Hearing before Zoning Board of Appeals likely

delayed until 10 December. 

I stopped at the Planning Office on Wednesday, 10/28 to review the contents of the MetroPCS application for variance file. 

I was informed that MetroPCS has (temporarily) withdrawn their application. Good news, right?  The answer is "yes" and "no." 

They withdrew this application, but they intend to reapply in time for the December 10, 2009 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).  If I had to guess, I would say that they recognized that their application was poorly written, and that it lacked much of the needed supporting documentation.

As an aside, I have to admit that I am pretty surprised that a large company, involved in the business of acquiring tower-sites, could have been so poorly prepared in this instance.  They had no problem obtaining a Temporary use permit in the City of Portage for their temporary wireless tower in August of 2009.  That application, and the materials which supported it(all available on the City of Portage municipal web site)  was well written, clear and complete.  The same is true of the materials related to their May 2009 variance request with the Kalamazoo ZBA.   

Did they think that the ZBA would ignore the ordinance, or the stringent requirments to obtain a use variance? 

If they are able to produce the needed documentation before November 12, then they will likely reapply for a hearing at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on 10 December.  

We are dismayed by the fact that MetroPCS has twice delayed the public hearing of this issue.  At the same time, we're committed to making the most of the additional time available.

The planning office will maintain an active file relative to the proposed tower.  They will continue to receive and catalog letters and petition signatures.  If you haven't written to the ZBA to express your opposition, the time has never been better.

In writing to the ZBA member, remember that these are good folks, (civic-minded volunteers in fact) who are knowledgeable of the zoning ordinance, and committing to upholding it.   Their role is to interpret the law as it relates to this application.  Your interest and feedback helps them to guage the potential impact to our neighborhood.

Even though MetroPCS has withdrawn their application, their intent has not changed.  They will submit a new application, most likely on or before 12 November.  If and when they resubmit, we must be prepared to voice our opposition.

In the meantime, please continue to share your feedback.   In the last week, I have heard from several people who state that they have been spreading the word to friends and neighbors who were unaware of this important issue.

Please continue to get the word out.
Please write or email the member of the ZBA. 
Please remain vigilant. 
Please plan to attend the ZBA meeting on 10 December.

We will do our best to keep you posted!
 
 
MetroPCS is making waves in Grand Rapids too!

It seems they are interested in bolting antenna on the outside of several prominent church steeples in the Grand Rapids area.

There is a great article in the Grand Rapids Press.  Cick here to read it. 

Among other things, the article points out the fact that MetroPCS is committed to a cheaper antenna technology that requires twice as many antennas as other providers.

I want to re-emphasize the importance of innovation.  If cities didnt require phone companies to install their phone lines in an orderly fashion, cell phones may never have been invented!

Mr. Harger's article also includes a link to a very interesting site:  www.antennasearch.com.  Using the site, he found a total of "570 antennas sending and receiving signals for cell phones, radios and pagers within a 4-mile radius of [Grand Rapids] City Hall."   

I wonder how many antennas there are within a 4 mile radius of the Kalamazoo Country Club?

 
 
This is my home.  It's in a good neighborhood, and I get along with the folks who live near me; my neighbors.

Sometimes neighbors forget themselves.

I had a neighbor once who used to let his dog "do his business" in my yard.  Don't get me wrong, this was a good neighbor.  We would talk, and say hello when we saw each other.  We'd usually exchange a bottle of wine or a tray of cookies at Christmas, or stand at the fence and talk.

We also talked (several times) about his dog's odious contributions to my lawn.  The first talk was apologetic and full of promises.  The second talk was tense for both of us.  He must have seen the look on my face the third time, because he turned around and went back into his house.

I was shocked, and feared that I had pushed this issue to the point where a dog-turd would end our relationship.  A minute passed slowly as I picked up a few sticks.  Then, without further ado, my good neighbor came back out of the house.  He had a smile on his face and a bag in his hand.  He took care of that little mess because (I think) he understood the symbolic importance of his act.

The Kalamazoo Country Club is a good neighbor.  They take great care of their lawn.  They are generally quiet.  Likewise, I have tried to be a good neighbor to them.  Here is the problem; they got a new dog named MetroPCS.

Their dog isn't going to come into my yard.  Rather, it is going to drop a 170-foot tall, energy-emitting turd in prominent view of my home. Humor aside, a 170' tower will be visible from many homes, and become part of the skyline around many more.  It will add the appearance of a manufacturing district to our residential neighborhood.  It cannot help but to depress property-values that are only now coming back from a dangerous depression.

I hope my neighbor will recognize their un-intended imposition on our neighborhood before their actions become irreversible.  If not, I am confident that the Zoning Board of Appeals will uphold the letter and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance.