By Steve Morris

The Chisago County Board of Commissioners tabled a motion at their meeting Aug. 16 to allow T-Mobile to build a cell tower near Chisago City.

ìWhy vote tonight?î commissioner Ben Montzka asked. ìThis is something we need to do carefully.î

And so they did, by a 2-3 vote. The fate of the T-Mobile tower will be determined at their Sept. 6 meeting. Commissioner Bob Gustafson and Chairman Mike Robinson opposed the motion to table.

The decision came after two hours of discussion and presentations from the county planner, lawyers and the public.

Frederic Knaak, a lawyer representing the neighborhood where the proposed cell tower would be built, presented reasons why the cell tower should not be built at the proposed location. Knaak said it will decrease property values and it may prove to be a danger to young children who play in the area. Furthermore, he sited the potential hazard of having a cell tower near a private airport. Knaak described the issues in a letter he sent to the county board before the meeting. In the letter, he wrote:

ìIím sure youíre aware, from the evidence and testimony provided by our clients (and others), the residents surrounding the site view it as a visual blight on the landscape that will seriously impact their enjoyment of their properties, as well as the value of their property.î

Certainly the visual blight of cell towers is not a new issue. To counter it, cell towers in other communities have been camouflaged, or disguised to reduce the ìuglyî factor.

Knaak said his clients are not completely opposed to cell towers, they just want a more appropriate location.

After Knaak spoke to the board, Peter Beck, a lawyer representing T-Mobile, presented his side. Beck said T-Mobile is complying with all regulations.

ìWe have met the standards,î Beck said of the proposed tower.

T-Mobile paid for an outside engineering consulting firm to conduct an independent analysis of the proposed site ñ the firm was mutually selected by T-Mobile and the county. Owl Engineering concluded there isnít a significant reason not to build the cell tower.

Michael OíRourke of Owl Engineering put it simply,

ìItís justified.î

In Owl Engineeringís summary, they state the tower would be in compliance with structural requirements of ordinances and it is not predicted to cause any interference to protected frequency or be an RF radiation hazard.

However, not everyone is quick to agree with the summary of the consulting firm report. Chairman Robinson has T-Mobile cell phone service and said he gets reception in most places he travels to in the county. Why then, do they need to build an additional tower, he asked.

Gustafson echoed the same concern. He said T-Mobileís literature shows full coverage area in the county.

ìTheyíre either lying to us, or lying to the public; one or the other,î Gustafson said.

According to Knaak, the county does not have a policy related to the placement of cell towers in the county.

Currently there are 37 cell towers in Chisago County, representing eight different companies. City Planner Patrick Hollister presented to the board possible future cell tower sites. They are county-owned land, tax forfeit land and industrial /commercially-zoned land.

In other business:

ïThe board will wait to make a decision regarding the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board until a later date when more people are present.

Comment from Leon Christianson, 8/25/06

I welcome this cell tower, please stop delaying it. My T-mobile service is spotty in Harris and this may help. I would welcome this tower to built on my property if you people can't work out you differences as long as I can put my antennas on the tower too. Antenna towers are cool!
Leon