Planners deny special land use permit
Plans for a 200 ft. tall communication tower on Kitchen Road will not move forward after the Leelanau Township Planning Commission voted 4-2 to deny the special land use application Thursday.
Steve Kalchik, the commission’s vice chair, and commissioner Gerald Schatz, were the two members who voted against the motion, while commissioners Hugh Scott, Silvia Gans, Kristi Fischer, and Brigid Hart voted to deny the application, stating that it did not meet the standards for a special land use permit. Commissioner Brian Mitchell did not vote or take part in the meeting as he previously had to recuse himself from the process as the property owner of the tower location.
The decision at the special meeting comes a week after the planning commission held a lengthy public hearing, where those both for and against the tower voiced their concerns on the ongoing issue. The communication tower applicant, Leelanau County, had to submit a revised application last year following the township’s decision to put the initial project on hold in April 2024. However, both the county and Leelanau Township have been working to move forward with tower plans since 2022, with the project first being brought to the county by township officials to assist in meeting notable broadband and cellular coverage shortages in the area.
Leelanau Township Zoning Administrator Steve Patmore helped walk commissioners through the zoning ordinance and regulations section by section to determine if the special use application meets ordinance requirements. Throughout the three hourlong meeting, commissioners discussed numerous issues pertaining to the tower and the negative impacts they feel it would have on the township, as well as the potential options to pursue other tower plans elsewhere in the future.
While addressing criteria in article 18, which is a set of regulations and standards for the establishment of communications towers and antennas in the township, Patmore said a new tower cannot be approved unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that there is a need for a new one. Evidence as to why these needs cannot be met by placing an antenna on an existing communication tower, or on another structure, or through the replacement of an existing communication tower also needs to be provided. Although propagation maps from the county show that the coverage of the proposed tower location is better reaching than the existing tower, several commissioners still questioned the tower position and whether the older structure could be utilized.
Due to the Village of Northport zoning ordinance restricting cell towers to no more than 180 feet in height, Jason Ball, one of the county planners part of the project, explained that under current zoning, the existing tower wouldn’t be able to be rebuilt or replaced. He said if the commission chose to remove and replace the nonconforming structure (tower) by the fire station, it would have to meet current code or it would require a variance. *** When addressing article 12 of the zoning ordinance, Patmore said all seven standards have to be met, noting that he did not see any issue with the project in an agricultural district in the ordinance. During review, commissioner Fischer explained that with technology coming around so quickly in the years ahead, the argument regarding the need for a tower is going to be obsolete. Fischer also said the map depicting where cellular coverage will be available via the new tower is inaccurate as some people like herself are able to get service via their phones in these areas.
“All of us have made it this far. You bought your house, you knew you didn’t have cell service. However long ago, we didn’t have cell phones, we all made it…” Fischer said. “I’m not a fan of ‘nimby-ism’ (an acronym for the expression ‘not in my backyard’) at all. That is not why I don’t agree with this. I just feel like the county could work with us and we could do something better… These cell towers are still not going to hit every single person that’s promised ‘oh you’re going to have cell service.’ No you’re not, you’re behind a ridge, you’re behind a bunch of trees.”
Commissioner Hart echoed Fischer’s comments about residents knowing that there was spotty or no service in the township when they moved to the county.
“I knew that when I moved there, I knew there was no cell service there, and so did everyone else that moved there,” Hart said.
Fischer said while she understands that people need and want cell coverage, there are better solutions for the township to consider. Gans, Scott, and Hart also shared the same sentiment.
“I’m not against a tower, I’m against this tower…” Gans said. “I’m not against it if it would have been on Scott Road where it would have been much better placement for all those people up on the north end of the peninsula. Now many will not be served… I am a human being with moral obligations to this township to take care of everyone in the township, not just the people who are the most vocal about wanting a tower. It should be for everyone in the township.”
When discussing standard five of article 12 pertaining to whether the special use tower application would adversely affect farmland, commissioner Hugh Scott and others weighed in on the nearby wetland and the loss of some of the trees that would need to be removed in the cherry orchard owned by Brian Mitchell. Scott made the motion that the tower plans and the proposed driveway leading to the site did not meet the standard as it would result in a loss of at least 1.5 acres “being viable for future farmland.”
“It could be vineyards, it could be apples, it could be cherries, it could be grazing of goats and cattle, it could be maple syrup production…” Scott said. “The only thing it does limit from the things I just mentioned are wetlands.”
Although commissioners voted 4-2 that the application did not meet standard five of article 12, commissioner Schatz questioned Scott’s assessment, adding that the farmer can choose to use the land as he sees fit.
“... We can’t use the zoning ordinance to tell a farmer of the uses of the property,” Schatz said. “How the farmer wants to use the farm and the land within it is up to the farmer.”
After ultimately rejecting the application, commissioners had a chance to comment on the overall process, many of which agreeing that it “hasn’t been easy for anyone involved.”
“I hope that at the end of the day, we’re still all working together to get cell service to the people that don’t have it… I hope that we can move forward together because we do have a common goal,” Fischer said. “I felt a little pressure to be rubber stamping something because money was already spent, and that’s a position I hope never to find myself in again.”
“I’ve gone back and forth on this,” Hart said. “It’s been a tough decision for all of us I think. It hasn’t been that easy, and I hope there’s not any hurt feelings out there.”
The two opposing commission members, Kalchik and Schatz, also had comments regarding the decision and what is to come.
“I think that some of the standards were critiqued too tightly, but that’s my personal opinion,” Kalchik said. “As a farmer, I usually think the rules are too strict anyway, so that might just be because of who I am.”
“Two of our members came to this meeting with their minds already made up,” Schatz said. “I think, overall, I agree with the criticisms of the county’s processes, we talked about that a long time ago. I think the outcome here is to the detriment of Leelanau Township and to the detriment of our visitors.”
