2014 Feb 27 Public Comment on Cell Towers

8/12/2019 2014 Feb 27 Public Comment on Cell Towers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2014-feb-27-public-comment-on-cell-towers 1/19

February 26, 2014

Francoise Carrier

Chair, Montgomery County Planning Board

8787 Georgia Avenue

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

RE: Feb. 27, 2014, Agenda Item 3

Updated Procedures for Telecommunications on Park Property

Madam Chair and Members of the Board:

As the Planning Board takes up Staff's recommendations for the Updated Procedures for

Telecommunications on Park Property I ask for improvements that would provide greater

public safety, better protect surrounding residential property owners, and align the

Procedures with the Parks Department's core values.

1) Please discontinue aspects of the Procedures that allow cell towers or monopoles at

active recreation areas or ball fields, where they would either be on or as light standards atball fields, or where design solutions have been demonstrated to merely mitigate adverse

visual impact. Siting towers/monopoles at ball fields and at other active recreation areas

places the public at risk of injury or death from a falling or wind-flung object. A former cell

tower climber appears at the beginning of the 2012 Frontline documentary, Cell Tower

Deaths One person drops a wrench and it'll kilI somebody, he says.1

On February 10,

2014, OSHA(the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) issued an alert about cell

tower deaths. In its message it indicated that within just the past few months, tower

workers have been injured and killed by falling objects.: The OSHAalert declared the

tragedies to be very real hazards to protect agamst.?

OSHAwas expressing concern about the deaths and injuries of workers. However, the threatof strikes by falling objects to members of the public would be many times greater than to

cell tower workers, particularly at Park active recreation areas and ball fields. Several issues

contribute to this higher threat for strikes. In addition to a tower owner's regular

maintenance of the tower structure itself, each carrier generally conducts its own antenna

maintenance on a routine basis. From time-to-time each carrier also provides hardware

upgrades. Cell towers in this county are currently expected to accommodate at least three

different sets of antennae (the primary carrier's and two co-locators'), so towers likely

have several different crews providing routine service. However, Sec.6409(a) of the Middle

1http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/rrontline/cell-tower-deaths/ (See at 00.41 sec.)

2 https://www .osha.gov/doc/topics/conununicationtower/Letter _CT_ Employers.html3 Id.



2

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and recent rules promulgated by the FCCseem

to have paved the way for the number of co-locators to increase. As a result, we should

expect to see towers with more sets of antennae, and thus more separate crews of workers

tending to them, than we see today. In my observations, workers do not clear and cordon

off the danger/fall zone to prevent the general public from being injured or killed by falling

objects, but only a few workers tend to be on the ground and exposed to strike hazards inthe danger/fall zone during tower and antenna work at any one time.4 By contrast, if

towers/monopoles are sited at Parks' activerecreation areas and ball fields, then one could

expect sizable numbers of people to be within the danger/fall zone and exposed to strike

hazards during maintenance: at play, in or observing competitions, or gathered to watch

workers' activities. Those larger numbers of people would end up like proverbial sitting

ducks. Furthermore, by virtue of their frequent use of active recreation areas and ball fields,

their smaller body mass, and their incomplete brain development, young children would be

expected to be among the most vulnerable to suffer a catastrophic strike.

Debris or ice can fall or be wind-flung from cell towers or their attachments and pose strike

hazards. So concluded experts at ATC (Atlantic Technology Consultants) who issued

recommendations for Loudoun County concerning telecommunications towers for health,

safety, and welfare of the public.5 6

They state that all towers are dangerous for falling

objects, and go on to discuss that when an object such as an antenna, chunk of ice,

equipment or tower appurtenances fall, that they may cause damage or injury to the

public.7As an example, ATC calculates that under cold winter weather conditions in

Loudoun County (which likely mirror conditions in Montgomery County), ice can accumulate

on the mounting arms, antennae, etc. Then, when the sun's rays warm the tower, the large

chunks of ice fall. ATC calculates that chunks of ice could be as large as 20 lbs. If falling from

a height of 150 ft, the chunks would fall at an acceleration rate of 32 ft/sec , This would

cause certain death to a human being, determines ATC.8 The formula for establishing the

Danger Zone or Fall Zone is the height of the tower/monopole+ 10%.9

FCCrules recently

promulgated in response to Sec. 6409(a) of Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of

2012 suggest that a cell tower that would be approved at a set initial height could end up

being substantially higher to accommodate the height of a co-locator's antenna array plus

an added 20 ft. The greater the height, the greater the hazard.

The formula for establishingDanger Zone or Fall Zone is the height of the tower/monopole + 10%.

http://www.loudoun.gov/controls/speerio/resources/RenderContent.aspx?data=al cba3e9l7004a28a3660d6l 9l l2b5bl&tabid=327&fmpath=%2FPlanning+Commission%2FPC+Worksessions%2F2007+PCWS%2Fl l -20-

07%2FTelecommunications-ATC+Studies+%26+Info (See pages 2 G attached)5 Retaining experts/consultants to support govermnent telecommunications activities is a commonpractice. ATCprovides services to a many county govermnents in Virginia. In Montgomery County, CTC Technology and

Energy has long provided support to the TFCG, which is commonly referred to as the Tower Committee.6http://www.loudoun.gov/controls/speerio/resources/RenderContent.aspx?data=al

cba3e9l 7004a28a3660d6l 9l l

2b5bl&tabid=327&fmpath=%2FPlanning+Commission%2FPC+Worksessions%2F2007+PCWS%2Fl l -20-

07%2FTelecommunications-ATC+Studies+%26+Info (Seepages 2 G attached)7 Id.

s Id.

9 Id.



3

In light of the foregoing information, please revise the Updated Proceduresfor

Telecommunications on Park Property to not allow cell towers at Parks' active recreation

areas or ball fields, at all.

2) Pleasealso take a clear and unwavering approach toward protecting the Parks'residential

neighbors. A procedure that provides a siting exception, such asin Sec.7.5, which allowssiting on smaller Parksparcels where visibility would be minimized to the majority of the

surrounding communities, may be well intentioned but it is nevertheless troubling. The

phrasing opens the door for interpretation that it may be acceptable for some (a minority

of) neighboring communities, neighborhoods, or residential properties to be sacrificed in

favor of the revenue that a tower could generate for the ParksDepartment. Thisseems

unethical, short-sighted, and it does not reflect the ParksDepartment's core values. The

adverse visual impact of a cell tower can diminish residential property values. The

Montgomery County Property TaxAssessment Board has made findings to this effect in its

property tax assessmentappeal cases,both in advance of and after the completion of tower

construction, and it has reduced the assessedvalues of residential properties accordmglv.'

Obviously, when assessedproperty values diminish, then sodo the County's tax revenues

from those properties. I don't deny that cell towers offer some benefits to the public, but

they remain commercial enterprises. More to the point, aswritten, the Updated Procedures

for Telecommunications on Park Property do not demonstrate adequate respect and

consideration for all stakeholders. Pleasemodify the Proceduressothat they more clearly

articulate the Board's intent to do no harm.

In light of the substantial up-tick that Staff has noted in cell tower applications for Parksites,

now is an important time for the Board to make refinements in its governing procedures.

The recommendations that I haveoffered for improvements to Staff's Updated Procedures

for Telecommunications on Park Property would benefit public safety, bolster protections to

surrounding residential property owners and their neighborhoods, and would also better

align the Procedureswith the ParksDepartment's outstanding core values. If the Board

desires, I would be happy to work with ParkStaff to craft alternative languagefor adoption

at a future meeting. Thank you for your consideration .

. /~ /< .~

SuePresent

Attachment: Ordinance Recommendationsfor Telecommunications Towers {ATC}

Montgomery County Property TaxAssessmentAppeals Board Order

Appeal 10-2223

Attached is an example of a Montgomery County Tax AssessmentAppeals Board decision that reduced the

assessment because of a cell tower's adverse economic impact. It has been redacted for privacy reasons.



County of Loudoun

Department of Planning

MEMOR N UM

DATE: November 15, 2007

TO Loudoun County Planning Commission

FROM: Van Armstrong, AICPProgram Manager, Land Use Review

SUBJECT: November 20 2007 Planning Commission Committee of theWhole D Telecommunications applications information item

As a part of the Planning Commission review of the various telecommunicationapplications scheduled for this November 20 work session, the County'sconsultant, Atlantic Technology Consultants, has provided some additionalinformation and comments regarding the County's telecommunication facilities'zoning requirements. Attached is the consultant's summary expressing theseconsiderations. The topics include setbacks to residential structures, towersetbacks to property lines and considering safe fall or collapse areas. Other

information includes maximum permissible exposures, multiple tower requestevaluation, and sample photos of facility types and facility failures.

For the land development applications not presently scheduled for PlanningCommission review, the relevant consultant studies are also attached forcomparison and reference.

Staff, Atlantic Technology Consultants (George Condyles) and thetelecommunications applicants will be available at the meeting to discuss theseoverall topics.

Attachments

1. Ordinance Recommendationsfor Telecommunications Towers (ATC)2. ATC Technical Review D Invisible Towers, Charles Town Pike site3. ATC Technical Review D Nextel Communications, Snickersville

Philomont



Ordinance Recommendations for Communications Towers

In the review of the nine tower applications, ATC believes that the current Section 5-600

should be revised with the following recommendations for the health, safety and welfare

of the public.

The revisions are:

1. Set Backs for Communications Towers from Residential Structures

The County currently has a 750' setback from a residential structure for

various zoning districts. (PD-OP, GB, etc)

ATC Recommendation:

All Towers should be 750' from any residential structure regardless of zoning

for the health and safety of the public.

2. Towers are to be located in the interior of the property.

(Property Line Set Back)

3) Monopoles, General Performance Criteria Section 5-600)

ATC Recommendation:

All towers shall be 110% of the overall height of the tower from any property

line.

Rationale:

Collapse Zone: A communications tower is designed with a Collapse or

Weak leg thus to have the tower tofold upon itself at failure. This failurecould come from excessive wind, ice or structural overloading from

antennas or equipment.

Examples of Towers by Classification: (Lattice Self Supportive, Guyed

Lattice, and monopoles)

Self Supportive Lattice Towers:

Typically for a self supportive Lattice tower it is a 1/3 and 2/3s design.

Example: 195' Self Supportive tower.

Tower is designed to collapse@ the north leg @ approximately 65' AGL.

The remaining tower above 65' AGL falls from the 65' to 195' over. Thus

falling approximately up to 130' away from the centerline of the tower.

Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 1of14



Guyed Lattice Towers:

Theses typically fail at the guy wire anchoring system, and in this case, these

fall like a tree. The height of the tower is the Collapse Zone for this type of

structure. To ensure safety, add 10% of the overall height to the calculation

and no development should happen within this area.

Example: 300' AGL tower with failure on a set of guys will fall n the opposite

direction. Add 10% to 30'

Total Collapse Zone: 330' radius.

Monopole Towers:

Typically these towers fail at the ground level. The monopole is a steel

cylinder welded or molded to a base plate that is bolted to a concrete

foundation. In high winds, ice loading and over loading of the structure itself

with antennas and equipment, the failure typically happens at the joint at the

ground level and base plate.

Simple put, when this tower fails, it will fall like a tree.

Example:

150' monopole falls, it will fall at the base and thus the danger area would be

150' in a radius from the base.

A factor of safety of 10% is typically added for safety.

So the overall Collapse Area is 150' + 15 165'.

Fall Zone:

This typically is an object such as an antenna, chunk of ice, equipment or

tower appurtenances fall, that they may cause damage or injury to the

public.

Example: A Cold Winter with major ice storm. The tower is designed for a

wind and ice load. Ice accumulates on the mounting arms, lattice work,

antennas, and camouflaged branches etc. This ice in the Loudoun area could

be as large as 20 lbs of a chunk. When the sun comes out and the direct raysof the sun hit the tower structure, large chunks of ice and will fall from great

height at the point of acceleration of 32' /sec2. From 150' at a size of 20 lbs.

at the acceleration of 32' /sec2. This would cause certain death to a human

being.

With the wind slightly blowing that ice could travel out on a trajectory as far

as 150'.

Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page2 of 14



Danger Zone is 150' + 15' (10%) 165' of Fall Zone

Important Principles of Communications Towers:

1. All towers are dangerous for falling objects.

2. All towers should be inspected on and annual basis for structural stability

and workmanlike attachments.

3. Structural analysis should be performed by a Structural Engineer everytime a new antenna is attached to the tower.

4. Each tower should be insured for Liability of failure or injury of the

public.

5. Any future development should not be allowed to encroach within the

110% measurement from the base of the tower.

In summery, a setback of 750' from a residence and 110% from a property

line is a standard measurement that most counties use in the placement of

communications towers.

3. Maximum Permissible Exposure Evaluation

This report is known as the MPE Evaluation. This evaluation performed under

the Code of Federal Regulations 47 CFR 1.1301 through 1.1319.

This Evaluation is the study of the energy emitted from the antennas selected by

the Applicant and the power which the transmitting equipment is set. This study

evaluated the Effective Radiated Power or ERP in relationship to Radio waves that

fall into two categories: Ionizing and Non-Ionizing.

The Ionizing Radiation does cause harmful effects to the public. These radio

frequencies are at the lower frequency levels that many of the newer blocks offrequencies operate.

There are two exposures: Occupational and Public.

Public Exposure is for the public walking out side of the typical compound fenced

area.

Occupational Exposure is for the tower and equipment technicians that work on

such towers.

Each tower must be calculated and field measured for this exposure. Each towermust post a sign of one of three categories:

Notice- Blue

Caution- Yellow

Warning- Red

Recommendation:




This study should be part of the NEPA report with calculations and the

recommended signage for each site.

The County should reference the Federal Communications Commission bulletin

dated June 2, 2000 titled, A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting

Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practice Guidance

Important note:

In the calculation and Field Measurement of the Effective Radiated Power, a Safe

Distance for the Public is established. This typically is 100 to 200 feet. But could be

more if the antenna location closer to the ground level requires a greater buffer. Therefore

Setbacks from Residential Structures and the Public falls in line with the Required

Setbacks from the first recommendation.

4. Multiple Towers requested in one (1) application

Setting Precedence:

Allowing multiple towers to be built within the same compound generally should

not be permitted. The reason for this not to be allowed is that of Visual Impact

and Interference/Modulation,

Visual Impact:

The County's stated goal to minimize the number of towers, thereby minimizing

the visual impact upon the surrounding area. (Tower Farm view). If precedence is

set with multiple towers to a compound, what would prevent an Applicant to

apply for a tower farm? One compound 100' wide and 500' feet long with 7

towers within the compound. This is not done in any counties in Virginia and theOrdinance should state one tower per application to be judged on its merits.

Interference and Modulation:

Allowing multiple towers to be built within close proximity from a developers

knowledge of building speculative towers can cause interference and modulation

issues, especially for carriers utilizing the same technology and co-locating on

such towers at the same height. Therefore, it is possible that one tower could be

utilized fully, while a second tower within the same compound would remain

vacant due to possible interference/technical issues, causing logistical problems

for a carrier that needs to co-locate in the area to improve its service to the area.That carrier may not have another co-location option, but would the County allow

that carrier to construct yet another tower in the vicinity?

5. Camouflage Technology

Numerous camouflage techniques exist to disguise wireless telecommunications

technology. However, in order to be effective, the particular technique employed




must be of the proper scale and be in harmony with its setting. Techniques used

to hide or blend the view of towers and related equipment is frequently referred to

as stealth . Stealth communications structures are not tower developer's first

choice due to cost and technical limitations.

Communications Stealth Flagpoles

Stealth flagpoles are ideal in recreation and commercial environments. Antennas

and cables can be concealed within the cylinder of the flagpole structure.




Communications Stealth Silos

Stealth silos are ideal in agricultural environments with existing farms and where

silos are typical structures. An advantage of a silo is that all of the equipment,

i.e., antennas, cables, and ground equipment can be installed inside of the silo.

Communications Stealth Tree Pole or Monopine

Best suited for wooded environments, a monopine can blend well and barely be

distinguishable from the surrounding foliage. A monopine is designed with a

realistic number of branches and rubber tree bark for added texture and

dimension.




Towers Damaged by High winds, Ice and Overloading

Ice Storm Damage Ice Storm Damage

Antenna that fell due to ice






Ice accumulating on Tower

Damage to djacent Commercial uilding




Monopole Tower Failures

Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 10 of 14



,-.~ ~I ·-

~.

Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 11of14



MONOPOLE FAILURE AT BASE

ndus try investigating monopole talluresJuly 2:8,2007 -There have been multiple monopole lailures this year such as thisSprinVNexlel monopine that tell in California in ,earlyMay.

Although some of the structure failures can be attributed to winds in excess of

jurisdictional designrequirements, some monopolesreport,edly failed at wind speedsthat should not have caused thepoles to collapse.

One commonality is thatnumemus failures were directlyabove the base plate or aboveflange locations.

In an industry where the speed

of rumors, misstatements andmisunderstandings canmake the highest ASCE threesecond qust blush with envy,industry observers are quick to fault poor engine,ering, manufacturing and'or metaltatique as the usual suspects.

Some structural engineers believe that deslqn aspects of monopole engineeringshould require a closer look, and the TR14.7 TIA~222 committee agrees since theywill be revi,ewing base plate design methodolopies and weld details of the baseconnecnon on monopoles. They'll also be investigating fatigue cateqories onwelded joints. Their findings and recommendations will be included in Revision H

of the lower standard. However, it could be a year or two until this area of concernis fully explored.

Ifyou or your company can provide any research,structural testing data or photographs of faHed

monopoles, please send them to

info@wirel,essesUmator.com so that we can share thisinformation with the industry.

Monopoles, the structure of choice for most planning andzoning officials, hav,ea me cycle in excess of 50 years

when maintained, according to manufacturers, but many of them that wen.3installed during the industry's g'reatest ,growthperiod require retrofitting solutions

for additional capacity.

www.wirelessestimator,com/bseakina news,cfm 11/Sf2007




MONOPOLE ON FIRE

LOCATED NEAR HIGH

SCHOOL BUS GARAGE

BUSES WITH STUDENTS HAD

TO PARK FURTHER AWAY

THAN NORMAL FOR SAFETY




American Tower 177 foot monopole crippled while

being rehabilitated in MichiganJuly 24, 2007 - While working on a reinforcement project to add additional capacitto a Howell, Michigan monopole, acontractor accidentally set the

structure's transmission lines on fire,causing the American TowerCorporation monopole to becompletely destroyed.

The fire, which started at about 9 a.m.,burned itself out by 10 a.m., but left aleaning unstable 177-foottelecommunications tower that servedAT&T, Sprint, and carried the internetconnections for five Howell schools.

A COW (eelI on whee Is) is expected be placed in service until a new monopolecan be installed.

AT&T is currently cooperating with localofficials and working with the vendor of thestructure as they assess the safety of thetower, said AT&T Spokesperson MeghanRoskopf.

Fire officials on site said the project, under thesupervision of CommStructures of Pensacola,

Florida, required cutting and welding and they

believe that the coaxial cable was accidentallyset on tire.

Paul Roberts, Vice President of Compliancefor American Tower, said there is a very lowprobability that the tower wi IItopple. He saidthe steel structure sometimes straightens itselfout when it cools following the fire.

However, we take no chances, Roberts said. ewill keep a 250-foot clearance until wecan get a crane out there and it's secured.

The tower is next to the

.~ i :s•J Howell High School bus garage. Buses already parked near thmonopole were not in danger, but buses that came in withstudents had to park farther away than usual to stay out of the

· 1wayof the fire.

People in a bus garage and those students and teachers in thepart of the school complex containing a swimming pool, were

evacuated, police said. The school is on Highlander Way, off Mr . . . z c a • • •

59.No 1n1uneswere reported.



TA T

Ofil ERY

Tai. NG. 301-'H J-8.l ••. R

-=-- -,---

n BX Vetjf : 2 0 1 Q

r:

Documents

2014 Feb 27 Public Comment on Cell Towers