Brandon council rejects cell tower proposal

Brandon City Council voted against a proposed cellphone tower on 34th Street at its regular meeting Monday after about 40 residents packed the gallery in opposition to the planned site.

But Mayor Jeff Fawcett — one of two council members to vote in favour of the tower — warned that the decision means cellphone service in the area could worsen after a Rogers Communications tower is decommissioned next year.

Community members gave a collective sigh of relief and a round of applause echoed around the gallery after council voted 7-2 against the location.

“I couldn’t be more pleased right now,” said Brandon resident Chris Bird, who spearheaded the campaign against Shared Tower Inc.’s cell tower in his neighbourhood.

Multiple residents and an expert on toxicolgy spoke against city administration’s recommendation that council approve the cell tower location at the corner of 34th Street and Elviss Crescent.

Bird gathered more than 100 signatures in opposition to the tower. The residents argued that the location isn’t suitable, the tower would devalue nearby properties and it could hit a home if the it fell over. They also cited health concerns and issues with Shared Tower’s communication strategy.

Shared Tower proposed the tower to help Rogers Communications find a new home for antennae in Brandon.

Federal regulations say service providers must share towers when necessary. Ottawa is also responsible for regulating tower siting decisions and settling disputes.

At the meeting, council peppered a Shared Tower representative for 30 minutes on why the cell tower is needed and why it was proposed for a location so close to homes, with the nearest house 20 metres away.

Fawcett and Coun. Greg Hildebrand (Ward 5) were the two council members to vote in favour of the tower’s location.

Coun. Shawn Berry (Ward 7) said he couldn’t vote in favour of the tower because of public opposition.

“I’ve seen more public opposition to this than I have in 15 years,” Berry said.

“Is this the right place to put the cell tower in my mind? It probably is,” Berry said. “Should we put it there? No. Because the public doesn’t want it.”

Berry said it doesn’t matter if he believes the concerns of citizens, such as potential health impacts, are legitimate — because the concerns are there.

Margaret Friesen, a toxicologist from Winnipeg, said the city has to “err on the side of caution,” because Health Canada has been slow to update its regulations.

“It is a residential area with small children, and our children have not been exposed to this radiation, and so they face a lifetime of exposure,” she told the Sun.

Bird said the community has shown its opposition to the tower.

“Residents do not want this cell tower in our community,” he said. “Residents do not want Shared Tower’s revenues to come at the expense of the community.”

Bird noted that the city owns the proposed site, and that could be a potential conflict of interest.

Berry also said it’s difficult to vote in favour of a company that had a “clumsy” approach to following communication protocols.

Price Leurebourg, Shared Tower’s planning manager for Western Canada, acknowledged there “were mistakes” during the process, including typos on signs and missed notices to residents.

“Throughout this process, there might have been hiccups,” Leurebourg said. “But every and any time there was an issue, we did strive to rectify it.”

Leurebourg said he’s heard that if a tower in the area isn’t built, Rogers’ coverage in that area “will disappear,” adding he doesn’t know if that’s true or not, as he doesn’t work for Rogers.

Fawcett asked council and the community what will happen in the future, when cellphone service isn’t adequate because of this decision.

“In five years, do we have a different audience — maybe the same — that says ‘we have crap connectivity?’” he asked.

Hildebrand said the decision was a “tough” one, saying it was a matter of “weighing the needs of the community versus the community that lives nearby.”

He said he wants to see the city grow and progress, which is why he voted in favour of the tower.

“Yes, it’s a tall tower in an area that’s residential … because that’s where people are.”

He added that “there should be a level of embarrassment from Shared Tower, on the way the process was followed.”

“You lose the community when you start not doing your job properly.”

Coun. Barry Cullen (Ward 3) said while he voted against the tower’s location, it’s important to remember that everyone loves their cellphones.

“If the cellphone coverage and service collapses slightly in your ward, that is something you have to be aware of,” Cullen told the crowd. “If you want cellphones, you’re going to want cellphone towers.

“These things are part of your world now, they’re not going away,” he said, while raising his phone for people to see.

Leurebourg said while Shared Tower can appeal the decision to the federal government, he doesn’t think that will happen, as the city owns the land. But that decision, he added, will be made by other company officials.

The company could also look at other locations in the city if service providers ask them to do so, he said.

Councillors Kris Desjarlais (Ward 2) and Tyson Tame (Ward 10) weren’t at the meeting.

» alambert@brandonsun.com