Proposed SBA Communications Cell Tower Settlement

Asked the board to reject the cell tower settlement and protect vulnerable residents with electromagnetic sensitivities.

Argued that telecommunications law limits applicant remedies and that the county's denial was supported by substantial evidence.

Described severe physical symptoms caused by RF radiation and asked the board to protect their unique community.

Warned that the cell tower would force vulnerable residents to relocate from a nationally unique disability haven.

Stated that cell coverage in the area is already strong and that the tower is unnecessary.

Asked the board to require proof of necessity and noted that SBA's application cited capacity rather than coverage.

Explained how the tower would create an invisible barrier preventing community members from accessing mail and healthcare.

Noted she lives in state-funded government housing for disabled residents and begged the board to deny the tower.

Requested the board vote against the tower, noting the housing project is a unique state-funded resource for vulnerable people.

Represented SBA Communications, noting federal law prohibits considering health effects and recommending settlement approval.

Stated that signal improvements from existing towers make another tower unnecessary.

Presented a photo showing full cell signal strength and alleged omissions in SBA's application.

Expressed concern over health effects from cell towers and utility meters interfering with medical implants.