Cell Tower Planned for Zimmerman Raises Questions

A new Verizon Wireless cell phone tower planned to be installed off Zimmerman Road north of Gill-Roy’s is raising concerns from neighbors about radiation and property values, including from the developers of The Crown, who are hoping to build 60-80 workforce apartments within a few hundred feet of the tower. Garfield Township planning commissioners agreed to delay action on the project until they could get a legal opinion on their authority over its location – though Township Planning Director John Sych warned that federal regulations limit local control over cell towers.

The proposed 155-foot tower and antenna equipment is slated for near the Alpers gravel pit at 2767 Zimmerman Road (pictured, site map and rendering). Verizon Wireless is seeking to “enhance their network and to provide improved cellular data and coverage” in Garfield Township – particularly the area between Long Lake and US-31, according to the application. The tower will offer “the opportunity for additional cell carriers to improve and expand their coverage while eliminating the need for additional towers within the surrounding area,” the application states. “The proposed service will also improve the emergency services available to the community.”

Applicant TowerNorth Development LLC originally applied for approval last summer, but the application was tabled due to setback issues. Cell towers must be located away from property lines at a distance equal to or greater than their height in Garfield Township. The tower’s original planned location was closer than 155 feet to some property lines. Project representatives then took several months to rework the application, eventually submitting an updated site plan that put the tower 160 feet away from all property lines.

That change appeared to put the tower on track for approval, with planning commissioners holding a public hearing on the application last week. However, several neighbors raised objections at the hearing. One neighbor, Kevin Clark, operates a drone business and questioned whether the tower and its frequencies would interfere with his operations. Another, Sheree Treppa, lives on East Crown Drive a few hundred feet from the proposed tower location and worried about radiation. She asked to have the tower located further away from existing houses. “We don't really want these in our area for our health, but we also don't want them for property values,” she said. 

Mike Hanson of The Crown development team White Pine Partners was also concerned, noting the group plans to invest $16 to $20 million to develop 60-80 workforce apartments on vacant land west of Gill-Roy’s. The housing “would likely be pretty close to the property line, so we would be within 200 to 300 feet away from the tower,” he told planning commissioners. Hanson worried Garfield Township might impose restrictions on the development when it comes forward for review due to the tower’s location. He said that Internet sources – even if unsubstantiated – linking cell tower radiation to health issues like cancer or infertility could also scare off prospective tenants. “There’s a bunch of different stuff out there,” he said.

Project representative Mike Daubenmire responded to those concerns, urging meeting attendees to “look at viable sources” like the American Cancer Society for accurate information on cell towers. (The ACS states “there’s no strong evidence that exposure to RF waves from cell phone towers causes any noticeable health effects,” but adds  that more research is needed since such waves have also not been proven to be “absolutely safe.”) Daubenmire said homeowners are exposed to more emissions from the WiFi routers in their homes than they would be from the tower. “There are no current studies out there today able to prove that there any negative health effects with regards to towers,” he said.

Township Planning Director John Sych also cautioned commissioners that section 332 of the Telecommunications Act limits the ability of local and state governments to regulate the placement of cell towers. Notably, the act states that local jurisdictions cannot do so “on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” so long as towers comply with federal regulations.

Still, some planning commissioners were worried enough about health concerns to seek an opinion from township legal counsel about authority to require additional setbacks. That opinion is expected to be presented at their February 12 meeting, with further discussion on the tower project planned. Sych tells The Ticker a legal opinion is worth obtaining because case law can sometimes offer new options, but that he personally doesn’t see any conditions that would allow the township to impose further setbacks. He also said the tower shouldn’t affect The Crown from developing more housing. However, The Crown has its own planned unit development (PUD) – a zoning plan tailored to a specific property – so developers would still have to go through a separate approval process to amend the PUD for workforce apartments to move forward, he noted.

Also at the Garfield Township planning commission meeting...
> Planning commissioners approved plans for the Cherryland Humane Society to construct two additions to its main building on Ahlberg Drive off Hammond Road. The additions will add more than 9,000 square feet of new space to the animal shelter’s existing 14,168-square-foot building. Project Manager Kyle Richter of RCI previously said the expansion “won’t necessarily generate any more outside traffic to the building” but rather is intended to address space constraints at the Cherryland Humane Society. “It’s actually trying to just make some space to separate the cats from the dogs and (create) some more room for them, because they’re at capacity,” he said.

> Commissioners had continued discussion on Copper Ridge, where project partners are seeking approval to amend their PUD to expand allowed uses on four remaining vacant parcels. Three parcels would be broadened from office only to office, commercial, or residential, while a fourth would be changed from retail/office to office, commercial, or residential. “What they are looking to do is adjust the land uses that are permitted in the remaining unbuilt spots...to have some greater flexibility,” Sych previously explained.

Several neighboring property owners are concerned the changes would allow new commercial or residential uses that would generate more traffic to Copper Ridge and negatively impact their quality of life. Project representatives, who will be meeting with neighbors this month, voluntarily agreed to curtail the list of commercial uses in one proposed building – Building 10, to be located near Harbor Light Christian Center – that’s close to existing homes in Copper Village. Representatives noted the PUD changes are primarily intended to allow for expanded residential uses, since the market today is experiencing decreased demand for offices and increased demand for housing. Planning commissioners could vote on the changes at their February 12 meeting, which would then go to township trustees for final approval.