T-Mobile Tower Denied in Little Falls, NJ

[jones]

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?...VFeXk3MDY0NTA4

Cell tower proposal toppled
Thursday, January 25, 2007

By JENNIFER H. CUNNINGHAM
HERALD NEWS


LITTLE FALLS -- The Planning Board rejected a cell phone company's plan to build a cell tower in the Great Notch Fire Company's parking lot.

Board member Walter Kilpatrick introduced the motion to deny Omnipoint Communications' application at Tuesday night's special Planning Board meeting at Passaic Valley Regional High School.

Kilpatrick said the proposed 10,000-square-foot property is not big enough to accommodate the cell tower, and added that the cell phone company would need several variances.

"I believe that this site will be overwhelmed by this," Kilpatrick said at the meeting. "It provides a possible safety issue. Substantial variances would have to be changed and we are unwilling to do that."

But Joseph O'Neill, a lawyer representing Omnipoint at the meeting, said building the cell tower would close a gap in coverage, while enhancing municipal first responders' communication capabilities.

"We're improving the communications of (first responders)," O'Neill told the board. "Omnipoint is satisfying needs with the Fire Department, satisfying the needs of police and satisfying the needs of EMS."

Firefighters from the Great Notch Volunteer Fire Company said they were counting on using the revenue from the cell tower to offset their operating expenses. Firefighter Ray Klepar said the department would have to look at other ways to fund the company -- which may cut into firefighting.

"We have a need," Klepar said. "We gotta do what we gotta do."

Similar cell tower proposals have been turned down in Mahwah and Lincoln Park, according to local newspaper reports. But cell phone companies have won several appeals, overturning decisions in Leonia, Fair Lawn and Kinnelon.

Residents on both sides of the debate voiced their opinions to the board.

Ronald Gollhardt, who lives less than 400 yards from an existing cell tower on Sigtim Drive, said he hardly notices it and has not seen any health problems in himself, his wife or his cat.

"Some neighbors didn't even know it was there," he said. "I heard there is more danger in microwave ovens than in cell towers."

But another resident, Michael Glita, said property values would decrease if more cell towers were erected.

"I'm afraid of what impression people will get when they come into town and see that tower," he said.

[wirles]

Please, get a clue Nimbys. Property values won't budge based on a cell tower unless it is in the middle of your stoop. Also, no evidence of danger based on commercial cellular transmission. All they had to do was reference OET65. I wonder what the actual justification was for rejection. The article mentions that variances would be required, but it doesn't say to which regulations.

[Fire14]

I find it amazing that the town will deny a tower at one of their public safety locations.
You hear them complaining about not having the money for public safety, yet they keep increasing taxes to cover what is needed & here is a solution for everyone, people have improved coverage, the local govt. gets the income from the rental & it can help keep taxes lower.

[EdwardP]

I would expect the decision to be overturned on appeal.

10,000 sq. ft. isn't large enough? Some supermarkets are 10,000 sq. ft!

[Fire14]

Originally Posted by EdwardP

I would expect the decision to be overturned on appeal.

10,000 sq. ft. isn't large enough? Some supermarkets are 10,000 sq. ft!

Heck some house's are 10,000 Sq ft. that is a heck of a lot of property to say "not big enough" for a tower.

[wirles]

Originally Posted by Fire14

Heck some house's are 10,000 Sq ft. that is a heck of a lot of property to say "not big enough" for a tower.

It would be fine if it was just for the tower. It is standard for a tower site to be 100'x100' to allow for collocation. Each carrier will get at least a 10'x10' or 10'x20'. Then you add in the utility backboard and tower footprint.

[wirles]

Originally Posted by EdwardP

I would expect the decision to be overturned on appeal.

10,000 sq. ft. isn't large enough? Some supermarkets are 10,000 sq. ft!

I don't know what supermarkets you shop in. According to the Food Marketing Institute, the average size of a supermarket (grocery store) is over 48k sq. feet.

http://www.fmi.org/facts_figs/superfact.htm

[Fire14]

Originally Posted by wirles

It would be fine if it was just for the tower. It is standard for a tower site to be 100'x100' to allow for collocation. Each carrier will get at least a 10'x10' or 10'x20'. Then you add in the utility backboard and tower footprint.

I didn't think about everything included, and now makes sense. Especially if they have 4-5 carriers on the tower.

[TCell]

The town is already caving in and fearing litigation. They are reconsidering their denial. This site will be built soon.

[Fire14]

Originally Posted by TCell

The town is already caving in and fearing litigation. They are reconsidering their denial. This site will be built soon.

That's good that they must have taken a look at the bigger picture & realized they would most likely loose in court on this, and this way they can save the taxpayers some money from the legal fees they would have spent & the income the fire house will get to keep their taxes down.