With the exception of two public safety officers, there were no residents at the Oct. 13 Oxford Township Planning Commission meeting who spoke in favor of placing a cell tower in Seymour Lake Park.

“I don’t need that ugly thing in my backyard,” said Joe Strzelecki, a 25-year Oxford resident.

“This tower placement is inconsistent with a good community image,” said Stephen Drouillard, who lives approximately 110 feet from the proposed tower site.

“There’s got to be a better place that we can put this cell tower than in the middle of a park where there’s children playing all the time,” said resident Michele Davis.

Residents who live next to, across from and near the park showed up to express their opposition, concerns and misgivings during a public hearing that lasted more than 40 minutes.

Despite the opposition, planning commissioners voted 4-0 to grant special land use approval for Verizon Wireless to construct a 195-foot monopole on a 2,475-square-foot piece of land in the northwest corner of the 132-acre park.

They then voted 4-0 to grant both preliminary and final site plan approval for the tower.

Voting in favor of the tower were Chairman Todd Bell and commissioners Jack Curtis, Mike Young and Kallie Roesner-Meyers. Three commissioners – Tom Berger, Ed Hunwick and Mike Spisz – were absent.

But the approvals don’t mean the cell tower is a done deal just yet.

One of the conditions of site plan approval is Verizon Wireless must obtain a variance from the township zoning board of appeals for the proposed setback, which does not meet the ordinance.

The proposed tower is located approximately 110 feet from the park’s north and west property lines. The township zoning ordinance requires towers must be set back from all property lines at least the height of the highest point of the tower, which, in this case, is 195 feet.

Neither reducing the tower’s height nor moving it to a different spot in the park is a viable option, according to Jonathan Crane, the Rochester-based attorney representing Verizon, and Ron Davis, director of the parks and recreation department.

Crane explained a 195-foot height is needed to fill the sizeable coverage gap that exists for Verizon customers in that area. Coverage maps that appear to show this lack of service were provided to the planning commission.

“Simply stated, the taller the tower, the bigger the area that we serve,” Crane said.

As for the site in the park, Davis said he would have preferred the proposed tower be placed somewhere in the back, not up front, but “that area where it’s situated is the area they need.”

Davis noted the land the tower would sit on is no great loss because it “currently has no recreation value to us at all.”

“We mow the grass. That’s it,” he said.

In addition to seeking a variance, Verizon must also obtain township board approval for the proposed license agreement that would allow it to use the park land.

Under the proposed agreement, the township would receive $15,600 annually for the initial term of five years.

Revenue from the license agreement would go into the parks and recreation budget, not the township general fund.

Davis made it clear Verizon “came to us” with this proposal.

“We did not go out searching for a cell tower company to put it in our park,” he said.

Once the offer was made, Davis said he had an obligation to take it to the parks and recreation commission, along with township officials, and pursue it like he would any other potential revenue source.

“It’s our responsibility as a parks and recreation department to get creative and generate revenue, whether it’s a cell tower, federal grants, state grants, donations. We are proud of that,” he explained. “We’ve saved the township a tremendous amount of money by writing grants acquiring things. So, this is just another avenue that we looked at as a revenue generator.”

The proposed license agreement with Verizon would be automatically extended for four additional five-year terms unless Verizon is in default or terminates the agreement. The annual license fee is proposed to increase by 5 percent per five-year term.

It appears Verizon won’t be the only source of revenue generated for the parks department by this tower.

Crane told the commission that other wireless service providers are interested in using the proposed Verizon tower.

This is a practice known as collocation. It involves multiple wireless carriers having antennas attached to a single tower.

“I will tell you that I have had calls from T-Mobile, and one other carrier in my office, asking when’s the pole going up and when will it be available for collocation,” Crane said.

When it comes to other carriers, he noted, “Everybody has (service) problems in that area.”

According to the proposed license agreement, if other carriers wish to use the Verizon tower, they would be required to “first seek and obtain a ground space license or lease” from the township “in a separate agreement and pay” the township “directly for such ground space, whether or not the collocation would physically require additional ground space or not.”

“Anybody that wants to go on there is going to have to negotiate another lease with the township,” Crane said.

Despite the benefits of the proposed tower, such as increased cell service and additional revenue for the parks system, residents who attended the meeting are still opposed to it.

They fear it’s going to cause their property values to drop.

“Our property values have just started to come back up again. I can see that this is going to affect it,” Michele Davis said. “I just think it’s a very, very bad idea that we do this.”

Resident Kristine Payne fears the potential health risks associated with living near a cell tower will scare off some buyers when she eventually attempts to sell her home.

“There are people out there who think that there may be an issue, so they’re not going to consider your property when you do put it up for sale,” she said. “If you’re close to a cell tower, they’re going to bypass it entirely. So, you end up losing revenue on that property.”

“Once this tower is in, that’s going to be a problem for all of the residents that are close by,” Drouillard said.

To the property values argument, Crane replied, “There’s been no definitive studies that say they adversely impact property values.”

A number of the residents who spoke brought up the potential, but unproven, health risks associated with living near a cell tower, which generates radiofrequency (RF) waves or radiation.

“Everything I read says that it causes cancer. There’s all kinds of horrible side effects,” said resident Michelle Rusch. “And I don’t want to be a part of that.”

Payne admitted that “really nothing is conclusive” when it comes to linking cell towers and health problems, and the government states they’re not a concern.

But “do we really want to believe that when we don’t really know for sure?” She pointed to the Flint water crisis as an example of government saying something’s safe when it’s not.

“I don’t want to put all my money in the bag that says this is safe and down the road, we find out it’s not,” Payne said.

Regarding the concerns over potential health risks, Crane said most of the information on the internet has to do “with the handheld phones, not with the towers that are 200 feet in the air.”

“There’s no discernible radiation or . . . frequency interference from this pole,” he said. “We’ve never impacted a garage door opener, a microwave oven, a heart pacemaker or anything of that nature.”

Crane noted the federal government has “ruled” that local boards, such as planning commissions, “are not to consider the potential for health risk from a monopole antenna.”

The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 states “no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effect of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

The result is local boards cannot deny cell towers based on health reasons.

On the American Cancer Society website, it’s stated, “At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea” that “living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems.”

The proposed cell tower is supported by both the Oxford Fire Department and Oakland County Sheriff’s Office. Fire Chief Pete Scholz and Sheriff’s Lt. Scott Patterson, commander of the Oxford substation, both spoke in favor of it during the public hearing.

The primary reason they support it is because they claim there is a lack of cell coverage in that area and they fear it could impact the ability of people to call 9-1-1 in emergencies.

“We have run across instances where we get cell phone calls that are coming into dispatch that do drop out,” Scholz said.

“It’s definitely a concern,” Patterson said. “I don’t want to see one person lose their life over a heart attack or something along those lines.”

But several residents challenged the argument that a cell tower is needed because wireless service ranges from unreliable to nonexistent in that area.

Payne, a Verizon customer, said she drove through Seymour Lake Park, called two people and got through “just fine.”

“I’ve never had a problem,” she said. “So, I don’t understand why anyone else would have a problem.”

Michael Sakosky, who’s lived across from the park for close to 25 years, said his Verizon service works just fine. “My family has never had a problem with connections, ever. I don’t know where this is coming from,” he said. “I’ve been at that park numerous times and I’ve never, ever lost connection.”

Sakosky noted when the Pokemon Go craze hit this summer, there were “hundreds of kids at that park, hundreds of people playing it,” all using wireless devices. “They didn’t seem to have a problem,” he said.

“Everybody risks dropping a call,” Sakosky added. “You can have an excellent signal and drop a call. It’s just the way cell phones are. I don’t understand how this is all (of a) sudden an emergency or an issue. It’s new to me.”

Tom Deasy, who lives across from the park, said he called his wife five times from the carnival during the Seymour Celebration in July and he got through with no problem. “It works,” he said. “Verizon has coverage there.”

However, Craig Wright, who lives on Seymour Lake Rd., is not so fortunate when it comes to cell coverage. “My house is a dead-zone for every carrier,” he explained

Wright has dealt with the problem for 18 years. He ultimately resolved it by using Wi-Fi calling and now his cell phone “works perfectly” in his house. Wi-Fi calling allows people to make and receive calls over a Wi-Fi network if cell service isn’t available.

Wright realizes lack of cell coverage is “an inconvenience for some,” but, “I don’t think there’s a reason to put (a tower) up” in the park.

As for motorists who lose cell signals while driving through the area, Wright said, “They shouldn’t even be on the stinkin’ phone in the first place (while) driving. I know there’s states that have outlawed that.”

Some residents questioned why the tower couldn’t be built somewhere else.

Betty Drouillard suggested Oakwood Lake Park, which is located on Oakwood Rd., east of M-24 and west of Gardner Rd., on the other side of the township. “I don’t think it belongs in a park, unless you put it in an extremely low-usage park,” he said.

There was also a suggestion of placing it on the land where the township hall and water treatment plant sit. The site is on Dunlap Rd., just north of Seymour Lake Rd.

“There are no other alternatives,” said Bob Przybylo, a Verizon representative.

He said the township site is “too far to the east.” There was a very small radius in which this proposed tower could be placed to meet Verizon’s coverage needs and comply with the zoning ordinance, according to Przybylo.

“We looked in the area for parcels that would meet the criteria of the zoning ordinance and (be) within that two-tenths-of-a-mile (or) quarter-mile radius – there (aren’t) any parcels that meet the ordinance any more than the park property does,” he said.

According to Przybylo, “from a pure zoning standpoint and from a tower-siting standpoint, it makes sense to identify a large parcel like a park” for a tower site because it’s municipal-owned, “so the community as a whole benefits” from the lease revenue, “instead of just one individual property owner.” That’s why “99 percent” of local ordinances favor having them on municipal property “whenever possible,” he said.

Crane explained they looked and “there was no commercial or industrial property to locate (a tower) on” in that limited radius.

“This is the location that is needed,” he said.

Some residents were just flat-out opposed to having a cell tower in a park because they don’t feel it belongs there and it would ruin the area’s country feel.

“This is exactly why I moved up here from Royal Oak – to get away from this (kind of thing),” Deasy said.

“That is a very overused section of the park. And now, we’re going to stick this large cell tower in an already crowded section,” Stephen Drouillard said. “I think that’s going to be a problem. This is clearly going to be too much for that area.”

“Keep the park, a park. Don’t start leasing property out of it,” Strzelecki said. “Every night, there’s hundreds of kids in that park, seven days a week, all summer long. It’s highly used. Let’s keep it park property. Quit trying to lease property.”

To them, Crane responded, “We are in an unused corner of the park. We are not in the middle of the park. It was specifically located at this place, at this corner, so as to not impact the users, the children or any of the public.”