Changes proposed to Dunedin cell tower

Bell has revised the look, location and size of its proposed cell phone tower in response to community feedback, its representative told Clearview Council at a Public Meeting on Monday night.

Ferdinand Staab presented changes to the Bell Mobility telecommunications tower, which is intended to improve cell phone service for 275 residents in Dunedin and Websterville.

Bell is now proposing to reduce the height of the tower from 61 m to 30 m; move it 350 m closer to the coverage area and further away from potential aeronautical interference; and change the style of the tower from a lattice self-support role to a lattice tri-pole or monopole, or disguise it to look like a pine tree.

To compensate for any coverage issues a shorter tower would pose, Bell is proposing to add other communications equipment – such as a smaller tower – in the Dunedin or Websterville valleys in the future.

Addressing public concerns

In his presentation, Staab led the audience through the comments Bell received during its public consultation period in February and March, including the Public Meeting on March 17.

He said residents’ top concerns were: the visual impact of the tower, as well as its height and lights, in that order.

Other issues residents raised were: the type of the tower, property values, the Niagara Escarpment and the environment, coverage, health, aeronautical safety, tower sharing and Bell’s notification process.

Staab said that more than 70% of public comments concerned the tower’s visual effect. He acknowledged that the ground elevation at the tower’s proposed location on Ten Hill increases its visibility in the area.

Bell originally proposed the 61 m tower to meet the ideal coverage objective, which is prescribed by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC). A tower of this height would meet more than 95% of the 275 households identified in the CRTC’s coverage objective, Staab said.

Bell also proposed this height to make co-location with other communications carriers or government emergency services possible.

In their comments, many residents asked Bell to consider changing the style of the tower from “lattice self-support” to “mono-pine,” to make it less of an eyesore. A mono-pine tower – popular in Muskoka – is disguised as a pine tree.

Although Bell would not recommend the mono-pine tower because there are few trees in the immediate area for it to blend in with, Staab said Bell would consider this and other styles of tower if the Township supported it.

Staab said Bell would address concerns from the Niagara Escarpment Commission and residents about the tower’s potential impact on the local environment by reducing its height, and complying with all applicable regulations as well as local conservation authority conditions.

In the thirty-five per cent of comments that concerned lighting, Staab said about one-half of commenters wanted the tower to have lights for safety reasons, while the other half did not want to see lights at all.

Less than 10 per cent of the comments specifically mentioned aeronautical safety concerns, Staab said. However, he emphasized that all Bell Mobility structures comply with federal aviation regulations.

Last year, the tower’s potential effect on flight operations in the area was assessed by Transport Canada and NAV Canada. Both organizations had no objections to the tower or comments about safety lighting.

But to address citizens’ remarks, Staab said Bell could move the tower further away from a nearby airstrip and reduce its height.

While more than 20 per cent of commenters were concerned about the tower’s effect on property values, Staab said there is no evidence to suggest that telecommunications installations have any effect – positive or negative – on property values.

Some residents felt that Bell should have circulated their documents proposing the tower to people more than 500 m away from the tower location. Staab said that Bell followed Clearview’s policy for broadcasting endeavours, which significantly exceeds the Industry Canada default notification radius.

When it came to disputes about coverage, Staab said Bell was not able to verify the results of residents who conducted their own cell coverage tests in the area. He added that residents of Dunedin and Websterville had describing having inadequate coverage and expressed support for the project. He also said the tower is needed to fulfill the CRTC’s mandate to connect all Canadians on an equal, high-speed broadband basis – not simply to make a call.

Health concerns were unwarranted, Staab maintained. He said all Bell Mobility installations comply with Health Canada’s regulations, which limit electro-magnetic frequency emissions from towers to 5.83 W per metre2. He explained that the signal from 30 m away from the tower is more than 10,000 times lower than the standard; and would be more than 40,000,000 times lower by the time it reached a residence, which is less than a cordless phone, baby monitor or television signals, Bell reports.

Some residents asked to abolish the need for a new tower altogether. They proposed that Bell share a structure with an existing Rogers tower that is east of Creemore. However, Staab said that this would not meet Bell’s coverage requirements.

Although Bell has consulted with the municipality and its residents, as per the Township’s protocol, Michael Wynia, Director of Planning, Development and Information Services, reminded the attendees that the municipality is not the approval authority for this cell phone tower.

If the municipality chooses not to concur with Bell, then the matter will be in the hands of Industry Canada, which manages this country’s air waves.

Next, Township staff will prepare a report to present to Council at a future date.