Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 06/23/2008

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

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, June 23, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

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

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

Cranford Chronicle 06/13/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Borough of Wood-Ridge Fights Cell Tower

Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - May 27, 2008

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

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

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

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

Read the Entire Press Release here.

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting Rescheduled

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

Meeting Information:

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

TIME: 8:15pm

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

The following will be heard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you again for all of your ongoing support!

Zoning Board Meeting Cancelled!

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

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

All further updates will be posted as they become available.

Suburban News 5/01/2008

Letter To the Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Schuvart
Westfield

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 5/05/2008

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

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, May 5, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

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

The following will be heard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hope to see you all there!

Cranford Chronicle 3/14/2008

At Hearing, Lawyers Spar Over Alternate Tower Site

Friday, March 14, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Westfield Leader 3/13/2008

Cranford Swim Club Cell Tower Hearing Moves On

By STEVEN REILLY
Specially Written for The Westfield Leader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 3/07/2008

Cranford Chronicle
Letter to the Editor

March 7, 2008

Cell Towers Can Destroy Residential Neighborhoods

To The Chronicle:

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

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

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

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

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

JENNY SCHUVART
Westfield

Local Source: Cranford News 3/06/2008

Board Hears Cell Tower Plan

By Paul Greulich
Thursday, March 6, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Courtesy of LocalSource.com

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 3/10/2008

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

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, March 10, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

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

The following will be heard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hope to see you all there!

YouTube Video

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

WATCH THE VIDEO

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

His YouTube videos may be viewed here.

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

What are the Dangers of Living Near Cell Phone Towers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read their full statement here.

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

Read the entire report here.

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

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

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

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

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

So who are you to believe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 2/01/2008

Cell Tower Applicants Face Some Skeptical Questioning

Friday, February 01, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Westfield Leader 1/31/2008

Cranford Cell Tower Fight Continues; 484 Sign Petition

By CHRISTINA M. HINKE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Source: Cranford News 1/30/2008

Cell Tower Decision Still a Few Months Away

By Paul Greulich
January 30, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 1/28/2008

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

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, January 28, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

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

The following will be heard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hope to see you all there!

The Star Ledger 1/27/2008

Static Likely at Hearing on Cranford Cell Tower Proposal

Sunday, January 27, 2008
BY ROBERT E. MISSECK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 1/25/2008

Hellenbrecht Re-Appointed to Zoning Board

Friday, January 25, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 1/25/2008

Cranford Chronicle
Letter to the Editor

January 25, 2008

Many Reasons Why Tower is Inappropriate

To The Chronicle:

Briefly, the reasons this tower is totally inappropriate are:

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

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

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

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

5. Unknown health and safety issues.

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

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

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

JENNY SCHUVART

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

Cranford Chronicle
Letter to the Editor

Friday, January 25, 2008

Town Should Help Find Solution for Tower Trouble

To The Chronicle:

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

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

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

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

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

DENNIS O. MIRANDA
Executive Director
Rahway River Association

The Westfield Leader 1/24/2008

Letter To The Editor

Residents Need to Attend Meeting And Voice Opposition to Tower

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

Jenny Schuvart
Westfield

Local Source: Cranford News 1/23/2008

Board Gets Some More of Cell Tower Plan

By Paul Greulich
January 23, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freeholder Bette Jane Kowalski, who was the chairwoman last year, said the Freeholder board fully supports this opinion, and is advocating against the construction of the cell tower.

“The park is eligible for landmark status and that means the state sets certain guidelines for what can be done near a park considered a historic place or on the register to be on the list of historic places,” Kowalski explained.

Another consideration is the active bird watching community that frequents Lenape Park where some rare species have been sighted.

Previous cell tower projects in Cranford and other areas have involved towers that utilize existing tall structures, with the upper reaches of the antennae encased in false facades like cupola and chimneys, but Hellenbrecht said that such options appear less likely in this instance.

Kowalski said she feels cell towers are a necessary part of life, but finds the proposed location near the park unsuitable.

Both Cranford and Westfield residents have gotten involved in the issue because the proposed tower would be visible from across the border in the next town.

Zoning Board members Chris Drew and Richard Brightman were not available for comment by press time. Cranford Swimming Club official Jackie McDermott did not return calls for comment.

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

Article Courtesy of LocalSource.com

Why Are We Opposing This Cell Tower?

So, the question has been asked; Why are the residents opposed to the 130' cell tower proposal at the Cranford Swim Club?

The Cranford Swim Club, is a private [members only] swim club which is located at 201 County Park Drive in Cranford, NJ.

It is directly adjacent to the very scenic and historic district [i.e. the Rahway River Parkway Historic District] of Lenape Park, across the street from Nomahegan Park and is located within a Residential Zone [R-1]. The Cranford Swim Club is also directly adjacent to several neighborhoods with many private homes. These towns include Cranford, Westfield and Kenilworth.

The proposed cell tower would extend approximately 60 feet above the tree tops showing up to 5 levels [60 feet] of antennas and other unsightly items.

It would dominate the entire landscape of our parks and all surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, it would drastically reduce the property values of homes as well as jeopardize the ability of homeowners in the area to insure and/or sell their homes.

Verizon is currently seeking EIGHT variances from the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment:

1. A variance to allow a cell tower to be located within a Residential [R-1] Zone. According to the Cranford Land Development Law 136-33K(6), towers ARE NOT permitted in any Residentially Zoned [R-1/R-2] area of Cranford;

2. A variance to allow a 130 foot tower where the maximum allowable height for any tower is 70 feet [Cranford Land Development Law 136-33K(10)] - This tower would extend approximately 60 feet ABOVE the existing tree tops;

3. A variance to have the tower setback only 14 feet from the nearest Property Line whereas under the Cranford Land Development Law (136-33K(10)(b), the required setback for a tower is 125% of the tower height; or in this case 162.5 feet;

4. Under the Cranford Land Development Law 136-33K(10)(c), the minimum required setback to a Residential [R-1/R-2] Zone for a tower is 300% of the height of the tower; 390 feet in this case. Verizon is trying to put the tower WITHIN a Residential Zone - not the required 390 feet AWAY from a Residential Zone;

5. A variance to allow a 345 square foot Equipment Shelter, which would exceed the maximum 200 square foot allowance under law for an Equipment Cabinet [Cranford Land Development Law 136-33K(12)(a)];

6. The required Front Yard Setback for an Equipment Compound/Shelter is 35 feet. Verizon is proposing the Equipment Compound/Shelter be only 15 feet from the nearest front Property Line [Cranford Land Development Law 136-30.6)];

7. The required Side Yard Setback for an equipment compound/shelter is 62.8 feet [10% of the lot width]. Verizon is proposing that the Equipment Compound/Shelter be setback ONLY 13 feet from the nearest side Property Line [Cranford Land Development Law 136-30.7]

8. The Cranford Swim Club is located in a single family residential zone (R-1 zone). Under Cranford Land Development Law 136-31B(6); the number of buildings are restricted in this zone. There shall not be more than one principal structure on each lot in the R-1 through R-5 districts. Because this property already has a principal use structure, Verizon is requesting a variance to allow more than one principal use on the Cranford Swim Club lot. [NOTE: Cell towers are NOT permitted as accessory uses OR principal uses in a residential zone!]

THIS TOWER WILL:
Consist of 4 to 5 Seperate Carriers and Levels of Antennas;
Require a Diesel Generator & 250 Gallon Fuel Tank;
Introduce Unknown Health & Safety Issues into the Immediate Area;
Require Immense Setback & Height Variances;
Drastically Reduce Property Values;
Impede the ability of area homeowners to insure and/or sell their homes;
Destroy the Atmosphere of the Adjacent Lenape Park & Nomahegan Park;
Destroy the Atmosphere of our Neighborhood;
Forever Alter the Character of the Township of Cranford;
Destroy the Natural Aesthetics of the Surrounding County Parks

A clear message must be sent to the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment, governing bodies and cell phone companies that cell towers do not belong near or around ANY residential areas.

I strongly urge everyone to sign our online petition and show your opposition to this proposed cell tower at the Cranford Swim Club.

Please also take a moment to pass along the link to this petition to anyone and everyone who would like to get involved!

We will continue to collect signatures until this application is DENIED.

Please take a moment to sign:

www.petitiononline.com/notocsc

Thank you so very much for your overwhelming support! We look forward to continuing a strong fight against placing cell towers in our residential areas!

We look forward to seeing everyone at the next Zoning Board Meeting!

PLEASE NOTE: THIS TOWER WILL BE PRECEDENT SETTING IN OUR TOWN. IF THE TOWNSHIP ALLOWS THIS TOWER AND ADJOINING EQUIPMENT COMPOUND TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE [R-1], THE FUTURE PRECEDENT WILL THEN BE SET IN STONE. THIS WILL OPEN A HUGE LOOPHOLE FOR OTHER CELL CARRIERS TO COME INTO OTHER RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREAS OF OUR TOWN AND EASILY BE APPROVED TO PLACE A TOWER WHEREVER THEY MAY PLEASE.

WE HAVE ZONING ORDINANCES AND LAWS FOR A REASON. PLEASE SPEAK UP AND DEMAND THAT OUR ZONING BOARD UPHOLD THESE LAWS. THE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD WERE PUT ON THAT BOARD FOR A REASON. THERE ARE ZONING ORDINANCES IN PLACE AND THEY CLEARLY DICTATE THAT THIS CELL TOWER IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE PROPOSED AREA OF THE CRANFORD SWIM CLUB.

STAND UP AND FIGHT CRANFORD! YOU DESERVE TO BE HEARD!