This letter is in reference to the recent conditional use permit submitted for the A-80 zoning district to construct a telecommunication tower. I am a recent homeowner located at 12663 103rd Ave. in Kimball; directly adjacent to the property proposed for this tower. We moved to Kimball because we saw the beauty of the land and the value of living in a rural area where both community and hard work was valued. This is evident as you look at the farmland surrounding our property, as well as the wetlands. We spent time and money to tear down an abandoned and dilapidated home, and to construct something that fits the land and area surrounding it. We did this with no intention of disrupting the wildlife or even developing the majority of the existing land we own, but rather to maintain the natural beauty of the land and also consider our neighbors who have lived in this area for a long time.
My understanding of the current zoning ordinance #439 is that the board must show that the use of this property conforms to the comprehensive plan and is compatible with the existing neighborhood. In determining whether this permit is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, the Planning Committee and the Board should consider the following criteria as it pertains to this permit and the construction of a large telecommunications tower:
• The effect on groundwater, surface water, and air quality.
• The effect of the proposed use on property values and scenic views in the surrounding area.
• The compatibility of the proposed alteration with adjacent land uses.
• The effect on fish and wildlife habitat.
• The general health, safety, and welfare of the residents.
• The effect of proposed water supply and sanitation systems, and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions.
In addition to the above criteria, the ordinance stipulates that the proposed use on a working farm should contribute to the agricultural operations or practices for this piece of land. It also should be compatible with any future use of this property or any development in the foreseeable future. I fail to see how a communications tower in the middle of farmland adheres to this ordinance. Neither does it contribute to the use of this property or any future development.
I adamantly oppose the use of this land for another communications tower when two towers already exist within close proximity to this parcel of land. Below are the reasons for my opinion.
Scenic Value: This tower will destroy the scenic value of this entire ‘neighborhood’. Not only will it disrupt the beautiful view of farmland, but will be seen for miles around (as do the two towers already existing in this area).
Property value: It is well known that these towers, due to their disruptive look, risk to wildlife, and valid health concerns, will lower all property values in this area. As a new homeowner here, we have spent considerable money to improve the look and value of our property, and this will now take away from that and any property nearby.
Compatibility with adjacent land uses: The surrounding areas are both farmland and residential property. This tower is not compatible with the land uses for any property in this area.
Affect on wildlife habitat: Both Willow Creek and Willow Lake are in close proximity to the proposed tower. When we built our home, we had to adhere to strict standards for environmental concerns for our land and the wetland and wildlife within it. Building a cell tower on farmland does not adhere to these concerns or standards. A U.S. lawsuit won by environmental groups confirms the FCC’s failure to reevaluate exposure guidelines for harmful effects on wildlife, as well as the reproductive, neurologic, cardiac, hematologic systems, or for those electrosensitive or more vulnerable to wireless radiation. Science shows that wildlife is more sensitive to radiation than humans.
General health, safety and welfare of residents: These telecommunication stations emit a continuous stream of microwave radio frequencies exposing residents to whole-body exposures. Cell tower range can be as much as 25 to 30 miles if unobstructed. As this area is farmland there are no trees to obstruct this emission. Our property and that of other residents will be in direct line with this tower. There are no trees on the property, and the placement of this tower will be within yards of residential homes. The International Agency for Research on Cancer does consider RF waves as potentially carcinogenic. In addition, RF waves can potentially interfere with several types of medical devices, including pacemakers and insulin pumps, depending on the strength of the waves. Effects from RF documented in scientific research include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, headaches, sleep issues, genetic damage, changes to the reproductive system, memory deficits, and impacts to the nervous system. Research discovered that the proportion of newly developed cancer cases was three times higher for those living within 1,300 feet (a quarter of a mile) of a cellular transmitter compared to those living further away. In addition, they found that the patients became ill with cancer on average eight years earlier.
However, in years 6-10, the cancer risks jumped more than threefold for those living a quarter of a mile or less from a mobile tower. Even more concerning, the average age of diagnosis was much younger. Risk for breast cancer, prostate, pancreas, bowel, melanoma, lung, and blood cancer all increased substantially.
Research has found that the cumulative dose from cell tower RF can result in significant exposure over time. Young children do not use cell phones, yet they are involuntarily exposed. Cell tower radiation exposures are nonstop, day and night. Children are more vulnerable to RF radiation as they absorb it deeper into their brains and bodies. Even if the radiation absorption were the same as in adults, the effects in children can be far more serious. A child’s developing brain and organ systems are more sensitive to environmental stressors. Hundreds of scientists are urging that our exposure to cell towers, cell phones, and other wireless radiation emissions be reduced due to the scientific evidence showing effects at legally allowable levels. These scientists have written letters to schools and lawmakers urging that children and the public be protected. They have joined in numerous scientific appeals to governments and institutions calling for action to strengthen safety limits.
Below are only a handful of the thousands of studies confirming that close proximity to these towers have exponential health risks. If the Board approves this tower, this liability falls on them for any future health issues of our residents.
• Case Report: A 52-year-old healthy woman developed severe Microwave Syndrome – Shortly after installation of a 5G Base Station close to her apartment. Hardell L. and Nilsson M. Annals of Clinical and Medical Case Reports. April 10, 2023. www.acmcasereport.com/pdf/ACMCR-v10-1926.pdf.
• Case Report: 4-5G Radio frequency radiation caused the Microwave Syndrome in a family living close to the Base Stations. Mona Nilsson and Lennart Hardell. Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics. 7 (2023): 127-134. June 30, 2023. www.fortunejournals.com/articles/5g-radiofrequency-radiation-caused-the-microwave-syndrome-in-a-family-living-close-to-the-base-stations.pdf.
• Case Report: A 49-year-old man developed severe -Microwave Syndrome after activation of 5G Base Station 20 meters from his apartment. Mona Nilsson and Lennart Hardell. J Community Med Public Health 7: 382. Nov 13, 2023. www.gavinpublishers.com/article/view/a-49-year-old-man-developed-severe-microwave–syndrome-after-activation-of-5g-base-station-20-meters-from-his-apartment_gl=1*9fdtb7*_ga*MTgzNDEzOTg3Ny4xNzAwMzk2MzAx*_ga_H3L5D4V9XX*MTcwMDM5NjMwMS4xLjAuMTcwMDM5NjMwNy41NC4wLjAwww.gavinpublishers.com/article/view/a-49-year-old-man-developed-severe-microwave–syndrome-after-activation-of-5g-base-station-20-meters-from-his-apartment_gl=1*9fdtb7*_ga*MTgzNDEzOTg3Ny4xNzAwMzk2MzAx*_ga_H3L5D4V9XX*MTcwMDM5NjMwMS4xLjAuMTcwMDM5NjMwNy41NC4wLj.
• Case Report: Both parents and their three children developed symptoms of the -Microwave Syndrome while on holiday near a 5G Tower. Nilsson and Hardell. Annals of Clinical and Medical Case Reports. Dec 2, 2023. https://acmcasereport.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/12/ACM
CR-v12-2046-1.pdf.
• Case Report: A woman aged 82 years with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity since almost four decades developed the Microwave Syndrome after installation of 5G Base Stations in her living vicinity – Ethical principles in medicine are violated. Lennart Hardell1 and Mona Nilsson. Journal of Environmental Science and Public Health. Jan 11, 2024. www.fortunejournals.com/articles/a-woman-
aged-82-years-with-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-
since-almost-four-decades-developed-the-microwave-syndrome-
after-insta.html.
• Case Report: An 8-year-old boy developed severe headache in a school close to a mast with 5G Base Stations. Lennart Hardell, M.D. and Mona Nilsson. Annals of Clinical Case Studies. Article 1093. Volume 6. 2024. www.med
textpublications.com/open-access/an-eight-year-old-boy-developed-severe-headache-in-a-1582.pdf.
Environmental Pollution: Cell towers have wireless antennas that emit radio frequency (RF) non-ionizing radiation. When these antennas are close to our homes and schools, our daily exposure to RF radiation is increased. RF radiation is considered a new form of environmental pollution.
In conclusion, any agreement to proceed with this permit is in direct opposition to -Stearns County Ordinance #439 for the reasons stated above. There is neither a need for an additional tower nor any conditions which warrant this tower. It will go against both the health and welfare of our residents and diminish the value of our tax-paid property. While the decision lies with the County Planning Commission and the County Board, this is really a decision that should be made by the residents who live in the surrounding area. The owner of the parcel in question does not even reside on that land. The residents do reside there and pay taxes and support this community and it’s wellbeing. Unless the surrounding residents unanimously agree to this, I can’t see how this group can proceed in good faith.
Thank you for allowing us to respond to this.
Renee M. Bianchi (SPHR)
Kimball