Bell Mobility to consider other possible sites for cell tower
Author: Jennifer Wilson
Date: Apr 16, 2008
Council opened the lines of communication Monday night. The group deferred passing a motion to approve a proposed location of a Bell Mobility communications tower until further discussions between themselves, concerned residents and Bell Mobility can take place.
Barbara Tanzos, a Whitehouse Road resident, made a deputation to council urging the group not to approve the tower’s proposed site at 396 Whitehouse Road due to its proximity to residents.
Tanzos presented council with a letter from Scott Morrison, a sales representative for Century 21 Cottage Country Realty Inc, stating that, in his professional opinion, a communications tower, if nearby residents, would adversely affect the property value.
“You don’t work this hard to have a cell tower come and take everything away from you,” Tanzos told council, referring to potential depreciation of her property’s value as a result of the communications tower.
Despite Bell Mobility having presented council on August 21 with a study finding that that property values are not affected by communications, councillor Bill Beatty wasn’t convinced.
“I’m quite sure if it were built on my backyard, it would certainly affect me picking a property,” said Beatty.
Health was also a concern Tanzos expressed to council. With the tower’s proposed location only 400 feet from her property line, Tanzos’ said she was worried about the potential health implications of being exposed to the tower’s electro-magnetic waves for both her family and neighbours.
“People shouldn’t be near these towers,” said Tanzos. “They should be moved further back, away so they don’t risk the health of individuals.”
Torn between providing communication services to the people of Huntsville and accommodating the concerns of residents nearby the tower, council concluded that they, along with Bell Mobility and concerned residents would visit the proposed site in the weeks to come and see if there are alternate locations conducive to the function of the cell tower further back from residents.
“We’re [council] is caught between the devil and the great blue sea,” said councillor Fran Coleman, who supported the notion of deferring the motion to assess other potential sites.
Councillor Scott Aitchison said he understood Tanzos’ concern, and noted it was council’s role to investigate further before approving the location.
“Our responsibility as council is to listen to the concerns of our citizens and certainly address them,” said Aitchison.
