SCARBOROUGH – The Scarborough Town Council was expected this week to refer a new ordinance that would allow more cell towers to be built in more zones in town back to the Ordinance Committee for further review.

However, prior to the meeting, which was held after the Current’s deadline, council Chairman Richard Sullivan and Councilor Jean-Marie Caterina made it clear they, at least, are still highly supportive of changing the rules.

Both said the town is in dire need of better cell and wireless data coverage and that closing the town’s numerous dead zones has been a high priority for many people in Scarborough during the past several years.

But several residents, including former Town Councilor Sue Foley-Ferguson, were set to speak against allowing more cell towers in town during the council meeting, which was scheduled for Wednesday, July 16.

Foley-Ferguson and others have argued that the health and welfare of residents, as well as the town’s rural character, could be harmed if more cell towers are built. Currently Scarborough only allows cell towers in industrial zones.

In addition to allowing cell towers to be built in more zones throughout town, the proposed new rules would also increase the maximum height limit to 150 feet and require that any new towers provide space for multiple carriers.

During a meeting in late June the Planning Board said the new cell tower ordinance is too broad and that more work should be done to ensure the town has maximum coverage with minimal impact.

Sullivan agreed and told the Current that “some areas are just not suitable for cell towers, so we will send the proposal back to the Ordinance Committee to narrow the number of zones.”

But, he also said that as a business owner and resident he’s experienced spotty cell coverage too often in driving around town. In addition, Sullivan said that as a councilor he talks to a lot of people who constantly ask, “when are you going to do something about cell coverage?”

Sullivan said he has done his homework on the issue of whether the radio frequency radiation cell towers emit is a health hazard. This week he said the American Cancer Society does not see a risk with cell towers and added that many of the studies he’s been sent by concerned citizens are more than 10 years old.

“There are plenty of neighborhoods where towers already exist and there are no problems that I know of,” he added.

Prior to Wednesday’s council meeting, Caterina told the Current, “I am interested in increasing cellphone coverage in Scarborough. If this could be done without adding towers, that would be the preferred way to do it. However, technology has not reached that point yet.”

She added, “I live west of the turnpike. I have no landlines and I depend on cell coverage, not only for (personal use), but for my business, too. Just today, I was having issues with my carrier. I have been negotiating real estate deals standing in the front yard of my house. While this doesn’t happen frequently, it happens enough (and it’s) unacceptable.”

Like Sullivan, Caterina said that most residents she speaks with agree that cell coverage needs to be improved.

She added, “I am confident that by working with the Planning Board on fine-tuning where towers may be placed, a solution will be found that will work in the best interest of all of the citizens of Scarborough.”

But Foley-Ferguson told the Current prior to Wednesday’s meeting that, “cell towers are a serious issue” and wondered whether adding height and co-location to towers in the industrial zone would improve service enough without changing anything else.

Overall, she said, “I don’t think this change is well thought out.” In addition to the negative impact on health, Foley-Ferguson said allowing cell towers in residential zones, for instance, could also have a negative impact on property values.

“How many buyers of homes do you think will want to move to town when they find out that a cell tower is allowed on an adjacent property at any time? And, what will happen to our home values?” Foley-Ferguson asked, citing studies that show homes located near cell towers have been shown to decrease in value by up to 20 percent or more.

When it comes to the health impacts, Foley-Ferguson cites study after study that state cell tower radiation is dangerous to both humans and wildlife.

“I am very concerned about the radio frequency radiation that these towers emit,” she said. “All over the country, cancer clusters have shown up near towers and serious health issues occur near towers.

The responsible thing to do is to take a precautionary approach and put (cell towers) where they belong – in industrial zones.”

Karen D’Andrea is another concerned resident who was set to speak against allowing cell towers in more zones in town on Wednesday.

One of her concerns, like Foley-Ferguson, is that allowing cell towers in residential zones could have a negative impact on property values. But D’Andrea also said health is her top concern.

“I don’t want the town to risk my investment in my home on an industrial use that will negatively impact my property value,” she said. “In addition, studies are beginning to show links to cancer clusters around cell tower placement. There are places in the U.S. that have banned them outright because of these issues.”

D’Andrea said she’s experienced dropped calls “from time to time” but said “it’s not such a big problem that I would risk the investment in my home, and I wouldn’t ask my neighbors to risk their investment to make my coverage better.”