Before Monday's Vote:
What Ormstown Residents Were Never Told About the Bell Tower

On July 6, Ormstown's municipal council is expected to vote on whether to issue concurrence for Project E3640 — Bell Mobilité's proposed 36-metre telecommunications tower on municipally owned park and green space. If council votes yes, the decision will be based on a public consultation process that left residents without answers to some of the most basic questions they asked.

The Ormstown Observer attended the June 10 information session, submitted formal written questions to Bell's agent Robert Minotti, and received written responses in return. What follows is not speculation. Every gap documented in this article is drawn directly from that written record — a record Bell itself declared closed on June 26, two weeks before its own stated deadline, after receiving our follow-up questions.

What This Project Is

Bell Mobilité proposes to build a 36-metre (approximately 118-foot) monopole telecommunications tower on a municipally owned wooded parcel designated as park and green space (Zone P-15) under Ormstown's zoning bylaw. The site is near the intersection of Isabelle and Linda Streets, adjacent to Route 138.

The lease has not yet been signed. The municipality has not yet issued concurrence. Monday's council meeting is the moment where both happen — or don't.

The process used to get here is called CPC-2-0-03, a federal consultation framework administered by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED). Under this framework, Bell is required to consult the public, respond to "reasonable and relevant concerns," and obtain concurrence from the Municipality as Land-Use Authority. The Municipality is supposed to evaluate independently whether the consultation was adequate before it concurs.

1. Other Municipal Properties Were Considered

Bell's notification package — the document distributed to residents living near the proposed site — identified exactly one alternative location: the municipal water tower. Bell said it was structurally unsuitable. That was the full extent of what residents were told in writing about the search for a location.

At the June 10 public information session, when pressed, Bell's representative revealed something the package had not mentioned:

Three or four other municipal properties — land owned by the Municipality — had been considered and rejected, and this was not disclosed in the notification package.

In follow-up correspondence, the Observer asked whether any of those other municipal lots had a different zoning designation — perhaps one less sensitive than park and green space. Bell's written response did not answer the question. It redirected all zoning and planning matters to the Municipality.

2. The Engineering Report on the Water Tower: Present at the Meeting, Then Suddenly Proprietary

The water tower is the only alternative structure Bell identified in its public package as having been evaluated. The reason residents were given for rejecting it: structural limitations confirmed by an independent engineering firm.

At the June 10 session, a resident asked whether the engineering report could be obtained. Bell's representative said:

The Observer followed up in writing, asking Bell to clarify whether this report could be obtained as stated at the session. Bell's written response on June 26 stated:

Available at the session. Proprietary in writing. Those are not the same position. The contradiction was not explained in the consultation record.

This matters because the water tower is the only existing structure Bell has disclosed as having been evaluated. If that evaluation cannot be independently reviewed — even in summary form — residents have no way to assess whether the engineering conclusion was sound. Bell's explanation for why a new tower is necessary rests entirely on an undisclosed report.

3. The Flood Zone: "Validated by Inspectors and Maps" — But Which Maps?

A resident at the June 10 session raised concerns about the site's proximity to water and asked whether it was in a flood zone. Bell's representative replied:

No map was named. No inspector was identified. No study was cited.

After the session, the Observer consulted the Québec government's official flood zone portal operated by the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts and queried the proposed lot directly by cadastral number. The portal returned:

Bell's written response on June 26 clarified that a professional survey by a Québec Land Surveyor had established that the proposed compound location was outside mapped riparian and watercourse boundaries. That's a plausible explanation. But the survey was never made part of the public record, and the verbal assurance given to residents at the public meeting was unsourced.

4. Bell Shut Down the Process Two Weeks Early

Bell's own consultation package, and its written response of June 19, established July 10, 2026 as the deadline for reply comments within the 21-day reply period described in CPC-2-0-03.

The Observer submitted a follow-up letter on June 25 — expressly within that reply period — raising eight specific questions that Bell's initial response had not fully answered. The letter opened:

Bell responded on June 26 and, at the end of its letter, declared:

That declaration came fourteen days before the July 10 deadline Bell itself had established. It came one day after the Observer filed a submission Bell had invited by opening a reply period. Under CPC-2-0-03, the consultation is supposed to be considered concluded only after the reply period has passed without further comment — not while a submission is actively before the proponent.

Whether Bell had the procedural authority to close the record early in these circumstances is a question for ISED. What is not in dispute is that the process was declared over before the publicly stated deadline, following a submission Bell had invited.

5. The Municipality Helped Pick the Site. Now It's Deciding Whether the Process Was Fair.

Under CPC-2-0-03, the Municipality of Ormstown plays a specific evaluative role: as the Land-Use Authority, it is responsible for independently determining whether Bell's consultation process was satisfactorily completed before issuing concurrence.

Bell's own consultation materials stated that the Municipality "collaborated in the selection of the preferred site." Bell's written response of June 19 confirmed: "The Municipality of Ormstown participated in discussions regarding potential locations and collaborated in the selection of the preferred site."

The Observer raised this directly at the June 10 session:

Bell's representative acknowledged the observation and disagreed with the framing, arguing that Bell and the municipality share the same clients — Ormstown residents — and that collaboration served the community's interest.

That may be true. But the question of process is separate from the question of motive. The Municipality owned the proposed site, helped identify it, negotiated the proposed lease, and is now voting on whether the consultation was adequate. Those roles are not prohibited by the federal framework. They are, however, roles that require public explanation.

No such explanation has been provided in the public record.

What Happens at Monday's Council Meeting

Council is expected to vote on a resolution issuing concurrence with Project E3640. If the vote is yes, Bell can proceed toward finalizing the lease, completing its internal approvals, and ultimately constructing the tower.

Before voting, councillors have the opportunity to ask whether the consultation record before them is complete — including whether the June 25 Observer letter and Bell's June 26 response were considered in that record.

They also have the opportunity to ask the Director General to explain, on the record, how the Municipality's role as Land-Use Authority was exercised independently of its earlier collaborative role.

Residents who have questions can attend Monday's council meeting. Questions can be raised during the public question period.

What the Observer Has Done

The Observer attended the March 2 council meeting where the lease authorization was first discussed. We attended and recorded the June 10 information session. We submitted formal written questions to Bell and received written responses. We filed a follow-up letter within the reply period.

We have prepared a full-length investigative report — Project E3640: An Independent Review of the Consultation Process — which is being submitted simultaneously as a written public comment in the ISED consultation record. It documents the full chronology, all eight issues raised, Bell's written responses, and specific recommendations for Bell, the Municipality, and ISED.

The Observer accepts no advertising from the Municipality or from telecommunications companies. This investigation was funded entirely by the Observer's commitment to independent civic journalism.

What You Can Do