Charter Township of Orion
Oakland County, Michigan

Planning Commission
Minutes - Public Hearing, Wednesday, January 19, 2005

PC-04-57, Orion Oaks Monopole (CLEMIS Tower) Special Land Use

OTHERS PRESENT:  Roger Ryskamp, Tim Storey, Tim Schafer, Kellie McDonald, Jackie Ferro, Mike Ferro, Patricia Coates, Bill Stark, Kate Zacharevicl, Paul Torretta, Nanette Dhingra, Tom Holmes, David Lindquist, Art DesRosiers, Brandy Giezer, Michael Zotter, Steve Bartolone, Jennifer Daniels, Riley Daniels, William Mercier, Diane Mercier, Dominic Rossi, Dan Phifer, Ryan Godenouf, David Charboean, Terry Charboean, Lisa Grass, Jim Grass, Gayle Jenzen, Kim Roycraft, Stuart Roycraft, Gary Jenzen, Karen Wiater, Ron Hoad, Pam Hoag, Donna Garrigues, Brenda Pirmann, Aleonso Carrillo, Salie Carrillo, Donna Harrell, Karen Connow, Dan Connow, Ken Daning, Julie Daning, Jim Rose, John Line, Jim Kavanaugh, Heather Kavanaugh, Dave Osterberg, John Kennedy, Steve Howell, Richard Stovall, Joe Shereda, James Vorhees, Marvin Ash, Clint Parrott, Matt Cady, Frank Griffo, Marina Tuttle, Don Tuttle, S. Notar Donato, Chris Ham, Remo Roncone, Christ Liddell, Ray Schultz, Don Dunning

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Rob Pote, Chairman; Karyn Pecheniuk, Vice-Chairwoman; Doug Zande, Secretary; John Steimel, OTB Representative; Mark Crane, Eric Messing, Brad Lare

Chairman Pote opened the PC-2004-57, Orion Oaks Monopole (CLEMIS Tower) Special Land Use Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. and explained public hearing procedures. 

Ms. Patricia Coates, of Oakland County CLEMIS, commented that she is the Project Manager for the Public Safety Communication System in Oakland County.  She also noted that Mr. Dan Phifer, of Radian Communications, is also here tonight with her and that they are the construction firm for towers and is under contract to the County for this project.  CLEMIS stands for Court and Law Enforcement Management Information System and is a consortium of all the police and fire agencies within Oakland County.  This project began in the mid-1990’s when there were a number of high-profile public safety incidents in the county where multiple agencies came together to try and catch a bad guy, put out a fire, etc., only to find out that they could not communicate with each other, because our public safety agencies in this county are on disparate radio systems.  They are on 800 megahertz, they are on VHF, UHF, with different vendors, and they just don’t talk to each other.  One of those incidents was the shooting at the Ford plant in Wixom where over 20 police agencies came together to try and subdue an employee who was running through the plant and had murdered some of his fellow employees.  Several officers were injured in that one and we had people surround the building, subdue a subject, and they could not talk to each other.  That is one of the examples of what has occurred.  Following that, the CLEMIS leadership group, which is the police and fire chiefs of the county, went to the Oakland County Board of Commissioners and asked for funding for an interoperable county-wide radio system, so people could communicate with each other.  They did approve that funding, which is our 911 surcharge that we all pay on our telephone bills.  It is not a grant or that sort of money.  This is being paid for by all of us that live in the county and have phones.  Following the approval of the funding, we then acquired sufficient frequencies, which are very difficult to come by in the metropolitan area and the same group of police and fire chiefs sat down and designed the specifications for a system.  They already knew they wanted interoperability, they needed to be able to talk to each other, but the other thing that they needed was in-building portable coverage.  When they take their hand-held radios and go into our homes, schools, nursing facilities, factories, businesses, they need to be able to have their portable radios communicate without having to go outside to use their radios.  That is a very stringent public safety specification for radio coverage.  If all that our police and fire chiefs said that they needed was for the radios in their patrol cars and their fire trucks to work out-of-doors, we could have provided that coverage in this county with only eight radio tower sites.  That’s all it would take to provide out-of-door coverage.  But, because they said they need this to work in buildings, it’s going to take thirty-six tower sites in order to achieve that.  We have completed most of those sites, thirty-two of them are either completed or nearly completed.  There is no single site that covers an entire 36-square mile, such as Orion Township, so Orion Township coverage will come from a number of sources.  The one we are proposing at Orion Oaks Park is to cover the central part of the Township.  There is also one down on Brown Road at the Oakland Heights Development Company.  There is one already approved, but not yet constructed in the Village of Lake Orion right behind the police department.  There is one in Independence Township, Brandon Township, and Oxford Township.  The need for the towers is determined by a couple of things.  First of all, the types of buildings that exist in the community.  For a county-wide system, we’re talking about places like Farmington Hills and Troy that have huge apartment complexes and office buildings.  Those types of buildings take a lot of radio signal in order to get the portable radios to work.  Out in the northern portions of the Township, it’s not so much the types of buildings, but the terrain, because out here it gets much hillier and more trees that effect the propagation.  We have unique challenges throughout the county, depending on the types of buildings and terrain.  This is actually Plan B for Orion Township.  Plan A was to put the tower here at the Township Hall.  Let me tell you what goes into getting a tower, even to bring it to the Planning Commission.  We have to go through a number of pre-approvals from FAA, FCC, environmental groups, historical groups, etc.  We have to do soil borings to determine the kinds of soils that are underneath, so we know what kind of foundation this tower will require.  All those studies, permits, etc. adds up.  Just to bring drawings to a planning board, we have already spent about $13,000 in getting those approvals, permits, and studies done.  So, we started out here almost two years ago trying to put one here at the Township Hall and we were recommending 250 feet in height to get the coverage that this Township requires.  One of the FAA requirements is for any tower that’s above 200 feet in height, you automatically have to light it.  But, because this is a municipal complex, that was our initial goal.  We went through all those studies, had the drawings ready, we were on the agenda to come to the Planning Commission to put it here, when the Township realized that this property had been purchased with some DNR funds that prohibited us from being able to put a tower here.  So, we had to go back to the drawing board and find another site that would provide coverage for Orion Township.  This is also for the ambulance companies in this county.  Oakland County Medical Control, which is the governing entity over ambulance companies, both public and private, has said that their EMS providers need to be able to communicate with the emergency rooms at the hospitals from the patient’s bedside, inside the building.  With that in mind, we had to find a second site.  We met with Oakland County Parks and got their approval to research the site that is before you today over at Orion Oaks Park.  Recognizing that this is more residential that the original site would have been, we took a look at the radio propagation to see if we could reduce that height below the 250 feet, so that the tower would not have to be lighted, because we recognize that that’s one of the biggest objections from neighbors.  We also took a look at making sure what kind of connectivity we could use on this site.  A lot of people have objections to the large microwave dishes that are used to connect sites, so we did a lot of research to make sure we could use T-1 lines and ISDN lines and connect this through phone lines that would not require those big and somewhat unsightly dishes.  We wanted to that, because we are sensitive to the fact that there are neighbors for this particular tower.  They benefit because of the additional public safety coverage, but we want to minimize the visual impact of the tower, so we’ve reduced the height, so it does not have to be lighted and there will be no microwave dishes on this, we’re talking whip antennae.  The one site that is a big unknown to us right now and does impact Orion Township is Oakland Township, which has not yet decided where they’re going to place their tower.  Depending on the decisions they make, some of the coverage in eastern Orion Township could be impacted, because none of these sites stand alone.  They all depend upon each other.  I know that it would be to our benefit and we could probably skip some of the ZBA that may be required, for example, if we lower this tower even further to perhaps 150 feet.  Right now, I would recommend that we try for 188 feet as it is designated just because we don’t know what Oakland Township is going to do.  That will impact coverage in eastern Orion Township.  That is where we are at today.  We are on schedule with our timeline.  This one is one of the last towers, because we had to go to Plan B.  We are already bringing in the switches.  We already have one pilot agency using the new system in Farmington.  We propose to bring the rest of the public safety agencies online in 2005, so that all 7,000 radios in this county for public safety will be able to communicate with each other.

Chairman Pote offered time for public comments.

Mr. Matt Cady, of 3737 Mill Creek Road, commented that they recently moved in the Mill Creek Subdivision and had no knowledge of this proposed tower.  He is extremely concerned that their property value would drop if this tower were installed.  He is opposed to this proposed tower.

Ms. Gayle Jenzen, of 3668 High Grove Way, commented that she is also in the Mill Creek Subdivision.  She is also very concerned about her property value depreciating and asked that they consider a different location away from residential for the tower.

Mr. Steve Bartalone, of 3529 Mill Creek Drive, commented that he also lives in the Mill Creek Subdivision and is very concerned about his property value depreciating and asked that they reconsider putting the tower on a more public property, such as a school, so that it would not cause depreciation of private property values.  He also asked when the tower would be constructed.

Mr. Stuart Roycraft, of 3652 High Grove Way, commented that he also lives in the Mill Creek Subdivision and noted that their property abuts the State DNR property where the tower appears to be going and he was told when he bought that property that the property abutting his property would remain undeveloped and that nothing there could be touched.  His concerns are echoed with those of his other neighbors in his subdivision.  If he had known that this tower would be proposed to be installed, he would not have invested nearly $500,000 for his home.  He wants to know the exact location of the tower and when exactly it will be constructed.  He also believes a different location would be more suitable for this tower like at a school or other public property.  Also, he inquired how this is a firm location when Oakland Township has not yet decided where their location for a tower will be if indeed they all need to be interconnected, how do we know that this will be the right spot. 

Ms. Karen Connow, of 3468 Mill Creek Drive, commented that they just moved into their new home on December 10, 2004.  Her home backs directly to Orion Oaks Park along with the others and that they have a dead tree in their back yard that they are not allowed to touch and were told that they could not touch that property and in light of that, they felt comfortable with putting more money into the property, because that area would remain untouched and remain as it is now.  If they had known this, they would never have purchased this property.  She noted that she believes that the $13,000 that the county has spent thus far on this project is very pale in comparison to the loss of each property owners’ property value that is sitting here tonight.

Mr. Dave Charboneau, of 1875 North Mill Court, commented that his property abuts the park and that he was also told that the property back there was wetlands and that nobody could ever build on it.  He purchased his property because of the beauty of the wooded area and is very concerned about a tower being built right there in his view out his back door.  He is very concerned about it decreasing his property value.  He also believes that there are many other sites in this Township that would be more suitable for this tower that would not affect residences.  He then inquired if the 800 megahertz would be considered microwave.  He also inquired how we would know if they are operating within the RF exposure limit by law.  Also, would the system interfere with police and fire scanners that residents have.  Would it impact UHF TV channels, cordless phones, wireless phones, home intercoms, cable TV, baby monitors, etc., would this tower affect those things that residents currently have?  How many transmitters will be broadcasting simultaneously with this tower?  Is it a transmitter?  Are there any transmitters that are broadcasting continuously 24 hours per day?  What is the output of power of each transmitter, if that is the case?  The maximum output of a CB radio like we used to use was four watts, so what is the output power of this huge antenna here?  What is the wind rating of this tower itself if we have high-speed winds?  If the tower were to fall, what would happen then?  If the tower causes interference, who will handle the complaints?  Where would we go?  If it interferes with any of the normal frequencies that we work with in our subdivision, who do we complain to and how will they fix it?  What is the coverage area of the tower?  If the coverage area is large, then why did we choose the location that we’re looking at right now, in relation to the signals with other towers?

Mr. Ron Haag, of 1891 North Mill Court, commented that when he moved in, he had inquired at the Building Department about the Orion Oaks Park and whether anyone would ever be able to build back there and he was told specifically, no, because they were designated wetlands.  He then commented that he spoke with someone in the Building Department this week that told him that the specific site for the tower is not wetlands and that it has a slight raise to it, but the area around it is wetlands, which means that 250-foot road they want to put in there, they’re going to have to bulldoze a lot of area, take down trees, and fill it to get a road in to go back there, which would be destroying the wetlands.  He is very concerned about that as well as all the other concerns that have been expressed tonight, and he is especially concerned about depreciation of his property value.  Even though the trees are 60-feet tall, he will still be able to see a 188-foot tower.  He also suggested finding another location that would be more suitable for this tower.  Also, if they found a site with a higher elevation, they wouldn’t need to build such a tall tower.

Ms. Heather Kavanaugh, of 3756 High Grove Way, commented that she is opposed to the proposed tower.  She is concerned about her property value, the woodlands, the wetlands, the amounts of wattage, what effects the wattage could have on their health, and what recourse they have legally to keep this from happening.

Mr. Chris Ham, of 3841 High Grove Way, commented that he is also opposed to this proposed location for the tower.  He is very concerned about their property value and also that this tower would be right in their view.  He requested that they consider putting this tower on public land or space near commercial property where it would not impact the beauty or the property values.

Mr. Mike Zotter, of 1859 North Mill Court, commented that he is very opposed to the proposed tower location.  They do not want this tower to be an eyesore in their view from their home, which currently is a beautiful view.  He suggested that the center part of the park would be more suitable for the tower.  He inquired whether this tower would be able to be leased by co-locators, like cell phone companies.

Mr. Ray Schultz, of 3929 High Grove Way, commented that he lives about 300 yards from the site of the proposed tower and he is very opposed to this tower.  He would not have invested in property there if he had known that there would be a tower built there.  He also noted that the tower would be a real eyesore and would destroy the beauty of the area as it is currently.  He inquired that if the tower is painted to camouflage it, who would be responsible for maintaining that paint.  He is very concerned about his property value depreciating.  He then noted that he requests that the Planning Commission members do their job to maintain the beauty of the area.

Mr. Steve Notar Donato, of 3708 High Grove Way, commented that he is very opposed to this tower and echoes the concerns of all his neighbors here tonight.  He inquired, if this is the proposed location, then what alternate locations are there?  Where exactly would the access road come out?  How would that be maintained?  What has changed that allows wetlands to be built on?  We, too, were told that this property would never be built on.  What recourse do they have to protect ourselves from further expansion?

Mr. Jim Rose, of 3724 High Grove Way, commented that he is very concerned about his property value depreciating as a result of this tower.  He invested in his property and was told that this abutting property would never be built on.  He requested that the Planning Commission members protect the local residents’ interests.

Ms. Nicole Walker, of 3676 High Grove Way, commented that she is very opposed to the proposed tower location and echoes the concerns of her neighbors.  Their family currently enjoys the wildlife and natural surroundings and doesn’t want to see it harmed.

Ms. Lisa Grassi, of 3542 Mill Creek Drive, commented that she echoes the concerns of her neighbors.  She then commented regarding some of the other CLEMIS towers.  Farmington Hills approved their location behind a fire station.  White Lake’s tower is located at the Township offices.  Wixom used an existing tower.  South Lyon approved their tower to be located at the Department of Public Works.  Birmingham has approved their tower to be located on a golf course.  None of these were built in a residential area or in someone else’s back yard.

Mr. John Kennedy, of 3588 High Grove Way, commented that he echoes the same concerns as his neighbors.  He inquired whether the builder knew of this proposed tower, because they were not notified of it when they purchased their home.

Mr. Zotter inquired whether the tower at Clarkston Road and M-24, that was deemed unsuitable, could be replaced or upgraded or improved for this purpose.

Chairman Pote asked the public if there were any further comments or questions.  There was no response.  He then asked the petitioner to respond to the concerns voiced by the public.

Ms. Coates commented that she appreciates the comments from the public.  She noted that she has a view of the cell tower at the Lake Orion High School and that when they were selling their home last summer, not one of the people that looked at their home, commented on the tower or even mentioned it in any way.  Mr. Phifer believes he may have some studies, that they will try to find, about any impact this has had on property values.  Whether or not there is a Plan C, the answer is no.  We’ve spent roughly $26,000 so far researching two sites.  We went to Orion Oaks Park and asked if they could identify a location within the park that we could use and this is public property and is part of Orion Oaks Park.  It is not owned by the MDNR.  None of the proposed area including the tower or the access road is wetlands.  We wouldn’t be allowed to build there if it were wetlands.  We are not proposing to build this on anything that is a designated wetland.  That’s one of the studies that we have to do upfront to meet the federal requirements.  For cell phone co-locators, we do normally build these towers so that they are capable of accepting two additional co-locators.  We do that primarily because most ordinances require it.  Rather than end up with three towers, most Townships and Cities have asked that we have the tower so that co-locators are possible.  Whether or not they would put anything up there that was considered unsightly, I would assume that any co-locator would have to come back before the Planning Commission in order to get approval to put anything up there.  We are required to build these.  Each State has separate requirements as far as wind loading and for Michigan it is 75 m.p.h. sustained wind with a half-inch of radial ice.  This tower does meet that requirement. 

Chairman Pote requested that the petitioner describe the tower and technical information.

Mr. Phifer commented the tower itself is referred to as a monopole.  It is a round tapered pole that will probably be five to six feet at the base and it will taper up to about 18 inches at the top.  The finish will be galvanized and the reason for this is that it is much less upkeep.  This tower will be retained by Oakland County and they will be responsible for the maintenance of the tower.  It is not triangular in shape.  We do have some towers that are tri-poles that are eight feet per side, but this is not one of those. 

Ms. Coates stated, this is both a transmitter site and receive site.  What we put at the top is one transmit antenna and one receive antenna and then lower down we put a hot stand-by backup antenna that is dual that is both transmit and receive.  This is a public safety tower and should it take a lightning strike, for example, to one of the antennae, it automatically fails over to the hot stand-by backup antenna.  That is to make sure we have continuous duty for public safety.  It does transmit 24 hours.  It’s for public safety and it needs to be on the air 24 hours, seven days a week, 365 days a year.  It is 800 megahertz.  It is not microwave, that is RF.  RF exposure studies, we do have some documents we can provide to the Township.  This is very stringently controlled by the FCC, by MIOSHA, by a lot of folks.  We are forced to be compliant with those as we would be even without those sorts of forces.  The exposure, you would have to climb the tower and hug an antenna almost to receive a significant amount of RF exposure.  Scanners, he mentioned police and fire scanners, this is going to be a digital 800 megahertz system.  It is trunked.  Right now, Bearcat and all the other manufacturers of scanners do not make a scanner that will scan this, so folks who are used to being able to scan the Sheriff’s Department right now would not be able to once they transition to the new system.  Other electrical equipment, he mentioned frequencies that are used in the subdivision, I’m not familiar with what those are.  These are 800 megahertz and most of your cellular phones, for example, except for Nextel which is on 800 megahertz, most of them are on 900 megahertz.  This one does transmit at 125 ERP.  Most of the public safety, what’s in the patrol cars, for example, is a three-watt radio, comparable to the CB’s that were mentioned.  The transmit site itself is regulated by the FCC.  They are concerned with exposure and we do have documents.  We have these in some very populated areas.  There is one in downtown Royal Oak that is visible to many, many neighbors.  There is one in downtown Milford that is visible to most people in the Village.  The DPW in South Lyon was mentioned, but there are homes right next to that DPW, so this is not the first place that it has been a concern of nearby residents, so we do have the documents that address the RF emissions and any health hazards and they’re basically non-existent.  We are required by the FCC and by MIOSHA to post any danger areas and basically they are all up at the top.  Any complaints are handled by the FCC as far as any type of interference between various radio spectrums.  They have a field office in Farmington Hills and they are very responsive to those types of complaints.  We would not anticipate any issues, because we are simply in a frequency band that nobody else is in.  These are designated public safety frequencies.  Regarding coverage, it is an issue of both height and power.  We are restricted by our power by the FCC, so we also have to deal with height as an issue.  Each tower site covers a different area and this one is designed to provide in-building portable coverage in this immediate area.  There is no Plan C for this one.  If this is denied by the Township, it is not mandatory.  These are specifications that were identified by the police and fire chiefs.  If Orion Township determines that they do not need that level of coverage, we’re gone.  This is not something we want to impose on the Township.  This something we assume every community wants, because our local law enforcement and fire folks have told us this is what they want.  I understand that Orion Oaks Park has had considerable controversy about development within the park.  There is quite a movement to keep it as natural as possible.  This particular portion of the park, again, I’m not a part of the parks board, I do public safety stuff.  This is something the parks board pointed us to and they are also interested in making this a dedicated green space in there once the tower is in there, that it’s a land conservancy type of thing to protect it.  The access road is identified on the plans.  It is not on wetlands.  The number of trees we have to remove, we are required of course by your ordinance to do a tree survey of the trees of certain size, so that will be identified.  The tower at Clarkston Road and M-24, that is a Sprint-owned tower.  That is at maximum capacity and is also not in the right spot to provide coverage over here in this portion of the Township.  We did look at that one as an alternative to the site in the Village of Lake Orion, because it is much closer to that site than this one, but it is at its maximum capacity and is not capable of handling any other equipment. 

Mr. Phifer stated, the access road, on your plans you can see it and it comes straight out just to the north of the curve on Baldwin Road.  It will be about 1,300 feet from the entrance to the subdivision.  As far as the builder knowing about this tower, no.  We come before the Planning Commission as not the first step.  We met with Planning and went over everything ahead of time and we met with many of you out at the site for the site walk, but the public notice for this hearing is really the first time that the public as a whole gets this opportunity, so, no, we have not notified the builder.  As far as the build time, we still have a long way to go and that has a great influence on when we can begin construction.  Taking into account the typical timeframes that we have been told by the Building Department, we still have in this process a good three to four months, depending on what happens and how it happens, so it is likely that this would be started if we gained all the approvals necessary, somewhere in the summertime.  The exact location of the tower, it is marked on the site, all four corners of the proposed 40 x 40 compound are marked as well as the tower and it states right on the stakes what is what and also the center of the proposed drive.  So, that is out there for everyone to look at.  As far as what if the tower falls, typically, the towers are designed with a theoretical weak spot, so that if it were to, in the very rare event, collapse, it would collapse upon itself and not like a tree falling over, but actually fold up onto itself.  In my ten years of doing this, I have yet to hear of a single monopole that has collapsed.  Then the deer and the wildlife, we’re using a 40 x 40 area and we are going to preserve as many of the trees as possible.  We discussed this on the site walk.  We were asked by the engineering consultant to increase the size of the road to 18 feet from 12 feet.  We’d like to keep it at 12 feet and that’s all we need, and we would take out a lot less trees.  We have no interest in taking out a bunch of trees.  There was a question asked on expansion, that goes along with co-location.  Any commercial carrier that would want to expand such a tower would have to come back before the Planning Commission in order to do such a thing. 

Chairman Pote offered time for more public comments.

Ms. Connow inquired, is the 8 x 10 building still proposed for this project, because it hasn’t been mentioned tonight.

Mr. Charboneau inquired, is it typical business practice for Oakland County to go and do site planning without going through the Township approval first?  They’re complaining because they’ve spent all this money and done all this work, but they never came forward with the proposal that this was the planning site in the beginning before spending the money.  Why are they spending money without getting Township approval first?

Mr. Rose inquired whether this area would be fenced off to protect the children and to keep them from climbing the tower.  Also, would the tower affect satellite television reception.

Mr. Schultz commented that the entrance is on a bend in the road and he is concerned about the safety of service trucks entering and exiting the site.  He then asked members if they would want the tower in front of their homes.

Mr. Bartolone commented that if he had known that this tower was going in there, he would not have bought his home there.

Mr. Ham commented regarding his concern for their property values decreasing.  He then requested to hear from the Parks Department.

Chairman Pote requested that the petitioner come back to the podium to address these issues.

Ms. Coates stated, the shelter is still in the proposal.  We need a place to put the transmitter and equipment.  It is pre-fabricated with an aggregate on the outside.  It would look like a little building.  It is 8’x 10’x 10’H.  On spending the money, we have had some discussions with the Township when we were first proposing to put it here at the Township Hall.  We’ve had some discussions with the Building Department, the Supervisor, just informal to let them know we were pursuing the Orion Oaks Park.  As to why your Parks Department is not here tonight, I should clarify that this is Oakland County and not the Township Parks that steered us in this direction.  On safety fence, we do propose fencing at the site.  Again, this is a monopole, it’s not a lattice, as far as children being able to climb it, a child would not be able to climb it.  Television interference, that one I can’t answer. 

Mr. Phifer stated, no, there has been nothing that’s shown that it interferes with satellites.

Ms. Coates stated, we’ve had no issues with any of the sites that are already up and transmitting.  Oakland County has had an existing 800 megahertz with eight sites for many years and we’ve never had a complaint about satellite television.

Chairman Pote commented that the safety concerns of the ingress/egress of that road will be discussed during the site plan process and that is part of our requirements.  Every time a developer comes to us, we coordinate with the Road Commission and through that, we establish the safety of that road network. 

Commissioner Steimel inquired when the date was that the site here at the Township Hall stopped due to the DNR agreement.

Ms. Coates commented that she believes that they were planning to come to Planning in December 2003 on this Township Hall site.  As far as the $13,000 for each site so far, this is 911 funds and is a very limited fund.  There is only a certain amount that can be collected and a certain amount that can be expended.  There is no additional funding for this project.  So, every penny that we spend, we are accountable to the taxpayers and to the public safety folks, so we are very reluctant to spend $13,000 checking out sites.  We did speak with the Township first and told them that this is what the parks board is recommending and this is not something that we’ve done on our own.  Every dime that is spent on this type of work is money that we won’t have to spend on radios for our police and fire fighters.

Secretary Zande read aloud correspondence received from Ms. Jacqueline Gilbertson and Ms. Julie Kilburn, dated January 16, 2005, in opposition to this proposed monopole*.

Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk read aloud correspondence received from Mr. Michael Valentine, dated January 18, 2005, in opposition to the proposed monopole*.

Chairman Pote reminded members of the public that if they would like to have an agenda sent to them each time this case is on the meeting agenda, they can submit self-addressed stamped envelopes to the Planning Commission Staff Secretary in the Building Department and they will be mailed out to them.

Mr. Charboneau inquired, I’d like to find out, if this is a consideration, what tax abatements will be provided to each homeowner that will be affected by this.

Chairman Pote stated, that is beyond the scope of this organization.

Mr. Charboneau stated, I just wanted to make a note of that.

Chairman Pote declared this public hearing closed at 9:21 p.m.

* On file in the Building Department