Tower would be a blemish

 In Letters, Opinion


Thank you for publishing the Sept. 1 article Communications hearing towers over official plan presentation. The following is a short summary of concerns that I wish to share with The Creemore Echo readership regarding the proposed 200 foot Rogers tower on the top of Ten Hill:

1. Rogers’ application is incomplete – there are blanks and unanswered questions in application form, missing signatures, missing studies. It should not have gone to Council or for public comment.

2. There are no justification reports provided as to the need for a seventh tower in the target area, only a bald conclusion. Rogers did not answer our question at the public meeting – What do you intend to use the tower for?

3. Bell and Telus deliver full 5G with existing infrastructure. Rogers should be required to explore all existing infrastructure and fully and convincingly demonstrate why a new tower is necessary to deliver what Bell and Telus are already delivering with existing towers.

4. There is no evidence Rogers has even asked to use Bell’s towers – the equipment Bell and Telus currently use to deliver full 5G coverage to the target area.

5. Rogers’ proposed seventh tower would be a blemish on the Heritage Viewscape of Clearview – contrary to existing “Clearview” policies to protect our viewscapes. The proposed tower would been seen

for miles and miles. Anyone driving up and down the beautiful road would have a tower looking over them. 6. The proposed tower site is ‘adjacent’ to Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) lands being on the edge of the riverbank/creekbank and no environment studies have been provided (erosion studies, storm water management study, geotechnical study, hydro geology study) – Clearview’s forward looking draft official plan requires a raft of additional studies be completed before staff and council would consider this application on agricultural and greenland – natural hazard lands. Rogers should not be permitted to skirt these criteria.

7. The proposed tower would pose an obstruction on the principal local flight paths to the four airports/ aerodromes (Edenvale, Collingwood, Stayner and Creemore), including the emergency medivac flights.

8. Hazardous waste / fuel storage remained unaddressed – contrary to staff’s circular conclusion, just because the site was never permitted for hazardous waste disposal or fuel storage does not mean it never happened. These questions are asked on Clearview’s application form. They should be answered. Not ignored.

9. Rogers’ presentation at the public meeting was sneaky and misleading.

10. Clearview’s Antenna Policy specifically states Council can make one of four determinations:

a. Granted (concurrence)

b. Granted with conditions (partial concurrence)

c. Denied (non-concurrence)

d. Should go back for further analysis or discussion as a result of an issue arising from Council’s consideration.

Many of these and other relevant and valid concerns were raised in a slide deck submitted to Council for the town meeting. We have listed 20 action items in our slide deck that we request Clearview and Rogers address. We are asking council to use their right and obligation to tell Rogers to finish its homework before Council considers Rogers’ request. Email questions, comments and requests for a copy of the slide deck to keepclearview@

Please write to the decision makers before the Sept. 10 deadline for public comment. We do have a voice! We have influence! Let’s use it!

Please write to planner Nick Ainley at, and council members at council@clearview. ca. Tell them what you think about another tower on Ten Hill (only 1,500 meters from the existing Bell Tower). Tell Rogers directly or through theirconsultant, Sarah Duncan, sduncan@ Tell federal MP Terry Dowdall at

Don’t give up – speak up!

Tom Arndt,


Recent Posts

Leave a Comment