Spectrum

I read with interest the comments by Anchorage Media Group about the proposed radio tower on Lazy Mountain in your Feb. 10 story, as well as your editorial.

The Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission met for five and half hours debating the merits of Morris Communication Co.’s (MCC) application and listening to public testimony before rendering a decision to deny the tower. Anchorage Media Group is owned by MCC. It was not a frivolous decision. It is also important to note that the community tried to work with MCC, but the company was not interested in any compromise regarding location of the tower.

Anchorage Media Group’s comment that the “application had met all 22 criteria points set by the Borough” was stated by staff at the planning commission meeting. Borough staff made an assessment that MCC met the criteria and recommended approval. This recommendation was based on information provided to Borough staff mostly by the applicant. Many within our informed community would have provided different responses to the 22 criteria, and not because we are any less well informed. MCC did not turn in a perfect application, and in the opinion of a number of community members missed the boat on several things that should have been done to meet the criteria of the permit.

The public process, fortunately, provides a mechanism to provide additional input to the planning commission. The Lazy Mountain community (and others) commented, and it appeared the commission had done quite a lot of its own homework. While Borough staff does a commendable job with many things, it does not have the resources to frame or answer important questions about radio towers. It was the applicant that provided many responses to residents’ concerns, and there was heavy reliance on the applicant for technical information and information about the visual impacts to the community. The visual modeling done for MCC to show the impacts to neighbors and this community minimized the tower impacts at least to our home, and none were prepared for the view off the mountain. Towers shouldn’t go up in poor locations because Borough staff has limited resources to fully evaluate a complex application. We hope the controversy over this particular application will raise the bar on acquiring objective and accurate information prior to making recommendations on things that are so important to the public.

MCC did a number of things correctly, but did not meet all the conditions and criteria spelled out in code. First, it states in code that the applicant needs to discuss issues related to siting with the community. There is agreement in this community that there was no discussion, just notification. Second, the number of towers needs to be the minimum reasonably required to provide services. MCC stated an exhaustive search had been conducted, but the question and answer session at the planning commission meeting indicated that some existing tower sites were not evaluated. Third, impacts across lot lines are supposed to be minimized. MCC stated the tower is behind a bluff. As adjacent property owners that know the area well, this does not seem accurate. In fact the tower was proposed to be placed on a small ridge that provides little to no screening, depending on what angle the site is viewed from. We don’t believe MCC gave any serious consideration of the impacts to adjacent lots. They could have conducted a visual impacts analysis before finalizing the site, but did not. Fourth, the tower is supposed to be located in both compatible and nonresidential areas. A tall tower is not compatible with this area, and it is rapidly developing with new homes. MCC has misconstrued the preference in Borough code for tall structures to be located in “agricultural or industrial districts designated by Borough code” to mean this tower belongs here because a small portion of the landowner’s lot is farmed and there is a farm on one boundary.

We are fortunate to have active farms on this mountain, and we have stated we value such in our community plan. But we are not Port MacKenzie and not a designated agricultural district.

These are just some of the 22 criteria. The ones that did not meet code are all valid reasons the planning commission can and should use to deny a tall structure. There were also procedural problems with this application. These problems, as well as the groundswell of opposition that stemmed from MCC’s unwillingness to work with Borough residents in the first place, will hopefully show the company how its next application might go more smoothly.