Preserve Orlando's Neighborhoods

Dear [Add Commissioner/Mayor Name] ,

The beauty and tranquility of our city is once again in jeopardy. The proposed cell tower at N28.444932, W81.210124, conditional use permit case number CUP2024-10001, stands to significantly impact our community and the well-being of our residents. As a tireless champion of our community's best interests, I implore your unwavering attention to the urgent matters at hand. I ask that you stand with me and numerous others to strongly oppose the chosen site and advocate for application denial and exploration of readily available alternate sites.

Our reasons are clear, our cause just:

1. Property Value and Tax Collection Impacts: Classified as hazards by HUD, cell towers diminish the desirability and value of nearby properties due to concerns associated with property values, aesthetics, safety, health, the environment, and pets. Studies demonstrate a documented decline in property values, potentially exceeding 20%, with adverse effects ranging from 2% to 35%. This loss not only affects individual properties but also reduces tax revenues across the community indefinitely. Additionally, homes near cell towers experience marketability and sale impacts.

2. Aesthetic Impacts: The proposed 15-story cell tower in Meridian Parks threatens the community's natural beauty, contradicting the City of Orlando Growth Management Plan. Clear visibility of the towering structure, disturbance to natural beauty, impacts to wildlife, and violation of intentional design principles jeopardize the neighborhood's identity, diminishes aesthetics, and negatively impacts the enjoyment of current residents. Review of like-kind towers in commercial areas of the West(near Good Homes Road and the 408) and South (near S John Young Parkway and Commodity Circle) Orlando Areas highlights the proposed towers incompatibility at the proposed site.

3. Community Impacts: The proposed cell tower site, designated as residential land that would become open space and park in the community master plan, threatens the community by depriving residents of vital recreational areas, potentially leading to a decline in recreational opportunities and affecting physical and mental health. Further, cell towers require 24/7 access and maintenance capability, a clear nuisance to residents. Considering all the noted variables the proposed location is not the best use of the land.

4. Lack of Need: Insufficient evidence exists to justify the need for a cell tower at the proposed site. The applicant's "Engineering Necessity Case," FCC coverage maps, and Verizon coverage maps all indicate the Starwood PD currently enjoys required minimum coverage. Therefore, absence of the tower does not prohibit wireless coverage to the area. Furthermore, although the applicant proposed a desired capacity improvement, the application failed to present sufficient evidence of any current or future capacity issue and local residents have noted ample service in their homes and oppose the site. Finally, the suggested location fails to consider long term network needs and coverage strategies, efficient distancing from existing towers, or more suitable alternative locations to the North, South, and East that could better fulfill network capacity needs, adequately space towers, and minimize long-term impacts on the community.

5. Alternate Site Availability: Legal precedence indicates that "a cellular provider bears a heavy burden to prove that a significant gap in service exists and to make a showing of the infeasibility of alternatives." Further, "[a carrier cannot] insist on one, ideal way to provide service; the [Telecommunications Act of 1996] required it to consider alternatives more palatable to local zoning authorities." Considerable vacant land, including the county landfill to the North, a county pump station and a utility site to the South, and a planned commercial site to the East could provide a less impactful location, aligning with wireless network capacity desires while minimizing impacts to residents. Further, there appears to be a readily available long-term strategic solution for implementing cell phone coverage across the entire Starwood property, utilizing a maximum of four additional towers, should they be required to support desired capacity. This strategy could address land use concerns, minimize impacts to residents and tax revenue loss, and meet capacity desires.

6. City Ordinances: The proposed cell tower's location requires conversion of residential land and will remain well within 450 feet of residential space. This likely violates Orlando Code of Ordinances and City of Orlando Growth Management Plan's future land use policies, raising concerns about documented priorities, fit/character, resident enjoyment, and potential health and safety risks. Local residents are adamantly opposed to the proposed tower and approval of any waiver or exemption or city ordinance or policy. Stakeholders must thoroughly evaluate and address these concerns to ensure alignment with documented development priorities, policies, and ordinances. It's crucial to recognize that the minimum required coverage is already in place and proceed with a fair balance between the impacts on residents and the desires of cellular companies for future coverage.

7. Safety Risks: Cell phone towers present safety risks to communities, primarily due to the potential for fires and structural failures. Electrical malfunctions within the towers, such as wiring and batteries overheating, can lead to fires that spread quickly and endanger nearby structures and people. Additionally, factors like extreme weather and seismic activity can cause tower collapses, posing immediate danger and causing property damage.

8. Health Impacts: Widespread concerns about the adverse health effects of cell towers underscore the importance of thorough assessment and legislative response. Multiple data sources, including the WHO's classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic, indicate potential risks associated with cell tower emissions. Additionally, notable cases of health issues near cell towers and the FCC's inability to respond to a 2021 court order regarding health effects further highlight the need for comprehensive evaluation and action by lawmakers.

9. Nature and Pet Impacts: Studies suggest that electromagnetic radiation from cell towers may harm plants, leading to growth abnormalities and leaf and canopy problems. Pets and wildlife are also affected, with evidence linking EMF exposure to increased risks like lymphoma in dogs and fertility and embryo issues in various species. Honeybees, crucial for pollination, may suffer communication disruptions and ultimately colony collapse disorder. Considering the prevalence of pets and the existence of vast preservations lands the proposed site has the potential to dramatically impact the loal community.

10. Telecommunication Tower Application Denials: Legal cases demonstrate how cell tower applications can be denied based on various grounds, including but not limited to property value impacts, aesthetic concerns, alternate site availability ( including a lack of alternate site assessment), land use differences, safety risks, health concerns, and lack of need. These denials, when supported by substantial evidence, have been upheld in court rulings. Additionally, FCC regulations allow for small gaps or "dead spots" in cellular coverage, and when a coverage need is present local governments have the authority to regulate the placement of cell towers within their jurisdictions.

In conclusion, the evidence presented demonstrates substantial justification for denying the application for the conditional use permit case number CUP2024-10001. The reasons provided encompass a wide array of concerns, ranging from property value and tax collection impacts to health and safety risks, as well as the availability of alternative sites.

The examples cited illustrate the adverse effects that such a tower could have on the community, including diminished property values, aesthetic disruptions, loss of public park and open space, and potential health and safety hazards. Furthermore, the availability of alternate less impactful sites, a poor fit of the 15-story tower near neighboring residential properties, legal precedents, the existence of coverage for the entire local community, and the need to compromise city ordinances and policies underscore the need for careful consideration in this matter.

As stewards of equity and justice, it is paramount that we prioritize the welfare and interests of the community when confronted with decisions of this magnitude. Therefore, I urge you to carefully review the concerns outlined in this letter and take appropriate action to deny the application for the proposed cell tower and advocate for exploration of alternate technically acceptable locations. Additionally, please consider establishing a long-term strategy for placement of cell towers in our communities such that future placement minimizes impacts to communities. By doing so, we can ensure the protection of our community's values, resources, and quality of life for generations to come.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]