By a vote of 4-1, the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners approved Verizon Wireless’ plans to install a 100-feet-tall cell phone tower (commercial mobile radio service monopole telecommunication facility) on a hill south of the township of Peyton.Initially, the tower will be equipped with 15 panel antennas and one 4-feet wide microwave transmitter, with room to add a second additional array of panel antennas and a second 4-feet wide microwave transmitter.Representing Verizon Wireless, Brad Johnson said Verizon coverage is spotty in the area and the company has received many complaints about dropped calls. The new tower will improve Verizon service within a 10-mile area around Peyton, along Highway 24, Johnson said.Other cell phone service providers will be able to put their equipment on the tower, which will improve their service and reduce the need for other cell phone towers, he said.The tower will be installed on a 35-acre parcel on Peyton Highway about a half mile south of Highway 24.Johnson said Verizon mailed 2,300 postcards to its customers within a five-mile radius of the Longhorn Acres parcel, asking for their opinion. He received 312 postcards and 79 e-mails in support of the tower.He also said that Verizon held a public meeting in Falcon, although it was not a requirement, and no one attended.David Cavanaugh, Peyton resident, said no one attended the meeting because Verizon didn’t publicize it.Sgt. Major Tony Rasnake with the Colorado State Patrol spoke in favor of the cell tower, noting that there are still dead spots in eastern El Paso County.”With cellular service, you can get emergency services on scene a lot quicker, possibly saving lives,” Rasnake said.Several residents living near the proposed tower spoke in opposition.Jody Heffner said he’s not opposed to having a cell tower in Peyton. “The problem is where it’s located,” Hefner said. “Being a licensed real estate broker, I do know it does have effects on property values. I know that for a fact because people don’t want to live near power lines and cell phone towers.”Heffner asked the commissioners to allow Peyton residents to have the opportunity to decide on another location for the tower.Bob Joly gathered the signatures of more than 60 Peyton residents against the tower.”I’m concerned about the health effects of radiation on children,” Joly said.If cell towers are safe, why do cell tower technicians wear radiation badges, like what the X-ray techs wear in hospitals, he asked.Selene Peters, who lives near the proposed cell tower, said her husband had triple by-pass heart surgery and now has a combination pacemaker and defibrillator. “One of my biggest concerns, if this goes through, is we’re going to have to move … because of the issues it’s going to cause for my husband’s well-being,” she said.Peters asked the board to consider a U.S. Food and Drug Administration report indicating that electromagnetic interference from cell phones can stop a pacemaker from delivering pulses to regulate a heart’s rhythm or cause a pacemaker to deliver pulses irregularly.The report, entitled “Interference with Pacemakers and Other Medical Devices,” advises people with pacemakers to avoid carrying a cell phone in a shirt pocket and hold the phone on the opposite side of the body from the pacemaker.”It will be a constant bombardment of those signals. We live there, 24/7,” Peters said.Bill Kowalchuk, Verizon’s radio frequency design engineer, said the FDA report is about cell phones, not cell towers. “An actual cell phone puts out more power than the tower itself,” he said. “The cell tower is higher and its power goes over a farther range, where a cell phone is right in your ear.”Cell towers put out less radiation than cordless phones, which put out 33 percent of the daily maximum exposure for eight hours, Kowalchuk said. Cell towers put out 3 percent, he said.Kowalchuk said Verizon’s equipment is in compliance with the Federal Communication Commission requirements for electro-magnetic energy, as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.That act states that “no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless services facilities on the basis of the environmental impacts of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.””In Denver alone, we have cell sites on six hospitals, including Children’s Hospital,” Kowalchuk said. “We also have them on schools throughout Colorado. We have them on two schools in Colorado Springs.”Before voting, board commissioner Darryl Glenn proposed a continuance so Verizon could schedule a public meeting in Peyton to assess the possibility of another location for the cell tower. By entertaining other locations, Verizon would be acting as a good neighbor, Glenn said.”There have been months of opportunity for a meeting to be held. … We have had a lot of input on this item,” said Amy Lathen, board commissionerGlenn’s motion failed by a vote of 3-2, with Lathen and commissioners Dennis Hisey and Sallie Clark opposed.Clark said the health concerns about radio waves had been addressed by Verizon’s representatives, and concern about property values was speculative.It’s important to offer that kind of communication service in the county for public safety reasons, she said.Hisey said the evidence of health risks that had been presented was about cell phones, not cell towers.Commissioner Peggy Littleton asked county attorney William Louis for his opinion.Louis said the approval of the cell tower is highly defensible. “I counsel against denial,” he said.Lathen said the board had been advised that it cannot make a decision based on health issues. “We have not received any expert testimony,” she said. “We do have evidence of these towers and all of this technology being used throughout our infrastructure, including the very medical facilities where people receive their own pacemakers. That is compelling evidence to me, and something I simply cannot ignore.Glenn cast the only vote against approval.According to a section in the land development code, the issuance of special use permits will not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare of the present or future residents of El Paso County, Glenn said.”There was lay testimony here by all parties with regard to a medical issue,” he said. “Until that issue is resolved in my mind, I cannot state with a certainty that isn’t a reason to deny this.”
