Greg McNeil – Cape Breton PostMusgrave Lane resident Ken MacLeod is upset that a cellular phone tower could be built so close to his North Sydney home.
NORTH SYDNEY — Residents and members of municipal council want regulations in place to prevent large towers from being erected near residential properties.
The call follows the construction of a Bell cellular tower near Musgrave Lane in North Sydney that has some nearby residents fearing for their safety.
"I lived here for 44 years and now I live in fear," said Ken MacLeod, who lives across the street from the tower.
"I don't know what that tower is going to do."
Should the tower fall, MacLeod believes it could hit his home or any of the two other houses next to it.
Even if the tower doesn't fall, he fears that debris and even ice could fall from the structure and hit homes or people who frequently walk passed it.
Construction of the tower began in May and concluded around June 15. MacLeod and one of his neighbours told the Cape Breton Post they were unaware of plans to build it.
According to Bell media relations, the company conducted a public consultation process for the Musgrave Lane location in July 2012.
"We follow all Industry Canada protocols for cell site developments to ensure their safe construction and operation," said Albert Lee in an email to the Post.
Bell operates more than 4,000 cell sites across Canada.
The Cape Breton Regional Municipality's acting director of planning, Malcolm Gillis, has heard MacLeod's concerns over a lack of consultation.
In a different instance, Gillis said Bell had been commended by a CBRM councillor based on the public consulation process that took place prior to the construction of a tower in Sydney.
"I know with this (Musgrave Lane) facility when it was brought to our attention that it was going there I said to (Bell), 'It is not a very good location. It's very close to people's homes. If you are looking for my advice I'd suggest you find another location.' That obviously wasn't heeded."
There are no CBRM bylaws or regulations to govern the construction of such towers, but even if there were Gillis believes Industry Canada could overrule them.
"It is regulated by Industry Canada and essentially Industry Canada says the municipality would have the authority to adopt bylaws or amend the land use bylaw to regulate it, but they reserve the right to be the final authority on it anyway, so the position of the municipality is well 'why would you want to attempt to get involved in the regulatory business when our bylaws and regulations may not be adhered by the federal government in the first place.'
"We've basically stated as a policy if you're saying 'the buck stops with Industry Canada then take on the responsibility.' We just didn't want to be a part of it."
Industry Canada's media relations department told the Post there is a process the tower proponent must follow before construction.
Under this procedure, the proponent must consult with the local land-use authority (generally the municipality) and the public, as required, before proceeding with the antenna tower installation.
Proponents must follow Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process where the local land-use authority does not have an established and documented public consultation process applicable to antenna siting.
The default process has three steps whereby the proponent provides written notification to the public, the land-use authority and Industry Canada of the proposed antenna system installation or modification; engages the public and the land-use authority in order to address relevant questions, comments and concerns regarding the proposal; and provides an opportunity to the public and the land-use authority to formally respond in writing to the proponent regarding measures taken to address reasonable and relevant concerns.
When no agreement can be reached between a company planning to construct a tower and the local land use authority, Industry Canada may be called upon to make a determination as to whether the proposed tower can proceed.
The councillor for the Musgrave Lane area said he was not notified about construction. He hopes future construction will at least follow the protocol set when a tower was built in Sydney.
"Apparently they notified the residents by mail and let them know what was happening," said North Sydney Dist. 2 Coun. Charlie Keagan in reference to the cell tower built in Sydney.
"In a sense if what you are going to do for one it should be done for others and apparently that hasn't happened. Our regulations, we really can't stop them and I guess maybe it's time to effectively try to lobby and maybe have a meeting with Industry Canada to see what the limitations they have."
Darren Bruckschwaiger wants the feelings of CBRM residents on cell towers in print in the form of a bylaw, even though they may not hold much power.
"I think that CBRM should look at our own rules for these things, how we feel they should be set back no different than some of the things we do with windmills," said the District 10 councillor.
"At the end of the day Industry Canada may overrule us, but I think we should do what we can to stand up for the community and the people we represent to see that these things aren't built right next door to some homes or across the street. It only makes sense that I believe these towers could have a build up of ice or fall and it's dangerous."
Though MacLeod called the tower a miscarriage of justice, he knows he will never see it torn down. He now hopes all elected officials will work to create rules to ensure what happened on his street doesn't happen to somebody else.
"If there is one regulation you have to make you have to be 50 feet away from the extension of the tower," he said. "If the tower is 200 feet, then you have it 250 feet away from any house."
gmcneil@cbpost.com
epottie@cbpost.com
No comments:
Post a Comment