Mahwah NJ, the Mahwah Township Council approved a bid Monday for a $42,000 annual contract with T-Mobile as a third carrier on its Fire Station 3 monopole cell tower.
Mahwah NJ, more delays impact the installation of a permanent cell tower off Rozanski Lane, in Mahwah. Township Administrator Benjamin Kezmarsky said Tuesday , “It will be another eight weeks before construction starts due to material availability,” Kezmarsky said. “And this is subject to change based on weather and material lead time.”
Mahwah NJ, a permit has been issued by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection that will allow the installation of a permanent cell tower on municipal property off Rozanski Lane. A tower for the dead zone has been debated off and on since 2005. The current proposal to lease tower space there was approved by the Council in 2017 during the administration of Mayor William Laforet.
Mahwah NJ, according to David May of the Mahwah Cell Tower Task Force , on February 5th the “Administration provided the following update last night at the Council Meeting in regards to the Cell Tower Project: A meeting was held at the Company 3 fire house on Friday January 29th. In attendance were representatives from Orange and Rockland, AT&T, Verizon, TK Wireless, Boswell engineering, the Mayor, the Administrator, the Fire Chief, and members of the Construction Dept.”
file photo Boyd Loving
MAY 20, 2015 LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015, 9:49 AM
BY DARIUS AMOS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Scheduled for removal by the end of this month, the temporary cell tower fixed near a Route 17 gasoline station has received, at most, another year of life.
Ridgewood zoning board members, at their May 12 meeting, granted AT&T’s request to extend the terms of a previous resolution permitting the installation and operation of a temporary cell tower on wheels (COW) at the Exxon Mobil facility along the state highway. The resolution, which was given a five-month extension in January, now expires May 31, 2016.
Prior testimony by AT&T representatives claimed the need for a cellular facility in that location to offer seamless coverage of newer technology, namely 4G and LTE networks, as required by the Federal Communications Commission. In its current state, the firm’s adjacent 120-foot tall permanent monopole cannot accommodate equipment needed to provide the mandated coverage, thus the installation of the COW.
AT&T, operating under its Cingular Wireless brand, filed an application earlier this year seeking zoning board permission to begin monopole upgrades, which would include the replacement of three antennas and the installation of three new ones. Judy Fairweather, attorney for AT&T, noted in January that the COW would be in place while the company and Board of Adjustment reviewed the merits of the monopole improvements.
MAY 18, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, MAY 18, 2015, 10:55 AM
BY DARIUS AMOS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The public hearing on Verizon Wireless’ application to install cellular communications equipment atop the cross at West Side Presbyterian Church will reopen in June, a decision that comes more than a month after the hearing was closed.
A request to return to a public hearing was made at a May 12 Board of Adjustment meeting by Verizon’s attorney, Warren Stilwell, who informed board members he “needed to notice a request of a prior condition.”
“We became aware of a prior resolution of the board that contained a condition that essentially didn’t allow renting the premise to outside entities,” said Stilwell.
The board had previously adopted a resolution for a prior church application that, among other conditions, prohibited it from renting space to others, such as telecom companies, zoning board secretary Tony Merlino told The Ridgewood News.
Merlino said Verizon officials discovered the resolution on Monday.
As a result, Verizon is required to re-advertise its application to include the existing restrictions placed on the church.
Verizon is seeking a use variance, minor site plan approval and other waivers from the zoning board for its project at the church, which calls for the installation of a cellular antenna with stealth screening, which measure roughly 2-feet wide.
If built, the antenna would bring the total church building height to 68.5 feet where 30 feet is allowed by Ridgewood zoning laws. Currently, the building stands at 65.5 feet when measured to the top of the cross.
A use variance is needed for the antenna, which is not permitted in the residentially-zoned church.
Neighbors of Ridgewood church view cell phone antenna as ‘burden’
MARCH 27, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY DARIUS AMOS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The Ridgewood Board of Adjustment is expected to begin deliberations March 31 on a telecommunication company’s request to mount a cellular antenna atop the cross at West Side Presbyterian Church.
Just before the midnight hour on Tuesday, board members were tasked by their attorney to weigh the pros and cons of a 3-foot-high antenna for the general public as well as the residential neighborhood surrounding the church.
For several months dating back to last summer, Verizon Wireless has ushered in experts to support its zoning board application, which calls for the installation of the antenna as well as stealth screening that measures roughly 2-feet wide. The company is seeking a use variance for the antenna, which is not permitted in a residential zone.
Verizon’s legal team and its radio frequency consultant maintain that an antenna, dubbed a micro site, would improve cellular data coverage in a location where a gap currently exists. Being one of the tallest landmarks in the area, the church cross is considered by Verizon as the most viable site for its equipment.
JANUARY 20, 2015 LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2015, 9:08 AM
BY DARIUS AMOS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
A group of residents was at odds with the planner retained by a telecommunications firm hoping to build a cellular antenna atop the cross at West Side Presbyterian Church.
According to James Kyle, a planner for Verizon Wireless, the inherent benefits of a properly placed and concealed antenna at that location would outweigh the detriments, which, during a Jan. 13 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, he said the company has “gone to great lengths to minimize.”
Verizon is seeking a use and height variance from the zoning board to build what representatives are calling a 2-foot tall “micro site” antenna at the top of the cross. The proposed equipment would help alleviate a significant gap in coverage north of West Ridgewood Avenue.
The antenna, which is not allowed in a residential zone, would bring the total building height to 68.5 feet where 30 feet is permitted by zoning regulations. Currently, the building stands at 65.5 feet when measured to the top of the cross.
“None of what we’re doing impacts the existing conditions,” Kyle said. He added that Verizon believes constructing smaller antennas on existing tall structures is “the new solution” and alternative to large, obtrusive monopoles.
On judge’s order, Paramus board selects site for cell tower
JULY 7, 2014 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, JULY 7, 2014, 3:51 PM BY KAREN KLEIMANN MANAGING EDITOR TOWN NEWS
After a decade of fighting the installation, the Paramus Zoning Board of Adjustment reluctantly chose a location for a cell phone tower.
A judge recently ruled against the board in a lawsuit filed by Sprint and T-Mobile after their application was denied by the zoning board.
At a June 26 meeting, the zoning board heard additional testimony from the applicant and then opened the meeting to the public on comments and questions.
All zoning board members except for Walter Vavosa voted in favor of the Church of Nazarene site.
“We have an obligation to choose a site,” Zoning Board Chairman James Huffman said. “We denied this application because we didn’t like it, but we were told by the judge that we have to choose a site.”
About a decade ago, Sprint and T-Mobile filed a joint application before the zoning board to bring a cell tower into the borough in one of two sites on East Midland Avenue, the Church of Nazarene or the Ambulance Corps building.
The applicants proposed building a monopole, a tower that had antenna branches stretching out from the pole and resembles a tree. Ultimately the board denied the application, stating among several reasons that the benefits did not outweigh the detriments to the community.
JUNE 6, 2014 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2014, 12:31 AM BY LAURA HERZOG STAFF WRITER objections of a group of residents, the Ridgewood Zoning Board of Adjustment approved AT&T’s application to place a temporary cell tower at the Exxon Mobil station site on Route 17 in Ridgewood.
The removal date of the temporary tower, which will sit on a trailer, is Dec. 31, 2014, according to Zoning Officer Tony Merlino.
“This removal date was a condition of the approval, along with fencing/screening requirements,” Merlino noted in an email to The Ridgewood News.
At least 18 residents opposing the project were present at the meeting, according to Merlino.
Resident Diane Haderthauer, who lives near the tower and helped alert her neighbors to the issue, said she and other residents are concerned about what will happen after the temporary tower is removed. At that point, AT&T has said it plans to take steps to upgrade a permanent 120-foot tower that is already located nearby on Franklin Turnpike. This tower currently looks like a flagpole.
Haderthauer said the concern of the residents is “if they do remove this temporary struc-ture, how will that affect the flagpole?”
Ridgewood board begins hearings on proposed cell phone tower
APRIL 28, 2014 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2014, 12:34 AM BY BY LAURA HERZOG STAFF WRITER
A land-use attorney and radio frequency engineer for AT&T defended an application to place a temporary 75-foot cell tower behind the Exxon Mobil station at 490 Route 17, explaining that it is a short-term measure to ensure reliable service.
The company is designing needed modifications to the permanent 120-foot cell tower already located nearby.
Six concerned Ridgewood residents, who live near the permanent flagpole-type cell tower, attended the Ridgewood Zoning Board hearing on Tuesday night, where a civil engineer for AT&T was also present.
The proposed temporary equipment, which will sit on a trailer with wheels, requires a use variance and various bulk variances, such as side and rear yard setbacks, according to Bruce Whitaker, the attorney for the zoning board. AT&T is also requesting waivers from site plan and design standard requirements found in the village’s zoning code.
A temporary tower at the site has been the subject of some contention for several months.
Hearing date set for proposed cell tower in Ridgewood
APRIL 11, 2014 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 2014, 12:31 AM
BY LAURA HERZOG
STAFF WRITER
The Zoning Board of Adjustment will discuss at its next meeting AT&T’s application to reinstall a temporary cell tower at the Route 17 Exxon Mobil station.
AT&T is hoping to reinstall a temporary cell phone tower that was removed in February.
The meeting is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22.
According to the zoning board’s attorney, Bruce Whitaker, “the first half” of the meeting will be devoted to the application, and AT&T will be bring a radio frequency engineer, a civil engineer and a planner to testify.
The temporary equipment requires a use variance, and various bulk variances, such as side and rear yard setbacks. AT&T is requesting waivers from site plan and design standard requirements found in the Village Code, according to the agenda for the board’s April 8 meeting. The board had planned to discuss the tower application at the end of Tuesday’s meeting, but officials decided at 10 p.m. that the meeting was running too long.
Despite the variances required for the placement of a temporary cell tower in Ridgewood, an unapproved 100-foot temporary AT&T cell tower previously sat for months at the same Exxon Mobil location.
Not only was the roughly 100-foot tower placed there without approval, but no one on the zoning board, the approval entity for cell towers, was aware of it until last week.
Reader Suggests Locating a Town Garage at the Schedler Property
Not sure if we really need a third firehouse to handle the half a dozen fires we have in town each year but if we combined it with a police station to handle the increase in the size of the police force it might be cost effective. If the police were stationed there it would also stop the spike in crime.
A town garage would be a perfect use for that property. With the easy on/off access from Rt. 17 the Village could move all of its trucks, loaders, and equipment over there. Sanitation could move all of their garbage trucks over there as well as the recycling that is currently behind the fire house. There would be plenty of room for storage of sand and salt and I would bet there is even room for the mulching unit that property is so big. The Village could explore a joint usage agreement with the BOE who could store all of their trucks, mowers, tractors, and plows there as well and get that stuff out from behind BF where it takes up a lot of parking spaces and looks like hell. With the property completely fenced in with 10 foot high privacy fencing and a police substation, crime would not be a problem. It would also be a natural spot for the cell tower that is currently across Rt. 17 and is causing so much consternation. I think the cell tower would be a revenue generator as well.
With the recycling moved from behind the firehouse that land could be allowed to return to its natural state and Village’s net open space remains the same. The brook that carries the treated sewage water from Waldwick will then be able to flood and not damage any Village vehicles.
Thankfully the Village Council has not accepted the Village Engineering Dept’s plan for a multi-use park that contains an athletic field that might have been used a couple of hours a day. Although many residents could have used such a facility, by using the property for a multi-use Municipal Garage, Firehouse, Police Substation, Recycling Center, and Storage area everyone in town will benefit from a reduction in taxes as well as the revenue from the cell tower. Brilliant!
I would recommend that the plans for such a facility be drawn up as quickly as possible. Once the snow and ice are gone construction could begin as early as this spring and the site could be fully functioning by late fall.
CELL TOWER UPDATE: A review of Village Council meeting minutes dating back to 2008 may provide the answer as to why the mobile AT&T tower was brought in.
What the meeting minutes reveal is that for years, several cell phone carriers have attempted to construct a new monopole style tower on property owned by the State of NJ on Franklin Turnpike. However, indications are that Village officials objected to this location because of the State’s unwillingness to share site rental revenue with the Village. Instead, several Village owned properties in the Route 17 corridor were offered as alternatives to the State of NJ owned property. Unfortunately for the Village, there were insurmountable technical issues with each of the alternative sites.
The State’s policy has been to reject construction of cell towers on their properties when objections are made by local government officials, So, due to the objection voiced by Ridgewood officials, a new cell tower can’t be built at the NJDOT facility on Franklin Turnpike (which seems to be the only location that offers the requisite ground space, and meets all technical parameters). Thus, the current holding pattern – and unusual risk taken by AT&T to keep their system functioning (the existing AT&T shared use tower in the construction company’s yard is unable to support equipment required for 4G service).
It is believed that construction of a new tower on State owned property would result in removal of the existing tower at the construction company yard. The Village would get property tax revenue despite the tower being built on State owned property (most likely more tax revenue – the new structure would be larger).
However, the Village would not get any of the site rental revenue, and that’s what this seems to all boil down to; we want our cake, and we want to eat it to. Why do Village officials feel the State of NJ should share site rental revenue with them? Would they expect the same of any property owner? Then why the State?
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_riaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 165
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_inhaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 166
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_mastodonIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 177