MR. AYCOCK DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT HIS CELL TOWER

We must be making progress because "Tower Builder" Mr. Aycock of DTI does not want you to know about his Towering Proposal for Sailfish Marina.

In the great American tradition, we made up bright yellow signs saying STOP THE 120 FT CELL TOWER AT SAILFISH MARINA to put out to inform the public of this project.

Mr. Aycock sent us the following message which we did not receive until after our experience with the "code enforcement" (below).

I was curious as to see if you pulled a sign permit for the misinformed signage?

Code enforcement and growth management know nothing about giving you sign approvals for use of county right of way property. They are sending a code enforcement officer out to investigate the illegal signes placed in the county right of way.  FYI

Thank You,
Kevin T. Aycock
President
Dynamic Towers Inc.
772-370-9819 Mobile

I cannot speak to where all the signs were placed. Many people are volunteering their time to fight this project so we have lots of help. 

But I can tell you about the 2 signs that were on private property, one on Mariner Cay property and one on Yacht and County Club property. We were exiting the YCC back gate when a car pulled up and someone TRESPASSED on YCC property and removed the sign. That is theft. That is a criminal offense.

The car then went to the Mariner Cay entrance for their sign but when we followed and blew our horn to stop them to ask them for our sign, the car took off and went down to Sandsprit Park. We followed it and finally got to where the two cars could stop and talk.

We asked for our sign back. We were told they were illegal because they were on county property. We asked for the driver's name which he gave us as Dylan Trevor. He said his uncle worked for the City and told him to go pick up the signs.  We asked for the name of his uncle. He refused to give us the name. 

We asked the driver why he was only picking up our signs. He said was going to go back and get the others  --   all the signs about Easter Services, cheap stump grinding, Yard Sale, "I buy houses for cash" -- he passed them all and targeted only our Cell Tower signs.

It appears that Code Enforcement has unmarked cars that are out on the job within minutes of a question about sign permits by Mr. Aycock to removed the offending signs. 

What we think we have is someone driving a personal vehicle (a black Kia Optima with FL license plate BBQ G82) whose driver is impersonating a code enforcement officer, who refused to give us the name of the authorizing official in Code Enforcement who told him to remove the signs.  That is a criminal offense.

And does Code Enforcement have the authority to come on to PRIVATE PROPERTY and take signs? 

What is so threatening about the information on those signs that neither the County nor "Tower Builder" Mr. Aycock wants you to know about?

PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION AGAINST THE TOWER

REASONS TO REJECT THE CELL TOWER AND SIGN OUR PETITION

Click here to be directed to The Petition 

THREAT TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE

The Tower will negatively affect the welfare of all our neighborhood residents. It will generate noise and light pollution and be a blight on our viewshed. Maintenance crews and possibly cranes, generators, and lights will come into Sailfish Marina at will.

This Tower would be a distraction, a disruption to the quality of our lives, and deprive us of the right to the quiet enjoyment of our homes.

It is a hazard to aircraft. Many homes are in the debris field if a plane hits the Tower.

 Real estate values will be adversely affected. No one wants to buy a house that looks at a 120 ft Tower. Home values lower between 4-38% (depending on circumstances) when a cell tower is in the neighborhood.

NO DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR A 120 FT TOWER

No independent study says we need a cell tower here.

 Residents find that with newer phones and towers recently built at Sailfish Point and Cove Road there is no gap in service.

Small cells are commonly used in residential neighborhoods to increase wireless capacity. They are installed on rooftops and utility poles. They to not intrude on the character of a neighborhood. Technology has improved so that structures can be smaller. This proposal is for a dinosaur.

RE ZONING IS OUR GREATEST THREAT

Sailfish Marina is zoned R-3A liberal multi-family, an old designation, and must be changed when development is proposed. Bayley Products, Inc. requested rezoning a 640 sq. ft. portion of the marina, which they called a "postage stamp", to Waterfront General Commercial (WGC) in order to proceed with Tower construction.

Sailfish Marina could use this same "postage stamp" zoning technique to gradually rezone other portions of the marina to WGC, none of which would have to conform to county zoning and development regulations for WGC.  After the Tower what will they construct next? Postage stamp zoning of Sailfish Marina was approved unanimously by the MC LPA on March 5, 2015.

WHO BENEFITS?

 DTI is a construction company which builds cell towers. They are not in the telecommunications business. 

Bayley Products, Inc is in the marine business serving sport fishermen, boaters, and tourists. They are not in the telecommunications business.

Sailfish Marina will certainly benefit from the spot zoning that enables them to build the Tower in that zone. 

They can use it again and again to build restaurants and bars without having to notify the neighbors and comply with WGC regulations.

The Tower will benefit both owners who will make substantial financial gains from the construction of and renting out the Tower space.

SUMMARY

Across the US, residents are fighting these "Tower Builders" who intrude into residential neighborhoods for profit and erect these massive towers against the wishes of the local residents. 

We are not rejecting wireless communications. Many less intrusive options exist.  We are rejecting this particular structure to house the communications equipment that no one has proven we need.

Protect our safety, peace, property values, and quality of life. Tell the Board of County Commissioners that you do not support this 120 ft. tower in our residential neighborhood. Here is the petition at MoveOn.org that will enable you let the Martin County Board of Commissioners know you do not want a 120 ft. Telecommunications Tower in our neighborhood.

The Mariner Cay, Yacht and Country Club of Stuart, and Rocky Point residential neighborhoods will be severely impacted by an obtrusive, looming 120 ft telecommunications tower. Better to have small cells installed on rooftops and utility poles to increase wireless capacity. This tower would be a hazard to public safety, a disruption to the quality of our lives, and deprive us of the right to the quiet enjoyment of our homes.

That's why I created a petition to Ed Fielding, Commissioner, Anne Scott, Commissioner, Sarah Heard, Commissioner, John Haddox, Commissioner, and Doug Smith, Commissioner, which says:

"A 120 Ft monopole telecommunications tower is planned for a residential neighborhood in Stuart, FL. at Sailfish Marina on the Manatee Pocket." 

Will you sign the petition? Click here to add your name: 

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-the-cell-tower-in?source=c.fwd&r_by=12728502 

Thanks! 

 

IS THIS A STEALTH TOWER?

Sec.4.796.B of the Martin County Codes states that

Towers and structure-mounted WTCFs within the following areas shall be STEALTH facilities:

1.

Traffic circles.

2.

Bridges.

3.

Barrier islands (Hutchinson Island, Jupiter Island or Long Island).

4.

Areas lying within 3,000 feet from the mean high water line of the Atlantic Ocean or within 2,500 feet from the Intracoastal Waterway, the St. Lucie River, Loxahatchee River, Indian River.

5.

Lands designated commercial office/residential, commercial waterfront, institutional-recreation, institutional conservation on the future land use map.

6.

Lands designated for residential use on the future land use map.

7.

The hurricane evacuation zone for a Category 2 hurricane, as defined in Chapter 8, the Coastal Management Element, of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan.

The Sailfish Marina neighborhood meets several of these criteria.

The Glossary for Sec. 4.792 states a

Stealth facility means any tower or WTCF which is designed to blend into the surrounding environment to the extent that an average person would be unaware of its presence as a tower or WTCF.

You be the judge. Does this tower meet that definition to you?

TELL THE MC BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO FOLLOW COUNTY PROCEDURES

Let me be clear

We are not against better wireless communications.

We are against Martin County circumventing their own procedures for tower location by not evaluating co-location of services on existing towers and utility poles as required by Sec. 4.795 https://www.municode.com/library/fl/martin_county/codes/land_development_code?nodeId=LADERE_ART4SIDEST_DIV18WITEFA_S4.795PRSICO

By approving DTI's proposal MCLPA went directly to the lowest desirable option, priority 4, location and approval of the construction of a 120 foot tower in the middle of a residential neighborhood zoned R-3A.

We are against Martin County circumventing their own zoning procedures to rezone a small area within Sailfish Marina to Waterfront General Commercial and then stating that the rules that apply to this zone will be different from the rules that apply to Sailfish Marina.  This creates a situation where it is not clear what rules apply anywhere within the parcel and in the Marina.

DTI did not submit simulation photographs of the tower that comply with Martin County requirements to show the impact of the tower on nearest neighbors per Sec. 794.B
https://www.municode.com/library/fl/martin_county/codes/land_development_code?nodeId=LADERE_ART4SIDEST_DIV18WITEFA_S4.794DEAPRETO (subject of a future post).

If you feel that you would like to tell the Martin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) that you too are opposed to this action please link to the letter, print it out and send it to your representatives or tell them your opinion by email.

Following is a sample letter to the BOCC (link to pdf)

Martin County

Board of County Commissioners

2401 S.E. Monterey Road

Stuart, FL 34996

Dear Martin County Commissioners

I am writing to you to protest the proposal to re-zone a portion of the Sailfish Marina, at 3565 SE St. Lucie Blvd, Stuart, FL and the construction of a 120 foot high wireless communications tower at this site on the Manatee Pocket.

As someone who enjoys the beauty of the St. Lucie River and the Manatee Pocket,  I  believe that the applicant’s use of “postage stamp” or “island” re-zoning improperly circumvents standards set forth in the Land Development Regulations, including  no consideration of alternative telecommunication sites, as required by Martin County LDR Site Development Standards, Division 18, Section 4.795.

Residents within view of the proposed tower anticipate several adverse impacts from a structure that is 60% taller than the existing tower, 50% wider, and solid white, instead of a neutral open lattice. These impacts  include: 1) greater vibration, noise pollution, and light pollution, 2) increased RF emissions with unknown health implications, and 3) glaring strobe or other night lighting from potential FAA/FCC rulings. They will seriously affect the quality of life in our neighborhoods and will reduce our property values.

I urge the Board of County Commissioners to reject the March 5, 2015 recommendation of the Local Planning Agency, and vote to deny the request for a zoning change ( D003-20140026) and tower construction permit (D056-201400027).

Sincerely,

__________________________

(name)

__________________________

(address)

Email address of your Board of County Commissioners

efieldin@martin.fl.us
 ascott@martin.fl.us
sheard@martin.fl.us
jhaddox@martin.fl.us
dsmith@martin.fl.us

FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER---PART 2

FAA Review Practices and Standards

FAA JO 7400.2K has a number of requirements for the performance of their reviews. Section 5-2-2 a. states that “Obstruction Evaluation Group (OEG) personnel must administer aeronautical studies with the coordinated assistance of Airports, Technical Operations Services, Frequency Management, Flight Standards, Flight Procedures Team, Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security Representatives”. All of these organizations were “coordinated” in less than a week.   This is quite an impressive array of Federal agencies to respond  in such a timely fashion.

Section 6-2-2  requires that a completeness review of the submission must be done before the review starts. Exceptions may be made for emergency situations, but it is not clear whether an upcoming county planning agency meeting would qualify as an “emergency”.

Section 6-2-3 discusses the coordination of the work among the various Divisions that are involved, and it exempts several organizations from certain reviews of temporary structures or from non-substantive changes, but it is not clear how this tower could benefit from any of the exemptions.

Section 6-3 discusses the various types of adverse effects that could result from construction of Hazards to Navigation, and how they can be evaluated and mitigated.  The list of hazards is quite extensive, as is the list of possible mitigation actions. The FAA was able to complete this review in less than one week, rather than the 2 months that would normally be scheduled.

Chapter 7 discusses the procedure for making the determination itself.  Section 7-1-1 states that “All known aeronautical facts revealed during the obstruction evaluation must be considered when issuing an official FAA determination. The determination must be a composite of all comments and findings received from interested FAA offices.  …”  Again quite a bit of work to do in one week.

Section 7-1-4 describes the content and options for issuing a Determination. The letter is required to include a full description of the structure, its location and height, and whether marking and/or lighting is recommended. Additional language relating to optional lighting is also discussed, as is the expiration date of the recommendation and the need for a supplemental notice to report start and completion of construction. 

Section 7-1-7 a.5. also says that "Copies of the determination must always [emphasis added] be accompanied by a copy of the submitted map and, if applicable, a copy of the surveys."  The FAA did include a map as page 4 of the original determination, but did not include it in the second Determination, which was only 3 pages long.  Perhaps they thought that the first map was sufficient. If so, then this Determination is relying on the first one and therefore the Determination is deficient.

There is also an important note that if construction cranes will be needed and they are higher than the facility that is proposed, an additional FAA Determination letter will be needed to address the construction cranes.  So, if DTI gets permission to construct this tower, we can expect to see yet another huge structure looking over our back yards, with flashing red lights to warn away the airplanes.  For as long as it takes to build the tower, and then, when some maintenance issue arises, to fix it

Lingering questions

Given the quick turnaround that the FAA provided to DTI, we wonder whether the FAA actually did a second, independent review of the hazards for the second tower site, or whether it just used the results from the first site. FAA guidance specifically does not allow this.  

Section 7-3-2 of 7400.2K discusses corrections to a determination, and says "…   Editorial changes that do not involve a coordinate change (of one second or more in latitude or longitude) or elevation change (of one foot or more) may be issued as corrections. In this case, no change to dates could be necessary.  Adjustments or corrections to a proposal that involve one or both of the above coordinate or elevation changes must be addressed as a new and separate obstruction evaluation study."

It is clear from this guidance that the FAA policy does not allow evaluations to be re-used if they exceed this criteria.  They are too site-specific and the results could be very sensitive to small changes. Unfortunately for DTI, the second tower site is 100 yards away from the first – much more than one second of arc.  Therefore, the FAA should NOT have used the results of the first study to approve the second.   

Curiously, the Determination of No Hazard that was issued for the second tower references the study done for the first tower (see the upper right corner where is says  “Aeronautical Study No. 2014-ASO-14040-OE, Prior Study No. 2013-ASO-1479-OE”).  Why would the FAA include this reference to the prior study if it performed a “new and separate obstruction evaluation study”?  Are they following their own procedures, or do they do favors for telecommunications tower construction companies?  

It must have been very tempting for a reviewer to use the simple Notice Criteria screening tool and see that the locations are only one foot apart, so it should not really matter. If you don’t read the actual application and carefully consider what you are told, it could be an easy mistake to make, especially under pressure from a frequent client in a difficult situation.

If you are the bureaucrat, you can say that it doesn’t really matter, because we can fix this later. We will just wait until they put up the tower, then go out and inspect it (required by their own procedure), and then if we really think it is a hazard, we can make them put a few lights on it.

This is fine for the FAA, but to the neighbors, it will be a nightmare. One that can come to life at any time, triggered by something as simple as a student pilot flying out of Martin County Witham Airport who gets lost during his first solo flight at night.  He gets lost, loses altitude, and has a heart-pounding close encounter with a tower that doesn’t have any lights on it (because the neighbors don’t want it lit up with flashing strobe or red lights into their bedrooms). The new pilot files a report of the near collision with the FAA, who orders a new aeronautical study, and decides that lights are necessary. What happens then?

On March 6, 2105, the intervenors filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request pertaining to the telecommunications tower at Sailfish Marina. It will be interesting to see what documentation the FAA releases, in response to our FOIA request that relates to these two Determination letters. 

We will be looking closely to see how the FAA coordinator presented the case to DOD and Homeland Security and what comments they provided back to him/her, as well as all the other parts of the FAA that should have been involved in this application.

FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER--- PART 1

Background

In administering Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 77, the prime objectives of the FAA are to promote air safety and the efficient use of the navigable airspace. To accomplish this mission, aeronautical studies are conducted based on information provided by proponents on an FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration.

Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, describes the standards for marking and lighting of structures such as buildings, chimneys, antenna towers, cooling towers, storage tanks, supporting structures of overhead wires, etc. FAA  Order JO 7400.2k “Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters” (JO 7400.2k) specifies the procedures for use by all  FAA personnel in the joint administration of the airspace program, and in conducting aeronautical studies.

If an organization is planning to sponsor any construction or alterations of buildings, chimneys, antenna towers or other elevated structures which may affect navigable airspace, it must file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) either electronically via a website or manually with the FAA.  

The FAA website describes the procedures and standards, and provides reports on the status of the aeronautical studies that may be triggered by the notice of construction or alteration provided by an organization. The FAA then performs the appropriate studies and determines whether the proposed construction is a Hazard to Navigation, and what actions need to be taken to ensure aeronautical safety. These can include re-routing aircraft, issuance of warnings to pilots, limitations on the height of construction or the inclusion of suitable lighting or other markings on the structure to warn aircraft.

As already described in an earlier posting, the FAA has a “Notice Criteria Tool” on its Obstruction Evaluation website to help sponsors determine whether they need to file a Notice of Proposed Construction for a project.  It is a simple screening tool, but it gives builders some idea of the issues they are going to have to deal with if they go ahead with a project. The website is a good place start to understand the FAA review process and gather information about the status of obstruction reviews.

Martin County Code Paragraph 4.794.A.5 states that the following documentation shall be provided: “Written technical documentation of any Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approvals and lighting requirements and, if applicable, documentation of approval or denial of lighting and a statement whether an FAA "Determination of No Hazard to Aviation" is required by 47 C.F.R. part 17 for the tower. If such a determination is required, no building permit for the tower shall be issued until a copy of the determination is filed with the County.”

Sailfish Marina Telecommunications Towers

First Tower Proposal

DTI has tried to build its telecommunications tower on two separate sites within the Sailfish Marina.  The first one was proposed to be built within the old Finest Kind Marina, which was purchased by Sailfish Marina. When you enter the location and the height of this first proposed tower into the Notice Criteria Tool,  it says that “Your proposed structure exceeds an instrument approach area by 39 feet and aeronautical study is needed to determine if it will exceed a standard of Subpart C of 14CFRPart77.  The FAA, in accordance with 77.9, requests that you file.”

DTI filed the Notice for this proposed tower some time in 2013, and the FAA issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation (2013-ASO-1479-OE) on June 23, 2013. The Determination expired on December 25, 2014, and the FAA sent a notice of termination regarding this aeronautical study to DTI on January 20, 2015. 

Interestingly, the FAA archives have deleted all information related to this first Determination, and it no longer appears in their database. Therefore, it is not possible to determine exactly when DTI filed its Notice for the first tower. A search for this old Determination Letter on the OE (Obstruction Evaluation) website generates this response:  “Please enter a valid ASN. The ASN you requested was terminated and superseded by 2014-ASO-14030-OE. For additional information click here to  contact the appropriate representative.”  This takes you to a link for the Air Traffic State Contacts for Florida – Southern, and Mr. Michael Blaich . Mr. Blaich is the FAA specialist for Air Traffic for Southern Florida.  He is also the person who signed the second Determination of No Hazard discussed below.

Second Tower proposal

After its original proposed site was determined to be unsuitable, due to legal issues, DTI determined to build the tower on the other lot that makes up the Sailfish Marina. They submitted their application to Martin County on October 22, 2014, and included a copy of the FAA determination for the old site in the application.  Use of the Notice Criteria Tool  with the coordinates for the second tower results in the following:  “Your proposed structure exceeds an instrument approach area by 38 feet and aeronautical study is needed to determine if it will exceed a standard of Subpart C of 14CFRPart77.  The FAA, in accordance with 77.9, requests that you file.” The new location is about 100 yards to the Northeast of the original site.

It is curious that the FAA tool says that the original site was only one foot further into the Instrument approach area, even though it is about 300 feet farther away from the runway centerline.  This is an important point, which will be discussed in my next posting.

JO 7400.2k Section 6-1-2 states that “… a separate aeronautical study number must be assigned and a separate obstruction evaluation study must be conducted for:  a. Each site (location), structure (height), or sponsor. …” 

On December 22, 2014 DTI filed another Notice of Proposed Construction with the FAA, using the actual coordinates of the new tower site. On February 22, 2015, the Obstruction Evaluation website reported that the aeronautical study (for this Notice was a “Work in Progress”, with a “Work Schedule” date of May 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015.

The intervenors in this proceeding discovered this work schedule information on Feb 22, and communicated it to Martin County (MC) staff reviewers in the Growth Management Division early in the week of Feb. 23.  MC staff were not aware that there was no FAA determination letter – they had relied on the old one, which had expired and had been terminated. But DTI had not told them that the old determination had expired nor been terminated although they were informed in writing by FAA.

MC staff immediately contacted DTI, and informed them that it was imperative that they have an FAA determination before the scheduled meeting of MC Local Planning Agency on March 5.

Intervenors regularly visited the FAA website to check the status of the review, but nothing changed.  On March 4, MC staff informed intervenors that the applicant had replied to the MC project coordinator enquiries with a letter on February 25 that assured her that they had personally spoken to the FAA administration offices in Texas, and that 9 out of 10 of the FAA offices had approved the new location, and they (the FAA) would try to expedite the new FAA report by the end of the week (Feb 27).  DTI was able to say this within 24 hours after MC staff had heard that they were not scheduled to receive a Determination letter before the summer.

On March 5, as the intervenors were about to leave home for the Local Planning Agency Meeting, they checked the FAA web site one last time, and found that the Determination of No Hazard (2014-ASO-14030-OE) had been issued.  They printed it out to bring to the meeting.  When asked about this quick level of service at the Local Planning Agency meeting, the applicant stated that he had just asked nicely whether FAA could expedite his aeronautical study, and they kindly obliged, by moving it up in the queue by about 3 months.  One wonders what the other applicants in the queue for approval by the FAA would have to say about this practice…

This is a long and complicated tale which resumes in my next posting. There are unsettling questions about the FAA process and the Determination. Please stay tuned.

WRONG TOWER WRONG PLACE

Why has a 120 ft high monolithic wireless communications tower been proposed for construction at Sailfish Marina, in a residential neighborhood without following Martin County tower siting guidelines? The county is required to investigate co-locating services on existing structures.

Sailfish Marina has an existing lattice structure.

Sandsprit Park has existing lattice structures. The area is dotted with utility poles which many cities in the US use to co-locate services. A complementary smaller tower could be built on an already existing Waterfront General Commercial site on the Manatee Pocket. The whole Manatee Pocket could have a ring of less obtrusive wireless communication services and not one monolithic pole.

This image of Sailfish Marina from a boat on the Manatee Pocket is a SIMULATION of what is proposed. An image of an existing Cell Tower on Sailfish Point built by DTI and reported  to be similar to the Sailfish Marina proposal has been scaled and placed on top of the image of the existing lattice tower.

WHY DID I NOT KNOW A 120 FT WIRELESS TOWER IS PLANNED FOR MY NEIGHBORHOOD?

Most of my neighbors are astonished to hear that a 120 foot wireless communications tower has been approved by the Local Planning Agency for the Manatee Pocket and one that will be in view of all of their homes and for 13.65 miles (see previous post for calculation).

When they are told that property values decrease (http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-desirability/) when a cell tower is built in a residential neighborhood, their dismay is evident and the first question is WHY DON'T I KNOW ABOUT THIS?

The answer to that question is because the notification process for the construction of a cell tower is inadequate.

In order to approve the construction site for this tower, a part of a parcel of land at Sailfish Marina was rezoned. If you lived within 300 ft. of the boundary of this parcel, you received a notice for the proposed rezoning and the construction of the 120 ft. tower. If your property did not meet this criteria, you probably do not know what is planned in your neighborhood.

The neighbors close to the tower and across the Manatee Pocket will suffer noise pollution, light pollution, and detrimental health effects from electromagnetic radiation.

The World Health Organization classified cell tower radiation which is RF-EMF as a possible human carcinogen (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf) in 2011 due to research showing increased brain cancer in those with highest cumulative exposure. Scientists are calling for “more research” to understand the long term effect of daily exposure to cell tower microwave radiation.

  

RF radiation hazards from transmitting antennas can cause thermal and non-thermal and cognitive/psychological injuries. (http://whyfry.org/brazilian-study-cancer-associated-with-radiation-from-cellular-antennas/)  Many doctors feel current US exposure standards are inadequate.

In addition, a 2012 GAO Report (GAO-12-771) (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-771) recommended that the FCC update their current RF standards. The recent FCC submissions document Doctor’s statements that current US exposure standards are thousands of times too high to protect human health. Therefore, even if cell tower radiation regulations are met there could be a serious risk to health.

It is important to note that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (section 704) (http://transition.fcc.gov/telecom.html) states that siting of a cell tower cannot be regulated for environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. The public perception that these effects are a health concern contributes to the devaluation of property and regulation based on property devaluation is permitted.

Not just the neighbors adjacent to Sailfish Marina will feel a decrease in their property values but Rocky Point and Sewall's Point will all feel the effects by having impaired views by a massive tower or hearing electrical running all night at the water front.

TOWERING PROPOSAL

DESCRIPTION OF CELL TOWER

The proposed structure is a 120 foot stealth flagpole communications tower designed to have the appearance of a single tapered pole with no existing appurtenances and will resemble a sailboat mast. The exterior will be white in color and internally house the related transmission cables and antennas. Taken from  Dynamic Tower, Inc. Drawing Sheet C-1 and their project description.

Tower height is 120 feet

Tower diameter is 6 or 8 feet (plot drawing reduced in scale so number was not readable.)

Accessory ground equipment will be housed within an existing building.

If a flag is raised on this tower (denied by DTI at March 5, 2015 Local Planning Agency meeting) Federal law requires a flag which is not raised at dawn and lowered at sunset to be lighted throughout the night.

No navigation light will be required (see below)


FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION STUDY

The FAA website provides a screening tool for determining whether a proposed structure may be a hazard to navigation and whether it needs to formally be reviewed by the FAA.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm

When the above referenced latitude and longitude coordinates from the Sailfish Marina as well as the height of the land and the height of the tower are entered into the screening tool, you will then see that this tower is sited within an instrument approach area to Martin County's Witham Airport by 38 feet. The tool presents a drawing of the instrument approach area, and shows where the tower is situated, relative to the airport and states a study is needed. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION STUDY DETERMINATION

On March 3, 2015 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a letter to Dynamic Towers, Inc. of Port St. Lucie (construction firm) stating that their FAA Aeronautical Study No. 2014-ASO-14030-OE for the proposed structure as described with a Latitude of 27-09-40.20N NAD 83 and a Longitude of 80-11-45.20W does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation.

The study states marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety.

WHO WILL SEE THIS TOWER?

Only property owners within 300 ft. of the zoning change were notified that this proposal was going before the Martin County Local Planning Agency (notification process flawed see upcoming post). This is completely inadequate for a tower of this height, diameter, and color. Homes in Mariner Cay, the Yacht and Country Club of Stuart, surrounding streets, and a significant number of homes across Manatee Pocket in Rocky Point will have this massive structure negatively impacting their quality of life through noise pollution, light pollution, and sheer ugliness.

When you take the above description of the tower and use the following formula to calculate the distance from which the tower will be seen, this massive tower will be visible 13.36 miles away.

With d in miles^[6] and h in feet,

From  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

WHO WILL HEAR THE EQUIPMENT FROM THIS TOWER?

Cell towers require all manner of electrical equipment including cooling equipment which must run 24 hours a day. While the equipment will be housed in a building, it will generate a substantial amount of noise that will be heard in the surrounding neighborhoods and across Manatee Pocket in Rocky Point.

PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS TO DATE

Partial List of Stakeholders and Partial List of Attendees at March 5, 2015 Local Planning Agency Meeting

Telecommunications Tower Requester
AT&T
Corporate Headquarters
208 South Akard St.
Dallas, TX 75020
RFD Engineer
Sharon Dinges
5201 Congress Ave.
Boca Raton, FL 33487

Rezoning Requester
Bayley Products, Inc.
Subject Property
Sailfish Marina
3565 SE St. Lucie Blvd.
Stuart, FL 34997
Requester Agent: Kevin Aycock

Construction of Tower Requeter
Dynamic Towers, Inc. DTI
Kevin Aycock, President 
575 NW Mercantile Place
Suite 104
Port St. Lucie, FL 34986

Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation - Marking and Lighting Unnecessary
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
2601 Meacham Boulevard
Forth Worth. TX 76193
Aeronautical Study No. 
2014-ASO-14030-OE
Signature Control No. 238452364-244623392
Michael Blaich, Specialist

Martin County Staff
Project Coordinator:  Deanna Freeman, Principle Planner
Growth Management Director Nicki van Vonno, AICP (recused)
Assistant County Attorney Krista Storey

Local Planning Agency Members at March 5, 2015 Meeting 
Jim Moir, Chair
Kathie Smith
Crystal Lucas
Approved Rezoning and Construction of Tower Projects Unanimously

Interveners at March 5, 2015 Meeting
Ralph Caruso and Jane Lynn Merritt
4014 SE Fairway E
Stuart, FL 34997

Property Owners Association
Yacht and Country Club of Stuart
Ray Smith, President
3883 SE Fairway E
Stuart, FL 34997

120 FOOT CELL TOWER IS PROPOSED FOR MANATEE POCKET

CREATIVE REZONING APPROVED

On March 5, 2015 the Martin County Local Planning Agency (MCLPA) met to discuss the proposed rezoning of a small area of land within an existing parcel, without subdividing the parcel, in order to allow the construction of a telecommunications tower within the Sailfish Marina at 3565 SE St. Lucie Blvd. in a residential neighborhood in Stuart.

The Agency also reviewed the application for construction of the tower itself. They recommended approval of both the land rezoning and the tower construction to the Martin County Board of Commissioners, who will discuss the matter on Tuesday, April 7, 2015. The meeting will be held at 9 A.M. at Martin County Administrative Center, 2401 S.E. Monterey Road, Stuart, FL and is open to the public.

WHAT THE MCLPA DID

The rezoning effort was not standard, one could characterize it as creative, inasmuch as it involved something the staff called “postage-stamp rezoning.”  Martin County zoning regulations require that the County Zoning Atlas be amended to address an inconsistency between the future land use designation and the zoning district. Any proposal which triggers the need for a development application requires consistency between the land use designation and the zoning district. In essence, the applicant requested a zoning change for a 640 square foot development site for the telecommunications tower, but not for the entire approximately 107,000 sq. ft. parcel.

The applicant stated that they used "postage-stamp" zoning to minimize concerns of the neighbors about potential negative effects of rezoning the entire parcel from its current R-3A Liberal Multiple Family District to Waterfront General Commercial (WGC). Specifically, rezoning only a small area for the telecommunications tower instead of the entire parcel would prevent the construction of additional buildings and facilities, such as restaurants, bars, clubs, and other activities that might generate noise and traffic in the neighborhood. The surrounding residential neighborhoods are particularly concerned about this possibility.

During the meeting, the Martin County staff reviewer discussed the Development Standards for the proposed new designation of Waterfront General Commercial. These include minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 80 ft. and setback requirements of 25 ft.

WHY OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE IN DANGER

Intervenors (homeowners who live within 300 ft. of the parcel) asked how these Development Standards would be applied to this newly created "postage-stamp" WGC zone, inasmuch as it is only about 26 ft. square.  A 25 ft. setback requirement would limit construction in that zone to a small patch 1 ft. square. Both the staff and the county attorney could not/did not explain how the setback requirements would be addressed but rather maintained that they would not be applicable to the new, "postage-stamp" WGC zone nor to the parent parcel. A disconcerting discussion describing zoning for the lot and parcel ensued.

In addition, in response to questions, both the county attorney and the staff stated that this practice which they called “postage-stamp zoning” had been used before, and was accepted in the county. Shockingly, they agreed that this zoning technique could be used again in the future to justify additional changes to this same site, perhaps to install a restaurant!

WILL POSTAGE STAMP REZONING BECOME THE NEW NORM FOR MARTIN COUNTY?

It appears that in Martin County, the owner of a parcel who wants to do something or build something that is not currently permitted under the current zoning, can ask to rezone a portion of the parcel and be exempt from most if not all of the Martin County Development Standards. This "postage-stamp" approach to rezoning should be feared by all citizens of Martin County.