Planning Board Left Unused Cell Tower in Blair Outfield, Now Wants to Put Up Another Cell Tower in Undisclosed Location #BlairHighSchool @CaseyAndersonPB

TESTIMONY OF SUE PRESENT  NOVEMBER 16, 2017 PLANNING BOARD HEARING TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AT PARK PROPERTIES

Chairman Anderson and Members of the Board:

I am testifying because I am concerned that the public is being denied fair and proper access and input for the reviews of the applications proposing telecommunications facilities at Blair (high school) Local Park, Wheaton (Park) Maintenance Yard, and Sligo Creek Golf Course.

Blair (High School) Local Park

To begin, in accordance with Section 4 of the Planning Board’s Rules, I am requesting that the record be left open and that the Board defer decisions until at least 30 days after the Board’s staff have responded in full to my MPIA Request for pertinent documents and relevant information concerning the proposed wireless facility at Blair (high school) Local Park, and for any other pertinent and relevant information that this hearing may reveal is outstanding concerning that site or the other sites proposed for wireless facilities.

On October 30th, I requested documents and information from Parks Department Assistant Chief Michelle Grace. The documents and information are pertinent to the substantive review of the Blair application. Michelle Grace, after committing to sending me the application and plans for the subject application, then informed me that that I would need to file an MPIA request to get those as well as the documents that I subsequently requested for the original telecommunications facility that was approved for the site. 

I submitted my MPIA request on November 2nd, requesting pertinent documents to review for this hearing, including plans that should have been deemed public information because of their public information status through the Tower Committee’s review process. Obviously, the Planning Board would have had this information as the land-owning agency, and also because the Board is a “designee” to the TFCG (Tower Committee), per 2.58E(d)(1)(A). Yet, to date, no information has been furnished beyond what has been posted on the Board’s website for today’s agenda item. 

In addition to having been denied public information, Michelle Grace explained that the primary reason for the monopole having not been removed was “it would have been extremely cost prohibitive to remove Sprint’s monopole, and replace it with another pole of the same height and structural integrity to re-hang the athletic field lights.”  I have not (yet) seen the original lease, or the conditions established at the time of the original approval of the facility. However, in light of the following, I find her explanation unsettling for the following reasons: 1) The provision in COMCOR 02.58E.01.07.c., requires that any form lease developed for the use of land-owning agencies “must include a provision requiring the removal of the facility by the lessee after the useful life of the facility concludes or upon expiration or termination of the lease, and may include the posting of a bond to guarantee removal.”   
2


2) In cases of special exceptions, the old zoning ordinance required every freestanding support structure must be removed at the cost of the owner of the telecommunications facility when the telecommunications facility is no longer in use by any carrier for more than 12 months.

3) MCPS School leases for telecommunications facilities, including those reviewed by the Planning Board, have included the requirement that, upon discontinuation of the telecommunications facility, at the Lessee’s expense the monopole shall either be shortened to other light standards’ heights or replaced with normal light standards, in either case at the Lessor’s choice.

Therefore, in accordance with Section 4 of the Board’s Rules, I would like to ask the following questions of the appropriate Board Staff:

o Was there a provision in the telecommunications facility lease that gave M-NCPPC authority to either require the Lessee to remove the structure or to shorten it to normal light-standard height when the structure’s use as a telecommunications facility had ended? 

o If so, why didn’t M-NCPPC exercise this authority? Please give a complete explanation as to why the full-height monopole has remained at the site.

o Did the Lessee, Sprint, comply with all obligations to remove or modify the structure and restore the property? If not, then why has M-NCPPC continued to engage with Sprint in lease agreements at other locations?

As mentioned, most of the information that I requested has not yet been furnish. I therefore encourage this Board to wait for the information that would reveal the conditions under which the original land use approval was authorized. If the conditions are not being met or could not be met with approval of the application, then I urge this Board to not approve the current application.  

However, if the Board would not be inclined to await for full information or adhere to the original conditions, then based upon the facts that are available, I assert that the monopole should not have remained – at least not at its existing height. At a minimum, the Board should fairly evaluate the Blair Local Park site as a new telecommunications installation, not as an antenna attachment.

Wheaton (Regional Park) Maintenance Yard

The Telecommunications Facility at the Wheaton Maintenance Yard site is governed by a Special Exception that was granted for that facility, S-2304. Older Tower Committee documents demonstrate that the Tower Committee previously “recommended” Clearwire’s application, in February 2010. See http://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/notices/2010/Feb3.pdf 
3

I think that the 2004 Zoning Ordinance would have required a land use review process for this colocation and modification to the existing Special Exception. At a minimum, the Tower Committee should have only “conditionally recommended” the 2010 application, subject to it meeting Board of Appeals conditions.  In accordance with Section 4 of the Board’s Rules, my questions of the appropriate Board Staff are:

o What Conditions did the Board of Appeals establish when it issued Special Exception S-2304? 
 o Is the Telecommunications Facility currently in compliance with all of the conditions established through the Special Exception? If not, please explain.

o Would adding the proposed additional facility be in compliance with the conditions established through the Special Exception? If not, please explain. If the conditions are not being met or could not be met, then I urge this Board to not accept the current application.  If this Board does not have the information on the Special Exception and the original conditions, then I urge this Board to defer decisions until those answers can be provided and considered.

Sligo Creek Golf Course

Each of the applications that is being considered today is for attachment to a facility that was originally approved and deployed many years ago. The radio tower at Sligo Creek Golf Course is a particularly “vintage” facility. Like the others, I think it is important to review and consider the conditions of the original authorization(s).  In accordance with Section 4 of the Board’s Rules, my questions of the appropriate Board Staff are: o What conditions were established with the approval of the installation of the radio tower at the Sligo Creek Golf course?

o Is this radio broadcast facility currently in compliance with all of the established conditions? If not, please explain.

o Would adding the proposed additional telecommunications facility be in compliance with the originally established conditions? If not, please explain. If the conditions are not being met or could not be met, then I urge this Board to not accept the current application. TFCG Regulations I have requested that the TFCG applications be returned to the Tower Committee for proper review, in compliance with the TFCG Regulations.  
4

On October 30th, I notified Michelle Grace that the Tower Committee had conducted deficient reviews of all three subject applications because the mandated public input that M-NCPPC should have submitted prior to those reviews had not even been initiated until after the Tower Committee’s reviews had concluded.  Per COMCOR 02.58E.01.05.b, the land-owning agency (i.e. M-NCPPC) must:          1.   Review the site application in accordance with the agency's siting standards and policy.          2.   Receive and evaluate public input as part of the agency's decision process.          3.   Submit input concerning the application at the scheduled Group meeting via, its Group designee.

Michelle sent me a nonsensical response. But I hope that the Planning Board will take the obligations under the TFCG Regulations seriously.

Proprietary Review The Planning Board has many functions. But its function in reviewing these applications is a proprietary function, not a regulatory function. In addition to my own concerns about adherence to process and proper public input, concerns expressed/posted by other stakeholders have included aesthetics, financial issues, and safety. The Planning Board may approve or deny these applications for any of these reasons. The restrictions that the FCC places upon local regulators, found in the final attachment in the agenda packet does NOT apply to proprietors. As a proprietor, you may even deny applications on the basis of RF emissions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sue Present