By Thomas Smith

On July 31, Minden Hills Council were set to vote on concurrence for proposed cell phone tower C8590, located along Bobcaygeon Road.

Mayor Bob Carter opened the council meeting by discussing the technical aspects of the tower, explaining that the network of towers is similar to our system of roads.

“I have built out these networks in two different countries,” said Carter. “Each of these cell towers acts like a chain and if you take a link out of the chain, you no longer have a long chain, you have a disjointed system.”

Carter reminded council that cell towers are regulated by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) and that the Cell Gap Project is implemented by the Eastern Ontario Regional Network (EORN).

The 70 metre communications tower is proposed to be located on private property near a quarry.

“The scope of local councils are limited,” said Carter. “We are involved with making sure that there is compliance with the prescribed consultation process and compliance with the township’s land use documents. Delegations on this may comment on the areas that fall within the purview of council.”

The first speaker, Sandi Prentice, local resident, recommended Carter not sign the Statement of Concurrence.

“I am here to express serious concerns not about the tower itself but about the public consultation that brought us to this point,” said Prentice. “The process was supposed to inform and involve the community. Instead it has been riddled with contradictions, misleading statements and in some cases, outright falsehoods.”

Prentice’s points included

• Misleading location reference and deficiencies explaining the area of coverage in the gen.Prentice says that after Spectra Point was asked questions, they changed the reference point
• Flawed photo simulations with concerns over legitimacy of the location used
• Confusing statements from Spectra Point about whether the tower needed lights

“My house is the same height as the top of the proposed tower. That tower will be eye-level to my bedroom window with a blinking red light in my face every night,” said Prentice.

• Lack of alternative sites being considered
• FInal line of letter to council says it was a pleasure of working with Dysart et al
• Health issues caused by the tower

“Health issues are not within the purview of this council,” said Carter. “We do not have the authority or the expertise to be able to rule on health issues.”

Prentice finished her points by saying “You don’t work for rogers, you don’t work for EORN, you work for the people who live here.”

“Your voice matters here and your vote of nonconcurrence sends the message that Minden Hills will not be bullied,” said Prentice. “Our community matters and that truth process in place still counts for something.”

After Prentice, David and Priscilla Hessels spoke to the council, reiterating several topics that Prentice had already made.

“If you provide concurrence, you are saying that all reasonable and relevant concerns have been addressed,” said Hessels.

After both delegations had spoken, Deputy Mayor Lisa Schell asked if either parties including William Elder from Spectra Point or Lisa Severson, communications director for EORN would like to comment.

Elder addressed the concerns on behalf of Spectra Point, but says that he was not involved with the real estate or public consultation. The person responsible for Spectra Point had “moved on from the company.”

“I’m running more on notes,” said Elder.

Elder said that four simulations were produced, with one being used in their public consultation.

“I believe it would have been met. I have read through the number of notes, the time allotment that is required for it, we had preconsultation with your planning department and so forth,” said Elder. “I believed everything that was asked was answered to the best of her ability at the time.”

“There never is [a] happy answer for anybody,” said Elder.

Elder went on to say that an alternative site for the tower would be quite close to the area, around a two kilometre radius to work within the greater tower system.

“I have some concerns that because a landowner agreed to take it, that you didn’t look at alternate locations at all,” said Councillor Ivan Ingram. “Now we are sitting here with all these concerns and you don’t have an alternative because you figured you’re gonna get through and that to me is not the way to do things.”

Councillor Tammy McKelvey went on to say that cell towers have been the most controversial things she has dealt with as a politician. She noted that the cell towers are important for cell coverage in the area. While they met the necessary land-use policies, she said she was struggling to decide if the public consultation was adequate.

“I’m willing to take the hit to approve the tower,” said McKelvey.

Lisa Severson, communications director for EORN, said that public meetings were not required, but they did offer a meeting on short notice, as they were available in the area. Only one resident attended.

“Yes, it was short notice. It wasn’t something done intentionally, it was something we tried to facilitate when we were here,” explained Severson.

“I’m pretty certain Roger’s isn’t putting up a tower that wouldn’t be used,” said Carter.

Carter then went on to say that he has heard many tradespeople speak about the lack of cell coverage in that area of Mountain Lake and that people driving along the road near there would receive better coverage.

Elder also pointed out the safety aspect like hunters using cell phone service to see where they are.

Carter told council that if they voted nonconcurrence, Rogers would likely say they have enough work to do already, not proceed with trying to build the tower, and extend the time to improve Minden Hills’ coverage for many years.

“I can tell you that when we went through our state of emergency, the emergency services were very much relying on cell phones because their radio networks were down,” said Carter.

Pam Sayne spoke of her experience working in environmentalism and research, saying she could not vote for the tower.

“I have heard people say this is Not In My Backyard Syndrome. Far from it. We have a community here that is trying to get at the facts and try and protect our community,” said Sayne. “If I’m sitting here on the front lines with my community, the people I live with and I can’t speak for them, yet I have worked at the international and national level around environmental issues and I cannot even speak to them here, because they reply to health, that is a reductionist method that we cannot work within as our community.”

Carter reminded the council that they cannot comment on health.

Councillor Shirley Johannessen voiced her concerns saying that the majority of residents in her constituency do not want the tower and she must voice their concerns.

Prior to voting, Severson said EORN respects the council’s decision and that the vote would determine their next steps. However, with the project intended to be completed by July 2026 and it taking around 12-36 months to find another site, review the site, etc, EORN cannot guarantee an alternate site.

Mayor Bob Carter and Councillor McKelvey were the only ones to vote in favour. The request for concurrence was defeated.

The following tower, C3950, located on Sedgwick road was carried by council without any comments or concerns.