No one in the room argued against better cell service.
But as plans for three new towers along the Niagara River Parkway were laid out, residents repeatedly returned to one question: why are they proposed on parkland?
On Wednesday, staff with the Niagara Parks Commission and Shared Tower Inc. presented ideas for three new telecommunications towers in Niagara-on-the-Lake to a crowd of about two dozen people at a public open house at Queenston Chapel.
The plan includes 35-metre monopoles at the McFarland North parking lot near the Niagara River Parkway and East-West Line intersection and at Brown’s Point.
There’s also plans for a 30-metre tower at Queenston Heights Park — as part of a broader effort to fix coverage gaps along a 56-kilometre stretch of Niagara Parks land.
Shared Tower Inc. would install and own the infrastructure and Niagara Parks would develop, manage and maintain policies around design and standards, aiming to make it less intrusive.
Cell towers carry wireless signals that let phones, emergency services and other systems communicate.
The new ones are meant to fill known dead zones along the Niagara River Parkway where cellular service is unreliable or drops altogether, particularly between existing towers that are several kilometres apart.
The deadline for public feedback is April 6 and if approved, the towers could be in place by 2027.
Installation will ‘fundamentally change’ the area: NOTLer
Zierler says existing telecommunications infrastructure is not enough.
“Two towers are currently being overloaded,” she said.
The need for improved coverage was echoed by resident Mario D’Uva.
“Seven months of the year, we essentially don’t have a signal. Especially on busy weekends,” D’Uva said. “I did submit an email talking to that point.”
But while few questioned the need, many like Don Dinnin questioned where the towers are being placed — and whether alternatives were seriously considered.
“I’m sure farmers would love the income,” he said.
“I don’t really want to hear from Shared Tower — I would like to hear from the commission, as to how they came about deciding only to look at parkland.”
Project representatives said multiple locations were reviewed following a thorough engineering study of the entire 56-kilometre corridor and towers are going on “pre-disturbed land” to avoid disturbing natural areas.
They said that while they could consider adjustments to placement, options are limited by factors such as archeological requirements, pipeline easements and how signals travel between towers across the area.
Dinnin acknowledged that a few years invested is significant, but he said it’s minor compared to the decades the tower would stand and how it will “fundamentally change the nature” of the sites.
“People come here to get away from this,” said Dinnin.
Installation at Brown’s Point parking lot a concern
One of those potential changes has nearby resident Ryan Tregunno worried about how the towers could affect the heavily used Brown’s Point parking lot.
“As a neighbor across the road, I can expect that all those cars will be parked in the head of my driveway, because it happens now — and you have parking,” he said.
“Now, you’re taking a quarter of the parking.”
Commission chief operating officer Marcelo Gruosso said staff reviewed alternative locations, including the maintenance yard, but it did not work due to connectivity requirements between infrastructure.
“I agree that this was the most challenging site,” said Gruosso of the Brown’s Point location.
He told Tregunno it was good he brought up something the commission had not heard before: a concern about the parking area.
“We weren’t as concerned about losing those spots, at that time, when we were looking at this.”
“But we’re willing to look at making a move that makes sense within the range that it will still work,” Gruosso said, reminding residents to submit their concerns.
“We’re just saying this was the site that would allow us to fix the problem,” he added.
Company consulting three major carriers, withholds names
Resident Joe Dias questioned whether the plan would hold up long-term.
“Are we going to be looking at another tower in two more years?” he asked.
Further towers are not expected, Gruosso said, since “these are the number of towers we ended up with that would correct all gaps from Fort Erie to Niagara-on-the-Lake.”
Dias also questioned how the project could evolve over time — if additional equipment is added to towers, would residents be consulted again?
Representatives said the consultation applies to the tower itself and that equipment added later does not go through public consultation and is instead regulated federally. So the current consultation process is the main opportunity for public input, unless the project must restart.
“The tower has to be built by the three-year anniversary,” said Zierler. “Can’t just start construction then, it has to be built.”
“If that lapses, then the public consultation would be restarted,” she said.
Questions during the meeting also focused on process, including whether the town had been involved.
Zierler said the municipality was given materials and invited to comment as part of the process, but emphasized that telecommunications towers are federally regulated and do not fall under municipal or provincial planning rules.
She said Shared Tower is working with “all three” major carriers, but said she could not share names of “due to confidentiality.”
The commission’s chief executive officer David Adames thanked residents for coming out and said while it’s encouraging there is agreement on the need to solve connectivity issues, concerns about aesthetics and location remain central.
“Please get those comments in,” he said. “You have our commitment that we’re going to go back and look at those studies.”
For the Queenston Heights and McFarland sites, comments can be submitted by email to the senior planning manager for Shared Tower, Cheyenne Zierler, at czierler@sharedtower.ca. Comments related to the Brown’s Point site can be sent to planning coordinator Audrey Burella at aburella@sharedtower.ca.
