My take on it is:

Strip away the neighbor and religious news sensationalism, and it's a simple non-conforming use variance issue.

Here in NJ, very unlikely a business could relocate/rebuild next door, on adjoining property, if they were non-conforming. Probably couldn't even expand existing structure.

We're trying to add a few second story bedrooms to an existing house. Square footage is conforming to existing zoning laws, but width of house is not. We have to remove an existing addition, that was done in the 80's (legally) because of a zoning change in 1990. Not newsworthy, happens all the time.....

According to the story:

KGBA has gone through the extensive permitting process to comply with all of the current requirements laid out by the county, state, and federal agencies, according to Bob Sager, manager of the radio station. All requirements have been met with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, California Environmental Quality Act, the Imperial County Land Use Commission, and the Imperial County Planning Department.

The last hurdle for KGBA was to get a Conditional Use Permit from the Imperial County Planning Commission.

I did not read the article since it's described quite a bit here but from the first post, I was wondering one thing; who gives a schit? Do you have some interest in the radio station being able to move their tower? Better reception for you?

Serious question.

As I live 1700 miles from the station, I wouldn't get any different reception no matter if they move it or not.

I was wondering why the guy has a stick up his butt about the tower moving.

He's not getting paid a land lease payment to for it to be on his property. Either way he has to look at it; one way he gets paid for it, the other he doesn't. You'd be surprised how a few bucks a month will change a farmer's opinion of a tower.

JR

That may be true^^, but the tower was not to be on his land anyway so is he expecting to get paid because he now has an eyesore, or would he prefer it be moved to his land and get a lease payment--the exact situation the station is moving the tower to avoid?

Regardless, the arguments against the tower, provided by the neighbor, are based solely on "safety" issues that, apparently, are non-existent. If he is arguing against a conditional use permit due to an eyesore or devaluation of property, it should have been addressed at the Planning Commission meeting. Maybe it was, we don't know. We also don't know the requirements for approval/rejection.

Nobody likes to look at a tower. On the other hand, nobody wants to give up their cell phone. In the old days, zoning/use approvals for new towers were tough to get as nobody wanted one near them and few jurisdictions had any sort of grand plan for their use. A couple decades down the road and things have changed.

This guy doesn't want the tower. He's making up stupid **** to argue against it. He's using his position in the commission to get the approval shot down. My experience has been, had the radio station approached him and wanted to rent his land to build a tower, he would have been all over the deal. I understand why they won't do that, since they already have the land, but it was a statement that showed how most people in rural areas feel about a tower.

Having built hundreds of towers, I can tell you there are plenty of people that are pissed because their neighbor got the lease money and they didn't.

"I am against a tower, because they cause cancer, might fall on me, scare the cows, are dangerous to plains and trains, attract lightning, keep me awake at night, attract aliens, kids and the homeless... unless of course you pay me $100/Month, then everything is fine."

JR

If the tale in the original post is accurate, it certainly appears that someone on the planning commission/board is abusing their authority. If the arguments to deny are all BS, it is a BS denial. Time to lawyer up. Calling the local media will not work, because they are not going to go to bat for "those people"

I wondered about that. My mother in law thinks they are trying to make the tower stay where it is so the radio station will have to clean up the land where it currently is.

I'm sure he has some sort of agenda. From reading the article, it sounds like they don't own the land it sits on, so I'd be tempted to negotiate another lease with the current landowner. You can make the argument that the tower is the least of the impediments to the sale of the land, plus it would offer some income.

It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to refute all of farmer Brown's arguments in the next meeting. I bet I could make it real uncomfortable for all of his cronies on the commission to stick their necks out for him.


JR

Apparently, a new lease is not an option as the land is for sale. Further, any new buyer will need to clean up the contamination left behind from the former salvage yard, making a quick sale and renegotiation unlikely.

The article claims the denial was due to pilot safety reasons, mainly due to guy wires, as stated in the minutes of the meeting. That has already been ameliorated by the redesign of the tower. Nothing remains to deny the approval at the November meeting except, possibly, the commissioner/ neighbor throwing a new, previously undisclosed objection into the mix.

I would love to see a Google image of the proposed location and the location of the neighbor.

I do. It's called freedom. It's about the American tradition of being free to do whatever the hell you want unless there is a serious reason to be stopped. I don't see a serious reason here.

Found the tower, but can't post a screen shot. Here's the link (below.) Zooming in on the area brings up the symbol for the KGBA-FM Holtville tower in the vacant plot between highway 111 on the west, and S80 to the south. Moving the tower 1000 feet north puts it in south end of the large farm field, which is surrounded by other large farm fields. Can't really see much of an eyesore for the neighbors.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8018974,-115.500822,1892m/data=!3m1!1e3

This seems to happen everywhere and might be due to any number of reasons. Seems like it never did years ago and maybe it is due to the underlying hate that some people seem to gather inside? Seems like one or two people not wanting a Walmart or expanding to a Super Walmart or installing a solar farm or installing a desalination plant or, or, or.

Here is the old spot (lower left) and new spot (upper right).

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1445958014.jpg

That new location is about 1'000 feet from the nearest crops. Not an issue for crop dusting. The fields to the north and west have bigger issues to deal with than the tower, in that respect.

Some pretty stupid people on that commission, if they are even considering that argument. Some pretty useless people presenting the case for the radio station, if they can't defeat that argument.

Or, maybe the people on the commission are just a wee bit crooked.

JR

And the radio station owns some of that farmland.

The article said the move was 1000 feet north. Your measurement is 1000 yards. 1000 feet puts the tower in the lower corner of the planted field.

The location I have marked is directly from the papers they (KGBA) submitted. It is on page 6 of this document. I would guess the article messed up. not that the media would ever do that.

http://icpds.com/CMS/Media/03-PM-CUP-V.pdf

In case that doesn't open.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1445979375.jpg