Maplewood NJ still fighting cell tower, court ok'd

[Fire14]

Maplewood planning cell tower appeal
Township says it will fight court's decision to allow Verizon pole on country club propertyt
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
BY KATIE WANG
Star-Ledger Staff
Maplewood plans to take its legal battle with Verizon Wireless to the appellate courts, said Mayor Fred Profeta.

The decision to extend the dispute comes weeks after a Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Verizon's request for a variance to build a cell phone tower on the Maplewood Country Club property. In its 30-page decision, the court said the board of adjustment acted capriciously and arbitrarily in rejecting Verizon's application for a variance on the property.

"There is no evidence of any adverse impact on real estate values and the aesthetic impact is at most minimal," wrote the court. "No other site that would fill the gap in service is suitable. The conclusions to the contrary are arbitrary and capricious."

Verizon officials applauded the court's ruling and said they are prepared for future court challenges.

"Verizon Wireless will oppose any appeal by the township and any request for a stay of the proceedings," said Robin Nicol, a spokeswoman for the company. "Our plan is to proceed according to the court's decision, which means we plan to refile as the court advised us to do."

Profeta, a litigator, called the court's decision flawed.

"The town will argue that the board of adjustment decision was not arbitrary and capricious and there was plenty of evidence in the record to make the two main findings that they made," Profeta said.

The dispute between the township and the company dates back to Aug. 14, 2002, when Verizon filed its application to build a new tower. The company wanted to build the tower in that location to plug gaps in its cell phone service.

In addition to the 110-foot pole, the application calls for an 8-foot lightning rod camouflaged as a tree along with a shed to store radio equipment.

The board voted down Verizon on Dec. 3, 2004, on the grounds that the tower would ruin the look of the neighborhood and that it would sink property values in the area.

Verizon sued the township, saying that it relied on ordinances that were drawn up during its application process, and that it was improper to do so.

In its decision, the court cited case law where townships were allowed to change or create ordinances during the application process so long as it served the public interest.

But in dissecting the application process, which stretched over a series of hearings throughout last year, the court ruled that the township's contention that the tower would have an adverse effect on property values was not sufficiently supported.

"Bare allegations that the construction of a tower or monopole will cause a decline in property values rarely will suffice," said the court.

The ruling also noted that the township did not offer a competing expert to challenge Verizon's expert on the issue. Verizon's expert, Robert Vance, testified that studies based on similar cases have proven that towers do not sink property values.

The court also struck down the board's argument that the tower would have a negative impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Verizon proposed to camouflage part of the facility and stated that the tower is surrounded by trees that are from 85 to 95 feet tall.

"The conclusion that the tower, deep in the woods of the golf course, perhaps visible at the top during the wintertime, was aesthetically disfiguring to the neighborhood, defies both the expert testimony and the thorough exhibits Verizon submitted," wrote the court.

[Andy]

This dates back to 2002...Wow!! But that's great; it's also nice to hear that Sprint and Cingular aren't the only ones fighting cell towers

[bobolito]

When are these ridiculous NIMBYs are going to learn not to make a fool of themselves?

[Fire14]

And this is going on a Country Club, next to the train station so it's not going to be a problem with the view.

[wgray8231]

Hey, if VZW wants to put up a tower in a nice neighborhood around here, I would WANT to move there so I'd get good coverage at home.

And when are the NIMBYs going to learn some REAL arguments against cell towers?

[agentHibby]

Originally Posted by bobolito When are these ridiculous NIMBYs are going to learn not to make a fool of themselves?

I would like to know how can it lower the land value of the town.

[larry]

Originally Posted by bobolito When are these ridiculous NIMBYs are going to learn not to make a fool of themselves?

Never. You should see all of the court battles we have here in So. Calif. (mostly in San Diego County). I don't even post half of them.

[larry]

Originally Posted by wgray8231 Hey, if VZW wants to put up a tower in a nice neighborhood around here, I would WANT to move there so I'd get good coverage at home. And when are the NIMBYs going to learn some REAL arguments against cell towers?

When are the NIMBY's going to learn not to bring up health issues when disputing towers?? They shoot themselves in the foot every time on that because federal law doesn't allow that argument to be brought up. But yet they keep trying to use it and make fools of themselves.

[bobolito]

The health issue argument is the most ridiculous ever. They forget that when they place their wireless phone against their ear they are receiving 1000 times more radiation than what they would receive from a tower in their backyard.

[larry]

Originally Posted by bobolito The health issue argument is the most ridiculous ever. They forget that when they place their wireless phone against their ear they are receiving 1000 times more radiation than what they would receive from a tower in their backyard.

Yep I even told that to some concerned residents in Running Springs, CA where Sprint is building a controversial tower.

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by larry Yep I even told that to some concerned residents in Running Springs, CA where Sprint is building a controversial tower.

Did they listen or just blow you off? Seems to me people would rather believe the tower gives off SO much radiation despite any proof or expertise you could provide them.

[Fire14]

Originally Posted by larry Never. You should see all of the court battles we have here in So. Calif. (mostly in San Diego County). I don't even post half of them.

We normally don't have that many problems around here & this is something you don't see too much of in the paper. Guess people want the coverage & don't care about towers, like some other area's in the country.

[vvviceroy]

Originally Posted by Fire14 We normally don't have that many problems around here & this is something you don't see too much of in the paper. Guess people want the coverage & don't care about towers, like some other area's in the country.

Maplewood, NJ is located along a train line to New York. It has a beautiful storybook village downtown with a Bavarian look, with a small attractive though buzy train station and an beautiful Olmstead-designed park (As I understand it he designed Central and Prospect Park in NYC) which includes a branch of the Rahway River running through it and where kids sled and play baseball It is the storybook village and half hour commute to Manhattan which has attracted many of its 23,000 residents. About ten years ago, New Jersey Transit made plans to alleviate a tight parking situation with a large four story parking deck that was an attempt to provide a regional solution with the impact of locating between the station and the town and completely changing it's character. The town gave a fair hearing to NJ Transit but in the end NJ Transit couldn't erase the basic fact that this large slap of concrete is going to be a large eyesore that would dwarf the town and wipe out it's character.

The Verizon tower is basically a vertical version of the parking deck. This wouldn't even be an opportunity for Verizon were it not for the fact that the private country club which adjoins the Olmsted park, with a number of out of town members, doesn't always operate with the town's interest at heart. Local residents are already treated to a loud megadecibel horn that goes off at all hours everytime the barometric pressure drops signally a possible storm with presumed lightning - 80% of the time it goes off, there are no golfers on the course, the other 20%, the golfers aren't leaving no matter what.

From the Country Club's perspective, their decision to lease to Verizon is all about Verizon money. However, the larger problem is that the Country Club is within a residential zone with a significant number of surrounding homes and as far as I am aware there's only one other attempt going on in the entire state of New Jersey to place a tower in a residentially zoned area. When the Verizon expert was asked in the town meeting if he could site another 118 foot tower in the middle of a residential area that people could look at to see the impact, he wasn't able to come up with one.

To not grant a zoning variance to a 118 foot tower that will be more like 148 feet by the time other cell providers hop on board is absolutely *neither arbitrary nor capricious*. The Telecom Act of 1996 includes that arbitrary and capricious language to prevent towns from flat out outlawing cell towers and service - but Maplewood carefully weighed the benefits and negatives and specifically the unusual request to locate a 118 foot tower specifically in the heart of an area zoned residential when there are nearby light industrial districts where it would be better suited. Verizon never considered a solution that AT&T uses with a number of smaller transmitting facilities located on the tops of buildings. Common sense tells you before you basically override a town's residential zoning you should at least show a convincing lack of other options that don't visually impact the town the way this tower does. Verizon has ignored all other possibilities in it's attempt to secure the prize megasolution. I only wish Verizon had put a tenth of their energy into looking at alternatives as they did at going forth with litigation to overrun Maplewood's longstanding and straightforward zoning requirements. If Maplewood can't protect and enforce residential zoning, it would seem that they might as well get rid of zoning all together.

I read the talk about a 85 to 95 foot treeline but that is exaggerated. For starters there just are'nt that many trees in the nine hole golf course. I'll guarantee you the day that tower goes up, so will go up in smoke the wonderful quaintness of the storybook village of Maplewood that makes it so special. Maplewood has a number of other issues, a property tax rate of $10,000 - $15,000 on 70 year old three bedroom homes for middle class workers, and a school system that every year faces further budget cuts, that tax its resources to compete with the nearby wealthier districts like Millburn, Livingston, Chatham, etc.

I'm sure for the Verizon bigwig who may live over in Bedminster, he isn't losing any sleep over how a 118-148 foot tower adjecent to Maplewood Village will blight the visual appeal of the downtown area, but for those who live in the immediate shadow, they will be directly and adversely affected 24/7. They deserve to not be run over by Verizon's unusual and apparently presumed "right" to build megatowers in a residentially zoned area. Verizon needs to work much harder at being a better local citizen and putting together a plan that sufficiently covers cellular service for customers without running roughshod over zoning rules, ruining the aesthetics for residents who have chosen to call Maplewood home.

I think for anyone to make presumptions about this application and case, they should come to Maplewood and see the town and how the tower will affect it. It was clear in the testimony of the Verizon expert that Verizon had no clue nor appreciation of the town's aesthetics.

[Fire14]

Originally Posted by vvviceroy I think for anyone to make presumptions about this application and case, they should come to Maplewood and see the town and how the tower will affect it. It was clear in the testimony of the Verizon expert that Verizon had no clue nor appreciation of the town's aesthetics.

I live in Union & know the course very well as I have come to this town on numerous occasions to assist the local FD in fires along with Irvington FD. The area where the course is, is located across from a residential area near the train station & business district of Maplewood, and the tower would (from the sounds of it) end up closer to the RXR tracks & not near the Valley St part of the course or the park across the street from it. I do know there are quite a few trees outlining the course & think if they do it right it would mix in quite well.

[jones]

There are High Rise Apartment Buildings in Maplewood,
Why don't they try that?

This Town is A Known NIMBY,
No doubt about it.
All Cell Carriers had a tough time here.

Even the Long Distance carriers who does'nt have
Towers but needs to pass through Maplewood
had problems here.

[wgray8231]

How obtrusive can a little cell tower be? A parking garage I can understand b/c it's BIG. A cell tower has a small profile. And people usually don't notice all the cell towers they drive past. I've been trying to pay attention in my parts of town lately and it amazes me that I've never noticed all of these towers before. Maybe the town's residents should worry about bigger matters than cell towers....

[ZaphodB]

Having been to Maplewood on many occasions, I'm trying to picture how a tower downtown between the country club and the train station has any impact at all on property values; the nearest properties to the train stations already have lower property values because of the noise of the trains.

[Fire14]

Originally Posted by ZaphodB Having been to Maplewood on many occasions, I'm trying to picture how a tower downtown between the country club and the train station has any impact at all on property values; the nearest properties to the train stations already have lower property values because of the noise of the trains.

And the tower wouldn't affect any of the homes or Town Hall across from the country club either as well as it's almost all business's on the other side of the tracks. I mean with the traffic on Valley St. is more then enough to bring down property values and the tower most likely won't be seen.

[vvviceroy]

Originally Posted by Fire14 And the tower wouldn't affect any of the homes or Town Hall across from the country club either as well as it's almost all business's on the other side of the tracks. I mean with the traffic on Valley St. is more then enough to bring down property values and the tower most likely won't be seen.

There are a number of homes on all sides of the golf course, including the other side of the railroad tracks. Yes, homes in close proximity of the tracks sell for a little less...though these days walking distance to the train, you can't find even those for less than a half million. (And these are modest houses in many cases - 50-80 year old 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath homes on 5000 square feet.)

I've seen it here referred to as a "little old tower" when the fact is the tower is 118 feet and most certainly will grow to 148 feet when other providers hop on board. (In testimony Verizon attempted to minimize this by asserting that it was up to the town as to whether to add additional providers but then again the town thought they had *some* say in what a residence is and what residential zoning is.

The fact is most homes are 20 - 30 feet high, the tallest building downtown might be 40 feet and a 118-148 foot tower will most certainly be seen just as the golf courses high db siren is most certainly heard. Anyone visiting the South Mountain Arena can look across the street to get an idea of what a tall tree-style cell tower looks like and then they can envision it in the middle of a *residential zone*.

Towns don't have a right to arbitrarily and capriciously prevent cellular coverage but likewise corporate telecome behemoths don't have the right to ride roughshod over local *residential* zoning ordinances just because they pick out a site of their choosing and refuse to consider *any* alternatives. For Verizon this is basically a hit-and-run pay the country club kinda of deal and there are a lot of folks who've chosen to make Maplewood their community, raising families, and living and contributing to their community life 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These permanent residents have *some* right to have their town's cellular signal arrangement work to fit in with the aesthetics of the town. Very few would be complaining if Verizon had surveyed the light industrial area near the Millburn-Union line - which is almost adjecent to the golf course and slightly farther from the downtown and residential areas.

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by vvviceroy There are a number of homes on all sides of the golf course, including the other side of the railroad tracks. Yes, homes in close proximity of the tracks sell for a little less...though these days walking distance to the train, you can't find even those for less than a half million. (And these are modest houses in many cases - 50-80 year old 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath homes on 5000 square feet.) I've seen it here referred to as a "little old tower" when the fact is the tower is 118 feet and most certainly will grow to 148 feet when other providers hop on board. (In testimony Verizon attempted to minimize this by asserting that it was up to the town as to whether to add additional providers but then again the town thought they had *some* say in what a residence is and what residential zoning is. The fact is most homes are 20 - 30 feet high, the tallest building downtown might be 40 feet and a 118-148 foot tower will most certainly be seen just as the golf courses high db siren is most certainly heard. Anyone visiting the South Mountain Arena can look across the street to get an idea of what a tall tree-style cell tower looks like and then they can envision it in the middle of a *residential zone*. Towns don't have a right to arbitrarily and capriciously prevent cellular coverage but likewise corporate telecome behemoths don't have the right to ride roughshod over local *residential* zoning ordinances just because they pick out a site of their choosing and refuse to consider *any* alternatives. For Verizon this is basically a hit-and-run pay the country club kinda of deal and there are a lot of folks who've chosen to make Maplewood their community, raising families, and living and contributing to their community life 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These permanent residents have *some* right to have their town's cellular signal arrangement work to fit in with the aesthetics of the town. Very few would be complaining if Verizon had surveyed the light industrial area near the Millburn-Union line - which is almost adjecent to the golf course and slightly farther from the downtown and residential areas.

Local zoning can prevent towers, creating holes in coverage, leading to unhappy customers. Building towers can create unhappy residents. People will always complain about something.

Example: The state of TN reviews preschool childcare. I heard a story of one "teacher" that got deducted points on her review for making the other children wait for food while she cleaned up some spilt milk. Do you think the same reviewer would also deduct points if she'd left the spill til after getting food for all the kids?

It's not life or death people.

And maybe VZW though about putting a tower closer to the industrial area, but it wouldn't be enough benefit.

[vvviceroy]

Originally Posted by wgray8231 Local zoning can prevent towers, creating holes in coverage, leading to unhappy customers. Building towers can create unhappy residents. People will always complain about something. Example: The state of TN reviews preschool childcare. I heard a story of one "teacher" that got deducted points on her review for making the other children wait for food while she cleaned up some spilt milk. Do you think the same reviewer would also deduct points if she'd left the spill til after getting food for all the kids? It's not life or death people. And maybe VZW though about putting a tower closer to the industrial area, but it wouldn't be enough benefit.

If your next door neighbor decided to use his back yard as a commercial garbage drop off location would you be okay it? Or would you just be another person always complaining about something?

There's a _reason_ for residential zoning. Cell towers rarely, if ever, are put in residentially zoned areas. And Maplewood already has a several cellular towers, granted not 118ft, as well as low power cellular antennas on a variety of commercial building roofs to fill in coverage. AT&T (Cingular, these days) has an array thoughout the town that doesn't have unusual reception problems.

Verizon is seeking a metasolution that will prove a major eyesore for a town that is recognized for its storybook village charm. Verizon didn't check out any other locations - residents asked - this was their Plan A,B,C,D and Z.

Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the residents of Maplewood don't have the arbitrary and capricious right to block cellular infrastructure necessary to provide service, but they do have the right to zone residential and commercial areas of town and enforce such zoning. In short Maplewood and Verizon should partner so that Maplewood residents can continue to enjoy the storybook village's charm, and Verizon can provide service to its customers using either a large tower in the light industrial area on the other side of the small course or an array similar to AT&T. However, Verizon feels its their corporate right to do what they want, and residents be damned.

To argue Verizon's case is basically to outlaw zoning.

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by vvviceroy There's a _reason_ for residential zoning.

Zoning is part of what's wrong with urban development. Dumps are kept separate from housing for sanitation reasons. Cell towers are kept separate purely for aesthetics. These two are vastly different. Sure, VZW could do a much better job of placing cell sites, but that comes at a cost to them. Capitalism has taught us to do the most at the lowest cost. Maybe the Maplewood residents should offer to help pay for a solution they can accept.

[AnthroMatt]

Originally Posted by vvviceroy There are a number of homes on all sides of the golf course, including the other side of the railroad tracks. Yes, homes in close proximity of the tracks sell for a little less...though these days walking distance to the train, you can't find even those for less than a half million. (And these are modest houses in many cases - 50-80 year old 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath homes on 5000 square feet.) I've seen it here referred to as a "little old tower" when the fact is the tower is 118 feet and most certainly will grow to 148 feet when other providers hop on board. (In testimony Verizon attempted to minimize this by asserting that it was up to the town as to whether to add additional providers but then again the town thought they had *some* say in what a residence is and what residential zoning is. The fact is most homes are 20 - 30 feet high, the tallest building downtown might be 40 feet and a 118-148 foot tower will most certainly be seen just as the golf courses high db siren is most certainly heard. Anyone visiting the South Mountain Arena can look across the street to get an idea of what a tall tree-style cell tower looks like and then they can envision it in the middle of a *residential zone*. Towns don't have a right to arbitrarily and capriciously prevent cellular coverage but likewise corporate telecome behemoths don't have the right to ride roughshod over local *residential* zoning ordinances just because they pick out a site of their choosing and refuse to consider *any* alternatives. For Verizon this is basically a hit-and-run pay the country club kinda of deal and there are a lot of folks who've chosen to make Maplewood their community, raising families, and living and contributing to their community life 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These permanent residents have *some* right to have their town's cellular signal arrangement work to fit in with the aesthetics of the town. Very few would be complaining if Verizon had surveyed the light industrial area near the Millburn-Union line - which is almost adjecent to the golf course and slightly farther from the downtown and residential areas.

I'm confused...there is a country club in a tract of land zoned residential? Wouldn't such a business be in a commercial zone?

[coalminer]

Originally Posted by vvviceroy I've seen it here referred to as a "little old tower" when the fact is the tower is 118 feet and most certainly will grow to 148 feet when other providers hop on board.

If they build it at 118 feet, that is as tall as it will be, if other providers install panels on it, (and they probably will) they will go under Verizons panels at the top of the tower. So whoever told you it will get taller was feeding you bull .

[AnthroMatt]

Wirelessly posted (Blackberry: BlackBerry7100/4.0.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1)

What is so laughable is the NIMBY attack on Verizon and the country club as only being in it for financial gain and then the NIMBY's turn around and cry about property values. A bit hypocritical?

Not to mention that the camoflauged tower probably won't even be noticed by anyone unless they specifically know it is there to begin with.

[ZaphodB]

Originally Posted by vvviceroy If your next door neighbor decided to use his back yard as a commercial garbage drop off location would you be okay it? Or would you just be another person always complaining about something?

Of course you'd complain... but this is not a good comparison. First, a dump is more than just an eyesore, it's a public health hazard, a watershed hazard, a vector-control (that is, mosquitoes) hazard, a fire hazard, etc. A cellular tower is none of these. Second, local zoning boards don't make decisions about the siting of dumps, the state of New Jersey does; do you remember the huge to-do when they wanted to build an industrial waste site in Little Egg Harbor a few years back? The state stepped in and said "no", because they control that.

Now, let me posit a different scenario, and one that happened in a nearby neighbourhood: your neighbour sells his house, and the person that buys the house in this "storybook town" begins creating his own personal monument to bad taste -- we're talking thick Doric columns on the aforementioned three-bedroom home, statuary that would make a blind man barf, the house painted in sixteen (yes, sixteen) different colours, including variations on "f-uchsia", and a giant pool in the front yard where he swims daily, showing off his furry and rotund figure for the entire world to see. (We call this house "the Barfenon of Van Nuys".)

Can you stop him? It's still residential zoning. But property values have now plummeted due to the unfortunate situation of being near this grotesque creation. And it's on a lovely, windy, but major road, near the main business district.

There's a _reason_ for residential zoning. Cell towers rarely, if ever, are put in residentially zoned areas. And Maplewood already has a several cellular towers, granted not 118ft, as well as low power cellular antennas on a variety of commercial building roofs to fill in coverage. AT&T (Cingular, these days) has an array thoughout the town that doesn't have unusual reception problems.

Unfortunately there are fifteen years or so of precedent against you here. Thousands of cell towers are located on residentially-zoned land. There are cell towers on residential land in Beverly Hills, on some of the most scenic and expensive real estate in Southern California. The question is moot anyway, because a country club, by definition, cannot be zoned residential; the property is used wholly for business.

Verizon is seeking a metasolution that will prove a major eyesore for a town that is recognized for its storybook village charm. Verizon didn't check out any other locations - residents asked - this was their Plan A,B,C,D and Z.

I don't know if "storybook charm" would be the word I would use to describe Maplewood. You aren't a real-estate agent, by any chance, are you? It sounds like an overblown MLS listing. It's certainly a very nice town, though. Perhaps you should suggest that Verizon implement a series of picocells on the street lamps; that's what they do in Europe.

However, Verizon feels its their corporate right to do what they want, and residents be damned.

As opposed to the residents, who feel it's their right to block a cell tower that isn't on land that they own, and Verizon be damned. Possession is nine-tenths of the law... some famous dead guy said that once.

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by ZaphodB Unfortunately there are fifteen years or so of precedent against you here. Thousands of cell towers are located on residentially-zoned land. There are cell towers on residential land in Beverly Hills, on some of the most scenic and expensive real estate in Southern California. The question is moot anyway, because a country club, by definition, cannot be zoned residential; the property is used wholly for business.

Wouldn't strict resident zoning be a pain for all wireless companies and their subscribers? With the way America has set up residential, commercial, and industrial zones, not allowing towers in residential areas could leave massive holes in coverage all over.

At my univ. alma mater, the campus school's (associated k-12) football field flag pole has a cell tower inside. This is smack dab in the middle of an old South Nashville neighborhood. These people got upset when the university built an 8 story dorm (which now has cell towers on top), and some are still resentful.

I bet the residents of some of those SoCal neighborhoods demanded cell towers be put in for better reception. Would you pay more for a house where your phone doesn't work?

[vvviceroy]

Originally Posted by ZaphodB Of course you'd complain... but this is not a good comparison. First, a dump is more than just an eyesore, it's a public health hazard, a watershed hazard, a vector-control (that is, mosquitoes) hazard, a fire hazard, etc. A cellular tower is none of these. Second, local zoning boards don't make decisions about the siting of dumps, the state of New Jersey does; do you remember the huge to-do when they wanted to build an industrial waste site in Little Egg Harbor a few years back? The state stepped in and said "no", because they control that. Now, let me posit a different scenario, and one that happened in a nearby neighbourhood: your neighbour sells his house, and the person that buys the house in this "storybook town" begins creating his own personal monument to bad taste -- we're talking thick Doric columns on the aforementioned three-bedroom home, statuary that would make a blind man barf, the house painted in sixteen (yes, sixteen) different colours, including variations on "f-uchsia", and a giant pool in the front yard where he swims daily, showing off his furry and rotund figure for the entire world to see. (We call this house "the Barfenon of Van Nuys".) Can you stop him? It's still residential zoning. But property values have now plummeted due to the unfortunate situation of being near this grotesque creation. And it's on a lovely, windy, but major road, near the main business district. > No, you can't stop him unless he's violating a zoning ordinance. For instance, many towns have upkeep ordinances that if you don't keep your lawn reasonably mowed etc, you receive a warning and, if unheeded, a fine. Your neighbor can do anything he wants if it doesn't violate zoning. And if that depresses property values, that's life. However, if it violates zoning, he either _cannot_ do it, or will have to request a variance and have it approved to do it. To _assume_ this big brother federalism entitles him to do it anyway _despite zoning_, as Verizon does, is a different issue altogether. Unfortunately there are fifteen years or so of precedent against you here. > Well in _the testimony_, Verizon's expert was asked to list _any_ other cases in New Jersey in which cellular towers had been approved for areas zoned residential, and he couldn't come up with one. Thousands of cell towers are located on residentially-zoned land. There are cell towers on residential land in Beverly Hills, on some of the most scenic and expensive real estate in Southern California. The question is moot anyway, because a country club, by definition, cannot be zoned residential; the property is used wholly for business. > The Country Club building may a different zoning classification - may be business, perhaps some other classification like social club, but the land is _most certainly_ zoned residential. If the country club tomorrow decided to carve away a piece of a fairway for, say, a bowling alley, they'd have to come to the town to get a variance. If that wasn't the case, Verizon wouldn't need to go to the town. Now if on the other hand the country club decided to close down and sell the land for lots to build homes, they wouldn't have a problem. I don't know if "storybook charm" would be the word I would use to describe Maplewood. You aren't a real-estate agent, by any chance, are you? > No, I'm not. Doesn't change the fact that the downtown village - a three block area with a distinctly Baravian feel, is what attracts many people to the area. It sounds like an overblown MLS listing. It's certainly a very nice town, though. > It's a great town with instant visual appeal, especially for people who work in Manhattan and want to be just a 25-35 minute train ride away. The downtown charm with the adjecent Olmstead park is what attracts them. At the same time residents put up with some of the highest property taxes in the state for 80 year old homes on postage stamp lots, and a school system that cuts back on curriculum each year. Next year they are eliminating 7th Grade French classes. Last year it was music classes for the 4th Grade. Year before that it was 6th Grade French. And then there was that whole holiday music fiasco. Residents put up with a lot because the aesthetics of the town has such appeal. Perhaps you should suggest that Verizon implement a series of picocells on the street lamps; that's what they do in Europe. > The underlying point of this thread is that Verizon isn't taking suggestions, whether your picocells or even just doing was Cingular does with less intrusive antenna locations. That's why Verizon sued to override local zoning rather than considering alternatives that partner with the community rather than dictate to it. As opposed to the residents, who feel it's their right to block a cell tower that isn't on land that they own, and Verizon be damned. > If your next door neighbor decided to put a 118 ft monopole on his lot in violation of local zoning, would you feel you're damning him by saying "Hey, you can't do that." Possession is nine-tenths of the law... some famous dead guy said that once.

......

[ehcruzan]

Originally Posted by vvviceroy ......

...where's your post?

[vvviceroy]

Originally Posted by ehcruzan ...where's your post?

It's buried in there with the > thingy. I know it looks kinda like the manner in which Sigourney Weaver gets absorbed by the Mother Alien in that third Aliens movie.


...Just don't have the ol' interrupt the quote format down apparently.