The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

W ' 7" iv“ WM'MMl’u-l UlSll krlulrcnsrkrt. cum @ 519-511-1828 Design flaw O O . O ; Updated cell tower policy draws rre of resrdents as. ~ [firmness-our) WaterloofSciansaid alsafetyandtheenvironmentl'all I! » Chmnkkfl WIND Mobile backed off on under the mandate of the federal ‘ , . plans based on cornmurdty oppoai- govemment' ‘ Waterloo neighbourhoods' tion. a spokesperson for the com- Much of the language in the f A refusal to host twin cell- panysaidlastsumrnee document was not in the form of ‘ phone towers on the west- Now. the City of Waterloo has requirements. instead words such 3 side has led to a new council poli- approved changes to its cell tower as should. encourap, request and i cyondesign. policyâ€"mostlyrelated to assthet- consideredwereused * But some residents are worried ica Scian said the requirements it isnt strong enough to keep com- weren't entirely binding f panics from planting new towers in "(Cell companies) have to follow 5 their neigibourhoods They say the as them to a point." Scian said "They . r drangesmiyitmakeiteasierfor to Whatu’ecando couldprobablypushback." " Pl doso under our policy is But the changes weren’t up to - ' , ~ anOll,residents ofthelaurel- - - n paraccordingtoant wood neighbourhood banded deal “nth aesthetics. _ Brunt said the new design I ' together to fight a preposed cell _mm 3d“ guidelines might even make it easi- ;‘ 1 phone tower in their community. 0" m, my, we,” W Polk)! er to disguise towers, leaving resi- ' 1 With one Rogers tower already dents in the dark about their loca- E g 1 located in Laurelwood Commons. tions , a ‘ | residents were not about to accept ‘Our new policy strengthens our “in some ways it helps disguise 7 ‘ 1 anND Mobile tower too position that it's a federal issue." towers so people are less aware,” . 3, , r 4 Christine Bruntwaspartofthe Sciansaid.'Whatwecandounder Bruntsaid'Thebottomlineforme }' ‘ 1 movementwhichsaleNDagree ourpoliq'isdealwithaesthetica wasthatitwasahealthhsue. ‘ l < to locarethetowerelsewhere. “Thrwghtheproceaswith Lau- “lfeddefeated quitehonestiylt ' ‘5 I ‘We spent a great amount of relwood I think we went through a doesntaddresstheproblem stall.” ‘ time on that." Brunt said. “We peri- pretty long public consultation and The (fleets of cell phone ma ‘ ‘“ " i tioned and got almost 500 signa- learned what the community does on health have been much-debat- . rules anddoesn'twant.‘ ed.withsomedaimingtheyimpact ‘ . "Nonetheless there's one (Rogers As part of the city’s revised poii- health and others saying they're { I" tower) still standing in laurelwood cy. municipal review would be safe. I if ‘ ' Commons and that shouldn't be required for all towers greater than Brunt said she wasn't positive of r ‘ _ happening," 30mmesin height. the health impacts but said she a I "; As part of the neighbourhoods The policy included a number of wasn't willing to take any chances. fl . l . advocacy to keep a second cell recommendeddesignguidelineu "It's unknown what the impact U ;. ‘ "3 tower of Laurelwood. the group 0 encouraging stealth design of ofclose exposure to a cell tower is." j [I j l " met with several local government antenna equipment Brunt said. ’ I r r representatives 0 the colour of the tower should “There are numerous studies I g ‘ . i 1 At the time. members of differ- reflect the surrounding area â€" that show there are biological . ~- - . ent levels of government. including black or white may not be appro- effects from cell tower radiation . " MP Peter Braid and Conn. Karen prime which have been linked to . , Scian offered conflicting feedback 0 a landscape plan would be headache. memory changes dizzi- , ‘ ‘ to community residents on who required for review by the site plan ness. depression. sleep disturbance ll could impact the tower’s location. committee and tumours ‘ r ‘ I Braidsaiditwasuptothelocal Theupdatessetouttostrength- “Childrenareconsideredtobe E planning authority to find a suit- en the city's position regarding the population of biased risk due \ ablelocationandworkwltthND desigrrofdietowerssitelandscap- totheirongoingdevelopmentand _ ‘ Mobileinestablishingtheheightof ingandtoreinforoethecity’sstanoe theirthinnerslmiiswhichprovlde g i the tower. Residents were told the authority for tower applications less protection against radiofre- g g industry Canada doesn't get was the federal government's quenw." w --â€"â€"- -â€"â€"â€" fl.“ Mm involved unlessmerewasadispute responsibility under industry Scian said despite the dty’s sta- Scian said tower location was Canada. tus as a hidi-tech hub. it aho has a 7 out of the city’s hands According to one principle in historyof resistance town towers a ' “It's frustrating because I think the document. the policy, “recog- ‘We are one of the most resist- the City of Waterloo would like to nizeis) that matters pertaining to ant.’ Scian said. “it is a little ironic. P have control over when happens in health leg SaferyCodeG). structur- yes. The reality is the towers are a ‘ 1 K t. . vouR 7°! AWAlD woumuo spa ., _ WE LOVE M®MS 1.___. .\ '~*flsw-HCA~oso-un~: n auras-am Latte-amen i 4 _ . -.‘.';‘.,!,".!."!'1'_"‘" 3" \ ..-A,__ ‘f " " ' ' ___, 777 7 l