Skip to content

MPC approves 2 towers for West Country cluster

After being delayed three months, CCI Wireless obtained approval Oct. 6 for two of its three remaining communication-tower sites in Mountain View County.
CCI’s Shaun Russell and Gary Weiler wait to answer questions at Mountain View County’s MPC meeting on Oct. 6.
CCI’s Shaun Russell and Gary Weiler wait to answer questions at Mountain View County’s MPC meeting on Oct. 6.

After being delayed three months, CCI Wireless obtained approval Oct. 6 for two of its three remaining communication-tower sites in Mountain View County.But the Municipal Planning Commission decision came only after company officials were once again grilled on whether they had explored every option to situate one of the five-acre sites on land that was not considered good farmland.The site in contention was proposed for Eagle Hill (Rge. Rd. 42 and Twp. Rd. 332) and was chosen as the best spot to deliver high-speed Internet and other services to the Sundre area.MPC had previously criticized the location because it was situated on farmland directly adjacent to a treed area, which some members considered more suitable for the 300-foot tower.In a letter to the commission, landowner David Lockrem said the site is on the northwest corner of a hay meadow, close to the woods which cover the east slope of Eagle Hill.ìI do not have a problem with having a tower in the field because to go into the bush on a steep slope would be a real mess,î Lockrem wrote.ìMy equipment is small enough to easily farm around the tower and guy cable sites, and quite frankly,î he added, ìI don't know of anything else that I could receive that kind of revenue from a couple acres for the next 20 years without getting arrested!îAs well, in a written brief included in the MPC package, CCI spelled out the loss of coverage that would result from moving the tower site in any direction and concluded there were no alternatives due to the hilly terrain in the Sundre area.ìWe want to keep the tower where it is based on household coverage and so on,î CCI project manager Shaun Russell told the commission. ìThat location ñ with the whole picture in general ñ is the best location we can come up with for the area.îThose assurances, however, fell short for MPC public member Keith Branter.Alluding to the position taken at previous meetings by Div. 1 Coun. Kevin Good, who ìled the charge on this issue,î Branter asked: ìWhat due diligence have you done to minimize the impact on agricultural land?îRussell replied that CCI had looked around the area and the company's land acquisition agent had talked to neighbours. ìIt gets tough to find a suitable location,î Russell said.Branter told him he was not answering the question, and added: ìI'm trying to fill the void (for) Coun. Good who's not here and is strong on the issue.îìWe did the research,î Russell said, but noted the company's search came to a dead end. He also said the Alberta government plans to use the tower for its first-call services, including 911.MPC chair Linda Burrell pointed to Lockrem's letter and CCI's document in the package ñ ìYou did look,î she acknowledged ñ but Div. 5 Coun. Bob Orr took up the previous line of questioning, asking whether the company had looked at the land immediately to the north.Russell reiterated the area was not suitable and, when asked to provide a more detailed answer, the company's land acquisition agent addressed the commission.Gary Weiler, president of Western Land Services, told MPC that the quarter directly to the north had no access because of power lines. ìPlus the landowner doesn't want it,î Weiler said.Further to the west were pipeline issues and acreages, he said.ìWe did look around, no doubt about it. It's just tough to find a site that's suitable.îPublic member Greg Harris said he was ìquite satisfiedî by CCI's written brief that the original site was chosen ìbased on some amount of study and experimentation and didn't come to you at night in a dream.îHe also said he was concerned that MPC's push to preserve farmland in this case could impede the delivery of a service that is needed for farm businesses and families in the area.ìThrough the deferrals I think we've got through the pointî about preservation of farmland, Harris said. ìAlso we've got to take into account what the landowner is saying. To what point are we going to play the part of big brother?îDiv. 2 Coun. Trish McKean said she concurred with Harris.ìIt's not our job to decide who has extra revenue or who doesn't,î McKean said.Public member Len Schaefer said he too agreed with Harris's points, adding that the definition of ìgood agricultural landî was ìstill a little fuzzy.îIn a final statement, Russell said he had received more than a dozen calls from landowners and business owners in the coverage area asking when they would receive high-speed Internet.The application was approved in a unanimous vote, as was a second application for a tower site in Bearberry at Rge. Rd. 72, half a mile north of Highway 584.A third outstanding application ñ for a site in Reed Ranch that would serve the Torrington area ñ remains up in the air, with Russell saying the company was still in the public notification process.Sites have already been approved in Water Valley, Cremona and Midway.CCI is under contract to Industry Canada to install about 200 telecommunication towers across rural Alberta to deliver high-speed Internet and other services.Company officials expressed concerns after a second MPC deferral in July because landowners had not been given an opportunity to speak at the meeting and said the delays could jeopardize their installation plans and funding agreement with Ottawa.

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks