Essex Council provides non-concurrence for proposed Harrow telecommunications tower

by Sylene Argent, Local Journalism Initiative

Council for the Town of Essex voted to provide a letter of Non-Concurrence to the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) for a proposed 60M telecommunication facility at 2060 Ferriss Road in Harrow.

  The decision was made at the June 1 meeting, after hearing concerns, primarily that the proposed tower did not meet setback requirements set out in the Town’s policy.

  The alternative was to provide Municipal Concurrence to the ISED for the proposed telecommunication, with a list of conditions.

  The proposed telecommunications facility would be 60-meters high, with an additional 4.5M lightning rod. There would also be an accompanying equipment shelter. The proponent agreed to maintain the existing row of trees.

  The purpose is to improve Telus coverage capabilities in East Harrow. The applicant concluded the proposed tower would improve Telus coverage capability in east Harrow to 75% of the affected population.

  The Town retained NPG Planning Solution Inc. to review the application for the telecommunications facility.

  Jeremy Tran, Manager of Urban Design and Development Planning for NPG Planning Solutions Inc., went through the site contract, application timeline, and public feedback that has been received on the file to date, and reviewed how the proposal complies with the Town’s telecommunication facility policy.

  The subject lands are 0.86 hectares in size, currently zoned Manufacturing 1.1 and designated industrial.

Tran noted the applicant has met with the Town for pre-consultation meetings in May and September of 2025. Then, a public consultation for the proposal took place between October and November 28 of 2025. In January, they submitted the application to the Town, where it went under three rounds of revisions.

  Concerns raised by the public included health, safety, and aesthetics. There were also concerns in relation to the location of the tower and residential properties. There were also questions related to future collocation capability of the proposed facility, how it could impact property values, and whether or not public lands were considered.

  “In general, the proposal is expected to improve the coverage in Harrow and has future collocation capability,” Tran said. “The applicant confirmed that collocation is not visible, but detailed documentary evidence of that is not available to share due to confidentiality.”

He added that the selected site is discouraged by the Town’s policy and does not meet the minimum setback requirement for residentially zoned properties. In addition, the proposed facility is not a monopole as preferred by policy and does not implement any scaling techniques due to the proposed height.

  The proposal does, however, comply with the Town’s policy in terms of finishes, lighting, and display signage, and the proponent has agreed to maintain existing trees.

  However, the requests for additional tree planting to screen the proposed tower from the street and other residential properties were declined by the applicant.

  Tran presented two options for Council to consider: If it were to support the proposal, to provide municipal concurrence, subject to the conditions outlined in the report, or to have Town staff prepare a letter of non-concurrence to the ISED.

  His report adds that Council’s decision will be forwarded to the ISED, which would then render a final decision on the application.

  Councillor Kim Verbeek asked Tran for more information she had heard regarding a property owner offering land for the facility as an alternative. Tran said the proponent did not look into it as it was perusing the subject lands.

  Dave Zacher, Director of Telecommunications and Network Development for LandSolutions Inc. on behalf of Terrion, added that the alternative site was offered if the original did not work out. It was outside the objective search area for the facility to provide the necessary coverage to the west for Harrow.

  Councillor Rodney Hammond voiced concerns that the proposed cell tower is too close to homes due to federal stipulations. He believed there was a lack of open consultation, and he also questioned if the project was being subjected to and obligated to allow for collocation if it were approved.

  Tran responded that if Council recommend municipal concurrence to this application, that municipal concurrence would be subject to a series of conditions outlined in the report, including the applicants needing to confirm they will entertain collocation in the future, meaning any future carrier who wants to collocate, they would have to entertain options and they could only refuse if it's not technically feasible.

  Harrow resident Zach Klein told Council members he lives 37-meters from the proposed 65-meter telecommunications tower.

  “Tonight, I'm not here to argue against wireless service. I'm here because I do not believe this process has shown that this specific location – right beside an occupied residence – is the only reasonable or least impactful option available. And that matters,” Klein said.

  He pointed out that Essex’s own policy on telecommunication towers “specifically mentions that new towers should not be located near [an] existing residential development.”

  He added that it placed a minimum of three times the height of the tower from a property containing a dwelling that's 193.5-meters. Klein said there are three residences inside that setback zone.

  Klein does not believe the location is appropriate. He also questioned why the alternative property presented by a local farmer was not being investigated as an option.

  “Essex is my home. Please ensure that the people who live here continue to feel heard, valued, and that they belong,” Klein said.

  While the Town's siting guideline notes that placing a telecommunication facility near an existing residential development is discouraged, the policy is not an absolute prohibition, Zacher added. It is an evaluative guideline intended to encourage avoidance where reasonable alternatives exist.

  “While proximity to residential does exist, the selected location represents a practical industrial parcel solution within the defined search area and achieves an appropriate balance between service delivery and compatibility considered under the protocol,” he added.

  Zacher also said Telus is working in partnership with Terrion, a company he said specializes in high-performance wireless towers.

  He added that at present, there are no other telecommunication facilities or towers in this specific area that are available or suitable for collocation.

  “Given the absence of viable collocation opportunities, the development of a new telecommunication tower is required to meet Telus's…coverage objectives, and to address service deficiencies in and around Harrow, while remaining consistent with applicable municipal and federal policy requirements,” Zacher said.

  However, as part of the review, collocation at a facility that is located 1.7km to the west was reviewed and determined to be infeasible for multiple reasons.

  Councillor Kim Verbeek made the motion to provide Municipal Non-Concurrence.

  In answering Councillor Katie McGuire-Blais as to why Zacher commented that Town staff did not raise the setback issue, Manager of Planning Services, Rita Jabbour, said staff did raise the issue with the setback during the consultation process. Pre-consultation, she added, Terrion advised of the proposed location, and the Town advised them of its policy, and that industrial is preferred over agricultural. She said staff did not get a full submission at that time.

  Mayor Sherry Bondy wanted to get the Town’s message across to the federal level, including the Essex MP, over and above just providing the non-concurrence.   

  She was told the non-concurrence would be sent to the ISED, with the staff report and attachments outlining concerns.