The company is proposing to build the facility near the northern edge of the property at 1100 Alaska Avenue, behind the former Movie Gallery building and near the rail line. In a proposal submitted to city council, Rogers states the location was chosen because it is technically suitable to expand its network, is in a non-residential area (the proposal states the closest residence is over 300 metres away), is in a location that minimizes visibility from homes, and that the structure itself will accommodate other telecommunications providers in the future.
Telecommunications is a federally-regulated industry, and Rogers is required to seek approval for the facility from Industry Canada, which requires a 120-day consultation process that was initiated with the formal proposal being submitted to the municipality. The consultation process requires, among other things, for the proponent to notify and consult with the municipality and property owners within 120 metres (three times the height of the tower) of the proposed facility to address concerns such as why the use of an existing antenna system or structure is not possible, why an alternate site is not possible, what steps will be taken to ensure the antenna system is not accessible to the general public, and what options are available to satisfy marking requirements to prevent aeronautical obstruction.
Concerns that are not relevant under the consultation process include disputes with members of the public related to the proponent's service that are unrelated to the antenna installations, and any potential effects that a proposed antenna system will have on property values or municipal taxes.
The City of Dawson Creek has no overriding jurisdiction over the proposed facility, though Industry Canada's consultation policy requires the municipality’s “concurrence” with the tower proposal and requires Rogers to try to address reasonable and relevant concerns. City councillors did express concerns about the tower – namely the impacts to sightlines due to the downtown location, and what safety measures would be put in place to prevent public access to the facility – during discussion of the proposal on Monday, and made a motion to write a letter to the proponent to have those concerns addressed.
Council also wanted to know if Rogers is contemplating a store front location in the future.