Cellphone mast in reserve blasted

April 19 2011 at 12:00pm http://www.iol.co.za

---

INLSA

The Helderberg Nature Reserve

SIBONGILE MKANI-MPOLWENI

Staff Reporter

HELDERBERG residents are enraged over a cellphone company’s plans to erect a mast in a nature reserve in Somerset West.

They want the City of Cape Town to oppose the application.

Cell C has applied to the city to lease a piece of land inside the Helderberg Nature Reserve – on which they intend to erect a 15m mast – after residents lodged objections to the company’s first proposal to erect a 25m-tall tower.

Yesterday residents vowed not to back down, because they did not want a mast of any height in the nature reserve.

According to environmental regulations, approval to erect a 15m cellphone mast does not require public participation.

But resident Keith Viljoen said the erection of such a tower would result in the destruction of the natural environment within the nature reserve.

“The erection of the mast impacts on the environment as you still require a base structure, with a cleared area around it. Access roads and regular structural and technical maintenance is also required, thus leading to further disruption to the environment,” he added.

Another resident, Sandy Webster said they would lodge objections until they got what they wanted.

City spokesman Charles Cooper confirmed that it had received an application from Cell C to lease land in the nature reserve for the purpose of erecting a cell mast and base station.

He said the application had been circulated internally, and they had received several objections from various departments.

“The proposal will be advertised externally shortly, giving the public the opportunity to object if they so wish, after which a report will be submitted to the council for consideration.”

The Helderberg Conservation Forum, representing a group of societies in the Somerset West area, said they too were opposed to the erection of the mast.

The forum’s chairman, David MacDonald, said their members were fundamentally opposed to the installation of any radio masts and associated equipment within the reserve, on the grounds that every possible measure must be taken to conserve the area and protect it from man-made disturbances.

“The Helderberg Nature Reserve has been carefully protected and nurtured since being proclaimed 50 years ago, and it is regarded by the community as a sanctuary against the pressure of urban development. Such an installation will be seen as a violation of the very limited natural landscape still remaining in the area,” he said.

Cell C did not respond to questions yesterday.

sibongile.mpolweni@inl.co.za

Sussex board rejects Bethany tower

AT&T says it's needed for cell coverage

12:48 PM, Apr. 19, 2011 |

http://www.delawareonline.com/

Written by

DAN SHORTRIDGE
The News Journal

GEORGETOWN -- In the face of intense opposition, a Sussex County panel reversed its ruling of two years ago and unanimously rejected a controversial cell tower project along Del. 1.

The county's Board of Adjustment voted 5-0 to deny AT&T Cellular's application for a 100-foot-tall cell tower south of Bethany Beach, whose opponents had gathered nearly 600 signatures on a petition in opposition.

A crowd of about 40 residents, some wearing yellow anti-cell-tower sashes, broke into applause after the vote Monday evening. Opponents included the town of Bethany Beach and the Bethany Beach Landowners Association.

"It's just not the proper place for it," said Board of Adjustment member Ronald McCabe.

Fellow panel member John Mills, who made the motion to reject the application, said he agreed with safety concerns raised by opponents should the tower be struck by lightning or collapse.

He said he didn't necessarily agree with the contention that the cell tower's visibility from neighboring properties would affect property values, but still argued it should be rejected.

"This is certainly a different hearing than we heard the first time," Mills said. "It's obvious that was because the opposition had an opportunity to organize."

AT&T countered that it needed a new tower to fill a gap in coverage along the highway through Bethany Beach, and supporters said reception has been greatly improved since a temporary tower was put up last year. The company said in county filings that it examined other locations in the area, but none would provide sufficient coverage.

AT&T had to get county approval for a special-use exception, even though the site is zoned for commercial use, because it is within 500 feet of residentially zoned property.

It was the second try for the mobile-phone company to put up the tower. The panel approved the tower in 2009 on a 3-2 vote, but the approval was overturned in November after homeowners in Sea Pines Village -- adjacent to the site -- appealed to the courts.

Sussex County Superior Court Judge T. Henley Graves said county officials posted a public notice for the hearing at a neighboring property, not at the site where the tower would be built. Because the published notice did not contain more detailed property information, interested residents had no way of knowing which piece of land was involved, Graves ruled.

AT&T can still appeal the board's decision to Superior Court -- just as residents did in 2009 -- and has 30 days to do so, said Planning and Zoning Director Lawrence Lank. If it decides to appeal, temporary cellular equipment set up on a utility pole at the site will not have to be removed until the court case is concluded, he said.

Contact Dan Shortridge at 463-3338 ordshortridge@delawareonline.com.

Application to build controversial cell tower at Palo Alto church dropped

By Jesse Dungan

Daily News Staff Writer

Posted: 04/19/2011 03:01:00 AM PDT

http://www.mercurynews.com

St. Albert the Great Church in Palo Alto is dropping out of a controversial proposal to erect a cell phone tower on its property, according to church and AT&T officials.

AT&T spokesman Lane Kasselman said the church told his company Monday that it is pulling a preliminary lease agreement.

"We're disappointed by the decision of St. Albert's to withdraw from negotiations for new infrastructure which would have brought increased wireless network coverage and capacity to area customers," Kasselman said in an email. "We're hopeful that we'll (be) able to find alternative solutions for the hundreds of supporters that need wireless coverage in the area."

Residents have raised concerns that the 50-foot tower at 1095 Channing Ave. would be a health hazard and lower property values. A couple hundred people voiced their fears at a community meeting in January.

Stephen Stuart, a resident who hooked the city up with Internet access more than a decade ago, even moved to ax the free connection because the proposal -- and the city's tentative approval -- upset him.

Roberta Ward, a spokeswoman for the Diocese of San Jose, which owns the St. Albert the Great property, confirmed Monday that the church had pulled out of the deal. She referred specific questions to the Rev. Matthew Stanley, but said the decision was made late last week. Stanley did not return a call for comment Monday.

Palo Alto Planning Director Curtis Williams said

AT&T notified the city Monday it would be sending a letter withdrawing the proposal. The project officially will be off the table once the city receives the letter, he said.

The project faced big hurdles despite winning tentative approval from the city's planning department. Earlier this month, the Architectural Review Board slammed the aesthetics of the "church-like" structure that would have housed the tower.

The Planning and Transportation Commission was also slated to consider an appeal on May 4 of the planning department's tentative approval, as well as to consider a height variance for the project. The cell tower would have been five feet taller than the 45-foot height limit in that part of town.

AT&T has argued that the tower is needed to support a growing demand for cell service in the neighborhood. The company will have to start from scratch and identify a new location for the tower, Kasselman said.

"We're disappointed," he said. "I think that the reality is we've got a lot of customers that need improved services and so despite these setbacks that are a result of a vocal minority, we still have to move forward."

Stuart's wife, Tru Love, who lives with Stuart across the street from St. Albert the Great said Monday she had not heard about the church's decision to spike the project.

"I won't believe that until I see it in writing," said Love, one of the project's most vocal opponents. "If it's true, then I'm ecstatic."

Email Jesse Dungan at jdungan@dailynewsgroup.com.

Buena Vista Residents to Stage Protest Against Cell Phone Tower Proposal

The debate about whether AT&T can erect a 20-foot tower in the Buena Vista neighborhood is yet another chapter in a growing debate about how Walnut Creek and other communities deal with the proliferation of wireless communication antennas.

By Martha Ross | Email the author | April 18, 2011

http://walnutcreek.patch.com

As the city continues to study the safety and necessity of placing cell-phone towers around town, residents in the Buena Vista neighborhood Tuesday evening will protest a plan to place a tower in their neighborhood.

Buena Vista residents have said they plan to rally outside Walnut Creek's City Hall Tuesday, just before the regularly scheduled council meeting. They have several complaints, but their primary focus is the idea that the city is biased in favor of AT&T, which is proposing to erect a 20-foot cell phone tower on a knoll belonging to St. Stephen's Catholic Church.

This bias, residents say, largely comes because Ken Mintz, the AT&T executive in charge of pushing for cell phone towers in Contra Costa County, is chairman of the board of the Walnut Creek Chamber of Commerce and also serves on the board of directors of the San Ramon Chamber of Commerce.

Mintz's chamber ties, Buena Vista residents say, have raised concerns about "his involvement in local business organizations with close ties to the City Council in order to influence approval of cell-tower applications."

Opponents of AT&T's proposed tower claim they have experienced "ongoing bias" from city officials. The city, they say, has failed to follow up on "evidence of false information" that AT&T presented to the city. The city also has failed to address citizen requests to hire an independent consultant to evaluate less intrusive solutions, they claim.

Last fall, the City Council asked staff to commission an engineering study to look at whether the St. Stephen's property is the only place for AT&T to build an antenna to provide better cell phone coverage to residents of northwest Walnut Creek. At that meeting, the council decided to hold off on a moratorium on construction of cell-phone towers in the city. Before issuing the moratorium, council members wanted to see a work plan outlining when changes to the city's existing wireless ordinance could happen. 

According to council members contacted Monday, the AT&T proposal for St. Stephen's church is still under review.

AT&T spokesman Lane Kasselman objected to the idea that Mintz's involvement in Walnut Creek's Chamber of Commerce gave him an unfair advantage or influence over city affairs:

“AT&T has been part of the Walnut Creek and San Ramon communities for decades," Kasselman said. "Thousands of our employees and their families live, work and play throughout the region. Our employees participate in service organizations, chambers of commerce, school boards, Little Leagues, Scout troops, PTAs, bake sales and almost every other type of civic engagement you would expect from active members of the community."

"AT&T and its employees are proud of their professional, and personal, commitments throughout Contra Costa County," he added.

The debate about the St. Stephen's proposal is yet another chapter in a growing debate about how Walnut Creek deals with the proliferation of wireless communication antennas. Like other communities, Walnut Creek faces a growing demand for faster, more efficient wireless service for cell phones, laptop computers and GPS monitors.

Buena Vista residents say AT&T's proposed tower at St. Stephen's Church would rise about 100 feet from nearby homes. Residents also are concerned about AT&T’s recent announcement that it will add 55 cell sites in the San Francisco Bay area in 2011.

“If cities do not require a rigorous, open and independent review of alternatives, there is the strong possibility of cell towers being installed in inappropriate locations," said Mardi Veiluva, leader of the Walnut Creek Buena Vista neighborhood group. “We need a balanced and transparent approach by cities to ensure that cell towers are installed in the least intrusive locations in order to preserve and protect our residential neighborhoods.”

Tuesday's protest will be at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday outside Walnut Creek City Hall, 1666 N. Main St.

Opponents want city council to hang up on new cellphone towers in Peterborough

By BRENDAN WEDLEY/Examiner Municipal Writer

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011

A group of residents broadcasted opposition to a planned cellphone tower on Parkhill Rd. E. at a city council meeting Monday night.

The residents spoke of concerns about cellphone towers such as potential health risks, aesthetics and declining property values for nearby homeowners.

Council has endorsed sending a letter to Industry Canada – the approval agency for cellphone towers – that doesn't support or oppose the proposed tower at 485 Parkhill Rd. E.

Electromagnetic fields disrupt nature on a massive scale, causing birds, bats and bees to lose their bearings, fail to reproduce and die, Charlene Creelman said.

"When we are told there is no evidence that electromagnetic fields cause any biological effects, that they are not harmful to our health, we are being lied to," she said. "We are changing the electromagnet signature of the Earth. Wireless technology and radio frequency microwave radiation is an energetic form of air pollution. We are destroying nature by electrosmog."

Creelman asked council to institute a moratorium on the installation of cellphone towers in the city. She argued evidence will show that electromagnetic fields from cellphone towers cause biological effects.

Council didn't make a decision on the item Monday night. It recessed the meeting until 6 p.m. Tuesday after delegations went until about 11:10 p.m. Monday.

At a planning committee meeting two weeks ago, council agreed to tell Industry Canada that SBA Canada, which is the company that has applied to build the tower, has met the city's public consultation requirements and that there is a significant level of concern in the public about the proposal.

The city has taken a role in protecting the health of its residents through the creation of a smoking bylaw that bans smoking in certain public spaces and restricting the use of pesticides, Champlain Dr. resident Malini Menon said.

"There are very serious questions regarding the health impacts of this technology," she said. "The health impacts on its citizens are equally important as the economic or convenience benefits to cell providers and their clients."

SBA Canada follows the policies set by Industry Canada and Health Canada when it builds wireless telecommunication towers, said Anthony Biglieri, a principal with the Biglieri Group, a planning consultant for SBA.

The tower would be 142 metres away from the nearest residential dwelling, Biglieri said. There wouldn't be a light at the top of the tower.

Wind Mobile, an upstart discount cellphone provider looking to expand into Peterborough, would be the wireless telecommunications provider on the tower, but the tower would be designed to accommodate as many as four service providers, Biglieri said.

SBA is looking at four potential cellphone tower locations in Peterborough with maybe two or three more towers at some point, he said.

The city appears to be functioning well with current cellphone coverage, Menon said.

"Why not wait until a true need for extra service arises?" she asked "Corporate greed, economic competition and perceived need should not be the basis upon which we throw all caution to the wind and approve endless cell towers at the risk of our health."

Colin Welsh, who lives across the road from the proposed new cellphone tower location on Parkhill Rd. E., told council a nearby property owner was told his property value would decrease if a cellphone tower was built next to his property.

Welsh added residents are concerned about potential health risks and aesthetics.

"We need to keep them (cellphone towers) away from residential areas," he said.

Welsh said that requests made to Industry Canada and Peterborough MP Dean Del Mastro's office were referred to the city.

Several residents said the towers will be used to support Wind Mobile equipment and that Wind Mobile has plans for 11 towers in the city.

The city doesn't need new wireless telecommunications companies, city resident Lori Pettersone said.

"I am not concerned about getting a cheaper rate — I'm concerned about the impact of additional non-ionizing radiation on our health," she said. "We should not suffer ill health effects while wireless communication companies profit. The money they earn is at our expense."

bwedley@peterboroughexaminer.com