By Joanne Rodgers, Bruce Peninsula Press
On 12 November 2024 a public consultation was held at the Rotary Hall, Lion’s Head to provide information and an opportunity to address community concerns on the proposed telecommunication tower on Lindsay Rd. 40.
The session was hosted by Shared Tower, a telecommunications infrastructure developer and owner (https://www.sharedtower.ca/) that is proposing a 90m, guyed style tower at 75 Lindsay Rd. 40, Miller Lake, ON. They say the proposed tower will address network and capacity needs required by their telecommunications clients.
A step in the approval of a proposed tower is a public consultation. Property owners with property lines within three times the height of the tower were invited to the public meeting.
Representatives from Shared Tower were in-house to explain the process and to answer questions. Eleven community members attended the in-house meeting while an additional 12 members tuned in online or by telephone.
Tower One Link In Overall Network
Shared Tower spokesperson Cheyenne Zierler explained that this tower allows all carriers to co-locate on one structure and is one more link to providing wireless technology communication services on the Peninsula. Currently the nearest tower is 10 km away, typically for rural areas, towers are located 4 to 5 km apart. Smaller towers will need to be built to fill network gaps and to service some communities directly, such as for Dyers Bay shoreline residents.
Site Selection
Zierler explains that they are informed by their clients as to where a tower is needed, then Shared Tower looks for a site that addresses the coverage issue. Shared Tower already has an anchor carrier client (this is a requirement for the tower to be built) and is working with other carriers.
Some of the factors for site selection are expected usage patterns of service and proximity to users; elevation and other topography factors; building types; ability to connect and interact with existing and future sites; line-of-sight requirements; opportunities to use existing structures, space for the structure and availability of a willing landlord. Any additional telecommunication towers to service nearby communities will need to be approved by separate applications. Shared Tower, in selecting the current proposed site, says they cannot deviate too much from their search ring and still meet the carrier needs.
Federally Regulated Process
Building a telecommunication tower is a federally regulated process through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), the governing body for installations of telecommunication towers. Health Canada regulates electromagnetic and microwave emissions for antenna installations through Safety Code 6, which sets out recommended safety limits for human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMF).
Community Response
A contingent from Gillies Lake came out in favor of the tower. They say they are happy with the process and felt that the tower was a necessary infrastructure to improve their quality of life. Ken Thompson says 88% percent of Gillies Lake property owners are in favor of the tower. He described the benefits to the residents’ personal, professional and safety needs. Cindy Wardrop, a landowner and former 911 operator, says she has experienced first hand how stressful it is for operator and caller when they lose phone contact due to dropped calls and sees a good communication network as important for the health and safety of community members and visitors. Some of the letters sent in support of the tower were from first responders who want increased cell service for emergency purposes.
However, not everyone is in favor of the site selected for the tower. Grace Bray made an impassioned plea regarding protecting the health of her neighbor Laura Vanderaa, who suffers from Electro Hypersensitivity, since building a tower so close to her abode would be detrimental to her health. Vanderaa, who could not be present or on-line due to her health issues, says that a few of her neighbours have also moved to the area due to it being a low frequency area, possibly the only area left in Southern Ontario.
Vanderaa has sent in numerous letters to support her claims of the negative effects of EMF emissions on the environment and the general health of persons living close to communications towers. Vanderaa poses the question – which is more important: protecting the health of the local residents and the environment vs the growing appetite of consumers to be digitally connected everywhere? Both Vanderaa and Bray say maybe another solution could be found that is a ‘win win’ for everyone.
Shared Tower Inc. attests that the national carrier(s) co-locating on the telecommunication structure will comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 limits. Zierler says that any radiofrequency electromagnetic field (EMF) will be below the set threshold and directed any concerns about the EMF to Health Canada.
Katherine McLeod summarizes the concerns expressed by residents immediately adjacent to the site saying the visual impact of the tower, the impact to the health of some residents, the economic costs of building the tower, and its limited coverage did not justify the building of the tower on the site selected.
McLeod says the current proposal did not show any improvement from the previous two proposals for the same tower/location and all the previous concerns raised by residents are still in effect.
While McLeod understands the health and safety issue, especially for those needing and offering emergency services, they expressed there are other options now, such as the SOS service, satellite cell service and soon to be installed fibre optic service.
The general feeling of those located close to the proposed tower site is “disappointing”; “that no real attempt to source another site” has been made, it “will not serve the needs of residents closest to the site, who do not want or need the service” and that they are “still unable to get the answers to our questions.”
McLeod also expressed doubts that the tower will satisfy the needs of the Gillies Lake residents. There were no coverage maps included in the Shared Tower info package and no clear indication where other towers in the communication network will be built to service the Dyers Bay Shoreline or Gillies Lake, stated McLeod.
There were also questions such as – If it could be a yes or no vote? And when would the consultation process be considered completed since residents have made many of the same comments for all three proposals?
Next Steps
Currently an Environmental Impact Study is ongoing which is another requirement for the site installation.
Shared Tower spokesperson Cheyenne Zierler indicated the next steps would be to respond to the questions asked and provide the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula (MNBP) with a report.
Once MNBP has received the report, it will be put to a vote as to whether council concurs, or does not concur, with the proposed tower. 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 the ISED. MNBP’s role is to concur, or not concur, with the proposal; ISED will make its own decision and could override MNBP’s recommendations.