A 25-page letter from Rogers Communications Inc. to the Town of Bracebridge says a decision to not allow them to move forward with a new telecommunications tower at 2819 Hwy. 118 E. is outside “the town’s jurisdictional authority and are constitutionally invalid.”
During the June 4 General Committee meeting, the motion to allow Rogers to move forward with the tower was voted down with committee citing concerns about it being too close to a snowmobile racetrack and to a handful of homes.
The letter, dated June 7, was written by Simpson-McKay Ltd. on behalf of Rogers. They explain in it that they’re an independent contractor for Rogers “for turn-key telecommunications facility site acquisition services.”
“Interprovincial telecommunications jurisdictional authority and legislation is complex and not widely understood,” it says in the letter. “As a result, it is not uncommon for facility applications to be pulled off stream into or otherwise attempt to incorporate provincial/local site plan controls which occasionally end up being deliberated by council as part of the proponent’s concurrence process. Such actions are ultra vires the town’s jurisdictional authority and are constitutionally invalid.”
The letter detailed what the duties of the proponent (Rogers) and the lower tier (Bracebridge) are, provided related case law, and outlined six other potential spots for the tower.
However, it went in-depth on how the other options aren’t viable. They noted “only seven private properties” near the tower will be affected and the chosen site would lead to the fewest number of trees being cut down.
“In the planning and development of our telecommunication tower project, a thorough analysis was imperative to determine the optimal location for this structure,” it says in the letter.
Cheryl Kelley, the town’s director of planning and development, shared how the town has dealt with five cell tower applications in as many years, four of which involved Rogers, and all were handled similarly. “There has been no change to how we have done business,” she said, adding there have been no complaints about the process until now.
Council, thanks to amendments from Coun. Andrew Struthers and Archie Buie, agreed to refer the defeated motion back to staff to review the new information, consult with Rogers, and get legal counsel before discussing the topic again.
“We’ve done it before, used similar resolutions before, and they were fine with Rogers then,” said Buie. “This one didn’t go the way they like so now they get upset by it.”
“It is our opinion that our professional role in this application is sterilized, should council seek to address a single resident concerns beyond “minimal” by insisting on a location shift,” the letter finishes.
Coun. Tatiana Sutherland urged council to commit to making the right decision. “We can be offended by the condescending language in a letter all we want but it doesn’t change the fact that I agree with Coun. Buie that we should have legal opinion,” she said.
