PETITION TO MILFORD TOWNSHIP

To: Charter Township of Milford Regarding Public Hearing for Verizon Wireless Communication Tower Rezoning and Special Use Request

RE: Resident, Land Owner and Homeowner Petition.

We, the undersigned, as concerned Milford Township residents and property owners object to the proposed ordinance requiring re-zoning of the property from residential to a wireless communication overlay zone and the special use permit of parcel-16-05-301-033 . We ask the Milford Township Council to not approve the proposed change in zoning and construction of the Verizon, 195-Ft tower and cellular antenna array on the Milford Assembly of God property, located at 1360 North Hickory Ridge Rd. Milford, Mi 48380

We join several neighborhoods, cities, counties, schools, organizations and courts around the world who are saying "no" to wireless facilities with antenna towers in their residential neighborhoods, for the following reasons:

1. Environmental Aesthetics: Our neighborhood is comprised primarily of rural residential homes, and a church. The proposed 195’ tower and cellular array’s do not fit in with the residential environment and is incompatible with the character of our neighborhood. It would also set an unwelcomed precedent for our neighborhoods and home associations. It is obvious, Verizon could care less about home owner’s value and aesthetics as there is no mention of tower camouflage in the site plan. We understand wireless carriers are required to list all the adverse effects an antenna might have in a certain location, including negative aesthetic, sound, interference and visual effects, effects on neighboring homes or buildings, etc. It does not appear this information was not made available to the township or the impacted homeowners.

2. Real Estate Value: The devaluation of real estate. In March, 2014 the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy’s survey, Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?, found that an overwhelming majority of respondents (94%) reported that cell towers and antennas in a neighborhood or on a building would impact buyer interest in a property and negatively impact the price they would be willing to pay for it. Many studies by Dr. Sally Bond, Ph.D. have shown that a cell phone tower negatively affects the real estate values of homes surrounding it. Data shows 7 out of 10 buyers, walk away from a home listed for sale with a view of a cell tower.

The Appraisal Institute, the largest global professional membership organization for appraisers with 91 chapters throughout the world, spotlighted the issue of cell towers and the fair market value of a home and educated its members that a cell tower should, in fact, cause a decrease in home value. Milford Township residents purchased and valued their property knowing they were surrounded by a residential zone. Erecting cell towers near residential properties is just bad business. For residential owners, it means decreased property values. For local businesses (realtors and brokers) representing and listing these properties, it will create decreased income. And for city governments, it results in decreased
revenue (property taxes). We do not want decreased property value for homes and our neighborhood, and we would hope the Township wouldn't want the value of home properties and subsequent property tax revenue to decline, either. Devaluation of property in the township will lead to a smaller tax revenue and less resources for the township.

3. Noise Concerns: In many states there are no uniform noise limits. Sound engineers have found measurements of high ambient noise that a proposed tower site would cause. The engineers determined that the tower facilities need cooling by fan’s, and that the fans’ noise would be audible to nearby residents, especially on summer nights with open windows.

Wireless carriers require access for maintenance 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and maintenance (often done at night) brings trucks with lifts, radios, and lights, and from a tower noise and light can propagate in all directions and affect many neighbors. Current noise ordinances do not adequately protect neighbors that can currently sleep comfortably with open windows on a summer night. This commercial activity is not appropriate in a residential neighborhood directly across the street from children's bedrooms.

4. Coverage Need: Residents already have adequate cell phone and wireless data coverage in the area, so we do not need a new 195” Verizon tower here. Even the Verizon website's Coverage map shows complete coverage in this area and beyond, with no gaps! Cellular phones can connect to cellular towers up to 20 miles away. Several Verizon towers are located within the 10 mile range of this site. Of course Verizon Wireless will tell you that they "need" one here, but there are always other options and other locations. There is not a real "need" to warrant putting this tower on residential property and placing a negative 10 to 20% burden on residents and home owner property values. As this site is close to the Livingston county border almost half of the coverage area will be outside the Milford Township and Oakland County area.

5. Tower Need: Verizon is well known to break lease agreements on tower sites and install Verizon owned towers to reduce operating costs. When the facility and tower is built the tower starts out with one array. Then the tower owners lease space on the tower for profit. The tower fills top to bottom, until the maximum load of the tower or wind load resistance is reached. The aesthetics of the tower when filled become a more noticeable burden above the tree line and a negative amenity that will reduce property values even more.

6. Options: Verizon has plenty of other options. Which other non-residential sites have been considered? Cellular companies do not always do this as completely as they should, and it is possible that there is a commercial or industrial area nearby, or a less residential area, that could be proposed as an alternative location. We have plenty of golf courses, gravel pits, park land and open industrial areas within a few miles of this residential location.

Cellular arrays can be installed on high voltage utility power poles at a much lower cost. Verizon also has the option of Small Cell Technology. They can place the cells on utility poles. Verizon began “aggressively building out our small cells throughout the country,” according to Verizon spokeswoman Laura Merritt.
In March, the company announced that it would invest about $500 million to put up small cells and other technologies that allow it to improve service in hard-to-reach areas.

7. Master Plan / Zoning: The role of planning versus zoning became a major thread of land use law in the 20th century. Generally, the Comprehensive Plan (otherwise called the Master Plan or General Plan) has priority, and land use regulations are created to implement the plan. This rational for the characteristics of the Comprehensive Plan included the following:

1. Plans for the physical development of a community;
2. Future orientation;
3. Geographical plans that are functionally comprehensive; and 4. Include land use, public facilities, and circulation elements.

This presumption of primacy of the Master Plan has been established through court cases, and establishes a firm basis for regulation through zoning. Although the logic of having zoning regulations follow the Master Plan is inescapable, in practice that is not how it has happened. In most communities, Master Plans were looked on by the public as government instilling its will on private property owners, while zoning was seen as the tool for protecting personal private property rights and property values.

We ask the Milford Township Council to protect our private property rights and property value by keeping the current residential zoning and stop the special use permit and re-zoning request. In the areas where it was applied, zoning has been justified on the basis of its retaining property values. We understand there is a moderately wide range of legally valid basis upon which a local zoning board, planning board or town board may deny, and in fact, may be legally compelled to deny, an application for the installation of a Cell Tower. Also note, the federal courts have already ruled that a municipality has no obligation to allow intrusive cell phone tower installations anywhere within its borders when adequate coverage already exists. Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and other telecommunications companies must be required to find more appropriate locations in commercial and industrial zones and exhaust all alternative scenarios.

We proudly join the growing coalition of citizens across the country that are standing up to the intrusion of cell phone towers into residential areas. We urge you to support the residents of Milford Township, Lakes of Milford and Sears Lake Associations.

This counsel has been charged with the responsibility to protect the residents of Milford Township from the proliferation of detrimental infrastructure. Thus, we urge the Township of Milford council to deny the proposed construction of the Verizon wireless communication tower at the Milford Assembly of God property, located at 1360 North Hickory Ridge Rd. Milford, MI 48380, for the reasons stated above.

Thank you for your consideration and for reading our letter of petition.
Reference:
DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE

The Bond and Hue study conducted in 2004 involved the analysis of 9,514 residential home sales in 10 suburbs. The study reflected that close proximity to a Cell Tower reduced price by 15% on average.

The Bond and Wang study involved the analysis of 4,283 residential home sales in 4 suburbs between 1984 and 2002. The study reflected that close proximity to a Cell Tower reduced the price between 20.7% and 21%.

The Bond and Beamish study involved surveying whether people who lived within 100' of a tower would have to reduce the sales price of their home. 38% said they would reduce the price by more than 20%, 38% said they would reduce the price by only 1%-9%, and 24% said they would reduce their sale price by 10%-19%.

http://realtormag.realtor.org/ daily-news/2014/07/25/cell- towers-antennas-problematic- for-buyers http://www anticelltowerlawyers.com/ questions-answers/

http://www.businesswire.com/ news/home/20140703005726/en/ Survey-National-Institute- Science- Law-Public-Policy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/ 08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?_ r=2&ref=realestate https://sites.google.com/site/ nocelltowerinourneighborhood/ home/decreased-real-estate- value

Canton Residents have won a battle to block a Verizon cell phone tower from being built near the Abundant Life Church of God, on Hannan south of Palmer: http://www.hometownlife.com/ story/news/local/canton/2016/ 02/08/canton-church-cell- tower-proposal/80003570/

Verizon Coverage http://vzwmap.verizonwireless com/dotcom/coveragelocator/ default.aspx?zip 48380

http://www.antennasearch.com/ sitestart.asp

Verizon Small Cells http://www.crainscleveland com/article/20150412/sub1/ 304129979/small-cells- are-one- of-the-next-big-things-for- carriers

http://www.verizonwireless com/news/article/2014/09/what- are-small-cells-and- distributed-antenna- systems. html

Cell Tower Companies Face a Heavy Burden of Proof To Succeed in a Validity Challenge to a Zoning Ordinance

A recent Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court case highlights the heavy burden that cell tower companies need to satisfy to be successful in a validity challenge to a municipal zoning ordinance to establish that a
zoning ordinance is de facto exclusionary and in violation of the Telecommunications Act. Furthermore, this case illustrates it is a fatal mistake for a cell tower company to assert a validity challenge unless the cell tower company can establish through site acquisition due diligence documentation and expert testimony there are no properties in the applicable zoning district that are feasible for placement of a cellular tower to resolve the gap in coverage.

http://www.foxrothschild.com/ publications/cell-tower- companies-face-a-heavy-burden- of-proof-to- succeed-in-a- validity-challenge-to-a- zoning-ordinance/

Other Information:
Q: What evidence exists that wireless telecommunications structures pose a health risk to children?

The article “Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation” by Karen J. Rogers asserts that “there is vast scientific and medical evidence that exposure to cell tower radiation, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems. ” This article is well supported by scientific and medical professionals, including two-time of the Nobel Prize in Medicine nominee Physicist Dr. Gerard Hyland who claims “Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate.” Although this article is from 2002, we know that United States safety standards have not improved, but the acceptance of these facts has grown, including:

August 2004 – The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) opposes the use of fire stations as transmitter sites, because of the health problems of its members with the following resolution: WHEREAS, many firefighters who are living with cell towers on or adjacent to the stations are paying a substantial price in terms of physical and mental health. As first responders and protectors of the general public, it is crucial that firefights are functioning at optimal cognitive and physical capacity at all times.”

April 2, 2007 – Canadian Doctors call for “Removal of Cell Phone Antennas near Elementary Schools.”

2008 – A German study at the request of the Federal Agency for Radiation Protection found the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was three times higher among patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 meters from a cellular transmitter site – tending to develop cancers at a younger age compared to patients living further away.

November 25, 2008- US Congressional hearing –

Cell Phone Use and Tumors: What the Science Says convened by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform.
Brag Report

Schools, school districts, all municipalities and states call upon the FCC for a ruling that requires a 1,500 feet setback for any/all wireless infrastructure near schools. This is the distance at which the scientific literature indicates acute symptoms of electro hypersensitivity are not noticeable and background levels of radiation return to normal from most cellular infrastructure. Symptoms of electro hypersensitivity have been demonstrated at exposures that are a fraction (0.04%) of U.S. exposure guidelines, in part because the guidelines themselves only take into consideration a 30-minute exposure, not chronic exposures. Until guidelines are changed to reflect what science is showing by longer exposures, a policy of “prudent avoidance” would justify setbacks for antenna infrastructure near schools.

http://electromagnetichealth org/electromagnetic-health- blog/media-teleconference- announcing- the-brag-antenna- ranking-of-schools/
To: Charter Township of Milford Regarding Public Hearing for Verizon Wireless Communication Tower Rezoning and Special Use Request

Resident, Land Owner and Homeowner Petition. We, the undersigned, as concerned Milford Township residents and property owners object to the proposed ordinance requiring re-zoning of the property from residential to a wireless communication overlay zone and the special use permit of parcel-16-05-301-033 as stated in our letter. We ask the Milford Township Council to not approve the proposed change in zoning and construction of the Verizon, 195-Ft tower and cellular antenna array on the Milford Assembly of God property, located at 1360 North Hickory Ridge Rd. Milford, Mi 48380