Wednesday, October 31, 2018

STATEMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER HANS RIEMER

Council President

STATEMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER HANS RIEMER ON WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE. Our thoughts in blue

Over the past two years I have worked closely with County Executive Ike Leggett (have you also worked with the wireless industry lobbyists as well?) and several of my colleagues at the Council to support the future of wireless infrastructure in Montgomery County. Basically this is about whether your devices will be able to do what they are designed to do in the future (no, it's about selling crap to us because we are addicted to phones, self driving cars, invading our privacy so they can gather our data to sell us more crap). The industry (poor industry- having such a hard time with billions in profits :( so sad :( ) is running out of capacity on wireless networks in the County due to growing demand (i.e., us on our phones, and everyone having multiple devices) and they need to place antennas at the street level (in front of our homes and where our children play). The industry is also working on a new technology, 5g, that will be way faster that 4g (think 40g) (yes it is faster because the millimeter wave frequencies are so high, they are used as crown control weapon by our military. See it here), but also it requires antennas at the street level (in our front yards devaluing our homes), rather that up on tall towers.

We successfully established rules for these antennas in our commercial areas this year, which was a great step forward (increasing radiation to people in the city or in apartments who are unaware). We need to address them for residential areas as well. We had a bill before the Council, prepared by the County Executive, and championed by Councilmember Craig Rice and me (and well loved by industry lobbyists), to accomplish that goal (of giving love to crown castle and version and the companies.)

Unfortunately amendments were introduced that essentially sought to obstruct deployment of wireless infrastructure in the future (you mean the amendments that said people should be treated equally throughout the county?) . This was a real concern because many people want to have good wireless coverage in their neighborhoods, whether to use devices for entertainment and communication, or to call 911, or to work from home, you name it. (I call BS. The amendment was just asking that ALL residents get the same rights, public notice and a hearing.)

Not to mention that the industry is watching us (that's right they are and they are watching you to) and wants to take away our local control (you mean the "control" you were trying to implement that gave them the reins?)over how this infrastructure can be placed, with legislation at the state and federal level. Regulating deployment is one thing, but trying to obstruct it is something else. (Asking for a hearing is not "obstructing" OMG)

Rather than approve a bad bill (you mean a bill that had Hucker's Amendment that made it friendly to citizens? )that would set us back and invite State and Federal pre-emption, I pulled the legislation (Indeed thats cause industry told you so? ) I look forward to taking some additional time to work on it with the new County Council and I hope we’ll get it right next time around.

Wireless and fiber communications infrastructure is important to the future of the county, just like water, power, or transportation infrastructure. We need it all to grow and thrive (or get sick from the radiation and see home values drop due to an ugly tower in our front yards? ) Local government must rise to the challenge. (Yes it must and you should be accountable to citizens-- but not the industry.)

Stop with the rhetoric like you are caring for citizens when it seems you care more about industry needs.
Maybe what you should be doing is finding out WHY the Council was told FALSE information?

See it here .

240-777-7964

Hans Riemer was elected to the Montgomery County Council in 2010 and 2014 and represents over one million residents as an At-Large Member. he does not represent us. Hans serves as the Council's President and Lead for Digital Government.

Office of Councilmember Hans Riemer
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850

councilmember.riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/riemer/

Watch Montgomery Sentinel Press Coverage of Protest at Montgomery County Council Building

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Councilmember Elrich Statement on ZTA 18-11 Small Cells Bill That Was Sunk After Major Citizen Opposition

Statement in Councilmember Elrich's Newsletter and yes he included this image!

"Over the last few months, the Council has been considering a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA), ZTA 18-11, that would regulate the placement of certain telecommunication towers, known as small cell towers, in public right-of-way in residential areas. In the spring, the Council passed ZTA 18-02, which regulates siting of small cell towers in commercial and mixed-use areas. ZTA 18-11 had been reviewed by the Planning Housing and Economic Development and discussed by the Council several weeks ago; it was scheduled to be voted on but was pulled from the agenda. The current Council cannot act on any ZTAs less than 30 days before a new Council is sworn in; therefore, any ZTAs regarding small cells will be considered by the next Council, which will be sworn in December 3.

I share the concerns of the many residents who have contacted our office over the last few months and weeks that these towers would unnecessarily be allowed in too close proximity to residential homes and schools; that citizen voices would largely be removed from the process; and that the process of approving these towers is treated differently in different residential parts of the county. I was also concerned that we were not taking the needed time to consider the many complicated issues involved with this ZTA. The future Council will need to address the siting of these towers, and this “pause” in the process will allow time to work with residents, experts, and others to understand the best path forward. I would note that the Federal Communications Commission has already ruled to prohibit local jurisdictions from considering any potential health implications of small cell towers in residential areas, so the Council cannot use possible health concerns as a rationale for restrictions on locations.

I do not believe that this pause poses a problem, since the Council took major action in the spring with ZTA 18-02, which allows these towers into commercial areas where the demand is the greatest and the need to act was more time-sensitive. This is also an opportunity to address the concerns I raised regarding existing permitting and approval processes will be addressed during this interim and before another ZTA is considered."

Factcheck Ike Leggett: Montgomery County has the authority to regulate both the approval procedure and the setbacks !

True: Montgomery County has the authority to regulate both the approval procedure and the setbacks for small wireless facilities to be placed in its ROW and in residential zones.

Factcheck: The failure of this bill will NOT mean that state and federal authorities can now determine locations of small cell sites. That is legally inaccurate. This is something that you can fact check yourself.

The fact that the County did not pass this particular bill absolutely does not mean that the County has lost it's zoning authority. That is simply false.

The Federal Communications Commission has not preempted state and local authority across the country with respect to the siting of small cell facilities. Recently the Commission moved as close to that as possible with its Small Cell order but that still gives counties and states plenty of room to come up with a plan to site them where appropriate using their own procedures and charging their own fees. Even this new rule, which does not preempt local zoning authority, is being challenged by Montgomery County and may not stand in whole or in part.

Furthermore, every year Members of the Maryland state legislature introduce bills pushed forward by the wireless industry to preempt local zoning authority. The State of Maryland is unlikely to strip counties and cities of their zoning authority in this next legislative session. As appropriate, counties and cities are moving forward to craft zoning laws to permit small cell towers to be sited in a manner consistent with community master plans. Montgomery County is among those counties that will likely be doing that in the next year.

The fact that the County did not pass this particular bill absolutely does not mean that the County has lost it's zoning authority.

In short, Montgomery County has the authority to regulate both the approval procedure and the setbacks for small wireless facilities to be placed in its ROW and in residential zones.

Bethesda Beat: County Council Not Expected To Act on Small Cell Bill

The 5G Small Cell Industry Friendly Bill was Killed

"County Council Not Expected To Act on Small Cell Bill"

County spokesman says Hucker’s amendment was the main problem as proposed zoning amendment is pulled from Tuesday’s agenda

By Dan Schere, Bethesda Magazine, Oct 30, 2018

The Montgomery County Council’s long-awaited vote on proposed legislation that would allow small cell antennas into residential areas appears to be all but dead.

The council removed scheduled action on the zoning change bill from its Tuesday afternoon agenda, legislative information officer Sonya Healy wrote in an email. There is always the possibility that council members could vote to add it back, she wrote.

County spokesman Patrick Lacefield said Tuesday morning the legislation was likely pulled because there wasn’t a majority of the nine council members who planned to vote in favor of it.

The council has been studying the issue of allowing the placement of small cell towers and antennas in the county in order to install faster 5G wireless service for the last two years. According to the bill, the antennas would be 12 to 20 cubic feet in size and would either be attached to an existing utility pole, or be part of a new replacement pole.

At the Oct. 23 council session, council member Tom Hucker proposed an amendment that would require the replacement towers to be a conditional use, meaning the county’s hearing examiner from the Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings would need to approve applications for installing the towers.

Hucker’s amendment would also double the setback length of the towers from 30 to 60 feet in most cases. The amendment was a source of controversy among council members, but ultimately passed by a vote of 6 to 3.

Lacefield said that Hucker’s amendment created unnecessary bureaucracy and was the main reason that the bill was pulled from the agenda.

“We’re gonna at some point have a statement from the county executive on it. Basically, this means that we’re not able to draw some limits around where small cells go,” he said.

Lacefield said the council’s inability to pass the zoning change means the state and federal governments will likely be the ones to decide where the cell antennas can be installed in the county. Council President Hans Riemer along with outgoing council member George Leventhal have been among those who have said repeatedly that it is important for the county to approve its own legislation, instead of being preempted by the state and federal government. Leventhal has said the current council needs to act because new council members who will take office in January, after the Nov. 6 election, will not be as familiar with the small cell issue.

In a press release, Riemer said the council had made “significant progress” on the small cell bill, but that changes proposed by his colleagues would have “undermined the central purpose of the zoning measure.” He did not name any specific council members.

“Building infrastructure is always difficult and some residents object to having small cell antennas in their neighborhoods. A zoning measure based on a goal of keeping wireless away from our residents is not realistic or desirable. I do not, and will not, support that approach,” he wrote.

In an interview Tuesday, Riemer said he remained optimistic that the next council could pass the zoning change.

“I think we can get it done before the state or federal government will succeed in preempting us. It’s more important to get something done right than passing a bad ordinance,” he said.

Hucker defended his amendment in an email, writing that the six council members were “responding to widespread public concerns.”

“The proposal we received would have allowed cell towers right in front of thousands of homes, schools, and houses of worship in Montgomery County. Homeowners would have no notice and no right to appeal. The industry lobbyists loved the bill, but residents have objected very loudly,” he wrote.

Opposition to the current legislation remains from citizens groups, including the Montgomery County Coalition for the Control of Cell Towers. The residents are concerned about the towers being close to their homes, which they feel could cause health problems due to microwave radiation coming from the antennas.

They are also worried that the aesthetics of the antennas could lead to a decline in property values.

Susannah Goodman, who is a member of the group, said there needs to be a “data driven master plan” that can help determine a solution where residents receive the 5G service without having a tower or antenna placed close to their home.

“We need to look at all the locations in the county and figure out where all of these towers can go. If the outcome is we get to have a common sense solutions going forward and they don’t have to go 30 feet in front people homes where they’re really not enhancing service, that’s a victory,” she said.

Lacefield said County Executive Ike Leggett’s staff members were trying to work out a solution on the bill up until last night.

“We have a bill now. Let’s deal with it. There’s no reason at the 11th hour we can’t deal with it right now. It’s not clear that anything will change with a new council and a new executive. Let’s get the job done. That’s the executive’s point of view,” he said.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/government/county-council-not-expected-to-act-on-small-cell-bill/

Montgomery Council President Says Amendment's Undermined Bill.

Below is Montgomery County Councils Statement on the ZTA 18-11 that was tabled. It seems that the President thinks Tuckers Amendment tarnished the industry friendly ZTA he had pushed forward. Council President Riemer called Hucker's amendment as "undermining" the ZTA. WOW. Just WOW.

We expect that industry was furious with Tuckers amendments that protected the residents. See below segment just released from Montgomery County. WE the people know that what happened was that he simply did not have the votes to shove it though.

"Council defers action on zoning measure that balances the future demands of wireless Internet services with the visual impacts of its antennas"

ROCKVILLE, Md., Oct. 30, 2018—Today the Council deferred action on Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 18-11, Telecommunications Towers – Approval Standards. The original goal of this zoning measure was to ensure access to robust wireless broadband services while regulating the visual impacts of its antennas.

Council President Hans Riemer, who was a proponent of the zoning measure, issued the following statement.

We need to support the future of wireless while balancing the impact it will have on our communities. The zoning measure that I supported, ZTA 18-11, accomplished both these goals.

Over the course of the last few months, this Council has made significant progress on this issue; however, several changes proposed by my colleagues would have undermined the central purpose of the zoning measure. In my view, our County needs to embrace wireless infrastructure, just as we embrace water, power, and transportation infrastructure.

Building infrastructure is always difficult and some residents object to having small cell antennas in their neighborhoods. A zoning measure based on a goal of keeping wireless away from our residents is not realistic or desirable. I do not, and will not, support that approach.

The Council has developed a good foundation for the next Council to build on. I look forward to taking this issue up again with the new Council.

END OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY RELEASE

Montgomery County Council for Withdraws Flawed 5G Small Cell Tower Bill

Press release by the Montgomery County Coalition for the Control of Cell Towers...

MC4T Commends Council for Withdrawing Flawed 5G Small Cell Tower Bill

October 30, 2018

MC4T Commends Montgomery County Council for Withdrawing Flawed Small Cell Tower Bill

Bill Did Not Include Safety Standards, Critical Enforcement Protections

Rockville, MD….. Montgomery County Coalition for the Control of Cell Towers today commended the Montgomery County Council for withdrawing the “small cell tower bill” which would have allowed cell towers to placed 30 feet from residents’ homes. The bill, Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 18-11, had been scheduled for a vote today. “We are grateful for the CouncilMembers who lead the charge to protect residents interests” said Rick Meyer, the President of MC4T. “The cell towers could have been placed 30 feet from our homes. These would be tall towers with multiple antennas. There are many protections that were just not in the bill. Other jurisdictions have those protections. We don’t.”

The Council passed a law last Spring which allowed the towers throughout industrial, commercial, and mixed use areas. ZTA 18-11 was much more contentious because the cell towers could be placed so close to people’s homes.

“In particular we would like to thank CouncilMember Hucker whose leadership on this bill put the community’s interests first.” Said Meyer. “We’d like to thank Council Members Navarro, Katz, Elrich, Berliner and Leventhal as well for their support.”

Montgomery County for the Control of Cell Towers supports meaningful community protections such as adequate setbacks from residential dwellings, concealment of equipment, post-installation inspection, adequate safety standards, community notice and opportunity to appear at a hearing prior to installation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According Montgomery County Council Present Riemer's Office as of citizen conversation on October 30, 2018 in am.

"Everything has been removed from the agenda. Its possible that it could always come back. It is possible that 5 Council members could bring it up and vote on it as with any other piece of legislation. But-- There is no planned vote, no planned discussion and no planned closed session with lawyer to discuss the ZTA on wireless facilities"

-stated staff from Council Hans Riemer's office at 10:15 am this am.

"Everything related to ZTA 18-11 has been removed from today’s agenda. Currently, there is no planned discussion, vote, or closed worksession to discuss ZTA 18-11.”

-stated staff from Council Hans Riemer's office at 11:15 am this am.

Industry has greatly exaggerated the FCC Small Cell Order and their tall tales backfired.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Leventhal's Office, Councilmember" <Councilmember.Leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Date: October 30, 2018 at 11:12:20 AM EDT
To:citizen
Subject: RE: ZTA 18-11 vote tomorrow - URGENT

Dear xxx

Thank you for your message regarding ZTA 18-11. As you know, this ZTA is quite controversial and does not have the support of a majority of councilmembers; therefore, it is being pulled from the calendar and will not be voted on by this council.

It remains to be seen whether or when the issue of cell towers in residential neighborhoods will come up again in the future. Knowing your views was helpful to me.

Thank you again for writing.

Best regards,

George Leventhal, Ph.D.

Montgomery County Councilmember

Montgomery County Council President Hans Reimer Cancels Vote on ZTA 18-11

According Montgomery County Council Present Riemer's Office

-stated staff from Council Hans Riemer's office at 11:15 am this am.

Industry has greatly exaggerated the FCC Small Cell Order and their tall tales backfired. A special thank you to Councilman Hucker for putting forward amendments to try to fix this industry friendly ZTA.

From: "Leventhal's Office, Councilmember" <Councilmember.Leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Date: October 30, 2018 at 11:12:20 AM EDT
To:citizen
Subject: RE: ZTA 18-11 vote tomorrow - URGENT

Dear xxx

Thank you for your message regarding ZTA 18-11. As you know, this ZTA is quite controversial and does not have the support of a majority of councilmembers; therefore, it is being pulled from the calendar and will not be voted on by this council.

It remains to be seen whether or when the issue of cell towers in residential neighborhoods will come up again in the future. Knowing your views was helpful to me.

Thank you again for writing.

Best regards,

George Leventhal, Ph.D.

Montgomery County Councilmember

Monday, October 29, 2018

National Health Integrated Associates Letter to Montgomery County Council on 5G Small Cell Zoning

Doctors and Clinicians at the National Health Integrated Associates sent a letter to the Montgomery County Council in Opposition to 5G Small Cell https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/NIHA-letter-about-Close-Proximity-Cell-Towers.pdfZoning the Council on the eve of their historic vote.

Read the National Health Integrated Associates October 29, 2018 Letter to Montgomery County Council

Read even more letters by Doctors on 5G Small Cells on EHT webpage on Scientist/Doctor 5G Letters.

Read full letter
National Health Integrated Associates October 29, 2018 Letter to Montgomery County Council

Burlington, Massachusetts formed a Small Cells Committee and Verizon Backed Off

Burlington, Massachusetts proactively formed a Small Cells Committee to develop a policy for reviewing small cell applications.

Their criteria includes an annual recertification of equipment installations, with a fee assessed to the telecommunications vendor to pay for town employee time to oversee the recertification process.

Verizon submitted seven small cell applications and upon learning of the annual recertification requirement and associated fee, the Verizon lawyer indicated his client would like to withdraw the small cell applications as they did not wish to establish a precedent for recertification fees.

Burlington Cable Access Television Verizon Drops Small Cell Wireless Booster Application in Face of Fees":

http://www.bcattv.org/bnews/top-stories/verizon-drops-small-cell-wireless-booster-application-in-face-of-fees/

Board of Selectmen Meeting Video

To see how the conversation went, skip ahead to any of the following segments (other non-related items are covered at the beginning of the meeting):

94:19 Discussion of their small cell policy, which is approved unanimously; the woman on the right is the town's lawyer who provides good insights
113:50 Open public hearing on Verizon's seven small cell applications
147:39 Verizon lawyer withdraws their applications
http://www.bcattv.org/programming/government-channel/board-of-selectmen/board-of-selectmen-october-22-2018/

Town Website for Small Cell Information

The town established a website to share with the public each of the small cell applications, letters of concern, staff comments and reports. These provide a view into what this process looks like when telecoms submit applications, how municipalities can retain control, and how citizens can engage in the process:

http://www.burlington.org/town_government/small_cell_information.php

City of Rye Wins Suits by Crown Castle to Place Cell Towers in Rights of Way

The City of Rye, Ny won two suits by Crown Castle to place cell towers in right-of-way.

"In April 2017, Rye lawmakers voted to deny Crown Castle's application to build and required the company to conduct studies on possible noise, sight and health impacts from the proposed equipment.

"A second lawsuit filed by wireless provider Crown Castle against Rye City over the company's stalled proposal to place small cell boxes throughout the city was dismissed this week by a state Supreme Court judge this week."

"The dismissal confirms that Crown Castle has no rights under the Right of Way Use Agreement, thereby leaving Rye free to protect the interests of its residents in accordance with applicable law," said Rye City Mayor Joshua Cohn.

https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/2018/08/23/wireless-company-lawsuit-against-rye-dismissed-again/1072682002/

Wireless company lawsuit against Rye dismissed again

Gabriel Rom, Rockland/Westchester Journal NewsPublished 2:34 p.m. ET Aug. 23, 2018

Rye Mayor-elect Joshua Cohn meets with The Journal News / lohud to discuss development and other issues concerning the city Dec. 11, 2017. Tania Savayan/lohud

A second lawsuit filed by wireless provider Crown Castle against Rye City over the company's stalled proposal to place small cell boxes throughout the city was dismissed this week by a state Supreme Court judge this week....

The company had accused the city of "illegal conduct in deference to a highly vocal group in Rye opposed to wireless development, led by Joshua Cohn," according to the Jan. 8 legal action.

Cohn, formerly president of a grassroots group opposed to Crown Castle, was elected mayor in Nov. 2016.

Crown Castle, which has built in communities throughout Westchester and Rockland, proposed in 2015 to install "cell nodes," or small metal boxes that function as antennae across the city, to boost cell coverage and internet speeds.

But some residents, citing noise and aesthetic concerns, pushed back. The City Council followed suit.

In April 2017, Rye lawmakers voted to deny Crown Castle's application to build and required the company to conduct studies on possible noise, sight and health impacts from the proposed equipment. The review, known as SEQRA, is ongoing.

The company accused the city of “weaponizing” the SEQRA law and that the city's entire review process was “arbitrary and capricious and in violation of New York State law.”

The company had accused the city of "illegal conduct in deference to a highly vocal group in Rye opposed to wireless development, led by Joshua Cohn," according to the Jan. 8 legal action.

Cohn, formerly president of a grassroots group opposed to Crown Castle, was elected mayor in Nov. 2016.

But some residents, citing noise and aesthetic concerns, pushed back. The City Council followed suit.

The company accused the city of “weaponizing” the SEQRA law and that the city's entire review process was “arbitrary and capricious and in violation of New York State law.”

Read it at https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/2018/08/23/wireless-company-lawsuit-against-rye-dismissed-again/1072682002/

Sunday, October 28, 2018

Urgent: Council to Vote on Limiting Your Time to Present Your Case to OZAH

The Council is to vote on Tuesday on a proposed amendment to the OZAH Rules of Procedure. (the proposal to amend Rule 4.2 e) will authorize the Hearing Examiner to limit the amount of time for parties’ case presentations.

OZAH is the Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings. It is where you go to present your case when something is proposed that will effect you in the county- like a commercial business next to your home in a residential area or a cell tower in your front yard.

It is not unusual that there are multiple parties (individuals and organizations) in opposition to an application and limiting the total amount of time for the presentation of ALL opposition testimony/evidence to the total amount of time used by the applicant will cut short the amount of time that individual opposition parties will have to present their different perspectives and issues.

The Council will consider adopting the new OZAH rule on Tuesday, and we urge you to contact the Council ASAP in opposition to this rule change.

Email them at
Councilmember.Berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov,councilmember.Leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov,Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov,Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov,Councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov,Councilmember.Elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov

You can say--

Dear Council Member:

You six stood up for the right of citizens to be heard last Tuesday, when you voted that all new cell tower placement in residential areas be treated as a "conditional use" so citizens would have the right to speak at hearings. Thank you so much for that!

Now it looks as if there is an effort to undermine what we won, by changing the rules at such hearings to restrict the power of our voices. Please vote against the proposed amendment to rule 4.2 e for OZAH hearings. This would affect the power of citizens to speak out not only on cell towers, but on almost any proposed development or zoning change. Sometimes there are multiple parties which have concerns, for many different reasons, and their collective time to speak should not be severely limited as if they had only one voice, and deserved no more time than the applicant has to make its case.

If you are concerned that the process might become too unwieldy, then at least to take some time to consider more of a scalpel approach, and you should also hold hearings before making any rule change of this magnitude. Thank you.

Read the proposed new rule here.

TAKE ACTION NOW
Email AND Call the Council NOW, leave messages on their message machine so their inbox is filled. Click here to use MC4T's easy tool to send letters to your Councilmembers.

CALL THE COUNCIL NOW- TODAY

Nancy Floreen D - At - Large, 240-777-7959
Councilmember.Floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov

Hans Riemer D - At - Large, 240-777-7964
Councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov

George Leventhal D - At - Large, 240-777-7811
Councilmember.Leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov

Roger Berliner D - District 1, 240-777-7828
Councilmember.Berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov

Sidney Katz D - District 3, 240-777-7906
Councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov

Nancy Navarro D - District 4, 240-777-7968
Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov

Craig Rice D - District 2, 240-777-7955
Councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov

Marc Elrich D - At - Large, 240-777-7966
Councilmember.Elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov

Tom Hucker D - District 5, 240-777-7960
Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov

5G Small Cell Press Conference Montgomery County October 2018

Saturday, October 27, 2018

Factcheck: Montgomery County Stated Small Cells Travel over 1000 Feet in 2016

Why is Montgomery County Giving FALSE and CONFLICTING information to the Council and residents?

Montgomery County keeps changing their tune on how far a 5G small cell travel. This is important because the county is stating they must place these antennas in front of our homes because the signs only travels a short distance. This issue is critical to decisions about how close an antenna can be to our homes. Thy are pressuring

A look at Montgomery County's own statements finds the county is changing the amount of feet a small cell can travel! ARE THEY CHANGING NUMBERS TO FORCE THESE INSTALLATIONS NEAR OUR HOMES?

Factcheck: Do small cells only travel 250 feet?

2018: Montgomery County stated in 2018 these small cells traveled only 250- to 500 feet. 2016: Montgomery County stated in 2016 the number was 650 to 1,150 feet.
Question: Are the citizens of Montgomery County being lied to?

Truth be told: Small cells have a much further range than 250 feet.

Watch the linked videos here to watch industry interviews where they state the range is MUCH further than 250 feet. In fact, the word "small cell" is created by industry and is not a technical term at all. It can mean all sorts of microwave antenna installations. It was created to remove the stigma of the word "cell tower."
Watch this videos:

Lowell McAdam, Chairman and former CEO of Verizon:

Watch Verizon technician gives demonstration of modern 5G tech.
Samsung shows off backpack-sized 5G antenna to be used by Verizon. No refrigerator size box needed.

2018: Montgomery County stated in 2018 these small cells traveled only 250- to 500 feet.

The Frequently Asked Questions document for ZTA 18-11 as updated July 27, 2018 states:

"Small cells used for mobile coverage serve about a 250 to 500 feet radius, but small cells used for fixed wireless might serve a distance of one‐half mile."

This document is posted on County's TFCG website page providing official information about wireless zoning ordinances. (We think it has been /written/edited by Ms. Mitsi Herrera.) Authors of this FAQ offer no references or citations for this assertion.

FACT: NO DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED TO DOCUMENT THESE ASSUMPTIONS.

2016: Montgomery County stated in 2016 the number was 650 to 1,150 feet.

This 2018 number of 500 feet is approximately 1/2 the mobile small cell coverage distance cited by Montgomery county lawyer Jeff Zyontz in 2016. Specifically, Mr. Zyontz stated in the PHED Committee briefing packet dated Sept 12, 2016 for ZTA 16-05 on page 11 :

"The coverage area of these antennas is between 650 and 1,150 feet."9

The number 9 represents the footnote whichshows that Mr. Zyontz's data actually came from City of Gaithersburg and Crown Castle!

"9 The City of Gaithersburg's frequently asked questions included a statement that the range for Crown Castle installations will be between 200 and 350 meters."

To our knowledge Mr. Zyontz's reference to information sourced from City of Gaithersburg is the only citation where County actually sought to validate "coverage distance" of small cells .

As a footnote, ZTAs' 18-02 and 18-11 were both re-treads of ZTA 16-05 which was quietly dumped by Nancy Floreen after the October 26, 2016 Small Cell "Community Forum" at Ridgeview Middle School. Ms. Floreen was Council President at the time, and introduced 16-05 on behalf of County Executive Ike Leggett.

Montgomery County Forum on Small Cell Towers - 10.26.2016

Residents meet with representatives of antenna companies, Montgomery County government and County Councilmembers...

"WE HAVE BUSTED THE MYTH THAT IT HAS TO BE LINE OF SIGHT. IT DOES NOT. WE BUSTED THE MYTH THAT FOLIAGE WILL SHUT IT DOWN. I MEAN THAT WAS BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN A PINE NEEDLE WOULD STOP IT. THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN. AND THESE THINGS -- IN THE 200 FEET FROM A HOME, WE'RE NOW DESIGNING THE NETWORK FOR OVER 2,000 FEET FROM TRANSMITTER TO RECEIVER, WHICH HAS A HUGE IMPACT ON OUR CAPITAL NEED GOING FORWARD. SO THOSE MYTHS HAVE DISAPPEARED. WE'RE CHARGING AHEAD,"

says Verizon Chairman & CEO Lowell McAdam

Small Cells ZTA Montgomery County: Mini Cell Towers In Front of Our Homes

Take ACTION Now