For the second time, Mountain View County's municipal planning commission has deferred the development permit applications by CCI Wireless Inc. for telecommunication towers in the Reed Ranch, Eagle Hill and Bearberry areas.The decision to defer until Sept. 15 ñ arrived at after almost two hours of discussion and responses from the company at Thursday's MPC meeting ñ was especially irksome to two of the landowners who sat in the gallery but were not permitted to speak.ìThree times I raised my hand to speak,î James Stumpf fumed after the meeting, saying that on one occasion he was trying to correct inaccurate information about his property that had been presented to MPC.ìI've never seen landowners refused the chance to speak,î CCI project manager Shaun Russell told the Gazette. ìThey always get a chance.îEagle Hill landowner David Lockrem was also denied the opportunity. The proposed site on his parcel had been criticized at the previous meeting because it was situated on cultivated land directly adjacent to a treed area, which MPC members considered more suitable for a tower.But, Lockrem said after the meeting, ìI don't want it in the trees. That's pristine forest.î He added that accessing the treed area for the tower installation ìwould be a real mess.îStumpf, whose property in the Reed Ranch area has been the main focus of MPC's scrutiny of the company's proposed five-acre sites, also took issue with the notion that his cultivated land was too precious to use for a tower.ìIt is good land, but I'm not saying it's better than anybody else's,î he said.CCI Wireless is under contract to Industry Canada to install about 200 telecommunication towers across rural Alberta, including seven in Mountain View County, to deliver high-speed Internet and other services.Russell said the company can likely still meet its Dec. 31 deadline if the three deferred tower applications are approved in September.ìIf it gets deferred again we can't make our deadline,î he said.That means ìIndustry Canada could pull out,î which could jeopardize funding for the whole project. Another option, he said, would be for the company to tell the federal department that Mountain View County was not co-operating and request it be removed from the new network.ìMy biggest problem is I don't understand the landowners not having any say in the matter,î Russell said.MPC chair Linda Burrell said after the meeting that neither landowner was allowed to speak because no commission member had asked them to come forward. Under MPC policy the public only speaks on development permit applications when commission members direct questions to them.During the meeting, CCI technical staff explained the process of selecting locations for its towers, ruling out alternative locations due to lack of power or coverage loss.In the case of Reed Ranch, the Stumpf property was deemed the best location, since any move would dramatically reduce coverage.Div. 1 Coun. Kevin Good, who was most vocally critical of the company's site choices at the previous MPC meeting, again took issue with CCI's approach, citing the tower already installed near Cremona as an example of the company moving its tower ìacross the fenceî to grazing land only after a landowner objected to the proposed location on a cultivated field.ìIn no case in your identification of sites have I heard the term land use,î Good told the company reps.But it was Reeve Paddy Munro, also sitting on MPC last Thursday, who was the most scathing in his criticism.ìAll I've heard today is what's good for CCI,î Munro said. ìWe haven't heard what's good for the community. I don't believe for one second that you've done due diligence finding non-productive ag land.ìYou won't get my support,î Munro said. ìPower, timing and money are your problems. Not my problems.îMunro also dismissed comments by Gary Weiler, president of Western Land Services and land acquisition agent for CCI, who downplayed the difference between crop and pasture land.ìIn most cases if there's grassland we'll go for that, but a beef farmer will tell you that land is just as valuable to him as cultivated land to a grain farmer,î Weiler said.ìIt's six of one, half dozen of the other.îAsked how a farmer could operate a 20-foot sprayer under the tower, Weiler acknowledged it was more work, but added: ìThey're doing it.îUndeterred by the company's explanations, Munro told Russell that in Reed Ranch there was ìdefinitely poorer quality land to the north and eastî to investigate. When other members asked Russell about the impact of any delays, Munro said: ìI don't care so much about the timing. I want MPC to make a statement.îHe added: ìI think a month, a month and a half is nothing in the scheme of things. To me getting the land use right is a lot more important.îThe motions to defer included the Bearberry site not because it was deemed unsuitable but in case the Eagle Hill site changes and adjustments to the company's West Country ìclusterî are required.A site in Midway ñ adjacent to Twp. Rd. 300 and Rge. Rd. 283 ñ was approved as it is part of a separate cluster centred around Carstairs.ìHaving personal knowledge of that field, it is the perfect location in a heavily cultivated area,î Good told the company reps. ìGood job.î
