Plans to erect a 195-foot cellular tower in Leonard so Verizon Wireless can improve its coverage in the area were rejected 5-1 by the village’s planning commission immediately following a Nov. 20 public hearing.
Commissioners cited the proposed tower’s failure to meet zoning ordinance requirements in three areas ? setbacks (too close to adjacent properties), height (too tall) and lot size (too small) ? as the main reason for their denial.
Verizon Wireless wished to construct the tower (or monopole) on a 4.04-acre parcel, owned by former township Supervisor Bob Koski, which is zoned limited industrial and borders Leonard Elementary’s east side.
The tower’s needed to help eliminate so-called dead zones ? areas where cellular phone service is not available ? out in Leonard/Addison and free up some wireless capacity from existing towers in surrounding areas.
‘It becomes obvious there’s a big area with no antenna,? said Johnathan Crane, the Rochester attorney representing the wireless provider.
Public opposition to the proposed tower’s location right next door the elementary school was high as represented by a petition signed by 65 residents and letters from the superintendent and Leonard PTO.
‘I’m not opposed to the tower itself,? said Leonard resident Brian Sineo. ‘I’m opposed to the location.?
Ultimately, planning commissioners agreed.
In their denial, they stated the tower’s location ‘will negatively impact the Village of Leonard’s planning goals to maintain a rural, natural environment? and such a structure ‘would be at jarring odds with the skyline and natural vistas.?
‘The maximum height allowed for structures within the village is deliberately enforced to keep the historic character of the village residences and building in harmony with surrounding trees and natural growth,? the motion stated.
The only support the tower received was from Oxford resident John Lindsay and Planning Commissioner Pauline Blanka, who also sits on the Leonard Village Council.
Blanka indicated it’s important to get rid of these dead zones, so cell phones work everywhere in case of emergencies, be they at home, in the car or at the elementary school.
‘I’d like to have my cell phone work in my house,? she said, noting her Verizon Wireless service currently does not.
One of the main issues repeatedly voiced by numerous citizens was a concern over the potential, but not proven, health effects related to exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation.
Leonard resident Katie Maki requested something in writing from Verizon Wireless stating that no one near the tower, be it her family or the elementary school kids, is going to get sick because of it.
‘So 10 years down the road, we don’t have a bunch of kids graduating that are full of brain tumors,? she said. ‘It takes 10 years for a brain tumor to form.?
Crane insisted that living near a cellular tower poses no health risks whatsoever.
‘It’s not harmful. It’s not dangerous,? he said. ‘I’ve never seen anything in writing about increased cancer risks from monopoles.?
Crane noted there are cell antennas on school yards in Birmingham, Southfield and high schools in Ann Arbor.
Documented reports ‘by government agencies, by AT&T labs, (and) by college professors? all conclude there are ‘no harmful effects? to children or adults, according to Crane.
The tower uses ‘very low? power to broadcast at a high frequency and the power emitted ‘drops off exponentially? the greater the distance from the antenna.
‘There’s less power coming out of that antenna than the cell phone that’s talking back to the antenna,? said Crane, noting the phones are right next to people’s heads.
That’s why the towers also emit ‘no interference whatsoever? to televisions, garage door openers, pacemakers, microwave ovens or stereos.
‘I guarantee that,? he said.
Crane’s arguments didn’t convince planning commissioners who included the following in their motion to deny ? ‘Despite the FCC standards that allow cell towers to operate in residential areas, there remains little significant investigation into the possible ramifications on children of radio frequency emitting transmitters such as those used in cell towers.?
The motion went on to state, ‘Given the continuing questions and concerns about the use of cell phones by children and the possible long-term effects of radio frequency emissions, and in consideration of the captive audience of students, teachers and support staff that would be required to be in such close proximity for extended periods of time, including recess, an alternate site would be highly more preferable than the current site…?
This language appeared to contradict a statement by planning commission Chair Phyllis Roe, who noted the board’s decision regarding the tower can only be based on local ordinances, not the potential health risk.
‘We can’t base our opinions and our acceptance or denial of this proposed structure on health and safety,? she said. ‘We can’t do that. That’s not possible.?
But not all the planning commissioners were concerned about potential public health risks.
‘The health issue is just plain nonsense,? said Blanka, who read off a variety of documents from the internet refuting health concerns.
Concerns and questions also arose about the monopole’s structural integrity and how it would hold up to high winds and lightning.
Crane noted there’s never been an incident of this type of monopole failing (or falling over) in the United States.
He said it’s designed to withstand wind gusts of up to 90 miles per hour with a half-inch of radial ice encasing it.
When windy, the pole can flex like a fishing rod, bending ?5 percent out of plumb,? according to Crane.
A few years ago, a monopole in Illinois took a ‘direct hit? by a tornado.
The antennas at the top blew away, ‘but the pole itself was not damaged? and was put back into service, Crane said. ‘You can’t say that for many structures.?
As for other storm-related phenomena, Crane said, ‘Towers are hit regularly by lightning.?
However, they’re designed and equipped with ‘substantial grounding? around the base of the tower so there’s ‘virtually no impacts at all.?
‘We even ground our fence (around the tower),? Crane said.
Some residents expressed concern over a cell tower’s impact on home values.
‘We don’t have a lot of data on that,? Crane admitted.
However, based on two incidents in Orion Township and Columbus, Ohio where towers were placed near or in residential areas, there was no adverse financial impact.
‘I don’t believe they hurt anybody’s home values,? Crane said. ‘I have one that I can view from my house down in Rochester.?
In the end, planning commissioners encouraged Verizon Wireless to seek alternative locations for a new tower such as the township’s Watershed Preserve Park, which is outside the village limits.