Summary
The Leelanau Township Board meeting of August 13, 2026 consisted of public comment submissions, all opposing a proposed cell tower installation at Braman Hill (also referred to as Bramen Hill). No board votes or decisions are recorded in this document.
Public Comments
Three written comments were submitted opposing the proposed cell tower at Braman Hill.
- Vickie Slot submitted a letter via email to Barbara Conley citing emerging research on non-ionizing radiofrequency (RF) radiation and its potential health effects on plants, animals, and humans, including cancer, memory effects, and oxidative stress. She referenced the International EMF Scientist Appeal, signed by more than 250 scientists, and cited a 2022 study by Alfonso Balmori published in Environmental Research (November 2022, 214(2)) linking base station antennas to RF sickness, cancer, and biochemical changes. She also cited a New Hampshire state commission report recommending a safe distance of 500 meters (1,640 feet) from cell towers, and noted the FCC has not updated its radiation safety guidelines despite being ordered to do so. She referenced additional resources from the Environmental Health Trust and Physicians for Safe Technology. Slot asked the board not to place a cell tower at Braman Hill.
- Rachael Dean of Northport wrote in opposition to the tower, stating she felt the decision was hasty and disregarded public opinion.
- William Harper wrote expressing "vehement opposition" to any cell tower on Braman Hill. He stated the board had not done due diligence in researching and presenting all sides of the issue, argued the tower would not enhance 911 response safety, and said the cost/benefit of the project did not align with public wishes. He requested to be recorded in opposition ("the no column") and criticized the board's competence in handling the decision.
No responses from the board to these comments are recorded in the document.
Infrastructure Projects
The proposed cell tower at Braman Hill was the sole infrastructure matter addressed, entirely through public opposition. No board discussion, decision, or vote on the project is documented. Concerns raised included potential health risks from RF radiation, proximity to a park, lack of an updated safety standard from the FCC, questions about the necessity for improving 911 response, and objections to the decision-making process itself.
Action Items
No formal action items, deadlines, or board-assigned tasks are recorded in this document. Given the volume and intensity of public opposition to the Braman Hill cell tower proposal—including explicit criticism of the board's process and competence—this remains a matter of significant public conflict that may require further board response or public engagement.