Sunday, December 16, 2007

Action Alert! Write to Your Local Newspaper Today!

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!

Friday, December 14, 2007

The Westfield Leader 12/13/2007

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.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Update! 12/13/2007

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!

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 12/10/2007

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!

Thursday, December 6, 2007

The Westfield Leader 12/06/2007

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.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Local Source: Cranford News 12/05/2007

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

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Record-Press 11/30/2007

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.

Friday, November 30, 2007

Cranford Chronicle 11/30/2007

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

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

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Residents Speak Out! 11/27/2007

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

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!

Monday, November 26, 2007

Action Alert! Township Committee Meeting 11/27/2007

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!

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Cranford Chronicle 11/16/2007

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

Friday, November 16, 2007

The Westfield Leader 11/15/2007

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

Friday, November 9, 2007

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 12/10/2007

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!

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Meeting Tonight 11/08/2007

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!

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Local Source: Cranford News 11/07/2007

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

Friday, November 2, 2007

Update 11/02/2007

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

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

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?

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.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

The Westfield Leader 11/01/2007

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!

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

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.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The Eagle - 10/31/2007

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

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

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?

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Residents in Action!

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

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!

Friday, October 26, 2007

Bette Jane Kowalski

In an excerpt from the Star Ledger on October 25, 2007, our Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders Chairwoman, Bette Jane Kowalski, had the following to say:

"More recently, freeholder chairwoman Betty Jane Kowalski said the county is also against construction of the tower.

"The county is interested in this issue because the cell tower would be right next to Lenape Park, which is part of the county parks system and the freeholders have a responsibility to protect the safety of our residents and our parks," she said.

"Our park system is eligible for historical landmark status and the letter from the state Historical Preservation Office says this will have an adverse impact on the Rahway River Park Historic district," she said.

Kowalski said Lenape Park is extensively used by residents not only of Cranford, but also from Westfield, Mountainside and Kenilworth.

"I am sympathetic to the needs of the Cranford Swimming Club to generate fund to make improvements, but it can't be at the expense of the parks and the local residents," Kowalski said."


I applaud her comments and hope to have her full support should this fight continue on.

Read More About Bette Jane Kowalski

Doctors Want Cell Tower Moved

I came across the following article today and actually found it extremely informative. It gives somewhat of a foresight into what can happen once a cell tower is constructed and in place; following the emergence of ever changing cell tower risk assessment documentation.

Norfolk Doctors Want Cell Tower Moved

By Cheryl Bauslaugh, Expositor Staff
Local News
Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Area doctors are asking Norfolk Council to have another try at removing Rogers Wireless equipment from the Simcoe water tower.

Council abandoned its efforts to have the equipment relocated last October, after finding out that it would cost at least $316,000 to get out of a long-term lease with Rogers. But a letter from 11 local physicians urges councillors to reopen negotiations with Rogers and have the equipment moved to a “more responsible” location.

“There is an increasing body of evidence linking the radio frequency radiation emitted from cellphone towers to serious health effects, including cancers and childhood leukemia,” says the letter, dated April 2.

“It is impossible at this time to feel comfortable knowing a cellphone tower is located near an elementary school. The levels of exposure on a daily basis for these young people are not consistent with prudent health policy at this time. Action is required to minimize or eliminate the potential risks. Simply put, the tower must be moved away from school children where health and immune systems may be less resistant than an adult’s.”

The letter is signed by Dr. Jeff Tschirhart, former acting medical officer of health for Norfolk, and 10 other doctors in Simcoe, Port Dover and Jarvis.

About 20 people living near the tower, which is close to Elgin Avenue School and Norfolk General Hospital, have complained about symptoms such as nausea, dizziness and headaches since the Rogers antenna was installed last February.

Hardest hit is Dan Currie, who is unable to live in his home, located just below the tower. Currie will be one of several people appearing at tonight’s council session to ask politicians to revisit the issue.

Also throwing his support behind Currie and his neighbours is Brant MP Lloyd St. Amand. He has contacted Industry Canada, which regulates telecommunication towers, asking them to intervene in the situation.

St. Amand acknowledged that the Simcoe tower is meeting Health Canada safety standards. But, like the physicians, he believes more study is needed to rule out a possible health risk.

“I have asked Industry Canada to check and recheck that our standards are not falling behind other jurisdictions,” St. Amand said on Monday. He said many European countries have banned cellphone towers in locations that are close to schools and houses.

“Maybe our standards are substandard, compared to other jurisdictions,” he said. “Let’s have a real careful look at this.”

© 2007, Osprey Media

Letter to Government
Supporting Letter from Doctors

The American Cancer Society

From the website of the American Cancer Society:

"Cellular phone towers, like cellular phones themselves, are a relatively new technology, and we do not yet have full information on health effects. In particular, not enough time has elapsed to permit epidemiologic studies. There are some theoretical reasons why cellular phone towers would not be expected to increase cancer risk, and animal studies of RF have not suggested a risk of cancer. People who are concerned can ask for measurements of RF near cellular phone towers to be sure exposures do not exceed recommended limits."

Please visit the following website for more information:

American Cancer Society

Cranford Swim Club Newsletter

The following excerpt was taken from the May 2007 copy of “Splash”, the newsletter of the Cranford Swim Club:

Cell Tower Update

"The cell tower project is moving right along. The contracts have been executed with Verizon, Sprint/Nextel, and T-Mobile and the Cranford Swim Club. Verizon is preparing the application for the zoning process with the Township.

In addition, the contract is with Cingular for execution. Based on the zoning approval process and the time it will take to obtain such approval, construction of the cell tower will not take place until after the summer.”


For the full newsletter, click here.

So, as many have wondered and so many have asked and received no response; EXACTLY HOW LONG HAS THE CRANFORD SWIM CLUB BEEN PLANNING THIS CELL TOWER PROPOSAL?

If in the month of May 2007, they were telling their members that the "cell tower project is moving right along", I have to believe that it had already been in the works for quite some time.

Isn't it ironic how “quiet” it was all kept?

It is almost as if the Cranford Swim Club didn't want their neighboring residents to have even the slightest chance to get the proper information together regarding their rights before throwing them into the battle zone against an army of hired guns; a toxic mixture of "experts", lawyers, engineers, etc.

The residents who would have the greatest impact were notified only approximately nine days before the Zoning Board hearing; which occurred on Monday, October 15, 2007.

Why was this all done with such a veil of secrecy? Perhaps because the Cranford Swim Club knew exactly what response was to come? Or perhaps they were advised not to make a lot of noise about the proposed cell tower because of the backlash it would bring from the residents of all towns involved?

The possibilities are endless.

One thing is clear. The only interest that was ever taken into consideration here is the financial interest that the Cranford Swim Club saw in having a cell tower site on their property.

It appears that they never once took the best interest of their neighboring residents, county parks or the town as a whole into their consideration.

It all comes down to one word. GREED.

Unfortunately, GREED won't stand up in a court of law, however the voices of the town will!

Keep up the fight Cranford! We deserve to be heard!

Is Canada onto Something?

It seems that the Canadians are way ahead of us in their fight to stop the contstruction of cell towers in their region.

I found a very informative website that is based out of Canada. Please take a moment to visit the site and read through some of the information that they have come across involving cell tower radiation and the potential risks that is poses to our community and many others!

STOP CELL TOWERS

Map of Cell Tower Locations in New Jersey

I was curious to know just how many cell towers have already invaded our great state. To get a better idea of just how many of these towers are already "planted" in New Jersey, the "garden" state, click below:

New Jersey Cell Tower Locations

Sickening, isn't it?

Tax & Property Information - Cranford Swim Club

According to a Certified Letter sent courtesy of the Law Offices of Price, Meese, Shulman & D'Arminio, dated October 1, 2007, the proposed cell tower facility at the Cranford Swim Club would impact the following land; the Cranford Swim Club located at 201 County Park Drive, Cranford, New Jersey, which property is identified on the Cranford Tax Assessment Map as Block 109, Lot 46 and includes property located on the Westfield Tax Assessment Map as Block 3905, Lot 26, including access across Block 101.02, Lot 1, as shown on the Cranford Tax Assessment Map.

The Cranford Swim Club land and tax information:

Cranford:

Property Location:
201 County Park Drive
Cranford Tax Assessment Map = Block 109/Lot 46
Acreage = 0.038

Taxes:
Land = $273,400
Improvements = $194,200
Total Assessment = $467,600

Taxes to be Paid in 2007 = $19,597.12

Cranford Tax Record Block 109/Lot 46


Westfield:

Property Location:
206 Springfield Avenue – Rear
Westfield Tax Assessment Map = Block 3905/Lot 26
Acreage = 0.46

Taxes:
Land = $2,800
Improvements = $0.00
Total Assessment = $2,800

Taxes to be Paid in 2007 = $170.32

Westfield Tax Record Block 3905/Lot 26


It is also stated in the proposal letter that access will be included "across Block 101.02, Lot 1, as shown on the Cranford Tax Assessment Map".

This block/lot of land is Lenape Park, owned by the Union County Division of Parks and Recreation.

Cranford Tax Record Block 101.02/Lot 1


All information in this post was gathered through the Union County Board of Taxation.

Union County Board of Taxation

Thursday, October 25, 2007

The Westfield Leader 10/25/2007

The Westfield Leader
Letter to The Editor:

What Good Are Laws if
Powerful Subvert Them?


Editor’s Note: This letter has been edited for brevity.

I wished to have read this to the Cranford Zoning Board on October 15 but was unable to due to time constraints.

My husband and I have lived in Westfield since 1965 and raised our five children here. We chose this area to enjoy the beauty of the woods, animals and birds here. We belonged to the Cranford Swim Club for 25 years, and our children worked there during summers. As our children left to pursue their lives, we resigned our membership.

We have been good citizens, paid our taxes and helped in the community. We counted on being treated fairly and expect to be protected by our government and its laws. We are in our seventies and hope to live here until illness or death.

On October 6, our peace was shattered when we received a certified letter informing us that Cranford Swim Club, whose property abuts our backyard, was proposing construction of a 130-foot cell phone tower along with big electrical storage buildings. At least four cell-phone companies are seeking to obtain variances to accomplish this.

When we saw their plans, we couldn’t believe that this ugly project would be so close to our homes. The massive tower 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. This monster should be, if anywhere, in an industrial area, a highway or isolated area. It should not be located in a residential area or destroy the beauty of a placid park area.

The swim club and the cell-phone companies would reap huge financial rewards while the people would incur losses.

Westfield recently shot down a proposal for a smaller cell tower in this area. It was determined that adequate communications existed here.

If this project were approved, it would be difficult to stay here because our quality
of life would be so diminished. The tower is so high. It would be located 14 feet off our next-door neighbor’s property. It would have illumination because of its height and due to 24-hour operation. It would be almost impossible to get a fair price for our home if we move. The equity built up over the years would be destroyed and the neighborhood quality of our life would be severely impacted. The safety of towers is still in question.

What good are laws if powerful interests can subvert them to their own ends? Westfield and Cranford residents have to be protected by their respective zoning boards. If not, what good are the boards?

You [zoning board] have our futures in your hands. Please consider well all that I have stated. We want to thank everyone for attending and welcome any help in stopping this massive mistake.

There will be an important meeting December 10 at the Cranford Municipal Building concerning the future of this proposal. Call the Cranford Zoning Board at (908) 709-7216 for confirmation.

Jenny Schuvart
Westfield