Montgomery County Admits That Property Values Will Drop With Small Cells in Front Yard

Staff’s amendments (Ms. Herrera, Mr. Zyontz, Ms. Nurmi and Ms. Jones) do NOT address resident concerns and ignore the County’s own FCC opposed actions.   

1. Property Values.  One of the largest reasons residents are opposed to ZTA 18-11 is they fear property values will decrease as small cells are deployed into our neighborhoods – YET we are told by the Montgomery County Staff that they are unaware of studies showing this.  As such, property values were not taken into consideration.   We say we are concerned  about aesthetics and that small cells could be large, loud, bulky and obtrusive and would detract from a neighborhood’s beauty –  EVEN Ms. Floreen stated that “in my … neighborhood … there’s a lot of junk … it’s not attractive … but its there and nobody notices.  I wish they’d put [a cell tower] 20 feet from my bedroom because I have crummy cell service.” [Council Session Oct. 9, 2018]

HERE, THE COUNCIL AGREES PROPERTY VALUES WOULD BE LOWERED AND AESTHETICS ARE AS IMPORTANT AS NEGATIVE IMPACT BY LARGE, BULKY COMPONENTS OF SMALL CELLS.

Through its attorney’s Montgomery County has filed on March 8, 2017 with the Secretary of the FCC in regards to “Streamlining Deployment of Small Cell Infrastructure by Improving Wireless Facilities / WT Docket No. 16-421)” where it discussed in detail, in concurrence with expert opinions, the negative effect cell poles and their associated components on residents’ property values:

“Small Cells” vary dramatically in size and visibility. Some proposed facilities could have significant, negative impacts on adjacent property values. There are technologies readily available that can reduce the size of the facilities. But, compounding siting issues are the Commission rules under 47 U.S. §1455(c) (colloquially, Section 6409), which allow for installations to grow to sizes entirely inappropriate for many areas, including residential areas and many redeveloped historical, seaside and downtown areas. If local governments can allow small cells and keep them small in size, localities will be in a better position to develop safe harbors and development plans that can provide a simpler path for deployment.

Again in 2018, the County stated:

“Considering that the Smart Communities’ [of which Montgomery County is one] prior filings show that the addition of facilities of this size [28 pizza boxes/28 cu. Ft. – on front lawns throughout the country] diminish property values, it is strange for the Commission to assume that approval can be granted in the regulatory blink of an eye.”   P.6 of the 2018 filing (cited below)

            The Exhibit included in the FCC filing discussing negative effects on property values can be found on page 138.        

https://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/documents/Mobilitie%20Comments%20-%20SMART%20COMMUNITIES%20SITING%20COALITION%20(2017).pdf 

Council –  vote “NO” on 18-11 as it doesn’t even address your own concerns.    Prepare something better.

2. “Small Cell” / 5G Deployment Won’t Fix Underserved Communities.   Residents’ have repeatedly argued that ZTA 18-11 will not serve communities that are underserved and deployment seems to have no reasonable plan – dotting communities that have connectivity with multiple poles yet leaving communities that complain they cannot call or text with no answers – YET at every hearing on a zoning amendment that proposes to move cell poles into residential areas (16-02, 18-02 and now 18-11) the Council and Staff stand largely silent while the wireless industry tells us that they cannot meet the demands, shows multiple maps of lack of coverage, and says we may not be able to reach emergency responders until more cells are deployed to meet needs.  In fact, resident proponents of ZTA 18-11 created a website called engagedcommunities.org [“Engaged Communities for Better Access”] which suggest residents e-mail their Council Members to approve the zoning amendment “how would you like cell phone calls that don’t drop, no matter where you’re calling from”   -   Council should look to who owns this website (as members of our group have noted) and query as to how they got these talking points. 

YET, THE COUNCIL AGREES ACCESS WILL NOT BE EXPANDED BY 5G “SMALL CELLS” AND DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN VOICE AND OTHER SERVICES.

Yes, Montgomery County, again being a leader in Technology made an FCC submission on September 19, 2018 (In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment WT No. 17-79) (at p. 45) which stated that:

“The number of facilities required to provide voice services is much less than the number required to provide non-common carrier data services.  In my experience, small cell equipment is being placed primarily to accommodate the growing demand for capacity from users of data-intensive applications on smartphones and other cellular devices.  I base this statement on the fact that small cells have been placed only over the past 10 years and mostly over the past one or two years, and almost all of these have been placed in areas where adequate cellular service already exists (e.g. there are plenty of “bars”).” 

“in other words, the small cells are not being placed to provide coverage where none exists (or where it is not reliable – for example where capacity limits result in dropped calls, failures to connect or inadequate throughput to support personal wireless services), but as part of a densification process where the applicant is adding additional capacity, mostly or entirely for high-bandwidth data services, including video and Internet access services.” 

Council –  vote “NO” on 18-11 as it doesn’t even address your own concerns.    Prepare something better.

See FCC September 2018 submission:

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/cellTowerInfo/Ex%20Parte-Smart%20Communities%20and%20Special%20Districst%2009-19-18-c2%20(1).pdf