The Downers Grove Plan Commission voted unanimously to recommend against allowing cell phone towers in Gilbert and Hummer parks.
The commission said T-Mobile did not meet standards for a special use permit for the towers. Commissioners felt the towers would be more appropriately situated in industrial areas. However, locating in those areas would require a variance, which could pose an additional hardship to T-Mobile.
Some 25 residents addressed the commission, expressing their concerns about cell tower emissions, impact on recreational activities, and the advisability of using public parks for commercial purposes.
Plan Commission members took a deliberate approach to the issue, asking many questions and listening to resident comments despite the late hour. The meeting didn’t conclude until midnight.
The T-Mobile proposal, which was approved by the Downers Grove Park District last summer, would have brought cell towers to local parks for the first time. Towers currently are situated at Village Hall, on Ogden Avenue and on various water towers around town.
T-Mobile may pursue the issue with the Village Council next month. However, I’m told it would be unusual for the council to overturn a unanimous recommendation by the Plan Commission.
Elaine,
If you every doubted the impact of your hometown blog, now would be the time to toss those doubts out the [internet] window.
I agree that the blog was a powerful tool for mobilizing this grass roots effort. However I see it as a negative this time around. People chose to believe either sense or nonsense.
It was disheartening to see the Plan commission kowtow to a biased vocal minority. I think it sets a dangerous precedent for the tough decsions that are coming down the pike for the various entities.
The months long analysis by the Park D, with concurrent approval of the plan by Village staff, was disrespectfully kicked to the curb in favor of the NIMBYS, et al, who tossed about emotional arguments not based in science or reason. I hope they all left their addresses so I can request their help in paying for my portion of the increased taxes this partnership would have abated.
Next up? Ban all cell phones in DG and wrap every resident in Reynold’s Wrap to combat electromagnetic waves!
“The T-Mobile proposal, which was approved by the Downers Grove Park District last summer, would have brought cell towers to local parks for the first time.” I don’t think so. The water tower at McCollum Park sits on park land leased on a long term basis to the village for water tower purposes. The village government, apparently without the prior consent of the Park District (and I’m not opining on whether consent was required), subleased (or similarly contracted) to a cell phone company the top of that tower for one or more cell service antenna(e). The Park District has leased land adjacent to that water tower to the cell phone provider for its equipment shed that services the antenna on top of the water tower. So, the Hummer and Gilbert facilities are not the first instance of cell towers in local parks.
So, the Village government is capturing cellular facility revenues using park land and now a commission of the village government proposes that the park district–in the face of a state statute granting express power to the Park District–be denied similar revenues. Very interesting.
Objection apparently was made last night to the diameter of the proposed flag pole at Hummer Park. Odd–no one that I know of objected to the diameter of the water tower at McCollum Park. How do those diameters and their aesthetic impacts compare?
Finally, to my way of thinking as a fiscal conservative, non-tax revenues for a government are preferable to tax revenues, even “fair tax” revenues.
Hmmm, I feel that better communication “up-front” by the DG Park District would have circumvented this issue. Their time as well as the plan commissions time would have been spared. Residents, who would have known and understood the DGPD agendas, could have been vocal enough during park board meetings last year. But to my point and others, the information just isn’t pushed out well enough. DGPD must get creative.
The Plan Commissioners deserve more credit and respect. These volunteers sat through 5 hours of testimony and reports. The Chairman has been on the Plan Commission since at least 1993. He explains to the people that they are looking for facts. Nevertheless, these can be emotional issues. The commissioners patiently listened to residents. The vote was not based upon emotion but the commission clearly felt that opening up property designated for Open Space to private commercial enterprise was inappropriate. Our parks provide an important amenity to our community and the lands were set aside in trust to keep them open space. On the Village Future Land Use Map these areas are designated colored green and designated as Open Space. The Plan Commission gave clear direction to the staff that Open Space was not for commercial development as far as they were concerned.
For everyone’s information, here is how the Agenda for the Park District’ August 16, 2007 televised meeting read:
6(A)(2) “ACTIVE AGENDA”
(a) …
(b) …
(c) Recommendation to Approve T-Mobile Lease Agreements (Gilbert & Hummmer Parks)
Hmmm,
It took five hours for the plan commission to hear the two cases. Their vote was unanimous. Not one of them thought this was a good idea. They did suggest the answer to the cell tower problem may be in the zoning laws. They did not take this lightly, and I think they did a fine job. I don’t think they deserve your bashing.
If you are upset that the DGPD may have to raise taxes, YOU should take that up at a DGPD meeting. Don’t slam the neighbors for not wanting an eyesore in their neighborhood.
Attorney Tom Sisul says concerning parks: “the lands were set aside in trust to keep them open space.”
Illinois law says: “In addition to the other powers and authority now possesed by it, every park district shall have the power to grant licenses, easements, and right of ways to … corporations … for the construction, operation and maintenance of facilites upon, under or across any property of such district for … telephone … or other public service, subject to such terms and conditions as may be determined by the district.†70 ILCS 1205/8-11 (Section 8-11 of the Illinois Park District Code)
“Bashing”???
Beautiful illustration of my point.
Thanks Marge.
Oh,knock it off Art. You are making too much sense.
One has to hope that the Park Board members take this decision in stride and not let it bias them towards future projects/issues in which the Village requires their cooperation.
Greetings, Hmmm.
As just one Park District Commissioner, the outcome won’t “bias” me but I reserve the right, as to my future votes, to insist upon consistency and principled decision-making.
The unelected Plan Commission has no legal authority over the Park District including its elected Board and the Plan Commission’s “decision” is merely a recommendation.
If the Village council were to reject both the recommendation of village staff and the unanimous decision of the Park Board and instead uphold the contrary recommendation last night of the Plan Commission on the basis that parks should be strictly limited to serving narrowly defined park functions (notwithstanding the Park District’s express statutory power to allow utility facilities in parks), then what is the Park Board to make of the Village government’s pending request to the Park Board to allow large portions of Washington Park, McCollum Park and Sterling North Park to become stormwater detention areas?
What principle allows the Village government to collect cell phone revenues from an installation at McCollum Park and to seek permission to use park district property for stormwater detention while denying the park district cell phone revenues from installations at other parks? Hmmm?
Also, if the Village council so acts to uphold the Plan Commission’s recommendation, will the council then act to abrogate the existing agreement with a cell phone company which allows cellular facilities at McCollum Park?
Oh, dear, Mr. Jaros. That sounds awfully close to a threat.
Quid pro quo, indeed!
Art,
Ok, but that dosen’t exempt them from the other laws of the land. This is a special use in our village. That’s what the hearing was about, nothing else. If this was a request from any other RESIDENTIAL owner, in an ALL RESIDENTIAL AREA, to put an 75-110′ tower on their property, it’s likley the result would have been the same.
ZONING ORDINANCE reads:
28.1307. Telecommunications Towers.
(a) Goals and scope. The purpose of this section is to establish general guidelines for the siting of wireless telecommunications towers. Except for exempt telecommunications facilities, and except as otherwise provided herein, all new telecommunications towers shall be subject to these regulations. In furtherance of the goals set forth herein, the Village will give due consideration to the Village’s comprehensive plan, zoning map, existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas in approving sites for the location of telecommunications towers. The goals of this section are to:
(1) protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of telecommunications towers: and,
(2) encourage the location of telecommunications towers in non-residential areas: and,
(3) minimize the total number of telecommunications towers throughout the community:
They’re dead-serious questions from me and me alone that call for principled (not-NIMBYd) answers within a reasonable period of time.
Marge writes: “Don’t slam the neighbors for not wanting an eyesore in their neighborhood.” I don’t know anyone doing that and not wanting a neighborhood eyesore is a valid principle to espouse. Nuisances including visual nuisances (eyesores) are or can be unlawful. What I disagree with is the exercise of judgment that ends up equating a somewhat rotund flagpole with an eyesore. What does that make the water tower at McCollum Park? Will it now have to be removed and relocated at taxpayer expense?
Marge: You are suggesting that a local ordinance of a home rule unit (the village) trumps a state statute (depending on the interpretation of that statute) which confers express power on another unit of local government (the park district). That’s an interesting legal question, the answer to which may just happen to be an open one.
The Plan Commission is recommending that the statutory utility POWER of the Park District be denied by the Village government where the statute says the exercise of that power is “subject to such terms and conditions as may be determined BY THE DISTRICT” but does NOT say “subject to such terms and conditions as may be determined by the district AND THE LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY.”
If you have the answer to that legal question, kindly post it.
I don’t perceive any threats here. Simply an explanation of on what basis’ this decision SHOULD have been made. Reasonable and legal constructs were overuled here in favor of a handful of resident’s apparent Erin Brockovich moment.
Let’s hope the Council is not so short sighted.
The Plan Commission process is well-documented and consistently observed. It is mandated by both Village ordinances and state-wide court decisions. It is a public hearing process, under oath.
To criticize the Plan Commission for taking public input is to miss the whole point of the process. When an exception to zoning is sought by one party, the public is entitled to their voice.
If an exception (in this case a “special use”) had not been required for the Park District to proceed, there would have been no Plan Commission hearing.
Hmmm: I perceived a threat by Mr. Jaros to hold hostage a possible solution to the village’s stormwater problems — problems whose mitigation I assume will cost village residents several times in taxes whatever revenues the Park District would have to forego should the T-Mobile deal be thwarted — over his pique at possible Village Council concurrence in the Plan Commission recommendation. I hope my considerable ignorance of the permission issue Mr. Jaros referenced (which was complete ignorance until Mr. Jaros’s 5:03 p.m. comment), as well as my considerable respect for Mr. Jaros, mean that I am badly mistaken about this.
John, I think you may have overlooked the import of my previous comment. Let’s assume that the Village’s zoning ordinance banned all telephone facilities in all parks and that no special use was available. In the face of a state statute granting express power to a Park District to submit park district property to telephone utility use “subject to such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the District,” do you think the local village zoning ordinance would trump the express power conferred on another unit of local government (the park district) by state statute? If so, why?
It is not logically not the case that “if an exception had not been required for the Park District (really T-Mobile) to proceed, there would have been no Plan Commission hearing.” Why do I say this? Because the Plan Commission hearing could have been held on the belief and assumption that the hearing was required–a belief and assumption that could perhaps be erroneous as a matter of law!
What would be correct to say is that “if an exception had not been required for the Park District (really T-Mobile) to proceed, there would have been no lawful need for a Plan Commission hearing.” But, that’s saying something quite different!
Cliff,
In addition to my previous comment responsive to the earlier suggestion of “threat,” you surely know that as but one of five votes, I have no power to hold anything hostage!
I don’t equate the Plan Commission’s recommendation against allowing cell phones as an indication that taxes will increase. I fully believe that the DGPD would have spent every dollar of that additional revenue and then asked for more from the taxpayers anyway.
And I doubt very much that the Plan Commission’s recommendation signals a final resolution to this issue. Mr. Jaros has already drawn a line in the sand with his not so veiled threat of holding the Village Council hostage relative to the stormwater detention areas that the Council has incorporated to address their favorite issue. If he makes such statements on this very public blog, than one can only wonder what is happening behind the scenes. And make no mistake, the Council will be reluctant to let anything get in the way of the stormwater issue. I can hear the justification coming from the lips of the Council already – after all, we’ve got $340MM just burning a hole in our pocket waiting to spend, whether we need to or not.
So I thank all those that were part of the process last night, and would encourage you to be present with me in even larger more vocal numbers when this issue ends up in front of the council.
This sure is fun isn’t Art?
I know, Art. I’m just not sure you realize how badly that comment might read to some folks. (For the record, as a T-Mobile customer who doesn’t live near the affected parks, I’m neutral on this issue.)
Cliff, Really what I think should read badly is an attempt at encouraging the Village council to deny to the Park Board the exercise of one its express statutory powers!
Ben, you write: “I fully believe that the DGPD would have spent every dollar of that additional revenue and then asked for more from the taxpayers anyway.” The record contradicts your belief. You seem to have not read my previous posting on the earlier thread that plainly shows that the Park Board is already levying at amounts below the levels authorized by the tax cap law. Thus, the Park District is not asking or demanding of our taxpayers the max. Indeed, I would like to continue to ask our taxpayers for only what we truly “need;” not what we are allowed by law to “take.” And the more revenue that comes from non-tax sources, the less that needs to come from taxes. Put on the spectacles, Ben.
Art,
Give it up or you will lose your next election sir. You are diggin’ yourself a hole that even slick Willy Clinton could not get out of.
I would love the village to put as many cell towers as possible on top of water towers. What is your point about the water tower in McCullom Park? Its a water tower. If there was a water tower in Hummer park I am sure we would not object to the cell antenna’s there. So the argument that we have put cell towers in DGPD is kinda false. We put it ontop of a village water tower on DGPD land. SO what, that is where cell towers belong.
Chad, I will continue to speak the truth on as principled as basis and as best I can ascertain it and to explain my reasoning to my fellow residents. I care not one bit about the next election. That is the problem with “politicians.” I am not a “politician” but a volunteer public official striving to do the right and principled thing for our community. Elected officials who take positions and make decisions with their finger in the air as a gauge to the next election, IMHO, do this nation enormous harm. Count me out, Chad.
What is a water tower doing in one of our parks? If you don’t object to a massively rotund water tower in Hummer Park, why then do you object to a rotund flag pole at the same park?
If digging a hole consists of exercising an elected officials’s fiduciary responsibility and substantiating an argument with statutory evidence than dig away. Maybe you’ll unearth the heart of this matter.
I would be interested to hear why some of you have such a low opinion of Village staff and their approval of this request?
I’ve put my spectacles on Art, and re-read your response to me. It doesn’t address my point that you’ve threatened to hold the Village Council hostage on this public blog.
I’ll check again……. nope, no response from you on your threat.
Have a great evening.
Ben, I had already addressed the “hostage” point in responding to others. My response to you was on other points you had made, Ben.
On the “hostage” point, see my posts above from 5:35 and 8:01 p.m.
We also have a fire station at McCullom Park, don’t we?
Maybe, Art, but if the village and park district prove to be at such loggerheads over such a minor project, then my “dead serious” question is whether one of them needs to go. There are, as I recall, statutory provisions for dissolution of park districts through referendum and assumption of their responsibilities by municipalities.
The village staff and the Park District were in complete agreement. The Plan Commission is at complete odds. So, we’ll now see what position the Village councilmen take.
You’re correct–at one time, there was no DG Park District. The people voted it into existence and there are provisions for them to vote it out of existence. That’s the right of our residents and if you’re threatening a dissolution campaign, I frankly don’t care. My compensation as a Park District Commissioner is zero.
But, so long as the Park District exists, it has independent statutory powers and a substantially different mission under the law than the village government and I will not, as but one vote, knowingly permit the lawful powers of our Park District to be usurped. Please remember, too, Cliff, I am not speaking for the Park District or for my fellow Commissioners.
At this time Mr. Jaros I would let it go here. I am sure as a board member you have faced various town hand wringers who will never be pleased.
“The park is poorly lit!”
“The park lights are too bright.”
“We need a sidewalk near the park.”
“The sidewalk is too close to my house!”
“Cell coverage in this town stinks…”
You get my drift.
It is futile to try and educate this crowd further. I would focus my efforts on the Council members before the semi-professional victims besiege them.
I’m not threatening anything, Art, or at least no more than you’re threatening to hold stormwater detention hostage. Regardless, I definitely have no plans to lead a campaign for anything except that needed to find somebody to succeed me as Fairmount PTA treasurer. Again, I’m just not sure you realize, politically, how bad this looks, although I suppose it doesn’t matter if you really don’t care. I hadn’t had an opinion at all on this but now wonder if the park district is out of control. A harsh and almost certainly unwarranted bit of speculation, I admit, and maybe one I shouldn’t offer given how little you say you care, but there you have it . . .
Good advice, CTT. I’m “outta here” in favor of watching late primary election returns!
In retrospect I apologize for my snarky comments. Everyone deserves to be able to air their gripe. But it doesn’t mean they should be given credence.
Tax season always makes me grumpy.
Tonight at the village council passed:
MOT 00-03212: A motion waiving $15,676.72 in stormwater review and inspection fees as requested by Downers Grove Park District for Streambank Stabilization Project Site Area III
Maybe not a huge amount but, that is equal to about one year of revenue for the proposed Hummer Park cell tower. So, the amount can’t really be considered a drop in the bucket.
Hardly the action a village that was at such odds with a PD would be expected to take.
As a park district coach, volunteer and park supporter I am ashamed that our park district “leaders’ would sell any part of our parks in hope of capturing a few dollars of revenue. During the presentation by T-Mobile I never once heard how this would benefit our children or enhance the “park experience”. Parks are for people and they are first and foremost a refuge to enjoy and relax. The depiction of the cell tower was simply grotesque and offensive. Most offensive was the idea that the people in charge of our parks would embrace selling off the very beauty they were sworn to protect. Furthermore, if the park district was really so proud of selling off their parks then why all the secrecy. It took me 4 attempts to get the facts out of the park administrators.
The fact is the park district has mismanaged their finances and mismanaged the public trust. This is sub prime thinking at its finest. They fear having to raise taxes because they have not earned the right to ask. The Thoarguard system is a fiasco. The lights at Gilbert Park are totally out of proportion to the environment and the neighborhood. They should be seeking to reduce costs immediately in the face of a growing economic storm.
Selling off the beauty of our parks is not acceptable and deep down everyone knows this. That’s why the park district did not solicit wider opinion and no one from Gilbert Avenue was contacted to attend the t-mobile “information meeting”.
The park district decision making on this issue should now be put to rest. But just in case it is not, I will personally organize the community to be acutely aware of just who is behind the grotesque disfigurement of public lands. This is not a threat. Just a firm promise to my children, the children I coach, and the families of Downers Grove. They will not have to see a sunset through the obstruction of a cell tower. And they will not have to wonder what other part of their park will be converted into revenue.
I’m not going to repeat my answers to these already rebutted charges, but for two things:
1) Anyone who uses inflammatory rhetoric to say that a flagpole is a grotesque disfigurement of public lands should have anything else he says closely scrutinized.
2) The allegation: “The fact is the park district has mismanaged their finances and mismanaged the public trust” is contrary to the record. The writer makes this blunderbuss charge with absolutely no evidence to back it up. In contrast, the following is an objective measurement provided by DuPage County. Of the 32 major DuPage County Park Districts, the relative ranking by aggregate tax rate of the D.G. Park District with #1 rank (Wheaton Park District) being the highest tax rate among those 32 districts is as follows:
2001 taxes: 5th highest
2002 taxes: 9th
2003 taxes: 15th
2004 taxes: 18th
2005 taxes: 20th
2006 taxes: 21st
2007 taxes: not yet determined
Right, Maurice, quite a record of “mismanagement,” eh?
Let’s back up a second, here…. Because a park user and volunteer is of the opinion that a 24″ thick flagpole in a residential park is grotesque, Mr. Jaros calls into question everything else the writer says– and he accuses the writer of inflammatory rhetoric??
It is not that there is a difference of opinion- and a different interpretation of the available facts- it is the relentless, patronizing, dismissive pounding against those who differ that is wearying. And annoying.
Plus, the threats. Not nice.
Let’s back up even more, Prag. You’re the one who wrote at E.J.’s previous related thread on 2/29 at 8:05: “How quickly you forget the unhappiness of the neighbors on so many of your PD “improvements†who felt they imposed an undue, EXTREME burden on the neighbors. I’m certain they haven’t.” And then when I asked you to back up that charge, you responded at 10:20, by citing to the Sterling North dog park as just such an undue EXTREME burden. Of course, just like Maurice, you didn’t know your facts in that no such dog park project was ever approved.
So, you’re in the same boat as Maurice.
What is genuinely wearisome are the incessant bad faith, unsubstantiated attacks on the Park District and those of us who volunteer our time and efforts on its Board in order to bring good governance to this unit of local government. You and Maurice deserve to be corrected and if you call that a “pounding,” so be it. Your bogus charges ought to be “dismissed.”
Art Jaros, Commissioner
Treasurer Spring, 2003- Spring, 2007
Vice-President Spring, 2007-present
Interseting article in the Metro section of todays Chicago Tribune. The Dupage County Forest Preserve said Tuesday it can’t legally sell land to the Canadian National Railway for a proposed railroad expansion and even if it could, it wouldn’t. “We’re not a land bank for anybody. Not for schools districts or municipalities, and certainly not for the railroads,” said Dewey Pierotti Forest Preserve President. The railroad wanted to buy one acre of Forest Preserve land in Pratt’s Woods near Bartlett.
Please don’t come back and tell me the DGPD wanted to lease the land not sell it, I am aware of that. We have allowed over many years every bit of opened land to be developed
and over developed, now there is no open land left except for our parks and forest preserves. I wonder if this sort of thing is going to be coming up more and more often.
Interesting, too, that the D.G. Park District in recent years (including at this very time) has purchased developed parcels, removed the “improvements” and reverted the land to “open space.” That’s exactly how our 4.9 acre Burlington & Walnut Park was created (two homes and driveways removed) and that’s how the new almost 5 acre acquisition north of that park on Walnut is now being acquired. There are other examples as well.
Prag and Art,
I can think of one example where people were unhappy with the improvements. And whether the updates caused anything is still debatable in their minds. The repositioning of athletic fields at Whitlock. To the neighbors South of the park, their yards began to flood. Did they flood before? Don’t know. Is this their ploy to have an area tha floods often fixed by PD and taxpayer money? Don’t know. Don’t expect that card to be shown. But the PD did conduct at least one study to determine if it had any affect and the report concluded the imrpovements did not affect it. Not usre who to trust. But I would side with the PD as it had at least one study. And I don’t think the homeowners did any scientific study or show that their property did, in fact, not flood prior to the improvements. Just a thought.
Not that he needs or wants anyone defending him, I must say this about Art Jaros. I think he should be commended for sticking his hand in this hornets nest we call a blog. He and Martin Tully are willing to explain things directly and avoid speculation, so for what it’s worth, perhaps questions regarding issues rather than questioning personal motives with hearsay should be the play.
Don’t take anything as Gospel, but if you don’t KNOW…ask, and if you don’t like the answer…ACT…at least that’s how I roll!!
Thanks for the knowledge, Art
And speaking of questions, and forgive me if it’s in here somewhere, where precisely are the proposed towers/poles intended to be placed? If the issue is ‘selling out’ our parks, then it wouldn’t matter. But, if it is an aesthetics issue, then I think there are locations that do not change the look of the parks that would be viable. For instance, I would think that a larger than usual flagpole (with a flag on it) directly behind center field, towards the parking lot, of Gilbert Park would not change anything about the park, and blend in with the existing light poles. Similarly, if something was placed south of the pavilion at Hummer Park, near Fairview, it would not change a thing.
Do we know exactly where the towers would be?
I commend any public official who will come into this blog and answer questions, even as they get bashed.
I respect Mr. Jaros for doing it. However Art, I will disagree with your analysis with regard to the water tower at McCollum. That is a LIFE-SAFETY issue, not an issue regarding increasing revenues for the Village. Water pressure on the south side of town was dangerously low and need to be addressed for a long time. The Park District accommodated the resident’s needs for water. Since there was a tower built to help save lives, the town was provided a platform to put numerous cell transmitters on the top. What the PD should have done was gotten all monies from those cell towers for allowing the water tower to be built on PD property. Why wasn’t this done?
But comparing a water tower to a cell tower is not a fair comparison in my mind. By the way, with 7 water towers in our town why do we need seperate cell towers anyway?
As was stated earlier Mr. Jaros needs to take the commentary here in stride. These folks are trying to bait you with insults and redundant points.How trying to save the taxpayers a buck is labeled “mismanagement of finances” is a real head scratcher.
And unless your lot was created by Daniel Burnham infilling a secret inland lake your house was once on open land too. I bet someone thought your home was “overdevelopment.”
If we want reliable cell coverage that helps ensure the safety (911) and convenience of our residents structures like these need to go somewhere. Sorry, but I don’t think the “open beauty” that is these parks with chain link fencing, night lighting, backstops, waste water lines from the toilets, parking lots,etc will be greatly affected.
If it makes you feel any better a quick Google search reveals that this has been an issue many times over in other communities. There are always a small group of people who squeak their wheels. You would think the cell companies would have the proper way to engage in this process down pat.
Yes, I posted the link elsewhere. Be aware it takes a long time to load.
http://www.downers.us/assets/production/doc_related_doc/file/1406/AGENDA_03-03-08.pdf
I thought the flagpole and shed at Hummer were pretty innocuous. The light pole at Gilbert was no big deal, but the larger than normal shed along the foul line is pretty noticeable.
There are, many pages in, pictures, overheads, before after comparisons.
A simple solution if you don’t get good cell phone reception – change carriers
I just read that the 99 Board authorized a lease with T mobile that places a “cellular antenna on a DG South HS stadium light pole.” The revenues, obviously, go to the school district.
What do people think about this? Does this require Village approval?
Hmmm,
Where’d you read that? I’d like to follow up.
EJ-Where I get all of my hard hitting news-The Reporter! Yesterday’s issue, pg 14.
D99 did what they should have though. Installed the cell equipment onto an exsisting structure. So a lightpole has some antenna’s on them! Is there another place the DGPD could find to put these cell antenna’s on top of? Like the water tower at McCullom.
As John Schofield stated above, the addition or change to the light tower for the probably did not require a variance. I am assuming that the ple did not need a variance. Either the school grounds or the change to the light standard did not require a variance.
I would think that the variance request would occur AFTER the 99 SB approved it similar to the Park D process that just occurred.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If cell towers are verboten in parks certainly a school site is more inappropriate right?
I am not aware of the predominant age group protesting the towers but I have to wonder if there isn’t an ageist scenario where folks who harken back to party lines and switchboards think cell phones are obscene.
A sharp St. Mary’s (1/2 block away from proposed Hummer site) parishoner should contact T-Mobile and invite them to erect a tower/cross atop their church. The controversy would really fire up.
The cell phone tower in the parks discussion now moves on to the VC workshop on Tuesday, May 13, at 6 PM.