're demanding the services, but they don't want the means to deliver the services," he says. "The issue that gets communities upset is aesthetics. There's a lot of concern about property values."

In 1994, a couple in Bunker Hill Village, Texas, filed suit against the city for allowing construction of a 100-foot cellular tower 22 feet from their backyard fence. Although the tower, built on city property, was approved by city officials, the couple argued that their home had depreciated in value by 10 percent since its arrival. They also claimed a loss of privacy because employees climbed the tower for regular maintenance.

In October 1998, the city settled its portion of the suit with the couple. Earlier this year, a jury ordered the company that owned the tower to pay $1.2 million to the couple. Residents and officials also are concerned about possible negative health effects caused by radiation emission from the towers. The Federal Communications Commission has set standards for emissions, and the TA requires that cellular towers meet those standards. However, some residents say that is not good enough.

In 1997, a group of concerned residents in Boca Raton, Fla., united as Families Against Cell Towers (FACT) to protest the installation of a cellular tower on a school property. They claimed that there is not enough evidence to prove that the emissions are safe for children.

Most studies are conducted on adult males, whose body weights differ vastly from those of third-graders, FACT notes. "It is our belief that the key issue is not proving irrevocably that the cell towers are dangerous, which we believe they are, but instead showing that significant health questions and concerns are being raised across the United States, and we need to protect our children and halt the cell tower's construction until we know more," said FACT spokesperson Gary Brown on a local web site."

Read the entire article here.

The Eagle - 10/31/2007

2007-10-31T23:27:00.000-04:00

New Jersey, Union County Oppose Club Cell Tower

By Paul Greulich, Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 31, 2007

CRANFORD, NJ - Both Union County and a state department have joined the growing opposition to the construction of a proposed cell phone tower on the grounds of the Cranford Swim Club.

The move by the county comes after the State’s Historic Preservation Office had stated last week that the tower must be canceled or modified to mitigate its impact upon the adjacent Lenape Park and the Rahway River Park historic district.

Freeholder Chair Bette Jane Kowalski said the Freeholder Board fully supports this opinion, and is advocating against the construction of the cell tower.

“The park is eligible for landmark status and that means the state sets certain guidelines for what can be done near a park considered a historic place or on the register to be on the list of historic places,” Kowalski explained.

Residents have also shown mixed response to the application, which is currently before the zoning board for the height and setback variances needed to erecting the 130-foot pole in a residential area.

The application was addressed at an October 15 meeting of the Cranford zoning board, where the room was crowded with a mixture of residents from Cranford and Westfield.

“Certainly we’ve only had two other applications that brought out a full house so to speak,” Zoning Board Chair Robert Hellenbrecht said.

No one on the Swim Club Board could be reached for comment.

The pole would feature four separate antennae servicing companies that include Omnipoint, Sprint and Verizon. Revenue generated for the swim club by having the tower on their property has been estimated at exceeding $20,000.

Citizens’ concern has focused on aesthetics and location in relation to property lines and the adjoining park, but there has also been mention of health hazards associated with living near cell towers, a factor that remains a topic of concern despite not yet having been scientifically substantiated. There were also safety concerns surrounding a generator that may be included in the plan.

“They don’t want to see it, they don’t want to hear it and they don’t want it close enough to have a negative effect on their property value,” Hellenbrecht said of residents’ feelings about the tower.

Another consideration is the active bird watching community that frequents Lenape Park where some rare species have been sighted.

Previous cell tower projects in Cranford and other areas have involved towers that utilize existing tall structures, with the upper reaches of the antennae encased in false facades like cupola and chimneys, but Hellenbrecht said that such options appear less likely in this instance.

Kowalski said she feels cell towers are a necessary part of life, but finds the proposed location near the park unsuitable.

“I feel a real responsibility for protecting the parks and protecting the people who live near the parks,” Kowalski said. “I hope this can all be worked out and keep the park in its scenic condition.”

The cell tower application will be discussed again at the December 10 zoning board meeting. It is the only application scheduled for that evening, but Hellenbrecht said it is unclear if the matter will be voted on. In addition to the testimonies of the two witnesses, the floor will be open to the public to ask questions.

Paul Greulich can be reached at 908-686-7700 ext. 121, or at theeagle@thelocalsource.com.

The Cranford Swim Club Cell Tower & You

2007-10-31T20:25:00.000-04:00

So what exactly does the proposal of the Cranford Swim Club cell tower mean to you?

Here is a simplified breakdown of what this will mean for all of us.

The Applicants:
New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
Omnipoint Communications Inc.
New Cingular Wireless, LLC (also known as AT&T)
Sprint Spectrum L.P.

The above named applicants have filed a joint application with the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Cranford for approval to construct a wireless communications facility at the Cranford Swim Club, located at 201 County Park Drive, Cranford, NJ.

The proposed facility would consist of a:

A 130’ Monopole

An equipment compound located at the base of the tower containing equipment for each carrier.

A 225 gallon diesel fueled generator, to be maintained by Verizon Wireless

The entire cell tower facility would equal 2,800 square feet.

In addition, the applicants said that a 12 foot wide access road extending from the swim club’s parking lot would be necessary for maintenance trucks to pass through every four to six weeks per carrier.

The applicants have filed applications with the Zoning Board of the Township of Cranford for the following variances:

A Use Variance – A use variance is a variance that allows a nonconforming use of property after the implementation of the zoning regulation or other applicable law. The property of the Cranford Swim Club is in a Residential Zone.

A Height Variance – To allow the proposed tower to be 130 feet, where tower height is limited to 70 feet. They are asking to make the tower 60 feet taller than allowed in this area! The tree level in the area is only 75-85 feet. The proposed tower would shadow over them by almost 50 feet or 5 stories!

A Setback Variance – To allow the tower to be located within a Residential Zone; where a setback of 300% of tower height from a Residential Zone is required. Not only are they not supposed to be in a Residential Zone, they are supposed to be at least 390 feet away from any Residential Zone!

A Setback Variance – To allow the tower to be setback 14 feet from the property line, where a setback of 125% (162.5 feet) of the tower height is required to the property line. They are asking that the tower be allowed to be placed 14 feet from the property line, where a 162.5 foot setback is required!

A Setback Variance – To allow the Equipment Compound to be setback 15 feet from the front property line, where the setback requirements are 35 feet.

A Setback Variance – To allow the Equipment Compound to be setback 13 feet from the side property line, where the setback requirement is 62.8 feet.

Variance – To allow the Verizon Wireless equipment shelter to be 345 square feet, where only a 200 square foot shelter is permitted.

Variances are typically only granted after undergoing a statutory review process against specified approval criteria. Although review criteria vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, three basic criteria are common to the vast majority of variance ordinances:

The variance is required due to specific site conditions (topography, soil conditions, etc.), which causes unnecessary hardship to the landowner;

Granting the variance will not result in a hazard to public health or safety, and;

Granting the variance will not result in a grant of special privilege to the property owner (in other words, any other property owner with similar site conditions could obtain a similar variance: this criterion is often addressed by citing precedent)

If the Township allows these variances, they will be setting a horrible precedent that will only open the door for every cell tower proposal, anywhere, to be approved.

The next tower could be in your back yard.

Continue the Fight Cranford!

This Proposal MUST NOT go Through!

The Zoning Board Application

2007-10-31T11:54:00.000-04:00

Here is the application information:

Township of Cranford Zoning Board Application #Z17-07

New York SMSA Limited Partnership, Applicant

201 County Park Drive, Block 109, Lot 46, R-1 Zone

To permit construction of a telecommunications tower with the following variances/waivers:

Tower not permitted in the R-1 zone (136-33K(6);

To exceed the maximum allowable height for a tower (136-33K(10);

Less than the minimum required setback for a tower (136-33K(10)(b);

Less than the minimum required setback to a residential zone for a tower (136-33K(10)(c);

To exceed the maximum allowable square footage for an equipment cabinet (136-33K(12)(a);

Less than the minimum required front yard setback for equipment (136-30.6);

Less than the minimum required side yard setback (136-30.7)

Note the strongest variance - TOWER IS NOT PERMITTED IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-1)

What more does the Zoning Board need?

Residents in Action!

2007-10-27T12:55:00.000-04:00

A huge thank you goes out to one of our fellow residents who drafted a letter to Dorothy P. Guzzo, Administrator & Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer of the Historical Division of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

A copy of this letter was also sent to the Star Ledger as well as Fox 5 News. Hopefully we can keep our battle going to stop this proposed cell tower. Any suggestions that you may have are of course welcomed! We greatly appreciate your input!

The Letter:

Ms. Guzzo,

The residents of Cranford, Westfield and especially in the area impacted by the proposed cell tower, would like to offer you our sincere thank you for taking the time to review and comment on the issue at hand.

We are very pleased to read in today's paper of your comments regarding the negative impact of the tower to the river and beautiful park area. Our residents take great pride in our neighborhood and also our location in adjacent to the park area. The swim club obviously does not.

I'm sure that the variances that are needed you have reviewed as well. One of our biggest concerns is the negative impact on the future of the pre existing non conforming use that the swim club now occupies. The current zone is R-2, which is residential. We strongly feel that this cell tower will never allow that area to be returned one day to homes and or a park area. If this is allowed, we feel that this is a severe dent and complete disregard for our zoning laws and also a blow to the master plan of returning these non conforming zones one day to the original intended use. Not to mention the negative impact of this historic area.

Needless to say, I (we) have several questions regarding the proposed site as to the NJDEP regulations of having a generating plant within such close proximity to the river with 125 gallons of fuel storage within the structure.

Several other issues that can severely hurt the river and park area are being further discussed and investigated by our residents as well.

I know how familiar you are with the area, myself as well as the residents of the area would like to offer you a walking tour of the park & river areas which would be affected by this tower and structure and we would welcome any suggestions or comments that you would have for continuing effort to stop the swim club and Verizon from moving forward with the application within our municipality. In my words I feel that living within Cranford and especially in that area is not a matter of convenience but it's because of our historic, nature filled beautiful views and of course our river.

I would like to make a request to your office for any documentation that is allowed to be viewed by our residents and also passed onto our local zoning officials as well as board members that would show negative effects that this tower would have.

I would also like to send out my personal thank you to several members of your staff within your office that took the time to return my phone calls with concerns that I had with the application.

We are looking forward to hearing from yourself and staff with any information you can offer.

Great work! The residents of this community are coming together and we will not be stopped!

Keep up the fight Cranford!

Our voices deserve to be heard!

Update 10/27/2007

2007-10-27T11:57:00.000-04:00

I hope that everyone is having a wonderful Saturday as well as a fabulous weekend. I just wanted to add a few updates to the blog in order to let everyone know what I have been up to.

On Friday, October 26, 2007, I sent an email to the Cranford Zoning Board inquiring the following:

What is the current status of the proposal of the cell tower upon the grounds of the Cranford Swim Club?

Is the proposal still being continued before the Zoning Board on December 10, 2007?

Are the photos and proposal information that are available for "viewing" at the Municipal Building also available to be copied?

I will let everyone know as soon as I receive a response; if I ever receive one at all that is.

For those who wish to voice your concerns or contact the Cranford Zoning Board directly, their email address is: Zoning@CranfordNJ.org

In addition, I plan to take a trip down to the Municipal Building this week to see what kind of information I can gather. I would also like to retrieve the minutes from the Zoning Board Meeting that was held on October 15, 2007.

It appears that you must request the minutes via a written request to the Township Clerk. I will call Monday morning to see how I can request a copy.

Please continue to email me with any and all information that you may have or would like to see posted on this site.

Your support on this matter is so greatly appreciated!

Have a wonderful weekend!