Headline News
Case for proposed Rogers tower presented to Mono council
November 12, 2026 · 0 Comments
By JAMES MATTHEWS
Rogers has asked Mono council for permission to erect a telecommunications tower that will reach about 100 metres into the sky.
Jiayi Wang of Scott Telecom spoke to council when it met Nov. 10 about a proposed guyed telecommunications tower about 92 metres high. It’s hoped the tower will be located on 20th Sideroad in Mono.
Wang appeared as part of a community consultation obligation that’s part of Mono’s antenna tower siting protocol.
Wang said the purpose of the protocol process is to ensure that local land use considerations, community feedback, and potential impacts are reviewed before the project proceeds.
Wang said one of the proposed tower’s purposes is to improve wireless communications coverage.
According to information in Wang’s presentation to council, Canada has one of the most rigorous safety codes in the world for devices that emit radio frequency (RF) energy.
Specifically, wireless carriers in Canada must comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. That is based on peer-reviewed scientific research consistent with international safety standards in Europe, the United States, Japan, and Australia.
Health Canada is responsible for protecting Canadians’ health and safety by setting limits for safe human exposure to electromagnetic energy from RF devices, including cell phones and radio base stations.
RF energy levels from base stations, including cellphone towers, are below Health Canada’s established limits for public exposure, ensuring safety for both humans and wildlife, according to Wang’s presentation.
“Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) has made compliance with Safety Code 6 a condition of license for all Canadian wireless carriers,” she said. “Rogers attests that its installation will comply with Safety Code 6.”
Previous towers were in the height range of about 40 metres. To go to 92 metres is a significant change, said Kevin Long, the project’s manager. And that’s necessary because of the trees and hilly terrain in the area proposed for the tower.
“It provides greater coverage, more consistent coverage because it is not impacted by ground-level objects,” he said. “That is the key reason. That 50 metres of difference … makes a significant difference in consistency of coverage.”
A Mono resident asked about property values being impacted by the location and co-location of towers. Further, she said health concerns that arise with the tower’s proximity to people that have been expressed by her have been “pretty much dismissed” by Rogers.
She asked how adjacent homeowners are to be compensated for effects on property values.
Wang said property values are influenced by many factors including market conditions and location.
Another resident named Sharon is a cellphone user in Mono who has experienced service issues due to coverage. She said Long has claimed the proposed tower is to improve service along highways 9, 10, 89, and Airport Road.
Based on her experience, Sharon said coverage issues occur in the “shadow of the escarpment” and in valleys more than along highways.
Long said land topography plays a major role in the transmission and reception of cellphone signals that travel in straight lines.
“It doesn’t bend around trees, unfortunately,” he said of a signal.
Service will be improved around the base of the tower, he said. And the proposed tower will relieve some of the signal load that surrounding towers have.
“While I can’t say whether or not the valleys you drive down into are going to experience full coverage, I know that this tower with the height is going to be able to provide much more ground coverage because it’s going to have a better angle at the ground,” Long said.
Councillor Elaine Capes asked Wang how many residents’ responses were received regarding the project as part of public consultations.
Wang said there was one response with comments received about the project.
“One response,” Capes said. “(Do) you consider that public consultation?”
“I’m sorry, what’s the questions?” Wang said.
“I’m afraid I don’t consider that public consultation when you get one response,” Capes said. “Perhaps you need to go back and circulate further.”
Capes said there are many stretches of Hockley Road and Airport Road on which a cellphone signal can’t be received.
“I know it’s an up and down (thoroughfare) and it’s got trees, but that’s just an excuse,” Capes said, and then asked if those areas will be addressed.
“We can’t speak to that, unfortunately, as agents for Rogers,” Long said.
If there’s a significant drop in service in those areas, Long said it would be prudent to advise Rogers of that and how residents feel about that.
“Hopefully their radio frequency engineers will understand that is an area that needs to be considered for future coverage,” he said. “But, quite frankly, it’s out of our scope of work with this tower and we can’t speak to it.”
Long said the proposed tower will indeed improve coverage within its direct area.
The closest home to the tower’s base is about 100 metres away, Long said. Other properties are estimated to be about 250 metres away.
Safety Code 6 was cited as a mitigating factor in health concerns from human exposure to radio frequency fields.
Coun. Ralph Manktelow, a retired physician, said it’s widely accepted that Safety Code 6 is not enough to address health concerns.
“There’s a substantial body of scientific research that EMF (electromagnetic fields), exposure to them, causes a variety of things, particularly cancer in children and miscarriages and dementia,” Manktelow said.
People living in the area of 500 metres of a tower should be made aware of those possibilities, he said. People near the tower should also be made aware of the test readings within the 500 metre range of the proposed tower.
Manktelow said the proposed tower will have as many as nine guy-wires that will pose risks to migratory birds.
Long said the proposed tower’s impact on migratory birds has been considered.
“I can’t recall what it is off the top of my head,” Long said. “So that’s another one (question) I’d like to take away and get back to you on.”
Readers Comments (0)
