| Author |
Message |
    
marian
Citizen
Username: Marian
Post Number: 544
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 9:44 pm: | 
|
Did anyone see today's News-Record article about an Essex County Superior Court decision reversing the Maplewood Zoning Board's ruling on the Verizon cell tower?
According to the N-R, the Zoning Board has decided not to appeal, so the court's decision essentially paves the way for Verizon Wireless to build a cell tower on the grounds of the Maplewood Country Club.
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4254
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 9:50 pm: |
|
With the caveat that I'm only going by the information in the News-Record's article (always a dangerous move), I don't know why this decision is not being appealed.
Hey, if we object to the tower on religious grounds, can we get the Thomas More Law Center to represent us for free? |
Zoesky1
Citizen
Username: Zoesky1
Post Number: 624
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Not saying I agree with the cell tower going in, but from my reading of the N-R story, it seemed pretty clear to me why they aren't appealing: they said towns don't usually win in these cases, they were worried about penalties from some appeals judge, and they don't want to spend any more money appealing. Seems pretty clear to me. We may have to accept defeat on this one. |
marian
Citizen
Username: Marian
Post Number: 545
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Nohero--LOL! I'm sort of on the fence about it myself. I live not too far away from where it will probably be placed. (A block off Valley going up the hill.) The thing is that I HATE Verizon so much and feel the Country Club was so bloody arrogant in this matter that I'm hoping some private citizens will file some kind of suit to keep this fire burning. |
Zoesky1
Citizen
Username: Zoesky1
Post Number: 628
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 10:13 pm: |
|
I'm not that far from it myself - I live on the other side of town, just off Ridgewood, but within view of the golf course. These fake pine trees are ugly, but kind of a fact of modern life and the "price" we as a society pay for the convenience of cell phone service. |
Walker
Citizen
Username: Fester
Post Number: 53
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 9:13 am: |
|
Would this be considered a property improvment and if so why not tax the hell out of them. |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1645
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
The decision is here if anyone is interested. http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/goldman/Verizon041230.pdf
I have not read it yet and don't know much about this area of the law but I think that federal law really tips the field in favor of the cell compainies. Winning on appeal after losing below is always un up-hill battle. Deciding not to spend money on an appeal that they think they will lose is a reasonable judgment, if they are right in evaluating their chances. I've no opinion on that not having read the decision. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 712
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
Most of the country club property is in a flood zone and, therefore, taxed at the lowest or next to lowest rate. Such improvements as the tower show that even flood zone property has value beyond that of a golf course raising the possibility of a tax adjustment upwards. |
grw
Citizen
Username: Grw
Post Number: 343
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Since I live "right there" and went to every zoning board meeting for the year it took, seeing everyone in the neighborhood dish out their own money for a lawyer to fight this, celebrating the victory after the vote, and now reading the article, I'm bummed out. I guess I'll just have to live with it.
Verizon's expert witness who is an appraiser, testified that there is a possibility that the values of the homes in the immediate neighborhhod could decrease 5%. I wonder if this expert testimony is good enough to see if Galante will lower our taxes a bit? |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
Here are a couple of tidbits from the decision
This is a summary of why the court reversed:
quote:In sum, the three facts the Board relied upon to deny the variance were findings that this
court finds to be arbitrary and capricious. First, the DCH and Dakin sites were not suitable
alternatives and there was unrebutted expert testimony explaining why in detail. Second, the
conclusion, from a lay perspective, that the Tower would reduce property values cannot stand in
light of the unrebutted expert testimony to the contrary. Third, the conclusion that the Tower,
deep into 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.
And here is some stuff for the folks in the neighborhood to make note of:
quote:In light of the failure of the Board to consider the fence variance and the application forsite plan approval, the matter is remanded back to the Board to determine those issues. At that
remand, the Board is free to impose reasonable conditions on the structure of the Tower. Could
the height of the Tower be reduced by pruning trees so that they were shorter? What would be
the environmental and aesthetic impact of such pruning? What should the size and location of the
new evergreens Verizon has proposed? What will happen in the future if the surrounding trees
continue to grow? Will the trees have to be pruned or will the Tower need to be higher? Have there been any changes in technology since this application was first filed two years ago that
might permit even greater camouflaging? For example, could the Tower be made less bulky
(e.g., Primeco Partnership Communications v. Mequon, 242 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D. Wis.), aff’d.
352 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2003) (Verizon reduced diameter of 70 foot flagpole used for PCS
antenna from 24 inches to 9 inches)
|
gj1
Citizen
Username: Gj1
Post Number: 107
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Is the plan for a standard cell tower or one of those ridiculous giant fake tree towers?
|
grw
Citizen
Username: Grw
Post Number: 346
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Fake Tree |
gj1
Citizen
Username: Gj1
Post Number: 108
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Ugh. Does ANYONE find these fake trees more aesthetically pleasing than a regular tower??? Is anyone fooled by these giant redwood-like fake trees that dwarf the surrounding trees ? Gee look, a f___ing sequoia growing in Maplewood!
There is one on the GSP (around exit 130?) that looked like it had some strange blight as the "bark" began peeling off and was left unrepaired for a long time.
They are just disgusting and stand out much more than a regular pole. |
slipknot
Citizen
Username: Zotts
Post Number: 15
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
OH please you all complain but I bet you each have a cell phone and go driving around with it plastered to your ear. Get over it. Ya bunch of whiners |
gj1
Citizen
Username: Gj1
Post Number: 109
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 3:17 pm: |
|
Sorry, I don't really care that I can't get clear cell service in Maplewood center, but that wasn't my point.
Hey, if they have to build a tower they have to build a tower. But why try masquerading the tower as a so obviously fake tree??? |
grw
Citizen
Username: Grw
Post Number: 348
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
slipknot- sure we have phones, they work just fine, of course we don't drive around with it plastered to our ear,that would be illegal, I wonder if you would get over it if it were in your backyard, so, get bent |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 152
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
I hope the issue of camouflage will be part of the site plan review, which the zoning board is now obligated to conduct. Verizon has already presented some expert testimony about the appearance of the tower, with respect to its visibility above the surrounding trees. Thus, I would suspect that testimony about any decoration on the tower would also be accepted. If so, interested parties (i.e., the public) should attend the hearing and make a statement to the board about their preferences.
|
slipknot
Citizen
Username: Zotts
Post Number: 16
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
seems you want the convenience of the phone with out any of the very minor inconvenience. |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 1170
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 9:18 pm: |
|
I would urge people to write to the Country Club to voice you opposition. Being a bad neighbor can work both ways. |
Taylor M
Citizen
Username: Anotherusername
Post Number: 261
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
I agree with slip knot. I know some of you in real life and know YOU HAVE CELLPHONES!!! The cell towers have to go somewhere! When you get rid of your own cellphones I might feel sorry for you. Until then it's just a NIMBY situation. If the town was smart, they would have allowed the tower to be buit on town land. Then they could have made some money from Verizon. |
Hank Zona
Citizen
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 1923
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
if Verizon would say a celltower would improve service in the area (give me a stronger signal -- five bars, not one or two fewer dropped calls per 100), then I can see the trade-off with the eyesore. But I dont recall having heard or read that that will be the case. So its just a landgrab for Verizon, not a service improvement for us (and sorry, the dropped call improvement just isnt significant enough). Correct me if Im wrong. I do have a cellphone through Verizon, and I use it hardly ever at home because I dont get a strong enough signal. So I disagree with anyone who sees it as whining or unwelcoming to business to be against this. Its benefiting Verizon and the country club, and how it benefits the country club significantly is questionable, not the greater good of the community. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4729
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
I don't have a cell phone and I don't plan on getting one any time soon but I understand the need many people have to use cell phones and the need of cell phone companies to provide reliable service.
I think we could be facing a lot worse problems than a cell tower at the edge of town. This case has been to court and the town lost as many cautioned the town would. It's time to move on. |
Taylor M
Citizen
Username: Anotherusername
Post Number: 266
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Hank-
you might not get good service in town with Verizon; I do. Maybe it's your phone? I know I loose the signal going up South Orane Ave through the reservation.
Think about al the place you DO get good service. Then remember there is a tower somewhere that allows you to get that service.
While I agree it's stupid to mask these as trees, the community should be mad at the town for not allowing the tower to be built on town land. IF they had, the town would have made money. |
e roberts
Citizen
Username: Wnwd00
Post Number: 285
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 10:44 pm: |
|
hank,
a land grab for verizon? what are you talking about? cell towers are expensive, and time consuming. consider for a minute the construction costs, land rental costs, and of course the legal fees. Verizon is not about to put up a tower it does not need.
of course it will be a service improvement there is a drop in coverage on valley in between columbia and millburn ave as well as in that general vicinity and dont forget that once verizon has a tower up other companies will rent space on the tower and everyone will have better service.
cell phone users (which is the vast majority of people) win with better service, the country club wins with a montly rental income, and verizon wins with better service.
|
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7240
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 4:51 am: |
|
My recollection is that the tower will not significantly increase Verizon service here in Maplewood. However, Verizon will be leasing space on the tower to other cellular companies and that might improve coverage here for subscribers to other services.
My understanding, which I admit is limited, is that cell towers have to be in line of sight of the phone to work. Is the tower high enough to improve service east of Prospect? |
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 78
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 11:25 pm: |
|
In Superior Court, Verizon sued both the Board of Adjustment and the Township Committee. The claim against the BOA related to the denial of a variance; against the TC it related to the passage of a new ordinance while Verizon's case was pending before the BOA.
The Court determined that the TC was entirely within its rights to pass a new ordinance when it did. So the TC "won" its part of the appeal. But the BOA was held to have been "arbitrary and capricious" in denying a variance in the face of Verizon's expert testimony, some of it unopposed by residents who challenged the variance.
In my opinion, the decision by Superior Court is flawed. The variance was denied on aesthetic grounds and on the grounds that the tower would negatively impact market values, both allowable reasons under our new ordinance. The Court decided that Verizon's testimony was compelling, but neglected to point out that, in matters where credibility counts, the BOA (which actually saw the witnesses and assessed their believability) could have chosen to disbelieve them. And, in doing so, it was hardly "arbitrary and capricious." This is especially the case in fact-intensive matters such as aesthetics and market values.
The BOA decided not to appeal this decision. It is an independent body, under law, and the TC is prohibited from trying to influence its decisions. In fact, in AJC's case in Superior Court against the BOA relating to his B&B, the decision of the BOA against AJC was reversed because a prior TC asked the town's attorney to appear before the BOA and oppose AJC's request to operate. That was judged to have been an impermissible interference in the operation of the BOA.
So, there is nothing that the TC can properly do to ask the BOA to change its mind, But the TC was also a party to this appeal. The TC cannot normally appeal this decision to the Appellate Division, because, as a body, it was found not to have done anything wrong and is therefore not "aggrieved" (a legal term of art) by the decision of the Superior Court. But it might be available for TC members to argue, that individually and as representatives of the citizens of Maplewood, they are aggrieved because of the aesthetic and market value issues.
One of the reasons that the BOA decided not to appeal this decison was based on cost. In my opinion, cost is not a significant factor. The Superior Court case was, in effect, an appeal from the BOA, so an appeal to the Appellate Division can be accomplished on essentially the same briefs that have already been written.
More problematic is the BOA's second reason for not appealing - chances of success on appeal. As I have indicated, in my opinion the Superior Court decision is not well founded and is vulnerable. But the Appellate Division could affirm for reasons not addressed by the Superior Court. Some of those might be based on the primacy of Federal law in this area.
However, Federal law will not preempt local regulation when alternative sites for a tower are available. I am not convinced that such alternatives are impossible, and I don't know that Verizon conclusively showed impossibility in its expert testimony.
On Tuesday, the TC will discuss whether or not to pursue its own appeal, even if the BOA does not change its mind. The legal issues are complicated. But the cost is minimal, so it might be worth taking a shot. Those who wish to listen to this discussion might attend the meeting on Tuesday. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to express their views during the Public Comment portions of the meeting, both preceeding our discussion and following it. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4742
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 9:18 am: |
|
Check this out! Creative problem solving at its best!
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3127&post=327316#POST3273 16 |
grw
Citizen
Username: Grw
Post Number: 349
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Thanks Fred, your post should stop a lot of speculation |
mammabear
Citizen
Username: Mammabear
Post Number: 173
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Hank-
You may need to update the software on your phone. Call verizon CS and they will give you the code to call (I'm sorry - I forget the code). It can be done (by you) directly from your phone and takes about 2 minutes. It will improve your signal, etc. |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1658
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
Its *228, then send, then listen to the options. One is program phone, the other is update roaming or something like that. That's the one you want. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5167
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
If Verizon didn't think the tower would improve the service significantly, they wouldn't want to build the tower, right?
Actually, there are other reason to have a tower. One is to rent space to other companies, and that would explain the "land grab" approach. If Verizon rented space on the tower to T-Mobile, that would make me happy.
And while Verizon was claiming they were dropping 1% or 2% of the calls, that may sound small, but that 1% or 2% could be a large percentage of calls in a small area in town, which ends up being very significant. Think about all the times you complained about how your phone doesn't work in a specific spot which is important to you. |
grw
Citizen
Username: Grw
Post Number: 357
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
That's great Tom, why don't you call Verizon and offer them your back yard |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5173
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
I guess I touched a raw nerve. Sorry about that. I have had fantasies of calling T-Mobile (my provider) and inviting them to use my attic. Their service is fine everywhere I go except my house. |
e roberts
Citizen
Username: Wnwd00
Post Number: 286
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
grw, unless if you own the country club its not your backyard either.
some of the people in these two towns seem to be against any type of business then complain about high taxed. everyone whined about walgreens, and walmart and now the this cell phone tower. dont you understand the more commercial ratables there are the lower your taxes? i think we need to let these businesses into these towns to build stores providing not only jobs but also much needed tax revnue. unless that if you want to pay ever increasing taxes with a no big business town?
|
grw
Citizen
Username: Grw
Post Number: 358
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
e roberts- this is not the Short Hills Mall they are building, this tower is nothing as far as ratables are concerned.
Tom I went to these meetings for a whole year, listened to all the expert witness, putting this tower up is not going to improve service, it is going to decrease drop calls in this zone 1-2%. Everyone seems to think they will get better service, that's not the case. My issue on this whole thing is the testimony of Verizon's expert witness, the appraiser), he flat out said that the values of the homes in the area will decrease by 5%, do you blame me for fighting this. Verizon will make their money by renting space off it, MCC will make their money by letting it be put in their dump, and the values of our homes will go down. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5175
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
No, I don't blame you for fighting this! |
nur
Citizen
Username: Nur
Post Number: 190
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
You can't get service in any shop or restaurant in the village. The tower will help. |
grw
Citizen
Username: Grw
Post Number: 359
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
nur I'm sorry, you are just wrong!!!!! |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page