By John Francis, Bruce Peninsula Press
The Agenda for Northern Bruce Peninsula’s May 13 Council Meeting runs to 1,090 pages. It includes a 456-page Report from the Chief Building Official concerning the proposed cell tower on Lindsay Road 40 as well as 47 pages of new correspondence on the issue.
The 456-page report includes all the letters of support and opposition received by the tower’s proponent, Shared Tower Inc.
The letters of support are numerous and mostly short, written by local residents and cottagers, as well as by paramedics, contractors and delivery drivers. Two samples: “Signals [are] always bad in our area of Dyers Bay. Last summer we a had a fall at our cottage and had to drive almost to Hwy 6 to call an ambulance. I am in favour of a new tower.” And “Please build and activate a cell tower in Lindsay Township”.
Letters of opposition are fewer but much longer. Opponents of the tower complain about the planning and consultation processes as well as potential economic, health and aesthetic impacts.
Shared Tower Inc responded to all of them; those responses are also included in the report.
The process of improving cell phone coverage in Canada is overseen by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), who have a formal protocol in place for creating new cell phone towers. This process specifies that a public consultation process must take place; it also specifies which concerns must be addressed and which are considered not relevant:
“Examples of concerns that proponents are to address may include:
• Why is the use of an existing antenna system or structure not possible?
• Why is an alternate site not possible?
• What is the proponent doing to ensure that the antenna system is not accessible to the general public?
• How is the proponent trying to integrate the antenna into the local surroundings?
• What options are available to satisfy aeronautical obstruction marking requirements at this site?
• What are the steps the proponent took to ensure compliance with the general requirements of this document, including the Impact Assessment Act, Safety Code 6, etc.?”
“Concerns that are not relevant include:
• disputes with members of the public relating to the proponent’s service, but unrelated to antenna installations
• potential effects that a proposed antenna system will have on property values or municipal taxes
• questions whether the Radiocommunication Act, this document, Safety Code 6, locally established by-laws, other legislation, procedures or processes are valid or should be reformed in some manner”.
* * * * *
The ISED protocol was initiated last December and was extended somewhat to make up for the communications slowdown that happens over the holidays. The process became more complicated when the arms-length federal agency Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Service (CRINS) that had been handling the process on behalf of many municipalities became “unresponsive”. MNBP suddenly discovered it was handling the process itself, but the public consultation continued.
At the end of this, Shared Tower points out that it has fulfilled all the public consultation requirements and would like to get on with building the tower.
MNBP is responsible to either concur or not concur with the proposed tower. The decision to licence (or not licence) the tower is ISED’s alone.
At the May 13 Meeting, MNBP Council can concur, not concur, or, perhaps, elect to start the public consultation process over again. An opinion from MNBP’s lawyer will probably affect this decision.
The application was brought forward at the April 22 Meeting but with two council members absent, it was decided to defer to the next meeting so all five Councillors could vote on it.
Arena Facility Assessment
The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula was close to finalizing a major expansion of the arena/community centre in Lion’s Head when it discovered that there were serious drainage issues at the site.
Mitigating the drainage problems would have introduced heavy cost overruns and Council decided against proceeding. They instructed municipal staff to conduct a detailed assessment of the existing facility and report back. That process is ongoing, with a report in the Agenda for the May 13 Council Meeting detailing a Request for Proposals process and recommending that MNBP hire Facility Risk Solutions to determine “the current condition of the facility” and “to identify a potential renewal strategy to have the site remain safe and operational for up to 20 years”. The cost of the study would be $9,850 and an assessment report would be expected by September 9, 2024.
Save Georgian Bay Opposes Pumped Energy Storage
The May 13 Meeting will host a delegation from Save Georgian Bay, opposing the proposed pumped storage electricity facility near Meaford.
The project, proposed by TC Energy, would use excess electricity to pump water uphill to a holding pond on top of the escarpment. During times of greater electricity need (and higher prices), it would run that water downhill through a turbine back into Georgian Bay.
Save Georgian Bay’s PowerPoint and a 30-page report are included in the May 13 Meeting Agenda. They make interesting reading. They claim, for example, that battery storage facilities could be online sooner and would be more efficient. TC Energy’s response to these claims is not included.
