|
Approved 3113117
<br />1 not harmful to humans. They also point to what one of the Council County members said earlier,
<br />2 that even if it were harmful other sources such as the Wi -Fi in this room, the cell phones in this
<br />3 room, the microwaves in the rooms over, and TV's and radios expose us to much higher levels of
<br />4 RF radiation than even homes in the near vicinity. As a father of two very young children living in
<br />5 the area I wouldn't support it if I thought it was hazardous to the health of my children and my
<br />6 neighbors. Now, speaking to the concerns of health hazards of not approving the cell tower: the
<br />7 reason I came to this meeting was because the Friday night before the last meeting on December
<br />8 the 9t", three nights before the meeting, I had a potential emergency and I needed to call 911 for
<br />9 my home. There were, over a 20- minute period, my cell phone dropped a call four times, I
<br />10 attempted many more times to call 911, and I'm very fortunate one, the emergency was ok, and
<br />11 two, the 911 operator was able to continue returning the call to my phone until we were able to get
<br />12 through and pair a conversation together. My point is the lack of cell coverage could've harmed,
<br />13 not only my young children, but also my neighbors. I consider it a blessing that this situation did
<br />14 not harm anyone, however, if it's not my situation it would be another, another, another. Now, it
<br />15 could be argued that I need a home cell phone booster. I have one. It was on that night, flashing
<br />16 that it worked, and it didn't work. Cell phone boosters, in my opinion, are not reliable where I live
<br />17 and I see this as a benefit. One could also argue I need a landline. Based on my demographics,
<br />18 we do not have landlines. If I get one, it's the new folks across the street and they're not going to
<br />19 get one either so if we fail to allow this cell tower to come into the area I see it as us, as a
<br />20 community, choosing to continue propagating with unnecessary risks for our residents to
<br />21 accessing emergency services. Now, two, the property value piece: I've heard the detailed
<br />22 accounts from appraisers from both sides. I'm aware there are the studies from the mid 2000's in
<br />23 New Zealand, and I think both sides have vetted those as well as you probably need to. I have not
<br />24 heard introduced the 2016 U.S. based peer reviewed research article, which I would consider to
<br />25 be a more legitimate source. An article about the cell service needs of western Kentucky, which
<br />26 used property analysis and weighted samples for determining how housing values are affected in
<br />27 western Kentucky, over a much larger sample and a longer time frame than some of the studies
<br />28 we've heard presented here. Those findings can be debated, I think the concern that seems to be
<br />29 the case is what are property value between 1,000 -feet directly from the radius of the cell tower up
<br />30 to potentially 4,000 -feet. I think considering those findings, which I'm not getting into, and I'm
<br />31 listing only my personal opinion here, with the findings that are being presented are directly
<br />32 related to houses very close to the cell tower. After skimming TowerCom's Special Use Permit
<br />33 application I counted no more than 42 different property holding entities within .a 1,000 -foot radius
<br />34 of the proposed tower. So in that application there's well more than 42 entities that own property
<br />35 within 1,000 -feet but it's only 42 different at most. And I did that on my cell phone sitting at this
<br />36 meeting so it's not an exact science there but, if the tower cannot only benefit Verizon customers
<br />37 as well as potentially other customers, as we heard from testimony that can be debated, and if
<br />38 there are no adverse health effects caused by the tower I hope the opposition, by few, does not
<br />39 prevent the Board from approving what I believe can benefit many. The second piece of property
<br />40 values, and my final point is: Basically I'm going to get to eyeball a home, three years ago, where
<br />41 we are. Cell phone coverage was a big reason I would've bought. My wife talked me into buying it
<br />42 despite the fact that I thought cell coverage wasn't because I talked to Verizon and they said
<br />43 they'd give me a home booster. I work from home a lot and I have some letters here in support of
<br />44 the cell phone tower. And I also have links to these different sources that I can also provide from
<br />45 my Google document. But in responding to the last witness who, and I quoted, said, "That the
<br />46 increase, mostly because young people are sitting around watching videos" I personally can attest
<br />47 that I work from home and the ability to have calls. It's not acceptable. I have to go other places to
<br />48 do my own work and I didn't even ask someone who also wrote a letter, but ironically a couple
<br />49 that just moved in across the street, both who work in healthcare IT as consultants, are very
<br />50 concerned that they've moved in and bought a house where cell phone coverage is not reliable
<br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 114 of 156
<br />
|