Cranford Zoning Board approves settlement allowing 143‑foot ‘‘monopine’’ at Union County College

The Cranford Township Zoning Board of Adjustment voted on Dec. 9, 2024, to approve a settlement that clears the way for a 143‑foot wireless communications tower designed as a faux evergreen “monopine” on Union County College property, resolving litigation that began after the board denied the original application in 2021.

The settlement—filed in federal court and summarized to the board at a Whispering Woods hearing—reflects additional technical evidence introduced in litigation and a change in legal standards after the Third Circuit’s Selco Partnership v. White Deer Township decision. Applicants’ counsel Greg Mies told the board the court could find the township’s prior denial inconsistent with federal law and that the parties reached a settlement "in the public interest" following that legal shift.

Why it matters: The settlement grants the carriers variances from local separation rules to place the compound in a wooded area of the college campus. The nearest residential unit will be 362 feet 10 inches from the proposed monopine; Cranford code requires 429 feet, so the settlement includes a variance of about 66 feet 2 inches. Residents told the board they feared visual impact, tree loss and reduced property values; the applicants said technical testimony and field studies supported the alternate location and visual mitigation measures.

What the board heard: Architect and witness Frank Colicero described the approved plan (referred to as Option 2) and said the facility is designed to be unmanned, monitored 24/7, and visited for routine maintenance roughly every 4–6 weeks. He described the monopine height and compound layout and confirmed carriers would each require about 200‑amp electrical service and communications fiber or telephone service. Colicero said the alternate compound location allowed the top of the tower to be lowered by about 5 feet from an earlier site and that the submitted plans show the equipment and setbacks.

The public pressed the applicants on trees and visibility. Resident Deborah Cush asked how many trees would be removed; the architect answered that about 32 trees are shown for removal on Exhibit EX‑3B. Residents raised stormwater and flood‑risk concerns; the applicants provided a stormwater drainage report and said the gravel‑and‑fabric compound treatment should improve infiltration compared with existing conditions.

Conditions imposed: During deliberations the board extracted three conditions from the parties before voting: use of an 8‑foot solid wood/composite perimeter fence (rather than chain link with plastic privacy slats) with a maintenance requirement, preference for the monopine design (the record-based aesthetic choice) rather than a painted monopole, and that any supplemental plantings required for off‑site visibility be reviewed by the township’s Shade Tree Commission for species and suitability. Counsel also noted the settlement permits up to six municipal emergency‑services antennas and related equipment in a roughly 10‑by‑10 equipment area inside the compound.

Legal and procedural context: The application had been denied on March 22, 2021, and that denial was memorialized in a May 10, 2021 resolution. Federal litigation followed; counsel said new RF and planning evidence was submitted during that litigation and that the Selco Partnership v. White Deer Township decision changed the governing standard of review to whether local action “materially inhibits” wireless services. The parties told the board a federal judge approved the settlement earlier the same day.

Vote and next steps: The chair moved to approve the settlement with the stated conditions; a motion was seconded and the board approved the settlement by roll call (several affirmative votes and at least one recorded no vote). The applicants agreed to extend the deadline to file and consider the memorializing resolution to the board’s Jan. 13, 2025 meeting. The settlement requires carriers to maintain the facility and permits the township to enforce maintenance obligations under the agreement.

Residents’ objections and officials’ response: Several neighboring residents said they felt the township "gave up" and that they had not been adequately apprised of the variances negotiated in the settlement. Greg Mies and board counsel responded that the township was represented in litigation and that, because of the changed legal standard and the risk of losing in court, settlement was the reasonable course. The board repeatedly noted public frustration and recorded those objections in the hearing record.

What remains open: The board will memorialize its approval in a resolution (extended to Jan. 13, 2025) and the parties will next complete any required permits (including a NEPA screening and a freshwater‑wetlands general permit if needed) and structural calculations for the construction office. Any off‑site visibility discovered during construction will prompt additional perimeter landscaping as agreed in the settlement.

— Excerpts of key testimony and public comment are in the official hearing record and the settlement attachment (Exhibit EX‑3A/EX‑3B).