Cell tower plan raises concerns

Ocean City neighbors cite fears; research so far shows no health link

OCEAN CITY — A plan to place Verizon Wireless cell phone towers on a building in the south end has some neighbors asking if there should be restrictions on towers that are close to homes and if there would be better, less-populated locations for them.

Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, has a minor site plan application set to go before the Ocean City Planning Board at its March 1 meeting for the property at 3337-39 Haven Ave., not far from the corner of 34th Street and West Avenue.

The plan is to install rooftop wireless telecommunications antennae and supporting equipment on the building, which is a permitted use in the 34th Street Gateway Zone.

According to a review by Schaeffer Nassar Scheidegg Consulting Engineers, there are no variances required but the plan is requesting various partial waivers. The owner of the commercial property is Eustace Mita. 

The item was tabled during the Feb. 8 Planning Board meeting. Stephen and Kathleen Petrun of Perkasie, Pa., who own a residence at 3324-26 Haven Ave., said they and other neighbors asked a number of questions during comments at the February Planning Board meeting and have not received any answers.

They have concerns about the potential health effects of having clusters of 5G cell phone towers so close to residential properties. 

“We all have children and grandchildren that love coming here in the summer, but we are very concerned about the health risks associated with these towers at such a low height,” they wrote to the Sentinel. “We are not opposed to 5G, but not high energy clusters so close to residential homes.”

They said the nearest home is 40 feet from the property at the corner of Haven Avenue and 34th Street and the second floor of the closest residence is directly in line with the cell towers proposed for the roof, the center line of which is at 19 feet.

Their concerns are about radiofrequency, or RF, waves that are received and transmitted from the towers.

Kathryn Petrun asked if the city could find an alternate site on the 34th Street corridor, such as by the utility pole on the northeast corner of 34th and Bay Avenue (near the decorative lifeboat). 

“That’s only a couple hundred feet from that office building and away from residents’ homes,” she said. “I just can’t understand how the Planning Board can vote on that when they admitted they don’t have any expertise or anybody on their board that deals with 5G.

“I don’t feel it’s fair for the residents they’re going to pass something like this without considering our health and risk,” she added. “I don’t know if there is any other place in town where they have it (towers) on a building that is two stories.”

She noted there is an array of cell towers on the former Crown Bank building, but that is on the roof of a seven-story building.

“The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) says the vast majority of 5G towers are between 50 and 200 feet high,” Steve Petrun said. “This is 19 feet high and it’s a cluster. It’s not one or two nodes on the top of a telephone pole.”

“Our concern,” Kathryn Petrun said, “is if they can keep adding, do they have to get them approved or will it turn out looking like the Crown Bank in our backyard.”

Both Petruns questioned whether the Planning Board should be voting on the issue without knowing more about RF waves and said there are other suitable areas with no close neighbors within a few hundred yards. “And if it’s up 50 feet in the air, I don’t think there’s even an issue,” Steve Petrun said.

“Our concern is that it’s only 19 feet (high),” Kathryn Petrun said. “That’s a two-story building. That’s our deck.”

Her husband added, “When they started putting asbestos shingles on homes, everybody thought it was safe. Tobacco they thought was safe. There are instances like that where 10 years down the road they find out that there’s major problems. We don’t want that to happen.”

They suggested putting off a decision until board members do more research on the potential health impact of the cellular towers.

FCC, ACS on RF waves: No evidence of harm, more study needed

On the FCC website (fcc.gov) under the heading, “RF Safety FAQ,” there are a few dozen topics. One answers the question, “Are cellular and other radio towers located near homes or schools safe for residents and students?”

The FCC answer is that “… radiofrequency emissions from antennas used for cellular and PCS transmissions result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically thousands of times below safety limits. These safety limits were adopted by the FCC based on the recommendations of expert organizations and endorsed by agencies of the federal government responsible for health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students.”

Another FCC section regards the 5G network, saying that type of service requires many more, smaller base stations because of the way the waves travel shorter distances and don’t pass through objects. It states those stations can be in closer proximity to people if mounted on buildings, utility poles and other structures. 

Even though the higher wavelengths from 5G could expose people to more RF waves overall it notes, “At the same time, these higher frequency RF waves are less able to penetrate the body than lower frequency waves, so in theory they might be less likely to have any potential health effects. But so far this issue has not been well studied.”

The American Cancer Society has not taken an official position on the possible connection between RF waves and cancer.

Its website includes a section on cell phone towers, explaining how the towers receive and transmit cell phone signals using RF waves.

It says there isn’t strong evidence for negative health effects, but neither have they been proved to be safe.

“Cell phone towers are still relatively new, and many people are understandably concerned about whether the RF waves they give off might possibly have health effects,” the Risks, Prevention & Screening section of the site reads.

“At this time, there’s no strong evidence that exposure to RF waves from cell phone towers causes any noticeable health effects. However, this does not mean that the RF waves from cell phone towers have been proven to be absolutely safe. Most expert organizations agree that more research is needed to help clarify this, especially for any possible long-term effects.”

The site notes that the towers are usually from 50 to 200 feet high, different than the units proposed in Ocean City.

The American Cancer Society explains that the RF waves are a form of energy on the electromagnetic spectrum between FM radio waves and microwaves and are forms of non-ionizing radiation. 

“This means they do not directly damage the DNA inside cells, which is how stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays and ultraviolet rays are thought to be able to cause cancer,” according to the site.

The ACS also cited the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) technical report based on studies published between 2008 and 2018 as well as national cancer rates. 

It said the report concludes, “Based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure and [tumor formation].”

Municipal codes

Asked about zoning limitations tied to RF waves, Ocean City public information officer Doug Bergen directed the newspaper to the city’s municipal codes.

A web search of the site turned up no mention of RF or radiofrequency waves.

One section regarding public utilities and structures includes “other transmission towers,” but most regulations are about conforming to visual design standards in a given neighborhood that “will not adversely affect the safe and comfortable enjoyment of property rights of the zone in which it is located.”

The code also requires a statement “setting forth the reasons that the proposed installation must be provided above ground in a specific location and why it is necessary and convenient for the efficiency of the public utility system or for the satisfactory and convenient provision of service by the utility to the neighborhood or area in which the particular use is to be located.”

The Sentinel also contacted Ocean City Land Use Administrator Jaime Felker. She deferred all questions to Bergen.

By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff