Department of
Community
& Development Services
Telephone (905) 468-3266
Facsimile (905) 468-0301
1593 Four Mile Creek Road
P.O. Box 100
Virgil, Ontario
L0S 1T0
Submitted on:
March 05, 2013
Report:
CDS-13-021
Report To:
Community & Development Advisory Committee
Subject:
Telecommunication Tower Application
1512 Concession 1 Road
1. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that:
1.1 Council does not support the proposed second tower at 1512 Concession 1 Road, since collocation is possible at the site.
1.2 Council direct staff to submit Town comments to Industry Canada including all agency/department and public comments/concerns with respect to the proposed location.
2. PURPOSE / PROPOSAL
In accordance with the Town Radio & Telecommunications Tower/Antennae Structures, Public Mobile Inc. has submitted a site plan application for the installation of a new telecommunication tower at 1512 Concession 1 Road as shown on the survey attached as Appendix A.
To achieve coverage to the more populated areas of the Town, the proponent, on behalf of Rogers, is proposing to install the new structure on the site, which is currently the location of an existing Bell Mobility tower. of an existing tower.
3. BACKGROUND
In January, 2003, the Town implemented a Radio & Telecommunications Tower/Antennae Structure policy outlining criteria established for installation of radio/telecommunication tower structures within the Town. The policy outlines the differences between Significant and Insignificant Structures and the requirements associated with each type of structure (Insignificant or Significant). The policy also discusses public notification requirements (newspaper notice and mailed notification within 120 m (400 ft) radius of tower location), submission requirements, structure appearance, location and tower removal. The structures must also meet Industry Canada requirements and standards.
It should be noted that in cases where the Town does not support the proposal, it cannot prevent a proponent from ultimately gaining permission from Industry Canada to install a telecommunication antenna structure even if it contravenes the Town's Radio & Telecommunication Tower Policy or Town By-laws. Also, the Town does not assess proposed telecommunication towers with respect to health and radio frequency exposure issues or any other non-placement or non-design related issues. These issues are regulated through Health Canada's Safety Code 6 guidelines.
Under the Town policy, all Significant Structures are subject to Site Plan Control and as such the application is reviewed with respect to driveway entrances and parking areas, zoning setbacks for tower and accessory structures, lighting and signage, landscaping and screening and site grading and drainage, if the proposal results in a change of grade.
Rogers Communications Inc. submitted site plan application for the installation of a new telecommunications tower on April 9, 2012. The proponent sent notification to all required property owners and hosted the required Public Information Meeting in the Council Chambers on December 19, 2012 for each of the two applications.
The application is discussed below, outlining site information, circulation comments and concerns raised during the Public Information Meeting.
1512 Concession 1 Road
The property is designated Agriculture in the Town Official Plan and is zoned Rural (A) in the Town Zoning By-law. The property is approximately 3.24 ha (8 acres) in size and currently there is a small farm operation and dwelling on the subject property.
The proposed tower is located at the rear of the property approximately 215 m from the front property line. The proposed tower is setback from the rear property boundary approximately 100 m from the rear property line. The closest residential dwelling is located approximately 185 m from the proposed tower. The proposed tower is a 75 m (246 ft) lattice tripole tower and related radio equipment cabinet.
The subject property currently sites a Bell Mobility tower as well, standing at 37 m in height. The applicant has indicated that if Rogers were to locate on the Bell site they would have to drastically reduce the proposed height (from 75 m to 37 m) and greatly reduce the amount of coverage offered from this location. Due to siting constraints in the area (i.e. the next closest sites are approximately 3 to 4 km away) a new tower is proposed. The applicant notes that collocation and rooftop deployment are the first locations considered in achieving coverage objectives, however these approaches are not feasible for the applicant in this case.
The applicant has contacted Bell to offer collocation on the proposed tower.
Circulation Comments
Building Services - Building permit is required for the tower
Fire Services - Could provision be made to permit Emergency Services to place 911 communication equipment on the tower in the future
Public Information Meeting and Written Comments
There were no comments received from the public
Staff commented that combined with the considerable height of the proposed tower, the fact that there is also another tower on site is an issue. Staff would prefer a shorter tower and only one tower on site.
Proponent Response to Comments
"The only existing site within the search parameters provided by Rogers is a Bell facility which Industry Canada records indicate tops out at 36m. This was further investigated by Summit’s site acquisition team. Unfortunately the Bell facility was not tall enough for Rogers to sufficiently reach their coverage objectives and is further very likely at structural capacity requiring significant upgrades to handle additional equipment not to mention it is at approximately half the height Rogers requires."
"As this existing site was unavailable a new site would be required. Often it is preferred by municipalities, where unavoidable towers are grouped together in an effort to minimize the frequency or distribution of new sites. In this instance the property in question was within Rogers search area and further offered a willing landlord, one of the integral pieces in siting a new facility."
"As there is an existing facility we do not feel that a new facility would be overly detrimental to the area. Further, if Bell were in agreement Rogers is open to accepting collocations on all its facilities. Rogers has followed up with Bell in this regard internally and we are awaiting details. Additionally, we have shopped the option out to a new wireless carrier Public Mobile who has shown interest in this facility. "
"We understand that new towers (especially multiple towers) are not the preferred option however constraints on siting options have left us with few choices. With Rogers new proposal however, we will be in a position to offer other carriers space on this structure to avoid future sites in the area."
4. DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS
The proponent has provided information describing network designs and explaining the amount of coverage required and the amount of capacity or data that can be accommodated at each site. The height of the tower determines the amount of coverage and location of the tower determines the amount of capacity.
The proponent has explained that capacity requirements have increased significantly as a result of new technologies such as improvements to wireless technology and consequently increased use of smart phone and tablets. For example, the capacity of 1 smartphone (ie iPhone, Android) is equal to as many as 24 regular mobile phones while the capacity of 1 tablet (ie. iPad, Playbook) is equal to as many as 122 regular mobile phones. It has also been noted that as capacity continues to increase with changing technology, additional locations may be required to achieve maximum efficiency of the network. It is also common to minimize the number of new tower installations by utilizing existing structures and/or towers to achieve network coverage objectives.
Location
The proposed tower is located on private property within the rural area of the Town. The tower is located to the rear yard of the property in an area not currently cultivated. The proposal will not require additional entranceways/accesses or infrastructure to accommodate the proposed towers. The proposed tower location does meet the zoning standards with respect to setbacks and lot coverage requirements.
The Town's policy states that collocation of new antennas on existing structures is preferred. In the past, when collocation is not possible due to coverage needs, and when there is not an existing structure nearby to collocate on, the Town has considered other alternatives; mainly, the installation of new towers,
However, in this instance there is already a tower in the location that the carrier sees as being appropriate to meet their coverage needs. Therefore, collocation is possible on this site.
In this instance, there is an existing structure on the site and the applicant still proposes a new structure. It is understood that the applicant considers the existing structure to be inadequate for its coverage needs, however Town policy prefers collation where it is possible. Additionally, two towers this close to one another is not appropriate.
In instances where there is an existing tower in a location that is also appropriate for other carriers, collocation should be achieved. That is, if more than one carrier finds a certain location to be appropriate for their needs, collocation options must be pursued. This eliminates the clustering of more than one tower in the same location, limiting the negative visual impacts on the landscape.
Aesthetics/Appearance
The proposed tower for Concession 1 Road location is a lattice tri-pole structure as shown below in Figure 2. These towers are generally stainless steel in construction and are more rural in nature than solid structures as they provide visibility through the structure. The rather large tower of 75 m can be considered a very significant structure. However, since there is already a structure on the site, the visual impact on the landscape is more severe. Removal of the first structure must be required prior to the support of a second can be recommended.
The proposed tower is permitted to use signs or advertising other than safety, warning or equipment information specific to the tower itself.
Fencing/Landscaping/Screening
The proposed lattice tri-pole structure will be fenced with a chain link fence with barbed wire along the top to prevent the general public from gaining access. The proponent is willing to provide landscaping around the perimeter of the compound area to visually screen the equipment cabinet and the base of the tower.
Emergency Services
The Town could potentially benefit as there is potential to accommodate for emergency services on the tower. Fire Services is working towards a back up for emergency communication as there isn't any currently available in the Niagara Region. Should the Virgil water tower site go down, there is no 911 communication available for the Fire Department. The accommodation for emergency services on the proposed tower would provide the Town with an available solution to this issue. However, there is already a tower on this site and therefore this potential for the location of emergency services already exists here.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications to the Town with respect to these applications.
6. COMMUNICATIONS
Upon Council's decision with respect to the proposal, written comments will be provided to Industry Canada. The proponent will then move forward with the application to obtain approval from Industry Canada.
7. CONCLUSION
The proposed telecommunication tower location meets the Town's site plan requirements with respect to zoning standards with respect to setback requirements and lot coverage as well as driveway and entrance requirements and on-site grading. However, the Town's Radio & Telecommunications Tower Policy is not met by this proposal.
The Town's policy states that collocation of new antennas on existing structures is preferred. In the past, when collocation is not possible due to coverage needs, and when there is not an existing structure nearby to collocate on, the Town has considered other alternatives; mainly, the installation of new towers. However, in this case there is already a tower in the location that the carrier sees as being appropriate to meet their coverage needs. Therefore, collocation is possible on this site.
In this instance, there is an existing structure on the site and the applicant still proposes a new structure. It is understood that the applicant considers the existing structure to be inadequate for its coverage needs, however Town policy directs that collation be achieved where it is possible. It is not appropriate for two towers to be located in this close of proximity to one another. If more than one carrier finds a certain location to be appropriate for their needs, collocation should be achieved. This eliminates the clustering of more than one tower in the same location, minimizing the negative visual impacts on the landscape. In this circumstance, the applicant should be encouraged to contact Bell Mobility to explore the possibility of erecting one new structure on site suitable for both carriers.
Since collocation is possible in this location, the proposed telecommunication tower does not meet the Town Radio & Telecommunication Policy, and it is therefore recommended that Council not support the proposed tower.
Further, that Council direct staff to submit Town comments to Industry Canada including all agency/department and public comments/concerns with respect to the proposed locations.
Written by, Respectfully submitted,
Aaron Butler, BES John Henricks, MCIP, RPP
Planner II Manager of Planning Services
Milena Avramovic Mike Galloway
Director of Community Chief Administrative Officer
& Development Services
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A - Survey.pdf
Appendix B - Coverage Map Concession 1.pdf
First Capital of Upper Canada - 1792