Cranford Chronicle 08/29/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Westfield Leader 08/28/2008

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

Specially Written for The Westfield Leader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 08/24/2008

Cell Phone Tower Meeting

To The Chronicle:

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

Jenny Schuvart
Westfield

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 08/25/2008

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

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, August 25, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

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

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

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

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

The Westfield Leader 07/17/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 07/14/2008

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

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, July 14, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

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

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

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

Cranford Chronicle 07/11/2008

Cranford Chronicle
July 11, 2008

This Week's Events

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 07/11/2008

Cranford Chronicle
Letter to the Editor

July 11, 2008

GOP Candidate Lays out Position on Tower

To The Chronicle:

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

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

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

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

MARK P. DUGAN
Cranford

Record Press 06/30/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 06/27/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Westfield Leader 06/26/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting Tonight!

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

Meeting Information:

DATE: Monday, June 23, 2008

TIME: 8:15pm

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

Please arrive early as we are expecting a large turnout!

See everyone at the meeting!

Cranford Chronicle 06/20/08

Cell Tower Hearing Continues Next Week
By Leslie Murray

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

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

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

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

Cranford Chronicle 06/20/2008

Cranford Chronicle
Letter to the Editor

June 20, 2008

Committee, Candidates Should Oppose Cell Tower

To The Chronicle:

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

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

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

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

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

Myron Borden
Cranford

Action Alert! Zoning Board Meeting 06/23/2008

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