[SEDXC] ND4V to appear before Norcross Zoning & Appeals Board - Thursday Night - 7:00 PM City Hall

[Mike, ND4V]

Well, the saga continues and I can use your help!
 
Let me catch up the GARS and SEDX folk. The City of Norcross has declared my
60 foot tower to be "illegal".  Their position is that anything above 35
feet is illegal in a residential area unless one requests and receives a
height variance. (No easy feat as we've found out -- the application fee
alone is $500.00 and the Zoning Appeals Board has no criteria to allow them
to grant a height variance.)
 
I engaged attorney Jim Altman (W4UCK) the ARRL recommended counsel for this
area to help me.  He made a presentation to the Zoning & Appeals Board which
explained the need for a 60 foot tower on 20 meters and he further explained
PRB-1. He also provided them with case law that has held the 35 foot height
restriction to be "unreasonable". However, an unhappy neighbor/attorney made
an argument that the tower was an eyesore and was destroying the home values
of all of the houses around me. He further stated that the City had defeated
the cell phone company's attempt to put up a tower and they could beat
PRB-1. At the appeals board hearing last month,  the Chair could not get the
votes to grant the variance.  However they likewise could not get a motion
to defeat the request, so they tabled the request for a month.
 
In the intervening month, the Community Planning Department consulted the
City's Attorney who advised them that the ordinance was most likely invalid
and they would likely lose if it went to court. 
 
Last week Jim Altman received a letter from the Community Planning
Department asking if we'd be open to having the zoning and appeals board
table our request for a variance for 3 months while the City of Norcross
works on drafting a new ordinance that will comply with PRB-1.  Supposedly
affter the ordinance is passed, my need for a variance will be moot and I
can withdraw the application.
 
Jim and I agree that if he can have input to the drafting process, that I'll
go along with that scenario. This course of action gives us the City a
chance to not only fix the broken wording in the current ordinance but also
to remove the requirement that Norcross hams with 71 foot towers live in
commercial or light industrial zoning districts ....
 
I am scheduled to go before the Zoning Appeals Board again this Thursday
night at 7:00 pm (Norcross City Hall).  One can not be sure that the Appeals
Board will accept the Planning Departments proposed solution.  There was
talk at last month's meeting that maybe more neighbors should be asked to
come to the hearing and say what they think ..... 
 
Just in case the neighbors fill the hearing with folks who oppose cell phone
towers in their back yards,  I'd like to ask any of you with an hour to
spare on Thursday night to come to the hearing.  I know that a couple of
City Council members have said they'd be there. Your presence will go a long
way in convincing the City Fathers that this is more than a spat between two
neighbors and will perhaps pave the way to fixing the broken wording in the
ordinance to make Norcross a ham friendly place once again.
 
Thanks in advance and 73,
Mike Weathers, ND4V