The Westfield Leader 04/08/2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Courtesy of GoLeader.com

Cranford Patch 04/02/2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Courtesy of Cranford.Patch.com

Wireless Estimator 03/28/2010

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Courtesy of WirelessEstimator.com

Cranford Chronicle 03/27/2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Courtesy of NJ.com

Wireless Estimator 08/25/2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Courtesy of WirelessEstimator.com

The Westfield Leader 03/12/2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Source: Cranford News 03/11/2009

Tower: Verizon Appeals
By Paul Greulich
March 11, 2009

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

The applicant hopes to overturn the board’s decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 02/11/2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suburban News 02/07/2009

Letter to the Editor

Residents Express Gratitude for Help with Cell Tower Issue

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

To the Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 02/05/2009

Letter to the Editor

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

To the Chronicle:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Westfield Leader 01/15/2009

Letter to the Editor

Thanks for Coverage of Cell Tower Application

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

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

Schuvart Family and Nearby Westfield/Cranford Residents

Cranford Chronicle 01/30/2009

Letter to the Editor

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

To the Chronicle:

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

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

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

John R Shaw
Cranford

Local Source: Cranford News 12/30/2008

Cell Tower Rejected
By Paul Greulich
December 30, 2008

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

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

Residents applauded the decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cranford may not have seen the last of this proposal.

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

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

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

Article Courtesy of LocalSource.com

The Westfield Leader 12/18/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 12/10/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zoning Board Voices Resounding “No” to Cell Tower Application

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSC Cell Tower Unanimously DENIED!

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

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

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

CONGRATULATIONS EVERYONE!

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 12/08/2008

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

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, December 8, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

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

*THIS WILL BE THE FINAL MEETING!*

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

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

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

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

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

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

See everyone at the meeting!

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

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

Cranford Chronicle 12/07/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suburban News 12/03/2008

Cell Tower Final Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

Wireless Estimator 12/02/2008

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


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

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

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

Article Courtesy of WirelessEstimator.com

Cranford Chronicle 11/30/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Westfield Leader 11/27/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 11/23/2008

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

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

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

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

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

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 11/24/2008

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

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, November 24, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

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

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

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

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

See everyone at the meeting!

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

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