Thursday, February 8, 2018
Utility Poles to Be Wireless Antennae Sites in Silver Spring And Montgomery County
Montgomery County Response to a question
SET BACK QUESTION
Q. There is something here that I don't understand:
Lines 56 and 167 uphold setback standards of "300 feet from dwellings." BUT Line 72
outlines the parameters for replacing a utility pole or streetlight and does not include
the "300 foot set back" protective language. Does the 300‐foot setback just apply to
macro towers?
Specific real‐life examples would be enormously helpful. For example, [the North
Potomac neighborhood off Dufief Mill Rd and DuFief Dr] has been identified for 16
towers. Can you articulate how the new ZTA text would apply to those applications?
A. The language in Lines 72 to 154 apply to Commercial/Residential, Industrial, and
Employment zones only. The North Potomac neighborhood is a residential zone, not in one
of the zones listed, so the provisions allowing replacement poles as limited uses would not
apply in residential neighborhoods. In contrast, see the downtown Silver Spring area below
– the replacement pole language would apply in the CR zones.
In addition, see the pink circle to the map above, showing where the steetview photo
below was taken. This is a residential zone. The photo below shows a preexisting utility
pole in this neighborhood.
See Lines 304 to 316 of the Proposed ZTA. These preexisting utility poles could be used
in this residential neighborhood, to attach an antenna to, if the pre‐existing pole is 20
feet back from a dwelling in a residential zone, or 10 feet back from a structure in a
Commercial/Residential, Industrial, or Employment zone.
-----
Q. How can I find the zoning category or classification of a property, to determine which
antenna and tower zoning laws would apply?
A. To view commercial/Residential, Industrial, and Employment zones, visit
http://mcatlas.org/antennazta
Click on the “Content” button to show layers, then click on the zoning classifications you
want to see
Zoning categories and classification abbreviations
1. Agricultural (AR)
2. Rural Residential (R), (RC), (RNC)
3. Residential
a. Residential Detached (RE‐2), (RE‐2C),
(RE‐1), (R‐200), (R‐90), (R‐60), (R‐40)
b. Residential Townhouse (TLD), (TMD), (THD)
c. Residential Multi‐Unit (R‐30), (R‐20), (R‐10)
4. Commercial/Residential (CRN), (CRT), CR)
5. Employment (GR), (NR), (LSC), (EOF)
6. Industrial (IL), (IL), (IH)
2018 Montgomery County Proposed Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA)
"Why are Officials Disobeying Federal Laws on Immigration but not on Radiation" A Doctors Letter on Small Cell Wireless in Neighborhood
In response to the new Montgomery County ZTA......
Dear Ms. Herrera,
BACKGROUND
In the URL in your incoming message, it is stated:
"Many residents have expressed concern about the health effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions. Under federal law, the County may not “regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.” In other words, the County may enforce and require compliance with FCC regulations, but not create additional requirements."
GERMAN RACIAL LAWS
In my view, it is an abdication of the Council's responsibility to hide behind a 'federal law', if adherence to that law could bring harm to the residents of Montgomery County. For example, consider the Holocaust Encyclopedia (https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005681). It lists tens, if not hundreds, of "federal laws" implemented in Nazi Germany against its Jewish citizens, starting in 1933. If you were a member of a German County Council in the 1933-1940 time frame, would you be comfortable with such laws? More specifically, would you be sending out a letter to the residents of that County telling them they have no choice but to obey and implement such laws?
That example is very analogous to the situation today with respect to implementation of small cell towers to support 5G. We know radiofrequency emissions (RF) are harmful in isolation, and potentially very harmful when combined with other toxic stimuli. I showed many examples of harm from RF (in isolation and especially in combination with other toxic stimuli) in my book chapter that I circulated to the Council in my previous mailing
How harmful? We don't know.
Our chapter showed a plethora of potentially fatal and chronic diseases that could result from RF radiation. But, even the human effects data (horrific as it was) was based on relatively short-term exposure to RF, such as cell phones, cell towers, WiFi. We know that many diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, etc, can have very long latency periods for some toxic stimuli. Intense exposures to RF are relatively recent, and we don't have the long-term human data (in isolation or in combinations) to ascertain the full extent of the damage these exposures can cause. I cannot rule out that the potential damage from these long-term exposures would not equal, or even greatly exceed, the horrific damage caused by the Holocaust, especially because of the potential world-wide implementation of small cell tower 5G technology. That's why I draw the analogy above, even though the Holocaust had strong racial motivations, while the motivations for RF-5G implementation are profit and greed. It is small comfort for the victims to know that they died from someone's greed rather than racial motivations!
JAPANESE-AMERICAN INTERNMENT DURING WWII
On 19 February 1942, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing internment of tens of thousands of citizens of Japanese ancestry and resident aliens from Japan. That was essentially a Federal law. We view it from today's perspective as horrific, and I have yet to see someone in recent times who would defend it. But, at the time, it was accepted by the majority of non-Japanese Americans. Should we have followed that proclamation blindly, as we did, causing undue hardship and disruption for a group whose only 'crime' was being of a particular ancestry? And, how is today's action by the Montgomery County Council different from the actions of those authorities seventy-five years ago who went along with, and hid behind, an obviously harmful Federal Order?
SANCTUARY CITIES
Sanctuary cities limit their cooperation with the Federal government in enforcing Federal immigration law. In Maryland, three counties are listed as sanctuary counties: Baltimore, Prince George's, and--Montgomery. Whether one agrees with their resistance or not, the officials (and residents) of these counties are willing to disobey Federal law because they think it is wrong.
So, for Montgomery County in particular, why are the officials willing to disobey Federal laws on immigration, but hide behind the cover of Federal law when it comes to the implementation of the infrastructure for 5G? Are the consequences of obeying Federal immigration law more serious than the consequences of obeying Federal telecommunications law?
I would argue the opposite. While the consequences of obeying Federal immigration law will result in substantial hardship and disruption of their lives for the individuals affected, for most the consequences will not be life-threatening. The consequences of obeying Federal telecommunications law have the potential of resulting in many severe illnesses and premature deaths. In short, the Council has shown willingness to disobey Federal law in the immigration situation, but unwillingness to do the same in the telecommunication situation.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
One reason for the schizophrenic behavior of the Council on the above problems of immigration and telecommunications infrastructure could be related to potential conflicts of interest.
For the telecommunications implementation issue, have the Council members been vetted for conflict of interest?
This would include:
- any elements of their investment portfolio that would profit from operation and expansion of the mobile telecommunications network;
- any elements of their present business endeavors that would profit from operation and expansion of this network;
- any elements of pensions received that would profit from operation and expansion of this network;
- any proposals in the pipeline or being considered that would profit from operation and expansion of this network;
- any other existing or potential conflicts of interest by which they could profit from operation and expansion of the mobile telecommunications network. Anyone conflicted should be required to recuse themselves from decision-making on this network.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We are at a critical point in the fight to restrict exposure to very harmful levels of wireless radiation. Already, studies have shown extensive human damage resulting from the previous generations of mobile telecommunications networks. Implementation of 5G would raise potential human damage to unprecedented levels, because of the vastly increased density of cell towers required and their proximity to humans.
We need to make a stand: not tomorrow, not in some other location, but here, in Montgomery County, and now, in 2018! If Montgomery County can claim sanctuary status for immigration, they can certainly claim sanctuary status to be free from the potentially ravaging effects of 5G. Let's not do the equivalent of making the trains to the Camps run on time, or of sending innocent people to internment facilities, as we did seventy-five years ago. Let's do what is right, for once, and oppose installation of these 5G cell towers!
Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff
The above letter was in response to this email from Ms. Mitsuko Herrera
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, Feb 8, 2018 9:23 am
Subject: County Executive Transmitted Small Cell ZTA to Council
Sent: Thu, Feb 8, 2018 9:23 am
Subject: County Executive Transmitted Small Cell ZTA to Council
Thank for your comments in the Small Cell ZTA process. We wanted to let you know that the County Executive transmitted a Proposed ZTA to the County Council. We expected that the ZTA will be introduced next Tuesday, February 13, 2018, and that a public hearing will be scheduled for March or April. The County Executive’s transmittal package is attached and updated information will continue to be provided here: http://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Towers/zta-links.html
The proposed ZTA would allow use of streetlight, utility, and parking lot lights in urban and commercial areas. It is not making changes to use of streetlights in residential areas or in areas with underground streetlights. It would also allow antennas on rooftops of buildings at least 35 feet tall in residential areas (instead of the current 50 feet), and on buildings in commercial and urban areas at least 20 feet tall (instead of the current 35 feet). The County Executive will continue to look for more information – particularly about pole design – and address changes in a residential areas at a later date.
In addition, we also wanted to let you know that there is an industry-sponsored small cell bill being circulated in Annapolis for consideration in by General Assembly. The bill has not yet been introduced, but we have heard they have gotten a sponsor in both the House and Senate. We expect to see the bill introduced in the next two weeks, and we will send a link to the bill once that happens. In the draft concepts, the bill would prohibit any zoning review when a pole up to 50 feet is installed (including in residential areas), allow equipment up to 28 cubic feet.
Thank you again for your input,
Mitsuko Herrera
2018 Proposed Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)