CENTREVILLE, N.S. — Although the federal government gets the final say, Kings County council has given its endorsement of a proposed cell tower location in Centreville.
The current proposal is to site the 90-metre-tall, guy-wired telecommunication tower on a leased portion of land off Highway 359 in Centreville. After residents expressed concern with the first proposed location, council did not give a positive recommendation. Eastlink worked with the landowner to identify a site the community would find acceptable.
The tower would be located as far from the road as possible to reduce signal exposure and visual impact. The land, owned by Richard Vaughan, is zoned Agricultural but is forested and not actively farmed.
Although it doesn’t have the legislative authority to approve or deny a location, the County of Kings has a public engagement policy with regard to the siting of telecommunication towers and makes a recommendation for or against to the federal governing agency. A public meeting on the most recent proposal was held in Centreville this past June.
There were 108 neighbouring property owners notified and 32 members of the public in attendance. Planner Mark Fredericks told council there was public support for better cell phone service in the community. On the other hand, some members of the community oppose having any cell towers located there.
“Eastlink wants to make it work for the community,” Fredericks said.
He told council that a 90-metre tower would be one of the tallest in Kings County. By moving it further back from the road and homes, the height of the tower had to be increased.
CONCERNED RESIDENTS
Following the June public meeting, council received follow-up correspondence from Barbara Lake and Lynn and Don Cavanagh-Dollard.
The Cavanagh-Dollards expressed “grave concern” that they don’t want the proposed tower in such close proximity to their properties. This is “because of the risk of adverse health effects and the increased risk of cancer” they believe the tower poses to those in the vicinity.
Lake and her children are highly sensitive to electromagnetic radiation from telecommunication towers. She would be able to see the installation from her bedroom and living room windows.
She currently lives approximately 3.5 km from two towers located on Tiny Parrish Road and experiences side effects from signals emitted by cell phones in passing cars when they’re making connections to the towers.
“I have been severely affected by wireless signals since a communication tower was placed too close to my family’s home on the Wolfville Ridge, in 2001,” Lake said.
She and her children were made so sick by the signals that they eventually abandoned their home. Lake said she has moved 14 times since in an effort to avoid signals.
“I am out of options and cannot run anymore,” she said.
The planning advisory committee (PAC) gave a positive recommendation for the current proposed site. Council voted to give a positive recommendation for the proposed site at the October monthly meeting, with only Mayor Peter Muttart voting against it.
Muttart said he visited with Lake. He said Lake has a diagnosis and suffers from the effects of being highly sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. She doesn’t want it anywhere near her.
“How a person with that sensitivity finds a safe place to live in this day and age is beyond me,” Muttart said.
To qualify for municipal approval in Kings County, cell tower proponents must first investigate the possibility of co-location on an existing tower.
Towers must be at least two times the height of the tower away from the nearest dwelling, school or hospital. The proponent must also demonstrate compliance with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6.
EASTLINK RESPONDS
In a response to the June public meeting, Eastlink provided a written submission to the municipality. The company pointed out that the tower would be located approximately 590 metres from the nearest home – that of the landowner. Eastlink states that, based on industry norms, this is a significant distance from homes in the area.
The proponent stated that moving the proposed location further to the west to create more separation from homes would potentially trigger a requirement for more towers in the area, as the ability to provide coverage would be impacted.
Based on Eastlink’s intended antenna installation, emissions from the proposed tower would be less than one per cent of the allowable limit set by Safety Code 6. Eastlink pointed out that Health Canada has stated there is no scientific reason to consider telecommunications towers dangerous to the public.
Eastlink went on to state that the Federal Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada – the regulating body for telecommunication installations in Canada – has concluded that there is no correlation between proximity to antenna installations and property values.
“Access to reliable telecommunications infrastructure can be a determining factor in home buying decisions and can improve the value of properties,” Eastlink stated.
RELATED:
