Ramsey Zoning Board of Adjustment Report

An update of past and current events, 5/20/03:
 
As of my last written report the following matters and applications were before the board:
 
Applications Heard
 
1. St. Barsawmo Church– This involved the proposed construction of a church facility to the rear of the Macaroni Grille on the south side of Airmount Avenue where variances were being requested for height and for the number of parking spaces. In addition to the church, there was to be classroom and multi-purpose space to be attached to or, placed on the lower level. The project was ultimately scaled back to being essentially a church structure, which required the height variance while the parking requirement was reduced and again, a variance was provided. 
 
2. Ramsey Ivy Properties, LLC–This is the building at the former Ramsey Grain and Feed Site. It involved a variance to allow retail use where only office use was permitted, and originally where the office use was permitted by a variance. The applicant claimed hardship in that after two years of marketing the building as an office, they have been unable to lease any space with one exception. That exception is a doctor who is now operating an emergency medical care center out of the building. Questions by the board members generally pertained to the management and marketing of the property. Responses by the applicants were for most part, rehearsed, but inadequate, less than valid, unsupported and not documented. At the last meeting for this applicant, more pointed questions and comments came from both the board and neighboring residents. The applicants then asked for a recess until the next meeting. A private session was then held prior to the next meeting. Shortly thereafter, the application for the use variance was withdrawn. The private session that was held had to do with a prior application that was made for a “Curves” fitness tenant. This application came before the board last July when the board was asked to decide whether this fitness tenant could be defined as being a retail or, non-retail tenant. At that time I questioned that the definition that should have been asked of the board was, “does curves reflect an office use or, a non-office use. At this point, and to the best of my knowledge, the “Curves” tenancy has been approved. The application for the variance for retail uses on the building was withdrawn. Whether or not this was a trade-off in the withdrawal of their use variance, I couldn’t say, however; I would be willing to bet the “proverbial ranch”, that the applicants will return once again within the next twelve months for the retail variance. 
 
3. U-Haul of Northern New Jersey– This is the former Guilio’s Restaurant and now a “Paint Ball” operation. The applicant was applying for a variance to permit the rental of U-Hauls at the site. The application was withdrawn and the building is currently for sale.
 
4.  Sprint Spectrum– This application was for the placement of two antennae on the roof of the office building situated at 500 North Franklin Turnpike. The request was for a height variance with the antennae to assist in better coverage. The application was approved.
 
5. David Daniel & Jeffrey Bell– This was an application for the development of a car wash with the proposed site being situated across from the Franklin Turnpike entrance to the Interstate Shopping Center and abutting the southbound entrance to Route 17 from the northbound side of Franklin Turnpike. This was a somewhat lengthy proceeding and the second time that the applicants have appeared beforethe board in the past three and half years. Their first application included an oil change facility in addition to the car wash while the second application was solely for a car wash. As was the case with the first application, this second one was denied based primarily on traffic and traffic safety concerns.
 
6. An application by AT&T Wireless for the placement of antennae and ancillary equipment on the roof of the Valley National Bank building at the corner of Franklin Turnpike and Lake Street requiring a variance was approved. AT&T was adding antennae in this case for capacity improvement.   
 
Applications Pending:
 
1. Omnipoint Communications has an application for a variance for the expansion of a non-conforming use for the upgrading of existing wireless communication facilities in addition to a height variance at 10 South Franklin Turnpike (Valley National Building). The upgrade is for the purpose of expanding capacity. This was postponed until the May meeting.
 
2. Omnipoint Communications has an application for a variance for the expansion of a non-conforming use for the upgrading of existing wireless communication facilities in addition to a height variance at 500 North Franklin Turnpike. Four additional antennas will be added for a total of eight and one additional equipment cabinet. The reason again is for increased capacity. The applicant’s experts in this case presented a number of graphs explaining their need to gain more capacity, however; no one on the board could interpret the graphs nor could the expert adequately explain them. They have been asked to return with a presentation more specific to a layman’s understanding.
 
 
General Comments
 
Since the beginning of the year, the Board of Adjustment seems to have taken a more assertive attitude in their interaction with applicants. This attitude is seen more with commercial applicants and is not generally the case with residents who are merely looking for some setback or side yard relief unless, they may infringe on neighbors. A case in point was with the Mt. Ivy application (the Ramsey Grain & Feed site), where it was obvious at the second or third meeting on the matter, a number of board members did some personal investigating into the applicant’s claim of hardship. Some of the board members came to the meeting with market rents and market vacancies, which countered the claims and figures by the applicant. Others questioned the applicants on their marketing ability and if indeed, they had truly tried to market the property as office space. In the most recent meeting with the Omnipoint application, the board members seemed to be concerned with more telecommunication’s apparatus appearing on building rooftops. They were at the very lease, not impressed with or swayed by the testimony given by the applicant. The multitude of color graphics and the associated highly technical vocabulary used by the expert witnesses did not satisfy the questions put forth by the board. The witnesses could not provide any hard numbers relative to the number of phones in use and how the numbers would relate to an antenna’s capacity. The board then asked for a presentation that could be easily interpreted both by the board members and for those residents in the audience.
 
With regard to these telecommunications applications, there seems to have been a significant number of them over the past ten months. Omnipoint, AT&T and Nextel have all received either new sites or additions to there existing sites at the Valley National Bank building where Voice Stream also has a site while Sprint was approved at 500 Franklin Turnpike where Omni also has a site and desires to expand it. These sites would only represent those that required a variance and not those that go directly to, and may have been approved by the planning board. Since Secor’s has been plowed under, I would be sure that there are more antennae in the area than there is corn growing. The applications that I have seen generally deal with the need for coverage and the need for capacity. It is usually one or the other, never both. There appears to be a pattern with the applicants. They first come for the coverage, get one or two antennas approved, and then return claiming that they need more capacity. Why when applying for coverage would they not know what capacity is needed? Driving out to the east end of Long Island a few weeks ago, a building along the LIE jumped out at me as being quite odd looking. Upon a second glance it appeared as a king or queen’s crown with antennae being located every eight feet or so around its entire parapet. It looked hideous. I know there are instances when the wireless companies can share antennas, but when any of the experts are faced with this question at any of the meetings, the answer is always the same, “we are not compatible to XYZ Company”. With every two or four antennas there is a power cabinet installed for their operation. I have heard weight estimates of from two to four thousand pounds for each of these cabinets. Is the weight load of these cabinets being placed on the roof being considered and/or accounted for? Please forgive me with this one but, we have a member I believe who’s name is Judy. She stated that health issues are not a factor in the approval process for these towers and antennas, and I have heard some confirmation of that. Yet I believe Upper Saddle River was successful in having one moved or placed at another site as it was too close to their school buildings. I heard a resident at one of our meetings who made reference to the health issue and the comment has stuck with me since. Simply put, she stated to the board that fifty years ago we thought cigarette smoking was safe, and fifty years ago we knew radiation was bad. Aesthetics, weight load, safety and health along with the small possibility of greed by the companies (not sharing antennae) may be areas to be addressed and at the very least, be educated on. I would welcome any comments, opinions or insight on the telecommunications operations. 
 
As a subsequent note, an article appeared in The Record prior to my completing this report with regard to aforementioned antenna in Upper Saddle River. Construction is about to commence on the 155 foot high structure that will be built on borough owned land. The borough is leasing the land to the USR Fire Department, which will collect the rent from the antenna users, namely, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile (a/k/a Omni, I believe). The reported income to be generated is $5,000 to $6,000 per month. Maybe Ramsey could lease some space on top of a parking garage, put up an antenna and lease it to these phone companies who are so attracted to our town. Does anyone know of any four or five story parking garages in Ramsey?               
 
--Paul Schulze