May 29, 2010Montgomery County, MarylandPlanning, Housing and Economic Development CommitteeCounty Council100 Maryland AvenueRockville, Maryland 20850(240) 777-7900www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council County.Council@montgomerycountymd.gov cc:Jeff Zyontz, 240 777 7896Jeff.Zyontz@montgomerycountymd.gov Legislative AnalystNancy Floreen 240-777-7959councilmember.floreen@montgomerycountymd.govPresidentDuchy Trachtenberg 240-777-7964councilmember.trachtenberg@montgomerycountymd.gov ZTA 10-05 SponsorPhil Andrews 240-777-7906councilmember.andrews@montgomerycountymd.gov Roger Berliner 240-777-7828councilmember.berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov Marc Elrich 240-777-7966councilmember.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov Valerie Ervin 240-777-7960councilmember.ervin@montgomerycountymd.gov Mike Knapp 240-777-7955councilmember.knapp@montgomerycountymd.gov George Leventhal 240-777-7811councilmember.leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov Nancy Navarro 240-777-7968councilmember.navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov Regarding: ZTA 10-05The Honorable Mike KnappChairman, PHED CommitteeDear Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee,This testimony regards proposed amendments to Montgomery County’sTelecommunications Transmission Facilities Coordination Requirements CellTower Siting ordinance (ZTA 10-05), which are in response to the FCC Shot Clockruling (11/09). Please add it to the public record.The FCC Shot Clock Ruling is under reconsideration and is being challenged in the

US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, by the City of Arlington, Texas, along withinterveners from several jurisdictions across the US, including Fairfax County,Virginia. If the City of Arlington, Texas prevails in the Fifth Circuit then theCounty’s zoning authority will be preserved.In addition, on May 24th, 2010 Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia,chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, andRepresentative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the HouseCommittee on Energy and Commerce, said in a joint statement that they wouldhold meetings in June to examine how the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA)meets the current needs of consumers, the telecommunications industry and theFederal Communications Commission.The proposed amendments should be held until the court challenge by the City of Arlington, Texas is settled and subsequent to the Congressional review of theTCA.There are many issues of greater urgency than the Shot Clock provision withantenna siting that do need to be addressed and a complete rewrite of theTelecommunications Transmission Facilities Coordination Requirements is inorder. This should be done with input from the Department of EnvironmentalProtection, the Department of Health and Human Services and public healthofficials as well as with ample opportunity for public input as the health effectsfrom the exposure to the radio frequency radiation (RFR) emitted by theantennas needs to be addressed.Currently antennas are sited with no regard to the harm to our health that theycause. The MC Transmission Facilities Coordinating Group (TFCG) database onantennas lists 1,567 applications as of April 7, 2010. Of these 12 have beendenied; 155 withdrawn or tabled; and 10 are pending. The remainder have beenapproved. Of the 47 applications at public schools all have been recommendedby the TFCG.These antennas have been largely approved by the TFCG and the majority of them have been installed in our neighborhoods and where we work with noaccounting for the harm done to those who live, work and attend school nearby.While the United States has not conducted one epidemiological study on thehealth effects from this increase to the RFR emitted by the antennas a large bodyof scientific research has been done and it is well established that there areharmful biological effects from RFR exposure. Regardless of our lack of research,it has been proven that children absorb more radiation and are more vulnerableto harm from RFR exposure and their protection must be a priority for the Countygovernment. In addition there is a growing population of electrosensitiveindividuals who are becoming disabled by the unchecked exposure to RFR.Connecticut recently passed legislation prohibiting antennas within 750 feet of

schools and day care centers. The bill also works to reign in the uncheckedapproval of their cell tower siting council.The situation is similar here in Montgomery County. For example, on May 18

2010, a cell tower was added to the site at 4701 Sangamore Road, Bethesda. Upto this date, May 29, 2010 there is no information on the TFCG website for anapplication at this site. The last activity was in 2008. This example of the fastapproval of antennas demonstrates that the TFCG is not allowing for communityinput and may possibly be allowing construction of sites with no process involved.Instead of passing amendments that would make it easier and faster forantennas to be placed near our homes and schools Montgomery County shouldlobby Congress to allow local control over the consideration of the environmentaland health costs of the siting of RFR transmitting antennas.Any amendments to the Telecommunications Transmission Facilities CoordinationRequirements must include the following: The public must be given ampleopportunity for input regarding tower siting. This should include: That allresidences, schools and businesses within 1,000 feet of a proposed site benotified by the carrier of an application prior to the application being filed; that allapplications go up for review to the Planning Board; that the time clock for anapplication be delayed until it is complete and the public has full access torecords of the application and the opportunity to petition the Planning Board atthe Review Hearing; and that the public’s First Amendment rights are upheld byproviding an opportunity for the public to address health concerns of proposedantennas. A setback of 1,500 feet from schools and day cares must beestablished.Please find attached Cell Towers Wireless Communications Living withRadiofrequency Radiation. This report provides the background of the issues andcontroversy over antenna siting as well as the global actions that governments,scientists and doctors are calling for regarding RFR exposure. The online versionmay be accessed herehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/24352550/Cell-Tower-Rpt Please find below additional references on the recent BRAG™

antenna ranking forschools which calls for a 1,500 foot setback from schools and information on the4/10 Connecticut bill on cell tower siting which has a setback of 750 feet forschools and daycare centers.Submitted by:Angela Flynn5309 Iroquois RoadBethesda, MD 20816301-229-0282angelaflynn80@msn.com