Before the storm on public concerns rules – did anything of interest occur?

A remote telecommunications tower location – the proposed monopole is right-center above tree line, hovering over a visible power line to the left. The inset shows monopole site and direction of photo view. Courtesy Graphic/WC Admin

What, you may have asked yourself (or not), happened at the January 22 Warren County Board of Supervisors meeting OTHER than the hour or so public hearing dressing down of “good ole boy” political networks and the public’s right to comment at some length, and repeatedly about such perceived network’s failings and lack of oversight of subordinate entities like the currently embroiled and painstakingly audited Economic Development Authority?

While not nearly as exciting or volatile as the above topic and board reactions to citizen complaints about its recently or not-so-recently passed public comments rules being solidified into county codes, there were several items worth mentioning.

Among those were: 1/ consideration of what might become the smallest county-overseen Sanitary District in history – an approximately one-mile section of Osprey Lane upon which 10 homes and two vacant lots lie; 2/ approval of a request by MasTech for Verizon to place a 199-foot wireless telecommunications tower near Happy Creek Road’s intersection with Morgan Ford and Dismal Hollow Roads; and 3/ approval of a resolution to facilitate bond consultant Davenport & Company to seek alternative financing options for several capital improvement projects in the wake of the lost New Market Tax Credit option.

Melanie Salins addressed the board on multiple topics on Feb. 22, including the safety of 5-G telecommunications towers. Photos/Roger Bianchini

Perhaps the most interesting of those three agenda items was the telecommunications tower request. Other than improved wireless service for that more rural eastern portion of the county, the interest was generated by public questions about potential health threats such a tower might represent.

Melanie Salins asked if it was a “5-G tower” to which applicant attorney Frank Stearns replied “that is the intention”. Salins then pointed to multiple reports of “extreme health concerns” with 5-G wireless transmissions. Those health concerns include a rise in tumors and cancer rates in proximity to 5-G transmission systems.

Stearns’ reply that there were “no health threats” from the tower was met by vocal skepticism, including cries of “no, no” from the large public contingent present for the non-agenda public speaking rules public hearing. That outburst led recently-installed board Chairman Dan Murray to aggressively admonish the crowd for its behavioral outburst – which Murray indicated was against meeting rules and would not be tolerated by the chair.

We’ll have none of that – New Board Chairman Dan Murray, right, admonished a public outburst of skepticism over public safety assurances from counsel for the telecommunications tower applicant.

The crowd quieted, Stearns defended his stance, noting that “these are the same radio waves that have been around for hundreds of years.” Still at the podium, Salins conveyed the crowd’s skepticism to Stearns and suggested the board table approval until “more study” of Stearns’ claim could be undertaken due to the scrutiny 5-G transmissions have come under as a cancer risk.

However Salins concerns were addressed by the next public hearing speaker, John Adinitch, who noted he was an RF (radio frequency) engineer by profession. He said that the remote location of the proposed tower near existing power lines and away from existing homes or a population center rendered this proposal “safe”. However, his addendum that “the Century Link communications tower in the middle of town (off Academy Drive on the west side of North Royal Avenue) was another matter” created some concern.

As one mid-town resident present later commented, perhaps Adinitch should take his concern about that mid-town Century Link tower location – is it a 5-G transmitter? – to the Front Royal Town Council, which in an earlier incarnation approved its placement in a heavily populated area of its constituency.

A NOT so remote telecommunications tower location – the Century Link tower in mid-town Front Royal; while one radio engineer present at the Jan. 22 county meeting assured the public the remote location of the proposed Verizon tower should make it safe, he had a different assessment of this one.

Another safety question raised about the MasTech/Verizon proposal was whether it would have a flashing aviation safety light. Attorney Stearns responded for the applicant that such lights were not required on towers under 200 feet tall unless they were in proximity to airport approach flight paths, which this one is not.

On a motion by Tom Sayre, seconded by Linda Glavis, the MasTech/Verizon Happy Creek tower proposal passed by a unanimous voice vote.

Watch the presentation on this Royal Examiner video: