Friday, September 18, 2009

Wireless Estimator 08/25/2009

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

Saturday, March 14, 2009

The Westfield Leader 03/12/2009

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.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Local Source: Cranford News 03/11/2009

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.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Cranford Chronicle 02/11/2009

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.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Suburban News 02/07/2009

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.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Cranford Chronicle 02/05/2009

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

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

The Westfield Leader 01/15/2009

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

Friday, January 30, 2009

Cranford Chronicle 01/30/2009

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