Ce rapport est disponible en anglais seulement conformément aux exigences de la Politique sur les services en français de la Ville du Grand Sudbury.show/hide decisions
ResolutionTHAT the City of Greater Sudbury advise Industry Canada that they concur with the issuance of a licence for the development of a 76 metre high self support telecommunications tower at, PIN 73511-0002, Parcel 12267, Part Summer Resort Location 64 Plan M-137, Township of MacLennan, City of Greater Sudbury by Bell Mobility.
Applications for telecommunications facilities are under the jurisdiction of Industry Canada. Industry Canada requires that the proponent of a new telecommunication facility must consult with the municipality and indicate whether the municipality concurs with the application. It is noted that telecommunications facilities are not subject to municipal zoning regulations and municipal concurrence is not necessarily required in order for Industry Canada to issue a licence.
Bell Mobility is proposing the construction of a 76 m (250 ft.) high telecommunications self-support tower on lands located to the west side of West Bay Road in MacLennan Township. The closest dwellings to the tower are located approximately 180 m to the east at 1125, 1129 and 1139 West Bay Road. To the west is forested Crown land. The abutting property to the north is owned by the Crown and beyond it are private properties zoned “R1-1(12)”, Low Density Residential One (Special). Lands to the east and south are zoned similarly and are occupied with single detached dwellings.
Bell Mobility has advised that the tower is intended to provide wireless broadband services to Lake Wahnapitae and the community of Skead.
As required by Industry Canada and the City’s Telecommunications Policy, existing communication towers, water towers and other structures need to be considered by proponents prior to a new tower being installed. Bell Mobility has advised that there are no existing towers in the vicinity for co-location. Bell Mobility has indicated that the tower will accommodate additional carriers should another carrier express interest in locating on the tower.
Below is a summary of the details of the proposed tower.
Bell has also advised that the tower will comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 limits and that the antenna system will be constructed in compliance with the National Building Code. Prior to installation NAV Canada and Transport Canada must review and approve assessment applications for the tower.
Department and Agency Comments
Traffic and Transportation Section
The tower does not require a building permit, however any building greater than 108 sq. ft. will require a building permit and regardless of size will need to meet zoning setbacks.
In accordance with the Council adopted Telecommunication Facilities Policy, this tower is classified as "significant" as it is greater than 16.6 m in height and is located within 300 m (984 ft.) of a residential dwelling, residential zone or Living Area Designation in the Official Plan.
In accordance with the City’s policy, for "significant" structures the proponent was required to hold a neighbourhood meeting and provide notice in the following manner:
Planning Services provided Bell Mobility with the addresses for the properties located within 228 metres of the proposed tower. Bell has advised that in accordance with the City Telecommunications policy, on August 6, 2014 they mailed a notice to the 10 property owners within three times the tower height, (228m), as well as Industry Canada, Planning Services and the Ward 9 Councillor, which included a survey sketch depicting the tower location, tower height and requesting comments by September 5, 2014. In addition, Rogers placed a notice in the Sudbury Star on August 8, 2014 providing the public the opportunity to make written submissions via mail or email and the timing and location of the public information session which was held on August 19 at 7 PM at the Skead Community Centre, 3971 Skead Road. Bell has advised that one member of the public from MacLennan Drive attended the information session, who had no objection to the tower or its location. One email was provided to Bell from a resident advising that they were in agreement with the tower.
In conclusion, Bell Mobility has completed the consultation requirements under the City’s Telecommunications Facility Policy and has considered opportunities for co-location. One member of the public attended the public information meeting and one written comment from a resident expressing that they were in agreement with the tower was received. It is recommended that Industry Canada be advised of the City’s concurrence with the licence application.