By John Francis, Bruce Peninsula Press
A private company, Shared Tower Inc, proposes to put a 90m tall cell phone tower on a rural property 3km northwest of the village of Dyers Bay; the address is 75 Lindsay Road 40.
A public consultation process was conducted in the winter, beginning just before Christmas. Many opponents of the tower insist it was unfair due to the lull in communications over the Christmas/New Year’s holiday. The confusion was exacerbated by the abrupt collapse of the organization CRINS (Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Service) that MNBP thought was handling the consultation process on its behalf.
The issue came up for a vote at MNBP’s April 22 Council Meeting but the bare quorum present deferred it to a meeting with all members present. That occurred on May 13.
All five council members enthusiastically support improving cell service — there was no argument there. There wasn’t even much disagreement about the facts of the matter. But nonetheless, Council voted 3-2 not to concur with the proposed tower. Actually, it was a bit more complicated than that…
To begin with, the decision of whether or not to permit the tower to be built is not MNBP’s to make. That decision will be made by ISED — the federal department known as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. MNBP’s role is to concur or not concur with the proposal; ISED will make its own decision and could override MNBP’s recommendations.
Standard operating procedure for most municipalities holds that if a landowner proposes a new use for a property, they must undertake a standardized process. At the end of that process, the request will be granted or not based on whether the new use is compatible with municipal objectives, bylaws and land use guidelines.
Mayor Milt McIver and Councillor Aman Sohrab both felt Shared Tower had conducted the (bare) minimum public consultation and that improving cell service was important enough to overlook any minor shortcomings in the process. The private property owner is a willing host and has a right to a timely decision.
Councillor Smokey Golden felt the process was too flawed for concurrence. “I would be a major hypocrite if I said that process was comprehensive and unbiased”. She made a motion that the process be restarted.
Deputy Mayor Rod Anderson agreed with Councillor Golden. He began by noting that a major conclusion of last fall’s tabletop emergency planning exercise was cell service is critical — emergency responders rely on it every minute. But there is too much confusion surrounding the current proposal.
Councillor Golden pointed out that there is a lot more information available now than there was five months ago when this process began. Was the information provided at that time accurate?
Councillor Todd Dowd agreed that MNBP should vote non-concurrence and restart the process. But he also felt the new process should go right back to the beginning, with site inventory consultations to look at other locations. He agreed that there is an urgent need for better cell service but stated “I’m sure there is a better location” for the tower.
Councillor Golden stated she was not confident that the proposed tower location would provide what people are expecting — they might not understand the capabilities.
Council voted on her motion, 3-2 with Mayor McIver and Councillor Sohrab voting against.
But the discussion did not end there. Councillor Dowd stated that he has heard there are other willing hosts who didn’t know there was a process. He reiterated that the process needs to go right back to the beginning to make sure we get the best site.
Council then voted to withdraw the first motion and replace it with a motion that voted non-concurrence with the proposal and directed staff to re-open negotiations with Shared Tower Inc to restart the site selection process. That motion passed by the same 3-2 margin.
But that motion, too, needed to be withdrawn as this is private property and the Municipality does not have any authority to start the process on private land.
The final motion, passed 3-2, simply required that a vote of non-concurrence on the proposal be registered and sent to ISED.
Expanding Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT) to Hotels, Motels, B&Bs
MNBP Council will vote on May 27 on two staff proposals. The first is a housekeeping proposal which will regulate STAs in C1, RU1 and RU2 Zones and will also reduce the number of allowed STAs from 700 to 500 (there are currently less than 400).
The second proposal would spread the 4% MAT more broadly across the accommodation sector to include hotels, motels, B&Bs, lodges, cabins, inns and resorts. Campgrounds and marinas would be exempt.
The specified start date for the program is January 1, 2025.
The MAT expansion has been a contentious issue, with discussions and consultations dating back to 2022. The proposal has received fierce pushback from the industry and broad approval from ratepayers in general.
It is expected to be quite lucrative, a major step towards the municipality’s goal of “making tourism pay for tourism”.
