By Steve Hubrecht
There may in fact be a new cell phone tower in downtown Invermere after all.
Rogers Communications Inc. wants to improve cell service in Invermere and parts of the Columbia Valley and has spent several years hunting for a location to erect a 25-metre high monopole.
The pole would make cell coverage better, but concerned residents have repeatedly spoken against having it near their homes, businesses, and public institutions. Several locations, some private and others public, have already been earmarked but turned down.
About a year ago Rogers proposed putting the pole behind Eddie Mountain Memorial Arena on a piece of municipally-owned land to the east of the parking lot that holds the weekly Farmers’ and Artists Market in the summer.
Public consultation on this spot resulted in plenty of feedback, most of it negative, from residents who outlined concerns about how close it was to their homes, to the market, to downtown business, and to an osprey nest.
In a committee of the whole meeting in December, Invermere councillors outlined opinions that were generally against the location, and asked Rogers to find an alternate spot or look at perhaps having a main tower somewhere well outside of town and then have a much smaller booster tower in the heart of the community.
But last week there was a hesitant U-turn in Invermere council’s opinion after a presentation from Rogers and Cypress Land Services representative Justin Rockafellow. The presentation on February 25 prompted a change of heart — albeit a reluctant one — from council members who voted at the meeting to accept the chosen downtown location but to ask Rogers about ways to reduce the tower’s height and visual impact to the downtown.
Rockafellow outlined that Rogers reviewed nine separate potential locations for the cell tower, and all of them were rejected for various reasons, except for the one behind the arena.
The other locations included a spot between the Windermere Valley Childcare Society daycare and Invermere firehall; at Mount Nelson Athletic Park (MNAP); on the roof of the downtown Invermere Inn; at the site of the old community hall on 8th Avenue (which is now a gravel parking lot); on privately owned land near the provincial government services buildings on 4th Street; a spot in the industrial park; a place in Athalmer near the Lake Windermere Resort lands; and a location near the crossroads.
Rockafellow said Rogers wants a final decision from council, either for or against the location by the arena. If council is in favour of the location, Rogers can discuss options to camouflage the tower and otherwise make it more palatable to the public. “If not, on our side, it’s an area that’s been pretty much exhausted . . . I don’t know if they’ll be any other options in terms of improving coverage in the next five to 10 years.”
Councillor Gerry Taft asked about the previously mentioned idea of having several smaller cell towers instead of one large one.
“The technology is what it is,” replied Rockafellow, adding several small cell towers would not provide enough coverage to improve cell service unless they were spaced very closely together — no more than 25 to 40 metres apart. Multiple small cell towers are “not economically feasible in an area like this (the Columbia Valley) without hundreds and hundreds of installations.”
Rockafellow also said according to federal guidelines, concerns about potential health risks are not a reason to reject proposed cell towers.
Councillor Grant Kelly was unconvinced on that point. Although cell phones have been around for at least two decades, it’s still too early into the cell phone era to know for sure about the potential long-term health impacts of cell towers, said Kelly, adding he means “not just for us (humans) as a species, but for all species, including wildlife.”
Just because federal agencies have set standards around cell towers, doesn’t meant those standards are the right ones, added Kelly.
Taft pointed out that at the December committee of the whole meeting “there was a lot of opposition expressed” by councillors to the arena location, and they had been hopeful another spot could be found.
“I don’t love this tower. I don’t love this location. But I don’t see any viable alternative. And there is a possibility that if we keep dragging this out, Rogers will decide to focus on upgrades elsewhere,” said Taft. “There’s a balance we need to strike. The service is needed. Just saying ‘no’ (to the spot by the arena) would be the popular option. It would make the neighbours happy. But I’m not sure it’s the right thing.”
Other councillors agreed with Taft that they did not like the arena location, but that better service is needed. Councillor Theresa Wood expressed hope that after a while the cell tower would not stand out to residents and passersby as much as it will initially.
In the end council voted to accept the location, with the caveat that it wants further discussions with Rogers about the tower’s exact height and other measures to lessen its visual impact.
