Subject: Update Thurmont debates antenna proposal (Hill).
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 055841 -0500
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
.........From EMF-L........
It looks like "democracy" is as dead in Maryland ... as it is in Washington!
........guru....... (The coverage by the "press" is encouraging, however.)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Update: Thurmont debates antenna proposal
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 03:04:39 -0400
From: "Dawn Hill"
To:
Dear Roy:
Though there were three earlier stories today (one a television news story
that interviewed out by the water tower), this is the latest, three others
to come out tomorrow. The earlier TV story happened to get footage of the
work crew coming on to work on the base buildings...while under appeal. The
following story is very rushed, I believe, to make deadline. But note the
brevity on the reference to the TV station camera getting thrown out. What
the story doesn't say is that all three reporters (tv and paper) objected
vociferously, citing the Maryland Open Meetings Code. The town just said,
"so...get your attorney down here tonight....if you can). What the story
also doesn't say is that we lost the appeal 4-3 (the chair breaking a tie).
If you are interested, I can send the two earlier more "in depth" stories.
-------------------------
Story is pasted below, but please go to the story at the link below if you
wish to respond to their comment section: "Got a comment? Let us hear about
it."
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/display.cfm?storyid=8138
Thurmont debates antenna proposal
By Barbara Brown
News-Post Staff
THURMONT -- The Board of Appeals hearing Thursday night on a plan to
install cellular antennas on a water tower in a residential area
disintegrated
into shouting matches between residents, attorneys and board members.
A decision had not been reached by late in the evening.
About 50 people filled the town hall's meeting room to discuss the
impending installation of 18 antennas on a tower on Sunhigh Drive.
Most people were of the opinion that the antennas would be ugly, that they
may harm residents' health and that the town's planning commission may
have mistakenly granted Sprint and Nextel the rights to install the
antennas.
The town, however, maintains that the antennas are a minor utility
installment. The zoning ordinance states that a minor utility installment
may not have buildings holding any kind of equipment on the ground of a
transmission site. Sprint and Nextel both have maintenance buildings
planned for the site.
The town clerk, Rick May, said at the hearing that the planning
commission did not make a mistake in approving the petition for the
antennas during its August meeting on the basis of site plan regulations.
Mr. May, however, did imply some type of mistake was made in the
decision but he would not comment further.
During a break in the hearing, town attorney Clifford Bridgford refused to
make a comment on the procedings and inferred that he would not return
calls from the press should he receive them today.
It took nearly an hour to get the issue under discussion because the
meeting procedures were not voted on prior to opening the discussion.
An attorney for some of the residents, Michael Worsham, objected to Mr.
Bridgford offering any advice to the board of appeals because he saw his
involvement as a conflict of interest because his client, the town of
Thurmont, had a stake in the decision.
"I see no conflict of interest here," Mr. Bridgford said and he continued to
advise the board, make objections and question appellants during the
hearing.
John Michal, an attorney representing Nextel, presented zoning ordinances
from counties other than Frederick that included the installation of the
antennas by right.
Mr. Worsham questioned several residents about their fears concerning the
towers. While consideration of health concerns was forbidden during the
planning commission's deliberations, the residents who testified said the
possible future effects of radiation from the antennas was too questionable
to take risk.
LaTrelle Remington was brought to tears, claiming the unknown effects of
radiation from the antennas could comprimise the health of her family. Mrs.
Remington lives behind the tower.
When a reporter from WHAG-25 arrived at the meeting with a camera, the
chairman of the board, Paul Nolan, ordered that the camera be removed.
Commissioner Marty Burns addressed the board, saying that not allowing
the camera and forcing time limits on testimony was a disservice to the
people. Mr. Nolan cited a concern for time spent in the hearing as the
reason for time limits. "We had no idea how many people were going to be
here or how many people would sign up to speak," Mr. Nolan said.
"I believe everybody needs to have their day in court," Mr. Burns told the
board, "whether you have to stay here until 11 o'clock or not."
The board did not force witnesses to adhere to the time limits.
Planning commission chairman Glenn Muth had filed an appeal to the
decision, claiming technical and procedural errors on the part of the
planning commission.
Mr. Muth asked two town commissioners and Mayor Eileen Wasche if they
would have approved a lease that was signed in May with the companies if
they had heard testimony presented at Thursday's meeting and the August
planning commission meeting. Each of the commissioners said they still
would have approved the lease.
Got a comment? Let us hear about it.
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com