The intent is to make it clear to any proponent that other technology must be explored before a monopole is approved. I would argue that presently the Zoning Bylaw already demands such, however it is not very clear that such is required. It therefore may be argued “that no such requirement exists” which would then require the courts to decide thus costing everyone time and money. To eliminate any arguments and directly address a proponent’s argument the new wording will be added. The added language is not intended to expand or prohibit a communication facility but to clearly inform proponents of what can be done.
The Town’s desire to lessen the visual disruption of a monopole was addressed from day one, 1998, in the bylaw. Knowing that a town could not prohibit communication facilities a bylaw was formulated which would allow facilities on existing structures without making a proponent jump through hoops.
It was known that a monopole may be necessary to meet federal requirements, that was why the Wireless Communications District Bylaw required any monopole to be constructed on Town owned land in a residential area. It was felt that if such a visual disruption of the Town’s skyline was necessary than the rental fees should be enjoyed by the entire Town as a new revenue source in the budget thus helping our property taxes.
Unfortunately the restriction of allowing a monopole on just Town Property in a residential area was removed by the Attorney General Office as treating other land owners unequally thus creating the uncertainty in the present bylaw.