Md.'s Largest County OKs Small-Cells Bills
The Montgomery County, Maryland, Council OK'd small-cell legislation Tuesday that aligns with FCC rules, after lengthy, sometimes contentious debate. The council in Maryland’s most populous county OK’d 7-2 zoning text amendment 19-07. Council opponents raised RF safety concerns. The county was a lead plaintiff in an unsuccessful challenge in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of FCC 2018 orders on small cells and local moratoriums (see 2008120048).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
“This is an unusual matter in that the council has been put in an unfortunate position because of the need to comply with a federal order,” said council President Tom Hucker: “We have a federal agency who has told us we need to comply with their order and that we’re not allowed, legally, to consider certain community concerns.” The county doesn’t have the option of “remaining outside of federal regulations concerning 5G,” he said. A version of the bill has been before the council for four years, and the current version for two, Hucker said. “It hasn’t technically been rushed at all, quite the contrary.”
Councilmember Will Jawando, a no vote, had concerns about the health effects of RF exposure. “I don’t know if [5G] is safe, but I do know that if it’s not, industry wouldn’t care,” he said. Jawando said the council should wait to see whether the FCC has to update its RF exposure rules as a result of a case at the D.C. Circuit (see 2101250051), which was argued in January.
Councilmember Sidney Katz also voted no, saying the council should hold off for the D.C. Circuit decision. “We should wait until mid-September, we’re not talking about waiting forever,” he said. “We would have more answers before us.”
Infrastructure in the county isn’t sufficient for 5G and beyond, said Councilmember Hans Riemer, chairman of the Planning, Housing, and Economic Development Committee. “The future of wireless requires the antennas to be closer to us. They can’t be a mile away the way they can be now.” Light poles contain lots of gear and this will add to the bundle, he said. “It’s not something that we’re going to relish looking at, just like none of us loves looking at our home Wi-Fi router,” he said. “This is not an easy vote.”
Most other localities addressed the FCC small-cell rules, said Councilmember Gabe Albornoz: “We can’t wait for all the myriad of court cases that will continue.”
Councilmember Nancy Navarro said she once favored going slow, but COVID-19 showed the need for 5G. It's “something that we have to do,” she said: “Other jurisdictions around the region have already done it. Why would we … choose to say ‘no’ and wait and wait and wait.”
Council members noted broad public opposition.
Residents should have control of what goes up in their neighborhoods, Rick Meyer, director of the Montgomery County Coalition for the Control of Cell Towers, said in a Saturday opinion: “What the wireless industry really wants -- and what ZTA 19-07 grants them -- is virtually unrestricted and heavily subsidized access to our public rights of way to install obtrusive wireless facilities that can and will be expanded.”
CTIA declined comment Tuesday. “The need for wireless connectivity is especially true in Maryland where there are more wireless devices than there are residents,” the group said in a letter to Hucker supporting the change.