|
DRAFT
<br />
<br />OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 114 of 156
<br />
<br />not harmful to humans. They also point to what one of the Council County members said earlier, 1
<br />that even if it were harmful other sources such as the Wi-Fi in this room, the cell phones in this 2
<br />room, the microwaves in the rooms over, and TV’s and radios expose us to much higher levels of 3
<br />RF radiation than even homes in the near vicinity. As a father of two very young children living in 4
<br />the area I wouldn’t support it if I thought it was hazardous to the health of my children and my 5
<br />neighbors. Now, speaking to the concerns of health hazards of not approving the cell tower: the 6
<br />reason I came to this meeting was because the Friday night before the last meeting on December 7
<br />the 9th, three nights before the meeting, I had a potential emergency and I needed to call 911 for 8
<br />my home. There were, over a 20-minute period, my cell phone dropped a call four times, I 9
<br />attempted many more times to call 911, and I’m very fortunate one, the emergency was ok, and 10
<br />two, the 911 operator was able to continue returning the call to my phone until we were able to get 11
<br />through and pair a conversation together. My point is the lack of cell coverage could’ve harmed, 12
<br />not only my young children, but also my neighbors. I consider it a blessing that this situation did 13
<br />not harm anyone, however, if it’s not my situation it would be another, another, another. Now, it 14
<br />could be argued that I need a home cell phone booster. I have one. It was on that night, flashing 15
<br />that it worked, and it didn’t work. Cell phone boosters, in my opinion, are not reliable where I live 16
<br />and I see this as a benefit. One could also argue I need a landline. Based on my demographics, 17
<br />we do not have landlines. If I get one, it’s the new folks across the street and they’re not going to 18
<br />get one either so if we fail to allow this cell tower to come into the area I see it as us, as a 19
<br />community, choosing to continue propagating with unnecessary risks for our residents to 20
<br />accessing emergency services. Now, two, the property value piece: I’ve heard the detailed 21
<br />accounts from appraisers from both sides. I’m aware there are the studies from the mid 2000’s in 22
<br />New Zealand, and I think both sides have vetted those as well as you probably need to. I have not 23
<br />heard introduced the 2016 U.S. based peer reviewed research article, which I would consider to 24
<br />be a more legitimate source. An article about the cell service needs of western Kentucky, which 25
<br />used property analysis and weighted samples for determining how housing values are affected in 26
<br />western Kentucky, over a much larger sample and a longer time frame than some of the studies 27
<br />we’ve heard presented here. Those findings can be debated, I think the concern that seems to be 28
<br />the case is what are property value between 1,000-feet directly from the radius of the cell tower up 29
<br />to potentially 4,000-feet. I think considering those findings, which I’m not getting into, and I’m 30
<br />listing only my personal opinion here, with the findings that are being presented are directly 31
<br />related to houses very close to the cell tower. After skimming TowerCom’s Special Use Permit 32
<br />application I counted no more than 42 different property holding entities within a 1,000-foot radius 33
<br />of the proposed tower. So in that application there’s well more than 42 entities that own property 34
<br />within 1,000-feet but it’s only 42 different at most. And I did that on my cell phone sitting at this 35
<br />meeting so it’s not an exact science there but, if the tower cannot only benefit Verizon customers 36
<br />as well as potentially other customers, as we heard from testimony that can be debated, and if 37
<br />there are no adverse health effects caused by the tower I hope the opposition, by few, does not 38
<br />prevent the Board from approving what I believe can benefit many. The second piece of property 39
<br />values, and my final point is: Basically I’m going to get to eyeball a home, three years ago, where 40
<br />we are. Cell phone coverage was a big reason I would’ve bought. My wife talked me into buying it 41
<br />despite the fact that I thought cell coverage wasn’t because I talked to Verizon and they said 42
<br />they’d give me a home booster. I work from home a lot and I have some letters here in support of 43
<br />the cell phone tower. And I also have links to these different sources that I can also provide from 44
<br />my Google document. But in responding to the last witness who, and I quoted, said, “That the 45
<br />increase, mostly because young people are sitting around watching videos” I personally can attest 46
<br />that I work from home and the ability to have calls. It’s not acceptable. I have to go other places to 47
<br />do my own work and I didn’t even ask someone who also wrote a letter, but ironically a couple 48
<br />that just moved in across the street, both who work in healthcare IT as consultants, are very 49
<br />concerned that they’ve moved in and bought a house where cell phone coverage is not reliable 50
<br />116
|