Bayonne, Nextel to start talks on antenna law

Bayonne, Nextel to start talks on antenna law
Mediator will try to forge agreement on appropriate sites

By Michaelangelo Conte
Jersey Journal Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

Bayonne, New Jersey USA (Hudson County)


Bayonne and a wireless communications firm are scheduled to sit down
tomorrow with a mediator to work out their differences over an antenna
ordinance aimed at keeping more cell phone towers from popping up in
residential parts of the Peninsula City.

Nextel Communications, which filed a lawsuit last year challenging the
constitutionality of the ordinance, is trying to build a new cell
phone tower on top of a building at Kennedy Boulevard and 34th Street.

Councilman-at-large Tony Chiappone said Nextel Communications is
trying to tell Bayonne what the city should look like.

"Essentially, this is an ordinance which telecommunication companies
fear because, I believe, they are concerned other municipalities will
adopt and enforce similar ordinances," Chiappone said yesterday.

"We as a municipality feel we have a right to regulate the placement
of cellular antennas as it applies to building codes and municipal
ordinances."

Chiappone and former Councilman Nicholas Capodice co-chaired the
Bayonne Antenna Committee that drew up the antenna ordinance, which
was approved unanimously by the City Council in May 2001.

The ordinance was spurred by the stiff opposition residents displayed
to a number of wireless communication company applications to erect
antennas in residential areas of Bayonne.

Last year, Nextel filed a lawsuit in Hudson County Superior Court
appealing the Bayonne Zoning Board of Adjustment's denial of its
application to erect wireless antennas on a building on Kennedy
Boulevard near 34th Street.

Nextel then also filed an action challenging the constitutionality of
the city's antenna ordinance itself.

But earlier this year, Superior Court Judges Maurice Gallipolli
ordered Nextel and the city to engage in mediation to resolve the
issue, and Nextel agreed to withdraw its appeal, while reserving the
right to reinstate it if mediation does not resolve the matter,
Bayonne Board of Adjustment Counsel Richard N. Campisano said.

Nextel is opposed to the antenna ordinance's system of "preferred
sites" governing the placement of antennas in the city. The ordinance
lists a number of areas preferred for antenna placement, ranging from
industrial areas, which are most preferred, down to the residential
areas, the least preferred.

Under the ordinance, an applicant must make a case before the Board of
Adjustment showing that it is not feasible or effective to erect its
antennas in a preferred area. Only then would the company be able to
install its antennas at a less preferred site.

Nextel also opposes the fee instituted by the ordinance, and the
requirement that wireless companies register their antenna sites with
the city.

A municipality's right to regulate wireless antenna sites is limited
because of federal laws regulating the wireless industry through the
federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.

"Basically, Congress has deemed this kind of communication (wireless)
to be in the best interest of citizens, and said that federal
regulations supersede all other jurisdictions," Campisano said.

But Bayonne officials also say it is necessary to enforce code
requirements as well as regulate the location of cellular antennas for
the safety and protection of the residents, and city officials believe
they have a right to do so.

Campisano said that at tomorrow's mediation hearing, representatives
of the city and Nextel will "discuss the ordinance and see if there is
any common ground to work our way though our differences.

"Mediation is designed to allow us to work through the problem in good
faith. If we can't, Nextel will reinstate its lawsuit."

Kearny, Harrison and East Newark have also passed ordinances intended
to force wireless companies to look to industrial zones before
residential areas as sites for new antennas.

Wireless companies have also met public opposition in [nearby towns]
Jersey City and West New York.

Nextel's attorney, Gregory J. Czura, referred questions to Nextel
spokeswoman Diane Rainey, who couldn't be reached yesterday.



http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/inde...8307223491.xml

---

› See More: Bayonne, Nextel to start talks on antenna law

"The Magnificent Bastard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bayonne, Nextel to start talks on antenna law
> Mediator will try to forge agreement on appropriate sites
>
> By Michaelangelo Conte
> Jersey Journal Staff Writer
> Tuesday, August 12, 2003
>
> Bayonne, New Jersey USA (Hudson County)

On a somewhat related, but not really note:

Here in Grand Rapids, MI a lot of cell phone companys
are installing towers on the top of water towers. Makes
sense to me, the structure is already there in the skyline,
so might as well add the communication equip to it.

An interesting side effect, for me personally this has
been both a good thing and a bad thing.

The good thing is that I got a really nice brick wall in my
backyard now instead of a chain link fence. See, we live
right next to a water tower. When a cell company (in this
case Nextel interstingly enough) wants to add atennea to
a tower, they also need to add lots of electrical equipment
on the ground. The city has started mandating that when
they do this, they need to build a wall around these areas
so that the area doesn't become an eye sore for the residential
areas. End result: I get a great looking wall for a stretch of
my backyard. Looks wonderingful and I get more privacy.

The bad thing is that there see to be a LOT of interference
in my house with wireless systems. I had tried two different
2.4 GHz cordless phones before I gave up and switched
back to a 900 MHz. Our baby monitor will chirp and hiss
occasionally as well. Also, my Nextel phone gets REALLY
spotty connections. Someplaces its great, walk two feet
and the connection drops to zero. Odd. Makes me think
that I better try to setup a wired network in my house rather
than a wireless when I get around to do that.

Chris

"All the News" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
>=20
> "The Magnificent Bastard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Bayonne, Nextel to start talks on antenna law
> > Mediator will try to forge agreement on appropriate sites
> >
> > By Michaelangelo Conte
> > Jersey Journal Staff Writer
> > Tuesday, August 12, 2003
> >
> > Bayonne, New Jersey USA (Hudson County)
>=20
> On a somewhat related, but not really note:
>=20
> Here in Grand Rapids, MI a lot of cell phone companys
> are installing towers on the top of water towers. Makes
> sense to me, the structure is already there in the skyline,
> so might as well add the communication equip to it.
>=20
> An interesting side effect, for me personally this has
> been both a good thing and a bad thing.
>=20
> The good thing is that I got a really nice brick wall in my
> backyard now instead of a chain link fence. See, we live
> right next to a water tower. When a cell company (in this
> case Nextel interstingly enough) wants to add atennea to
> a tower, they also need to add lots of electrical equipment
> on the ground. The city has started mandating that when
> they do this, they need to build a wall around these areas
> so that the area doesn't become an eye sore for the residential
> areas. End result: I get a great looking wall for a stretch of
> my backyard. Looks wonderingful and I get more privacy.

Interesting.

> The bad thing is that there see to be a LOT of interference
> in my house with wireless systems. I had tried two different
> 2.4 GHz cordless phones before I gave up and switched
> back to a 900 MHz. Our baby monitor will chirp and hiss
> occasionally as well. Also, my Nextel phone gets REALLY
> spotty connections. Someplaces its great, walk two feet
> and the connection drops to zero. Odd. Makes me think
> that I better try to setup a wired network in my house rather
> than a wireless when I get around to do that.

What does that have to do with cell towers?

>> The bad thing is that there see to be a LOT of interference
>> in my house with wireless systems. I had tried two different
>> 2.4 GHz cordless phones before I gave up and switched
>> back to a 900 MHz. Our baby monitor will chirp and hiss
>> occasionally as well. Also, my Nextel phone gets REALLY
>> spotty connections. Someplaces its great, walk two feet
>> and the connection drops to zero. Odd. Makes me think
>> that I better try to setup a wired network in my house rather
>> than a wireless when I get around to do that.

> What does that have to do with cell towers?

Well, it's pure speculation on my part, but I fear that due
to the close proximity of my house to the source of the
signals from the towers, they may interfere with the
signals from a wireless network.

I know that technically speaking everything should be in
their own discreate band width and shouldn't interfere,
but I don't know how else to explain that two different
2.4 Ghz (from two different manufatures) received constant
interference in my house.

Chris