Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 17, 2019Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, June 17, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 Extension 2928 lroberts@pickering.ca Page 1.Disclosure of Interest 2.Delegations 2.1 Cameron Richardson, Senior Project Manager, Duffins-Carruthers, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Re: Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Status Update 3.Information Reports 3.1 Information Report No. 09-19 1 City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Ecosystem Compensation Proposed Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-003/P 3.2 Information Report No. 10-19 9 City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Drinking Water Source Protection – Conformity to the Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, and Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Plan and Toronto and Region Assessment Report Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-002/P 3.3 Information Report No. 11-19 30 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/18 Allan Kent Cameron Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407 (715 Liverpool Road) 3.4 Information Report No. 12-19 45 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/19 Joshani Homes Ltd. Part Lot 72, Plan 418; and now Part 2, 40R-30097 (southerly end of Dunn Crescent) Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, June 17, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 Extension 2928 lroberts@pickering.ca 4.Planning & Development Reports 4.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 16-19 57 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Shared Network Canada Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) Installation #66 Recommendation: That Shared Network Canada be advised that City Council objects to the proposal for a 46.0 metre high tri-pole lattice style telecommunications tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road, based on the design and location of the proposal. 4.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 17-19 150 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-004/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18 Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1, 40R-29457 (Southeast Corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue) Recommendation: 1.That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18 -004/P, submitted by Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation, to re- designate the lands located on the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” to allow a maximum site density of 161 units per net hectare in order to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of 264 stacked units, be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 37 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 17-19 be forwarded to Council for enactment; 2.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18, submitted by Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation, to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of 264 stacked Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, June 17, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 Extension 2928 lroberts@pickering.ca units on lands located on the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue, be endorsed subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 17-19, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment; 3.That Informational Revision 25 to the Pickering Official Plan Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Map 25 to delete the symbol for a “Proposed Separate Elementary School”, as set out in Appendix III, be approved; and, 4.That the changes to the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guideline Figure A – Tertiary Plan, as shown on Appendix IV to Report PLN 17-19, to delete the “Future Elementary School”, be approved. 4.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 18-19 181 Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Work Program Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the Work Program for Pickering’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review and authorize staff to proceed as outlined in Appendix I to Report PLN 18-19; and, 2.That Council authorize staff to prepare and release a Request for Proposal to retain external planning consultants to assist with the completion of Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review as outlined in Appendix II to Report PLN 18-19, and report back to Council on the hiring recommendation. 5.Other Business 6.Adjournment --C�of-­ p](KER]NG Information Report to Planning & Development Committee From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Report Number: 09-19 Date: June 17, 2019 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Ecosystem Compensation Proposed Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-003/P 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide information on a City initiated official plan amendment application. This report contains background information on the current Official Plan and the purpose of the proposed amendment. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning matters. This report is to be received, and no decision is to be made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a review of the comments received and revisions to the amendment where appropriate. 2.Background There is a strong policy framework in Ontario to protect and expand the natural heritage system. The Planning Act identifies the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions as a matter of Provincial interest. Similarly, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the long term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or enhanced where possible. Municipalities and other agencies protect these systems through various processes. Regional and local official plans designate lands as natural heritage systems where development is generally not permissible. Municipalities may also pass Tree Protection By-laws to further regulate natural heritage system lands and/or the destruction of individual trees, and to establish penalties for unlawful removal of trees in the areas covered by the by-laws. Additionally, municipalities may establish compensation protocols to calculate a value for the lost feature, function, or area, and require the value to be used towards enhancing the natural heritage system in a nearby location. - 1 - Information Report No. 09-19 Page 2 The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is one of the City's partner agencies that plays a strong role in protecting and enhancing the natural heritage system through its regulatory authority, land stewardship, and as a commenting agency on development applications. The Conservation Authorities and municipalities have been continuously working together to reduce the losses to the natural heritage system through the promotion of best practices, strengthening environmental policies, education programs, and compensation requirements. In spite of the strong policy framework, and the efforts and initiatives from the City and TRCA to protect, restore, or enhance the natural heritage system, losses to the natural heritage system and features continue to occur due to unavoidable losses associated with urbanization and infrastructure expansion. These losses may become even more apparent due to impacts associated with climate change. For example, there may be more insect and disease outbreaks, or increased tree stress may affect forest growth. In November 2014, TRCA adopted their Living City Policies. These policies, among other matters, introduced stronger policy direction regarding "compensation", defining it in the context of conservation and land use planning, as "the replacement of lost/altered ecosystem services or ecological functions". The Living Cities policies also recommended that after all other options for protection, minimization and mitigation have been exhausted, and where no other federal, provincial and municipal requirements exist to protect a natural heritage feature being impacted by development or infrastructure, that compensation for the loss of ecosystem services be provided. Ultimately, the main objective of collecting compensation is to secure funds to replant trees and/or restore ecosystem functions, such as wetland or meadow restoration. Although compensation has been partially successful in restoring natural heritage systems and ecological functions, TRCA recognized that there have been various challenges in its application, such as the lack of consistent standards and transparency, and the lack of direction on selecting sites for ecological restoration. Subsequently, TRCA, over a period of approximately three years, developed a Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, which included consultation with key stakeholders, the building industry, and municipalities. The Guideline provides direction for compensation in a consistent and transparent manner, after it has been decided through a planning, environmental assessment and/or permit process, that the impact on a natural heritage feature cannot be avoided, minimized or mitigated. In June 2018, the TRCA Board endorsed the Guideline and directed TRCA staff to work with municipalities and public agencies to implement it, recognizing their distinct regulatory frameworks. In April 2019, Council received Report PLN 07-19 regarding TRCA's Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation. To ensure consistent application of the Guideline and coordination with the City's current compensation practices, City Council, on April 23, 2019, authorized staff to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to introduce policies that address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, on a city-wide basis. - 2 - Information Report No. 09-19 Page 3 Council's resolution with respect to Report PLN 07-19 also included authorization to staff to develop a memorandum of understanding in consultation with TRCA regarding the administration and collection of the fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in terms of the Guideline. Staff will be addressing the memorandum of understanding through a separate process. This report deals with the proposed official plan amendment. 3.Why is this amendment being proposed? Although the principle of compensation is already embedded in the Pickering Official Plan, the current policies regarding compensation are specific to only infrastructure expansions, certain urban neighbourhoods and certain natural heritage features, and do not directly address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts, on a City-wide basis. Nonetheless, policy 2.5.a) of the Plan states that critical ecological functions and components should be protected from inappropriate human uses and activities. The City works with TRCA and the development industry to seek favorable outcomes where critical ecological functions and components cannot be protected through the unavoidable loss of key natural heritage or key hydrologic features due to development or infrastructure impacts. Yet, the absence of City-wide policies in relation to ecosystem loss and compensation leaves a policy void. This void can hamper the City and TRCA's efforts to achieve shared objectives for a connected and robust natural heritage system and to reach a satisfactory level of compensation to provide meaningful replacement or enhancement of natural heritage features. A more complete policy framework on ecosystem loss and compensation will create a level playing field and a greater degree of consistency for all development proposals in the City, irrespective of the geographic area in the City or the type of natural feature impacted. Embedding the principle of ecosystem compensation (where all options for protection have been exhausted) in the Pickering Official Plan will provide a stronger basis for collaboration between parties and to achieve consistent and transparent approach to compensation through the implementation of approved development proposals. 4.What is being proposed? The proposed amendment will introduce revisions to Pickering's Ecological System policies in Chapter 2 -The Planning Framework and to Chapter 16 -Development Review of the Pickering Official Plan. Recognizing that the City has a Tree Removal Compensation Fee policy for individual tree loss, this proposed amendment seeks to expand the local policy framework to a more robust approach to address the loss of ecosystem functions in addition to individual tree loss. More specifically, the key changes proposed to the Official Plan text will: •expand the requirement for restoration and rehabilitation of degraded and damaged ecosystems, to also include the option of ecosystem compensation due to development impacts (where all options for protection have been exhausted), through the implementation of approved development applications. - 3 - Information Report No. 09-19 Page4 •require proponents of development applications to include recommendations regarding compensation where all options for the protection of the ecosystem (e.g., mitigation or remediation) have been exhausted, through Environmental Reports. The proposed amendment, including the text of the proposed revised policies, is contained in Appendix I. Appendix I also includes the purpose and basis for the amendment. The proposed amendment applies City-wide. 5.Who has been notified of this Public Meeting to consider the proposed amendment? The proposed amendment was prepared in consultation with the City's Engineering Services department. The proposed amendment has been circulated to the Region of Durham and other prescribed agencies for their comment. In addition, the notice was posted on the City's website, and an advertisement appeared in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks on May 29, 2019 and June 5, 2019. 6.Procedural Information 6.1 General •written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department •oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting •all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council •any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal •any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 6.2 Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority •the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest •at this time, the Region has not yet determined whether this official plan amendment application is exempt from Regional Approval 7.What are the Next Steps Following the public meeting, all comments received either through the public meeting or through written submissions, will be considered by Planning Staff in its review and analysis of the proposed amendment. At such time as input from the public, agencies and departments have been received and assessed, a recommendation report will be brought forward to the Planning & Development Committee for consideration. - 4 - Information Report No. 09-19 Appendix Appendix I Proposed Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: ,,___.-. .,...,,_-n e-. RPP Principal Planner, Policy Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics DJ:JB:ld Date of Report: May 22, 2019 Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Page 5 - 5 - City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Ecosystem Compensation Appendix I to Information Report 09-19 Proposed Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan - 6 - Purpose·: Location: Basis: Proposed Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan The purpose of this Amendment is to add new policies to and change existing policies in the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation. The Amendment applies City-wide. There is a strong policy framework in Ontario to protect and expand the natural heritage system. The Planning Act identifies the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions as a matter of Provincial interest. Similarly, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the long term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or enhanced where possible. The natural heritage system and features are still being compromised or lost through development and the effects of climate change. Embedding the principle of ecosystem compensation (where all options for protection have been exhausted) in the Pickering Official Plan will provide a stronger basis for collaboration between parties and to achieve consistent and transparent approach to compensation through the implementation of approved development proposals. The compensation will enable the replanting, restoration and/or enhancement of the natural heritage system. Amendment: The Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: 1.Revising Section 2.5, Ecological System, in Chapter 2 -The Planning Framework, by adding a new subsection (d) to read as follows, and renumbering the subsequent subsections accordingly: "2.5 City Council will endeavour to, (a)to (c) ... ; {!!} require compensation for the loss of ecosystem functions due to development impacts, after all other options for protection, minimization and mitigation have been exhausted, in accordance with the relevant conservation authority's guideline for determining ecosystem compensation, with the exception of tree removal that falls under the purview of the City's Tree Removal Compensation Fee, where applicable;" - 7 - endment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2 Revising Section 16.10, Environmental Report Contents, in Chapter 16 -Development Review, by revising subsection (h) to read as follows: "16.10 City Council shall require that the Environmental Report submitted in accordance with Section 16.8 include at least the following, (a)to (g) ... ; (h)where potential negative effects are unavoidable, recommendations regarding the actions necessary to mitigate or remedy the negative effect-;-which, as a last resort, may include the payment of compensation to the City for the loss of ecosystem functions, of which the cost is to be determined in accordance with the applicable conservation authority's guideline for determining ecosystem loss and/or the City's Tree Removal Compensation Fee; and " Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. In light of the numerous components of the Official Plan that are being revised concurrently, the numbering of the policy sections in this amendment is subject to change in accordance with the sequencing of approvals. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment, except as revised by this amendment. Cross Reference: OPA 19-003/P City Initiated - 8 - --Cift; o/-­p] (KER 1 NG . Information Report to Planning & Development Committee From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Report Number: 10-19 Date: June 17, 2019 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Drinking Water Source Protection - Conformity to the Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, and Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Plan and Toronto and Region Assessment Report Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-002/P 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide information on a City initiated official plan amendment application. This report contains background information on the current Official Plan and the purpose of the proposed amendment. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning matters. This report is to be received, and no decision is to be made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a review of the comments received and revisions to the amendment where appropriate. 2.Background As a result of the contamination of the drinking water supply in Walkerton, the Province enacted the Clean Water Act, 2006. This Act enabled the establishment of Source Protection Committees within defined regions to protect municipal drinking water sources from activi'ties that would pose a threat to water quality and quantity. The City of Pickering is within the Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, and Central Lake Ontario (CTC) Source Protection Region and is subject to the CTC Source Protection Plan (CTC SPP) and the Toronto and Region Assessment Report both of which came into effect in 2015. On May 17, 2018, the City received notice from the CTC Source Protection Committee requesting Council endorsement of their proposed amendments to the CTC SPP and the Toronto and Region Assessment Report. On June 18, 2018, Planning and Development Committee endorsed Report PLN 18-18 which provided detail on proposed amendments to the CTC SPP and .the Toronto and Region Assessment Report. The proposed amendments: - 9 - Information Report No. 10:..19 Page 2 •provide the City with greater discretion in determining when a Water Balance Assessment may be needed •remove the 5-year timeline for conformity and require conformity during the next municipal comprehensive review •clarify the role of the Risk Management Officials •clarify that, within the York-Durham Wellhead Protection Area for water quantity (York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2), a Water Balance Assessment is required for major development north of the proposed Downgradient Line and may be required for development on land south of the Downgradient Line, subject to the planning approval authority's discretion, and •ensure that the policies related to Salt Management are applicable in all relevant vulnerable areas After receiving endorsement of the proposed amendments to the CTC SPP and the Toronto and Region Assessment Report from all affected municipalities, the CTC Source Protection Committee conducted broader consultation with the public between October 12 and November 15, 2018. On March 25, 2019 amendments to the CTC SPP and the Toronto and Region Assessment Report were approved by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and are now in effect. Municipalities are required to amend their Official Plans to conform to the applicable Source Protection Plan. The City's Official Plan must therefore be amended to conform to the policies of the CTC SPP and mapping in the Toronto and Region Assessment Report. City Policy 10.13, Areas of Groundwater Protection in Chapter 10 -Resource Management, of the Pickering Official Plan (Edition 8), requires planning decisions to conform with or not be in conflict with the policies of the approved CTC SPP. This proposed amendment ensures the City's Official Plan is in conformity with the relevant policies of the CTC SPP and mapping from the Toronto and Region Assessment Report. 3.Lands Affected by the Proposed Amendment The proposed Official Plan Amendment contains policies that apply City-wide as well as policies that affect lands within Pickering's Rural System that are predominantly located along the City's northern municipal boundary. The lands identified as Wellhead Protection Areas located in the northwest corner of the City are associated with municipal drinking water wells in the Town of Whitchurch-Stoufville. Other lands identified as Wellhead Protection Areas are located within the Oak Ridges Moraine in Concession Nine, north of the Hamlet of Balsam. Revisions to Schedule Ill Dare minor, adding approximately 105 hectares of lands to Groundwater Recharge Areas designation. 4.Proposed Amendment Appendix I is the Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan. It identifies Wellhead Protection Areas in a new schedule and introduces new policies in Chapter 10 -Resource Management to provide direction on the requirements for development within a Wellhead Protection Area. More specifically, key proposed amendments to the Official Plan add: - 10 - Information Report No. 10-19 Page 3 •Definitions for Groundwater Recharge Area, Wellhead Protection Area and classes of Wellhead Protection Areas for Water Quality (WHPA-A through E), and classes of Wellhead Protection Areas for Water Quantity (WHPA-Q1 and Q2). •Revisions to Schedule Ill D -Resource Management: High Aquifer Vulnerability, Ground Water Recharge Areas (refer to Schedule "A" to the Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan). Attachments #1 and #2 show a close-up of the additional Groundwater Recharge Areas identified on the Proposed Revised Schedule Ill D. •New Schedule Ill F -Resource Management: Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) (refer to Schedule "B" to the Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan) to identify: •Wellhead Protection Areas for the protection of water quality for two municipal drinking water wells in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville; and •Wellhead Protection Areas for the protection of water quantity. The identification of Wellhead Protection Areas on this schedule are intended to function as an overlay to the primary land use designations identified in Schedule I - Land Use Structure to the Official Plan. •Policies that require snow storage to be located where melting snow cannot carry contaminants and salt loads directly into vulnerable areas. •Policies that prohibit or restrict land use activities within a WHPA-B, C and/or D which pose a significant drinking water quality threat. •Policies that require a Salt Management Plan where the application of road salt would be a moderate or low drinking water threat. •A policy requiring all planning and building permit applications for lands within a WHPA-B, C or D in the City of Pickering to be circulated to York Region for review by their Risk Management Official. •Policies to protect water quantity that: •may restrict development with a significant or moderate risk level that requires a Permit to Take Water within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2; •require a Water Balance Assessment for major development in certain areas within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2; •require major development that does not require a Water Balance Assessment and small-scale development, within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, to implement best management practices with the goal to maintain pre­ development recharge rates; •require a Salt Management Plan where the application of road salt would be a moderate or low drinking water threat within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2; and •may restrict rural settlement area boundary expansions into the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2. - 11 - Information Report No. 10-19 5.Informational Revision Page4 Appendix II is the Draft Proposed Informational Revision 24 (Draft Proposed Revision) to the Pickering Official Plan. The purpose of this Draft Proposed Revision is to update the informational text contained within the Pickering Official Plan about the policies introduced as part of the Official Plan Amendment to implement Source Water Protection. The Draft Proposed Revision also updates references to the new Draft Proposed Schedules to be added to the Pickering Official Plan. 6.Consultation The proposed amendment was prepared in consultation with staff from the CTC Source Protection Region. The proposed amendment has been circulated to the Region of Durham and other prescribed agencies for their comment. In addition, the notice was posted on the City's website, and an advertisement appeared in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks on May 29, 2019 and June 5, 2019. 7.Public Participation Written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department. Oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting. All comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council. In accordance with Section 17 (24.5) of the Planning Act, there is no appeal to Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan since it applies to vulnerable areas as defined within the Clean Water Act, 2006. Any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 8.Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority The Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest. As drinking water source protection is of Provincial and Regional interest, the Region will be the approval authority for Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan. 9.Next Steps Following the public meeting, all comments received either through the public meeting or through written submissions, will be considered by Planning Staff in its review and analysis of the proposed amendment. At such time as input from the public, agencies and departments have been received and assessed, a recommendation report will be brought forward to the Planning & Development Committee for consideration. - 12 - Information Report No. 10-19 Appendices Appendix I Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix II Draft Proposed Informational Revision 24 to the Pickering Official Plan Attachments Page 5 1.Additional Groundwater Recharge Areas identified on the Proposed Revised Schedule Ill D - Northeast Pickering 2.Additional Groundwater Recharge Areas identified on the Proposed Revised Schedule Ill D - Northwest Pickering Prepared By: �!:::V argaret Kish, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics MK:JB:ld Date of Report: May 23, 2019 Approved/Endorsed By: 1�1- Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner - 13 - Appendix I to Information Report 10-19 Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan - 14 - Purpose: Location: Basis: Amendment: The purpose of Amendment 36 is to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan to bring it into conformity with the Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, and Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Plan, March 25, 2019 (CTC SPP) and the Toronto and Re ,gion Assessment Report, March 25, 2019 in accordance with the Clean Water Act, 2006. The Amendment contains policies that apply City-wide as well as policies that affect lands within Pickering's Rural System that are predominantly located along the City's northern municipal boundary. The lands identified as Wellhead Protection Areas located in the northwest corner of the City are associated with municipal drinking water wells in the Town of Whitchurch-Stoufville. Other lands identified as Wellhead Protection Areas are located within the Oak Ridges Moraine in Concession Nine, north of the Hamlet of Balsam (refer to Schedule "B" of this Amendment). Revisions to City of Pickering Official Plan Schedule Ill D are minor, adding approximately 105 hectares of lands to the Groundwater Recharge Areas designation (refer to. Schedule "A" of this Amendment). The Clean Water Act, 2006 enabled the establishment of Source Protection Regions and Areas throughout the province to address threats to municipal groundwater supplies (drinking water wells) and municipal surface water supplies (drinking water intakes). Each Source Protection Committee is responsible for the development of: Assessment Reports that, based on technical studies, identify and assess threats to municipal drinking water systems; and Source Protection Plans that have detailed policies on how to address those threats. The City of Pickering is within the Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, and Central Lake Ontario (CTC) Source Protection Area. The CTC Source Protection Plan came into effect in 2015, and was subsequently amended in March of 2019. The policies in each Source Protection Plan have been written to ensure that for every area identified in an Assessment Report as an area where an activity is, or would be, a significant drinking water threat, the activity never becomes a significant drinking water threat or ceases to be a significant drinking water threat. Municipalities are required to amend their Official Plans to conform to the applicable Source Protection Plan. The City's Official Plan must therefore be amended to conform to the Clean Water Act, 2006 and the policies of the CTC Source Protection Plan. The Pic.kering Official Plan, Edition 8, October 2018, is hereby amended by: - 15 - ndment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 2 1.Revising Schedule Ill D -Resource Management: High Aquifer Vulnerability, Groundwater Recharge Areas to reflect additional Groundwater Recharge Areas identified in the Toronto and Region Assessment Report, March 25, 2019 as illustrated on Schedule "A" attached to this Amendment. 2.Adding new Schedule Ill F -Wellhead Protection Areas to illustrate Wellhead Protection Areas B, C and D (WHPA-B, WHPA-C and WHPA-D) associated with municipal drinking water wells in Whitchurch-Stouffville; York-Durham Wellhead Protection Areas -Water Quantity (WHPA-Q1/Q2); and, the York-Durham Wellhead Protection Areas Q1/Q2 Downgradient Line as illustrated on Schedule "B" attached to this Amendment. 3.Revising City Policy 10.2, Resource Management Objectives, in Chapter 10 -Resource Management, by deleting "and" at the end of subsection (f); deleting the period"." and adding "; and" at the end of subsection (g); and adding new subsection (h) as follows: "(f) coordinate with other levels of government, public and private agencies, and other groups to identify, research, protect, and manage the City's natural resources, and institute regular environmental monitoring and reporting; a-ml (g)involve the public, business-people, landowners, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in resource management decisions affecting the City. ; and (h)protect water quality and water quantity for municipal drinking water systems." 4.Revising City Policy 10.8, Stormwater Management, in Chapter 10 -Resource Management, to add a new subsection (a) (iii) as follows: "(iii) require that designated areas for snow storage are located where melting snow cannot carry contaminants and salt loads directly into vulnerable areas;" 5.Revising City Policy 10.13, Areas of Groundwater Protection, in Chapter 10 -Resource Management, by adding "and" at the end of subsection (e); adding a period "." at the end of subsection (f); and deleting subsections (g) and (h) as follows: "(e) require, where appropriate, the recommendations of a Hydrogeology and Water Budget Study, Groundwater Impact Study, Environmental Report (see Sections 16.8 and 16.10), and any evaluation reports referenced in Section 16.14, as applicable, to be implemented; and (f)despite Sections 10.13(b), (c) and (e), not require further studies addres�ing groundwater recharge or areas of high aquifer vulnerability, for proposed development that was addressed through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan for the Seaton CommunitYi-:. - 16 - (h) mendment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 3 participate with other area municipalities as members of the Lake Ontario Collaborative Group to undertake actions or tasks to protect Lake Ontario as an important source of drinking 'Nater:.� ensure that planning decisions conform 'Nith or are not in conflict with the policies of the approved Credit Valley, Toronto and Region and Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Plan." 6.Revising City Policy 10.17, Lake Ontario Waterfront and Frenchman's Bay, in Chapter 10 -Resource Management, by deleting "and" at the end of subsection (f); deleting the period "." and adding ";" at the end of subsection (g); adding new subsection (h); and moving former subsection 10.13 (g) to become new subsection 10.17 (i) as follows: "(f) encourage and support actions by public agencies and others to improve and restore the quality of Lake Ontario, including programs to address concerns regarding nutrient loads and the proliferation of invasive species, chemical contaminants and algae growth; aRd (g)require, where appropriate, that the recommendations of an Environmental Report to be implemented (see Sections 16.8 and 16.1 O).; fhl require that designated areas for snow storage are located where melting snow cannot carry contaminants and salt loads directly into vulnerable areas; and ill participate with other area municipalities as members of the Lake Ontario Collaborative Group to undertake actions or tasks to protect Lake Ontario as an important source of drinking water." 7.Adding new policies 10.27, 10.28 and 10.29 to the end of Chapter 10 -Resource Management as follows: "10.27 City Council recognizes that, in vulnerable areas around municipal drinking water wells, certain land use activities may pose a threat to water quality; accordingly, City Council shall: IB} identify Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) on Schedule Ill F - Wellhead Protection Areas, which are intended to function as an overlay to the primary land use designations; .(Q.1 prohibit or restrict land uses within a WHPA-81 C and/or D which pose significant drinking water quality threat activities as identified in the Durham Regional Official Plan; � where the application of road salt would be a moderate or low drinking water threat within a WHPA-81 C and/or D, require development to submit a Salt Management Plan as part of a complete application to address the: - 17 - 10.28 10.29 endment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 4· ill design of roads, sidewalks and parking lots in order to minimize the need for repeat applications of road salt, while maintaining public safety; and ill1 location of snow storage so that contaminants and salt loads from snow melt are not carried into vulnerable areas. City Council recognizes that the Region of York, through an agreement with the Region of Durham, has assumed enforcement related to activities that may be a threat to water quality within any WHPA, associated with a municipal drinking water well in the Region of York; accordingly, Council shall: � require all applications made under the Planning Act, Condominium Act and Building Code Act within a WHPA-81 C and D in the City of Pickering to be circulated to the Region of Durham for submission to the Region of York and review by the Region of York's Risk Management Official. City Council recognizes that, in vulnerable areas around municipal drinking water wells, certain land use activities that take water without returning it to the same source, or which reduce recharge to an aquifer in the York-Durham Wellhead Protection Area -Water Quantity (York­ Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2) may be a threat to water quantity; accordingly, Council shall: � identify the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2 on Schedule Ill F - Wellhead Protection Areas, which are intended to function as an overlay to the primary land use designations; ill for lands within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, deem the policies in this section to apply and prevail in the event of a conflict with any other policy of this Plan; � require a Salt Management Plan as part of a complete application where the application of road salt within areas of groundwater recharge and high aquifer vulnerability in the York-Durham WHPA­ Q1/Q2 would be a moderate or low drinking water threat to address the: ill design of roads, sidewalks and parking lots in order to minimize the need for repeat applications of road salt, while maintaining public safety; and ill1 location of snow storage so that contaminants and salt loads from snow melt are not carried into vulnerable areas. - 18 - ndment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 5 .{Q)_ only permit development within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2 with a significant or moderate risk level; as identified in the Durham Regional Official Plan, if it does not require a new or amended Permit To Take Water; .{g_} notwithstanding Section 10.29 (d), permit new development within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2 that requires a new or amended Permit To Take Water if the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks determines the activity would not become a significant water quantity threat; ·ID require a Water Balance Assessment for major development which poses a significant or moderate threat to drinking water quantity, as identified in the Durham Regional Official Plan, on lands north of the Downgradient Line within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2; .{g} · require major development which poses a significant or moderate threat to drinking water quantity, as identified in the Durham Regional Official Plan, on lands north of the Downgradient Line within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, to maintain predevelopment recharge to the greatest extent feasible based on a Water Balance Assessment; 1hl require major development which poses a significant or moderate threat to drinking water quantity, as identified in the Durham Regional Official Plan, on lands north of the Downgradient Line within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, to implement and maximize off-site recharge, within another site within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2 to compensate for any predicted loss of recharge from the development based on a Water Balance Assessment; ill in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, determine, on a case by case basis, whether major development on lands south of the Downgradient Line within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, will require a Water Balance Assessment; ill require major development on lands south of the Downgradient Line within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, to implement best management practices with the goal to maintain pre-development recharge rates; ,Og require small-scale development and agricultural development, with the exception of agricultural development identified in Section 10.29 (1)1 within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2 to implement best management practices with the goal to maintain pre-development recharge rates; - 19 - e (iment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 6 ill encourage agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses where the total impervious surface does not exceed 10 percent of the total lot area to implement best management practices such as low impact development with the goal to maintain pre-development recharge rates; and l!!!l require that a Water Balance Assessment, as referred to in Sections 10.29 (f), 10.29 (g), 10.29 (h), 10.29 (i) and 10.29 (m), at a minimum, identifies recharge characteristics of the site; identifies anticipated long-term and short-term impacts of the proposed development; recommends measures to maintain pre-development recharge on site to the greatest extent feasible through best management practices; and, where pre-development recharge cannot be maintained on site, recommends measures to locate compensating recharge on another site within the York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2." 8.Revising City Policy 13.1, Preparation of Rural Settlement Plans, in Chapter 13 -Rural Settlements, by deleting "and" at the end of subsection (c); deleting the period "." and adding"; and" at the end of subsection (d); and adding new subsection (e) as follows: "(c) indicate the location of new public road connections, where known, and endeavour to ensure the construction of such road connections through development proposals and government initiatives; aml (d)indicate the general location of existing and new community facilities, where known, and endeavour to ensure the construction of such facilities through development proposals and government initiatives.; and (e)notwithstanding subsection (b), only consider amendments to rural settlement area boundaries that would result in an expansion into the York­ Durham WHPA Q1/Q2 as part of a municipal comprehensive review where it has been demonstrated that recharge functions will be maintained on lands identified as Groundwater Recharge Areas on Schedule Ill D -Resource Management: High Aquifer Vulnerability I Groundwater Recharge." 9.Adding a definition for the term "Groundwater Recharge Area (GRA)" in alphabetic order to Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 -Implementation, as follows: "Groundwater Recharge Area (GRA) means an area where an aquifer is replenished from natural processes, such as the infiltration of rainfall and snowmelt and the seepage of surface water from lakes, streams and Wetlands; and from human interventions, such as the use of storm water management systems." - 20 - or,�...-mendment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 7 Adding a definition for the term "Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA)" in alphabetic order to Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 -Implementation, as follows: "Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) means the area surrounding a water well or well field that supplies a municipal residential system or other designated system that may be vulnerable to significant threats. More specifically: fil For water quality threats, the size.and delineation of the wellhead protection areas are determined by how quickly water travels underground to the well, measured in years, as outlined below: ill Wellhead protection area - A (WHPA-A); The area within a 100-metre radius of the wellhead: fill Wellhead protection area - 8 (WHPA-8): The area subject to a 2 year time of travel to the well: (iii)Wellhead protection area - C (WHPA-C): The area subject to a 5 year time of travel to the well: (iv) Wellhead protection area - D (WHPA-D): The area subject to a 25 year time of travel to the well: and M Wellhead protection area - E (WHPA-E): The area where a municipal well is under the direct influence of surface water; and !ll For water quantity threats, the delineation of the wellhead protection area is based on a tiered water budget analysis that determined locations where there was a moderate or significant threat to water quantity. These areas are classified as: ill Wellhead Protection Area - Water Quantity 1 (WHPA-Q1):The area where activities that take water without returning it to the same source may be a threat; and fill Wellhead Protection Area -Water Quantity 2 (WHPA-Q2): The area where activities that reduce recharge may be a threat. 11.Revising City Policy 16.5A in Chapter 16 -Development Review, by deleting the text in subsection (xxxvi) and replacing it with new text; and adding a new subsection (xxxvii) as follows: (xxxvi)a water management plan verifying that there is sufficient water supply to support the proposed uses, and on a cumulative sustainable basis, confirm that there is no negative impact on surrounding water users and the natural environment •Nhich cannot be appropriately mitigated for development applications (excepting wetland restoration projects and domestic usage and livestock operations) that require a permit to take 'Nater under the Ontario 'J'.'ater Resources Act, or that have the potential to impact water quantity. - 21 - ndment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 8 a water balance assessment, as referred to in Sections 10.29 (f), 10.29 (g), 10.29 (h), 10.29 (i) and 10.29 (m); and (xxxvii)a salt management plan as referred to in Sections 10.8 (a)(iii), 10.17 (h), 10.27 (c) and 10.29 (c)." 12.Revising City Policy 16.5B in Chapter 16 -Development Review, by deleting "and" at the end of subsection (xxv); deleting the period "." and adding a semicolon";" at the end of subsection (xxvi); and adding new subsections (xxvii) and (xxviii) as follows: "(xxv) a construction management plan; a-ml (xxvi)a railway corridor safety study • .i. (xxvii)a water balance assessment, as referred to in Sections 10.29 (f), 10.29 (g), 10.29 (h), 10.29 (i) and 10.29 (m); and (xxviii)a salt management plan as referred to in Sections 10.8 (a)(iii), 10.17 (h), 10.27 (c) and 10.29 (c)." Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. In light of the numerous components of the Official Plan that are being revised concurrently, the numbering of the policy sections in this amendment is subject to change in accordance with the sequencing of approvals. Interpretation: Cross Reference: OPA 19-002/P City Initialed The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment, except as revised by this amendment. - 22 - Lake Ontario Schedule "A" Proposed Revised Schedule Ill D to the Pickering Official Plan Edition 8 Resource Management: High Aquifer Vulnerability, Groundwater Recharge Areas � Groundwater Recharge Area High Aquifer Vulnerability Areas Utofl'd.,,,. u,�;��°;,__ Th">�•,F-h.1clU.....de.•�\..t,10"'..dlll""'-'­-r..�uJt,C,, ....... &., ..... ..,__lftf"'••�..,_n,,t - 23 - Lake Ontario Schedule "B" Proposed Schedule Ill F to the Pickering Official Plan Edition 8 Resource Management: Wellhea d Protection Areas (WHPA) Wellhead Protection Areas -Water Quality WHPA-B L=iwHPA-C C=:}WHPA�D Wellhead Protection Areas -Water Quantity mil York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2 -York-Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2 Downgradient Line 0/llPdm"I Cl/0...'c�Clo;.ri"'-Arl c11.,,on �::::.s::�E�::.t��•s��::�;:l - 24 - Appendix II to Information Report 10-19 Draft Proposed Informational Revision 24 to the Pickering Official Plan - 25 - Purpose: Location: Basis: posed Informational Revision 24 to the Pickering Official Plan The purpose of this Proposed Revision is to change the informational text contained within the Pickering Official Plan in order to provide clarity to the policies introduced as part of the Official Plan Amendment to implement Source Water Protection. The Proposed Revision also updates references to new Proposed Schedules to be added to the Pickering Official Plan. Chapter 10 -Resource Management In reviewing the informational text contained in the Official Plan, various technical revisions have been determined to be necessary and appropriate to assist users with understanding the changes to the Official Plan text implemented through the associated Official Plan Amendment. Proposed Revision: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby revised by: 1.On page 119, under Chapter 10 -Resource Management, revising the last sentence of the third informational paragraph so that it reads as follows: "The Resource Management Schedule identifies the various resource features and areas (see Schedules IIIA to llle.E to this Plan, found at the end of the Plan)." 2.Adding the following new Section to the end of Chapter 10 -Resource Management: "Source Protection Plans Source Protection Plans identify threats to the quality and quantity of municipal drinking water sources (drinking water wells and water supply plants) and their associated vulnerable areas. The City of Pickering is subject to the CTC Source Protection Plan (CTC SPP), which gets its name from the first letter of each of its three Source Protection Areas: Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, and Central Lake Ontario. The Lake Ontario based Ajax Water Supply Plant, which is operated by the Region of Durham, is the City's source of municipal drinking water. Implementation of policies within the CTC SPP addressing drinking water threats to the Ajax Water Supply Plant is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks and the Region of Durham. However, the City of Pickering is committed to working with other municipalities as members of the Lake Ontario Collaborative to undertake actions that protect Lake Ontario as a source of drinking water. The City of Pickering does not have any municipal drinking water wells; however, there are portions of the City that are within Wellhead Protection Areas, for water quality, for two municipal drinking water wells in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. The City is also within Wellhead Protection Are9s for water quantity. The Wellhead Protection Areas are identified on Schedule Ill F -Wellhead Protection Areas of the Official Plan. - 26 - rmational Revision 24 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2 A Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) is a vulnerable area on the land around a municipal drinking water well that is delineated to protect water quality or water quantity." 3.Add "City Policy Wellhead Protection Areas for Water Quality" within the informational sidebar adjacent to the new Section 10.27; 4.Add the following informational sidebar, which relates to the size and shape of wellhead protection areas referred to in new Sections 10.27, 10.28 and 15.15: The size and shape of each WHPA (B, C, Dor E) is a function of how water travels underground. Time of travel is important because it is an indication of how quickly a contaminant can move from a WHPA into a municipal well. Time of travel can be influenced by a number of factors such as the slope of land, and the type of soil (for example, water travels faster through sand than it does through clay). Wellhead Protection Areas are drawn based on scientific research that took all these factors into consideration 5.Add "City Policy Review of Applications within a Wellhead Protection Area for Water Quality" within the informational sidebar adjacent to the new Section 10.28; and 6.Add "City Policy Wellhead Protection Areas for Water Quantity" within the informational sidebar adjacent to the new Section 10.29. Cross Reference: OPA 19-002/P City Initiated - 27 - -Cift;c/­ PJ(KERJNG City Development Department Additional Groundwater Rechar e Areas -Northeast Pickerin File: OPA 19-002/P Applicant: Cit Initiated Date: Ma . 21, 2019 SCALE: 1:20,000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. - 28 - � Additional Groundwater Recharge Area �Groundwater Recharge Area -High Aquifer Vulnerability Area Additional Groundwater Rechar e Areas -Northwest Pickerin -Cdt;c/­P1CKER1NG City Development Department File: OPA 19-002/P Applicant: Cit Initiated orporation o 1ty o 1t enng ro ute (in part) u er 1tense om: ueens n er, n a o nislly o atura esourtes, 1 rights rese1Ved,;C Her Majesty the Queen fn Right of Ca�dil, Department of rlalural Re50Uf1:es. Al rights n=served.; :>Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers au rights rese1Ved.;CI Mun!clpal Property Assessment Corporo1!lon and Is supp'iers ;ill rights reserved.; Date: Ma . 21, 2019 SCALE: 1 :20,000 THIS IS tlOT A PLAt� OF SURVEY. - 29 - -Clpof­p](KER]NG Information Report to Planning & Development Committee From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Report Number: 11-19 Date: June 17, 2019 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/18 Allan Kent Cameron Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407 (715 Liverpool Road) 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Allan Kent Cameron, to permit an infill residential development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision is being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2.Property Location and Description The subject property is located on the east side of Liverpool Road, north of Commerce Street, within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The property has an area of approximately 929 square metres with approximately 30.5 metres of frontage along Liverpool Road. The property is currently occupied by a vacant, single-storey building formerly used as an accountant's office, which is proposed to be demolished. A row of mature trees is located along the rear property line. Surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North: A residential common element condominium development, presently under construction, consisting of 57 townhouse units and 10 detached dwellings. East: Immediately to the east is the Frenchman's Bay Ratepayers Memorial Park, and further east are detached dwellings fronting onto Commerce Street. South: Abutting the subject property to the south are two detached dwellings fronting onto Liverpool Road. West: Across Liverpool Road is the Fairport United Cemetery and detached dwellings fronting Commerce Street. - 30 - Information Report No. 11-19 3.Applicant's Proposal Page 2 The applicant has submitted an application for Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the subject property to a residential zone category in order to create three lots for detached dwellings fronting onto Liverpool Road (see Submitted Concept Plan, Attachment #3). The proposed lots will have minimum lot frontages of approximately 10.1 metres and minimum lot areas of approximately 309 square metres. The proposed detached dwellings will be 2-storeys with a building height of approximately 8.4 metres (calculated from established grade to the mid-point of the peaked roof). The proposed dwellings will be approximately 225 square metres in size (see Submitted Conceptual Elevations, Attachments #4, #5 and #6). Two parking spaces are proposed for each unit (one within an attached garage and one on the driveway). The applicant is proposing to utilize the Bonus Zoning policies of the City's Official Plan to permit three dwellings, whereas the density requirements of the Official Plan permits a maximum of two dwellings. In exchange for an additional dwelling unit, the applicant is proposing to provide a community benefit, which is detailed in Section 4.3 of this report. The applicant is proposing to create the new residential lots through the land severance process with the Region of Durham Land Division Committee. 4.Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Region of Durham Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject property as "Living Areas". The "Living Areas" designation shall be used predominately for housing purposes. The plan also states that lands within the Living Areas designation shall be developed in compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas. The applicant's proposal conforms to the policies and provisions of the ROP. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan The subject property is within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood and is designated "Urban Residential Areas -Low Density Areas" within the Pickering Official Plan. This designation provides for housing and related uses, and a density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. The Official Plan states that in establishing performance standards, regard shall be had to protecting an.d enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods by considering matters such as building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications. The Official Plan also states that where new development is proposed within an existing neighbourhood or established area, City Council shall encourage building design that reinforces and complements existing built patterns such as form, massing, height proportion, position relative to the street, and building area to site ratio. Details of the application will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan during the further processing of the application. - 31 - Information Report No. 11-19 Page 3 4.3 Bonus Zoning Policies Section 37 of the Planning Act authorizes municipalities with appropriate Official Plan provisions to pass zoning by-laws for increases in height or density beyond what is permitted by the Official Plan, in return for the provision by the applicant of community benefits. Section 16.17 of the Official Plan permits City Council to pass by-laws that grant an increase in density not exceeding 25 percent of the density permitted by the Official Plan providing: •the density bonus is given only in return for the provision of specific services, facilities or matters as specified in the by-law, such as but not limited to: additional open space or community facilities, assisted or special needs housing, the preservation of heritage buildings or structures, or the preservation of natural heritage features and functions; •when considering an increase in density, and allowing the provision of benefits off-site, the positive impacts of the exchange should benefit the social/cultural, environmental and economic health of surrounding areas experiencing the increased density; •the effects of the density bonus have been reviewed and determined by Council to be in conformity with the general intent of the Official Plan, by considering matters such as: •the suitability of the site for the proposed increase in density in terms of parking, landscaping, and other site-specific requirements; •the compatibility of any increase in density with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood; and •as a condition of granting a density bonus, the City requires the benefiting landowner(s) to enter into one or more agreements, registered against the title of the lands, dealing with the provision and timing of specific facilities, services or matters to be provided in return for the bonus. On May 27, 2019 Council approved a Bonus Zoning Policy to ensure a consistent and transparent approach when identifying eligible developments and community benefits, calculating the value of the applicant's contribution towards a community benefit, and negotiating the required Section 37 agreements. The objective of this policy is to implement the Bonus Zoning provisions of Section 16.17 of the Pickering Official Plan, in accordance with Section 37 of the Planning Act, as amended. The applicant is proposing to use the Bonus Zoning provisions of the City's Official Plan to increase the density to approximately 33 units per net hectare, which results in one additional unit beyond the maximum permitted density by the Official Plan. In return for the additional density, the applicant is proposing community improvements in the form of upgrades to Baisden Park, located at the corner of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road. The City is currently assessing the appropriateness of the applicant's request to use the density bonus provisions of the Official Plan to increase the permitted density. - 32 - Information Report No. 11-19 4.4 Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies and Guidelines Page 4 The Bay Ridges Neigbourhood Policies recognize the subject property as being in the vicinity of the "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node". The Tertiary Plan of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines identifies the lands as Established Built Area of the historic "Village of Fairport". The guidelines provide direction on the built form of buildings along Liverpool Road by directing new buildings to: •provide high quality landscaping of front yards, large windows on the ground floor, and signage of an appropriate character •provide enhanced architecture to harmonize with the Great Lakes Nautical Village theme •be built close to the street without too much variation in setback •be designed to allow for the easy conversion of ground floors to accommodate landowners who may want to open commercial-type uses within the buildings The application will be assessed against the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood policies and the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines during the further processing of the application. 4.5 Zoning By-law 2511 The subject property is currently zoned "C1'' -Local Commercial Zone within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, which permits a retail store, restaurant -type A, bake shop, service store, dry cleaning and laundry collecting station, business office and parking station, and professional office. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to an appropriate residential zone category with site-specific performance standards to facilitate the proposal. A Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart and Zoning Map summarizes the existing "R4-11" zone standards immediately to the south of the subject property and the "R4" zone standards that comprise a large portion of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (see Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart, Attachment #7 and Zoning Map, Attachment #8). 5.Comments Received 5.1 Resident Comments As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received from the public. - 33 - Information Report No. 11-19 5.2 Agency Comments Region of Durham -Planning & Economic Development Department Canada Post Durham Catholic District School Board Durham District School Board Enbridge, Rogers Communications and Veridian Connections 5.3 Engineering Services Comments Page 5 •no comments received at the time of writing this report •door to door delivery will be provided •students from this development will attend Father Fenelon Catholic Elementary School and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School •no objections to the proposal •students will attend existing neigbourhood schools •no objections to the proposal •no objections to the proposal The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance identified by the City's Engineering Services Department: •a designated substance survey is to be submitted prior to any future redevelopment of the site due to the suspected presence of regulated building materials (such as asbestos containing materials, lead and mercury-based paints etc.) as identified within the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment •one boulevard tree (Ivory Silk Lilac) per lot will be required •confirmation whether the trees located in the rear yards are to be retained or removed, and if removed appropriate compensation (financial and/or replacement planting) will be required 6.Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and other identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant prior to a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: •ensuring conformity with the City's Official Plan and the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood policies •ensuring that the design, height, massing, coverage, side yards, and setbacks of the proposed dwellings are compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood and in keeping with the requirements of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines - 34 - Information Report No. 11-19 Page 6 •determining if the proposed community benefit (improvements in the form of upgrades to Balsdon Park) for one additional unit is suitable for the community •ensuring that appropriate compensation (financial and replacement planting) is provided for the removal of existing vegetation on the property •ensuring that the required technical submissions and reports meet City standards Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 7.Information Received Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for on line viewing at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: •Application form to Amend Zoning By-law, completed by the applicant, dated October 2, 2018 •Planning Justification Report prepared by Evans Planning Inc., dated September 2018 •Addendum to Planning Justification Report prepared by Evans Planning Inc., dated May 7, 2019 •Land Appraisal Reports prepared by Janterra Real Estate Advisors, dated April 23, 2019 •Draft Zoning By-law prepared by Evans Planning Inc., dated September 2018 •Stormwater Management Brief prepared by Politis Engineering Ltd., dated June 2018 and revised September 20, 2018 •Preliminary Grading & Storm Drainage Plan prepared by Politis Engineering Ltd., dated June 2018 •Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Edward Wong & Associates Inc., dated August 21, 2018 •Site Screening Questionnaire prepared by Edward Wong & Associates, dated July 23, 2018 •Proposed Land Division, Concept Plan dated October 23, 2017 •Elevation and Floor Plan Package prepared by Agincourt Design 2001 Corp., dated September 18, 2018 •Topographic Survey prepared by DFP Surveyors Ltd., dated March 28, 2018 8.Procedural Information 8.1 General •written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department •oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting •all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council - 35 - Information Report No. 11-19 Page 7 •any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal •any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 9.Owner/Applicant Information The own�r of the property is Allan Kent Cameron and is represented by Evans Planning Inc. Attachments 1 . Location Map 2.Air Photo Map 3.Submitted Concept Plan 4.Submitted Conceptual Elevations -Front Elevation 5.Submitted Conceptual Elevations -Side Elevations 6.Submitted Conceptual Elevation -Rear Elevation 7.Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart 8.Zoning Map Rory McNeil Planner I Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP · Manager; Development Review & Urban Design RM:ld Date of Report: May 28, 2019 Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner - 36 - Attachment# / to Information Reoort# --i----l <l)�------i --!----l � ,-....���-, --J----l g; --J----l<( �----; .�-�������--� Location Map -Cdfjof-File: A 13/18 PlCKERlNG Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron I I - Shearer Lane City Development Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407 Department (715 Liverpool Road) Date: May. 23, 2019 1ne 1_.;orporation o me 1,.;1ty 01 l"'!CKenng l"'roouceo { n part} unaer eense om: 1&1 l..lueens t'nmer, vn ano Mll11'5try o · r.atura1 t<esources. SCALE: 1 :5,000 I A/! rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen In R!ght of Canada, Department of tlalural Resources. All rights reserved.; J:>Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its supp!lera al! rights reseived.; e Mun!clpa! Property Assessment Corporation and b sup piers all r)'Jhts reser,,ed; THIS lS tlOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. - 37 - II -Cdpc/­P](KERlNG City Development Department Attachment# ex to rm�tion Reoort# Air Photo Ma File: A 13/18 Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron Pro ert Descri tion: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407 (715 Liverpool Road) e pora no llyo enng ro mpart) r ense rom ueens r er, ntar10 gryo a a esoun:ts I �htsreserved ;C Her fh/esty the Queen n Rfghl of Canada, Department of Niilura1 ResoUfoes. All rights resel\led , �Terane!Enter istslnc.andissu lersalri hlsA!served OMuni: IPto Assessment Co orationandissu lersalrt htsreserved Date: Ma . 23, 2019 SCALE: 1 :5,000 lHIS IS NOT A PlAH OF SURVEY. - 38 - - � :a :a .. .. I ! Proposed Proposed Single Single � Detached Detached Dwelling Dwelling -0.60 � 2 .... -- r=e::r "=P- � i i !. m -LIVERPOOL ROAD Submitted Concept Plan -Ci�r>f-File No: A 13/18 P1CKER.1NG Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407 City Development (715 Liverpool Road) Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. L:\Planning\Core�Planning\Apps\A\2018 :a ,I n Proposed Single Detached Dwelling .... -= p- !l � I DATE: May 15, 2019 �)? :::::J� o' ID �o 3-:y �3 5" <D. :J3, ;{) :it ilGi =it -0 - 39 - ELEVATION A -04;6/­P1CKER1NG City Development Department L:\Planning\Corel\Planning\Apps\A 12018 ;!: '" ;!: '" 0.30S -':l\, FIR57 FLOOR ·;.oo·�-�· ' ' ' ' . ---. ' . ' ' View from Liverpool Road Submitted Conceptual Elevations -Front Elevations File No: A 13/18 Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407 (715 Liverpool Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ELEVATION B � � ;:: Gil.ADE DATE: May 15, 2019 -J?, :, ""ia'& -o3 3' �3 -00:, :J-i�:ti.: 0 :i. :a:_ - - 40 - --C4Jof-­pJ(KERJNG City Development Department L:\Planning\Corel\Planning\Apps\A\2018 Attachment# 5 to . Information Reoort # 11 -19 ELEVATION A ELEVATION A DD Submitted Conceptual Elevations -Side Elevations File No: A 13/18 Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407 (715 Liverpool Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: May 15, 2019 - 41 - -C�0f­Pl(KERlNG City Development Department L:\Planning\Corel\Planning\Apps\A \2018 " [/ C I b � Submitted Conceptual Elevations -Rear Elevation File No: A 13/18 Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407 (715 Liverpool Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: May 15, 2019 a� Os» �o 3=:s-!a3-·ro0 :, -::}-�I� ocr-­� �- ('\ - 42 - Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart Existing "R4-11" Zone Provision Proposed Zoning Standards South of Standard (A 13/18) Subject Property Along Liverpool Road Uses Permitted Detached dwelling Detached dwelling Lot Area (min) 305 square metres 460 square metres Lot Frontage (min) 10.0 metres 15.0 metres Front Yard (min) 6.0 metres 4.5 metres Interior Side Yard Width 1 .2 metres one side 1.2 metres both sides, or (min) and 0.6 metres other 1.8 metres one side and side no minimum other side Flankage Side Yard -2.7 metres Width (min) Rear Yard Depth 7.5 metres 7.5 metres Building Height (max) 9.0 metres 12.0 metres Lot Coverage (max) 40 percent 33 percent Existing "R4" Zone Standards in Neighbourhood Detached dwelling 460 square metres 15.0 metres 7.5 metres 1.5 metres one side and 2.4 metres other side, or 1.5 metres both sides if dwelling is erected with an attached garage 4.5 metres 7.5 metres 9.0 metres 33 percent ;;-� o'm --,; 0 3-::s-�3 -· (1)0 :::, �- � =1:1: 81--.J �;+ . 0 - 43 - ....... , 54!.7 Attachment# 8 to lnform�ti�n r.?eoort# j/-19 j1 Monica Co ok Place/\... �.,., I I -�'fl S4 -7 RM1 Luna Court �sn\� '� (0 ("') --"""' <( o:::-- I I Foxglove Avenue - 'I:"" r--:i: ...0::: � - ---"""' -o:::---- Ilona Park Road RM1 r 7 N:E0::: ..... (I) (I) ..... ..... C C\'l en C\'l (I) 0.. -at;;P1CKER1NG City Development Department I RM1 I R4 """' 0::: "O C\'l 0 0::: 0 0 0.s.... (I) -M_,,.. 'I:"" -:c-...., -c- ..... :i:--·- C1 ·R4-11· � ,, I/--� RfI I54-111 -r "> MD-H12' I I I 11 Gull_Crossi!JQT 52-17I � R4 Subject Lands Comme rce Street C1 R4 Broadview StreetI--R4 \ lV � - 44 - --C4Jof-­p](KER]NG Information Report to Planning & Development Committee From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Report Number: 12-19 Date: June 17, 2019 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/19 Joshani Homes Ltd. Part Lot 72, Plan 418; and now Part 2, 40R-30097 (southerly end of Dunn Crescent) 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Joshani Homes Ltd. to permit an infill residential development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision is being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2.Property Location and Description The subject lands are located at the south end of Dunn Crescent, east of Rosebank Road, and south of Nomad Road within the Rosebank Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands have an area of approximately 2,000 square metres with approximately 14 metres of frontage along Dunn Crescent. The property is currently vacant with existing mature vegetation along the east property line. Surrounding land uses to the north, south and west include low density residential development consisting of detached dwellings. To the east, across the Canadian National Railway (CNR) corridor, is the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). In April 2018, the Region of Durham Land Division Committee approved a Land Division Application (LD 089/17) allowing the subject lands to be severed from the abutting lands to the west (375 Rosebank Road) being the retained parcel. 3. Applicant's Proposed Amendments The applicant has submitted a rezoning application to permit an infill residential development consisting of four semi-detached dwelling units fronting onto the future southerly extension of Dunn Crescent (see submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3). - 45 - Information Report No. 12-19 Page 2 The proposed lot frontages will range between 10.9 metres and 12.4 metres, and lot areas will range between 332 square metres and 446 square metres. The dwellings will be 2-storeys and will have an approximate building height of 8.2 metres from established grade to the mid-point of the peaked roof (see submitted Conceptual Building Elevations, Attachments #4 and #5). Two parking spaces will be provided for each dwelling: one space within a private garage; and the other on the driveway. Dunn Crescent is proposed to be extended approximately 22.9 metres south terminating at a turning circle at the south end of the subject property, and will have a right-of-way width of 20.0 metres. The arborist report has identified a total of 16 trees on the subject lands. Two trees are proposed to be removed due to the siting of the proposed dwelling units. A third tree has been identified to be removed due to its hazardous condition. The applicant is proposing to plant up to 8 additional trees within the development limits as compensation for the removal of 3 trees. The applicant is proposing to create the new residential lots through the land severance process with the Region of Durham Land Division Committee. 4.Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Region Official Plan The Region of Durham Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as "Living Areas". The "Living Areas" designation shall be used predominately for housing purposes. The plan also states that lands within the Living Areas designation shall be developed in compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas. The applicant's proposal conforms to the policies and provisions of the ROP. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan The lands are within the Rosebank Neighbourhood and are designated "Urban Residential Areas -Low Density Area", which provides for housing and related uses. This designation permits a density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. The proposal has a density of approximately 27 units per net hectare. The Official Plan states that in establishing performance standards, regard shall be had to protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods by considering matters such as building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications. The Official Plan also states that where new development is proposed within an existing neighbourhood or established area, City Council shall encourage building design that reinforces and complements existing built patterns such as form, massing, height proportion, position relative to the street, and building area to site ratio. Details of the application will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan during the further processing of the applications. - 46 - Information Report No. 12-19 4.3 Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines Page 3 The subject lands are situated within Design Precinct No. 3 of the Rosebank Neighbouhood Development Guidelines. Residential development within this precinct shall be limited to single detached and semi-detached dwellings. All new lots created within this precinct for semi-dE;ltached dwellings shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 10.5 metres and minimum lot depths of approximately 30 metres. The proposed lot dimensions appear to comply with the minimum lot frontage and lot depth requirements of the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines 4.4 Zoning By-law 2511, as amended The subject lands are zoned Fourth Density Zone -"R4" within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, which permits a single detached dwelling. As noted in Section 3 of this report, the applicant is seeking a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit semi-detached dwelling units. The properties immediately north of the subject lands are currently zoned "SD-B'', which permits semi-detached dwelling attached below grade residential uses, and "S", which permits detached dwellings (see Zoning Map, Attachment #6). The applicant is requesting similar zoning performance standards as those of the SD-8 zone category (see Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart, Attachment #7). 5.Comments Received 5.1 Residents Comments As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from the public. 5.2 Agency Comments 5.2.1 Region of Durham -Planning Department As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from the Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department. 5.2.2 Metrolinx As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from Metrolinx. 5.3 City Departments Comments 5.3.1 Engineering Services As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from Engineering Services. - 47 - Information Report No. 12-19 6.Planning & Design Section Comments Page 4 The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and others identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant prior to a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: •ensuring conformity with the City's Official Plans and the Rosebank Neighbourhood policies, and the Neighbourhood Development Guidelines •ensuring that the proposal satisfies Metrolinx's requirements with respect to minimum building setback requirements from the CNR corridor, safety berm/barrier requirements along the east property line, and additional noise and vibration analysis •ensuring appropriate zoning performance standards are implemented to facilitate dwelling designs that are in keeping with the character of the surrounding residential community •reviewing preliminary grading and drainage details to ensure adjacent properties are not impacted •ensuring that appropriate compensation (financial and/or replacement planting) is provided for the removal of the existing vegetation •further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public The City Development Department will conclude its positon on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 7.Information Received Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for on line viewing at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: •Planning Rationale Report, prepared by R.W. Bruynson Inc., dated January 9, 2019 •Conceptual Site Plan, prepared by R.W. Bruynson, dated January 8, 2019 •Conceptual Floor Plan and Elevations, prepared by Cornerstone Drafting and Design, dated February 26, 2018 •Construction Management Plan, prepared by Counterpoint Engineering, dated March 29,2019 •Preliminary Grading Plan, prepared by Counterpoint Engineering, dated March 29, 2019 •Site Screening Questionnaire, received on February 20, 2019 •Arborist Report, prepared by DreamWorks Tree Services, dated March 31, 2019 •Functional Servicing Report, prepared by Counterpoint Engineering, dated January 9, 2019 •Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated March 2019 •Report on the Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by This Land Archaeology Inc., dated October 10, 2017 •Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport Letter, dated November 16, 2017 •Noise & Vibration Feasibility Study, prepared by Aerocoustics Engineering Ltd., dated April 17, 2018 - 48 - Information Report No. 12-19 8.Procedural Information 8.1 General Page 5 •written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department •oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting •all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council •any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal or makes a decision on the Draft Plan of Subdivision •any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 9. Owner/Applicant Information The owner of the property is Joshani Homes Ltd. and is represented by R. W. Bruynson Inc. Attachments 1 . Location Map 2.Air Photo Map 3.Submitted Conceptual Site Plan 4.Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations -Front and Rear Elevations 5.Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations -Side Elevations 6.Zoning Map 7.Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart Prepared By: i, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design FC:NS:ld Date of Report: May 29, 2019 Ap�d� Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner - 49 - Attachment# / to Information Report# ID-I q Staghorn Road :� 11 I� i----1 � l\----r'-----1 8 I I r-----1 "8 l"-----t---11 r----'-r---1 8 rr -04;4-PlCKERlNG City Development Department ,u J� 'O: I I I I Location Ma File: A 03/19 I I I I T ai------, 0 0::---,-+-,----,....4 - 50 - -Cttpc/-P1CKER1NG City Development Department Attachment# c5l to Information Report# IB-l9 Air Photo Map File: A 03/19 Applicant: Joshani Homes Ltd. Property Description: Pt Lot 72, Plan 418, now Part 2, 40R-30097 (Dunn Crescent) Date: Mav. 13, 2019 , tne l.;0rpora on o ........ 1 yo t'LCKenng 1oou,cea {inp11IJunaer :cenH om:wuueens t'nmer,umano Mlll5iryo: m1 ur1111esou1ces. SCALE: 1 :5,000 I r'II rig his ,ese,ved.;O Her l,\1)esly lhe Queen In Right ol C1mide, Depertmenloflla\Ufill Resourt:n. Al right. reiserved.; D Teranel Enle,pflsn Inc. and its suppreB all rights re1erved.; 0 P.1unlclpal Property Assessment Corporation and h suppler, 111 right, 1ese,ved.; THlS IS tlOT A PLAtl OF SURVEY. - 51 - EX, 2 STOREY, RESIDENCE ,l' �� I, i------'-' I LOT 1 REGISTERED � � LOT 22 PLAN '·"-··· ' � �(?,SQ �?--v,,,G\S -Cifpo/­PJ(KER]NG LOT 73 Submitted Conceptual Site Plan File No: A 03/19 Applicant: Joshani Homes Ltd. BLOCK 24 40M-1366 LOT A.Q[A !;HlSO .M. f'lN.fL UI.YCR :OLllC., A1<£A "100 ,;cp, . LtVtl\U ARCA ..-1!!1 ,;.q.�n. LOTAl&:A 4-4-6 SCI .M. Property Description: Pt Lot 72, Plan 418, now Part 2, 40R-30097 City Development Department L:\Planning\Corel\Planning\Apps\A 12018 (Dunn Crescent) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ,..,_ ..I__ $ � � zif # zs � (j'f t DATE: May 13, 2019 =fi o'm 3 g. a3 -· (I) 0 ::J :::, -::u =It IIG,=It -. 0 v I ...Q - 52 - [=�� ,,r•.c.<:t_I,b��5 ·- < ; f ' _ ; . , i ; ; _ & � & { t ' L ct,.,�'/£�-£._ ... D-'CFrlt.T:: __ 1'-?2.J.!...::&.IQ_ --Otpof-­p](KER]NG City Development Department L:\Planning\Core�Planning\Apps\A\2019 Attachment# L/. to Information Report# /:J-19 ��--+---� ! I I Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations File No: A 03/19 Applicant: Joshani Homes Ltd. 'r Property Description: Pt Lot 72, Plan 418, now Part 2, 40R-30097 (Dunn Crescent) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: May 22, 2019 - 53 - ·, ;, (, ,,, •·tC!'.ff-1l/,=\l5 ·' l(:f'_Q:'-1!]\!]Q!!'.3_ ;,. _ �N Gt.'OJ\D RJ.' __ _ Attachment# 5 to . Information Reoort # t) -l 9 ,­,-, ,� ,-' ,-' ,-' ,-' -�-�-rrrr' r---�� '-==�==========/ ____ J · Left Side Elevation ,c=r ,U: ::_E'/MI:•\ _T(.P(FFU.TE _ f•�t'J,J'.".JJ!JQd_ tTQ:,Q'_E!,'.f,?,,;3 ' : : c..!:f -1!!:!&!_(j_ .• L;,.::◊Nlf""'.;,, __ ! l ..-L--------------------------.. f---T------------------I ' ' ' ' ' ' I I �-------� I >----t I ' ' ' [.1---:::::� __ 1:---:::-_-_-_:-_-_-_-_-_-_:_-_:-_-_-_-::-_-_-_:-_--------I ----------- ,Uff cl,': '=-=ILJI:,'. Right Side Elevation • I :::==:::::J.r::_J --C�r,/-­p](KERJNG Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations File No: A 03/19 Applicant: Joshani Homes Ltd. City Development Department Property Description: Pt Lot 72, Plan 418, now Part 2, 40R-30097 L:\Planning\Corel\Planning\Apps\A\2019 (Dunn Crescent) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DATE: May 22, 2019 - 54 - R4 R3 Attachment# lo to. . c Information Report# 1 J -\ 1 Staghorn Road �� S2�16 .... ·, 0 0 :e: 0 u I ·a:: I : S2-1�-R4- s I I R4 I I I G T a5l---­o o::1--.-��.-l -�c/­PJ(KERJNG City Development Department orporationo 1tyo 1 ermg ro uce npart)u er1eense om: ueens nnter, tano nis.tryo aura esources. 11 rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen In Right or Canada, Department of Natural Re5<1Ul'Ces. All rights reserved.; Teranet Enterprises !ne. and fts supp/le rs all rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its supp�ers all rights reserved.; THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. 02 - 55 - Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart Provision Proposed Zoning Existing "R4" Zone Existing "SD-8" Standard - A 03/19 Standards Zone Standards Permitted Uses Semi-detached Detached dwelling Semi-detached dwelling dwelling attached below grade Lot Area (min) 320 square metres 460 square metres 320 square metres Lot Frontage (min) 10.5 metres 15.0 metres 10.5 metres Front yard (min) 6.0 metres 7.5 metres 6.0 metres Interior Side Yard 1.1 metre,s, except 1.5 metres, other side 1.5 metres, except (min) that in the case of an 2.4 metres except as that in the case of an interior side yard provided in interior side yard between a pair of Section 5.19 (d) between a pair of attached single attached single dwelling the minimum dwellings the shall be 0.0 metres minimum shall be 0.9 metres Flankage Yard (min) 4.0 metres n/a 4.0 metres Rear Yard (min) 7.5 metres 7.5 metres 7.5 metres Lot Coverage (max) 35 percent 33 percent 35 percent Building Height (max) 9.0 metres 9.0 metres 12.0 metres Existing "S" Zone Standards Detached dwelling 450 square metres 15.0 metres 6.0 metres 1.5 metres one side, 1.2 metres other side 4.0 metres 7.5 metres 35 percent 12.0 metres 5'� a-- -1� 3::r �3 0 CD ::, :::s ti; 3. '-J ;t::_ �o - 56 - --Cl:1 0/-­p](KER]NG Report to Planning & Development Committee From: Subject: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Proposed Telecommunication Tower Shared Network Canada Report Number: PLN 16-19 Date: June 17, 2019 Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) Installation #66 Recommendation: 1.That Shared Network Canada be advised that City Council objects to the proposal for a 46.0 metre high tri-pole lattice style telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road, based on the design and location of the proposal. Executive Summary: Shared Network Canada has submitted a proposal to construct a 46.0 metre high tri-pole lattice style telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road within the Claremont Union Cemetery (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #1 ). Shared Network Canada has completed the public consultation process in accordance with the City's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol (Cell Tower Protocol). The key concerns expressed by one area resident were related to loss of property values associated with the proposed cell tower, and the business model of the proponent. Two public comments were received in support of the proposed tower. City staff have reviewed the proposed installation against the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The tower is to be located in a rural residential area within 500 metres of 8 residential properties. Shared Network Canada has not considered alternative tower designs or screening measures, as recommended under the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The proposed tower does not meet the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location, and will have a significant visual impact on the immediate area. Staff recommends that Shared Network Canada be advised that Council objects to the proposed telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road, based on the design and other details submitted with the application. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. - 57 - Report PLN 16-19 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 1.Background 1.1 Property Description June 17, 2019 Page 2 The subject property is located on the north side of Ninth Concession Road, east of Sideline 14 and west of Sideline 12. The property currently supports the Claremont Union Cemetery (see Air Photo Map, Attachments #1). The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as "Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Area" and "Prime Agricultural Areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine". The portion of the subject site where the cell tower is proposed to be located is zoned Oak Ridges Moraine Institutional Zone ("(H)ORM-1-2") by Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06. A telecommunication tower is a permitted use under the public utilities exemption of Zoning By-law 3037. 1.2 Applicant's Proposal Shared Network Canada is proposing a 46.0 metre high tripole lattice-style telecommunication tower at 2170 Ninth Concession Road. The tower is proposed to be located in the north-west corner of the property where no burials have occurred (see Submitted Draft Reference Plan, Attachment #2). The proposed tower will be contained within a fenced compound area measuring 10.0 metres by 10.0 metres in size. Also proposed within the fenced compound are three ground-related cabinets that will contain supporting infrastructure for the tower. The security fence will be 1.8 metres in height and topped with barb wire (see Submitted Elevation and Compound Plan, Attachment #3). Access to the tower and ground equipment will be provided by a new north-south gravel driveway located along the west side of the property. The new driveway will connect to the existing gravel driveway, which provides access to the cemetery from the Ninth Concession Road. 2.Comments Received 2.1 City Departments & Agency Comments Engineering Services •No comments 2.2 Public Notification has been completed Shared Network Canada has completed the public consultation in accordance with the City's Cell Tower Protocol. As this proposal is located in a rural area, the minimum circulation radius of 500 metres from the tower location was applied. A total of 11 property owners were notified by mail, and a newspaper notification was placed in the May 10, 2018 edition of the News Advertiser. A Public Notice sign was also posted at the front of the subject property along Ninth Concession Road on May 10, 2018. - 58 - Report PLN 16-19 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 June 17, 2019 Page 3 The applicant has advised that written comments were received from three households as a result of the circulation (see Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report, Attachment #4). Written comments received from the adjacent property owner to the west expressed concerns related to: •the perceived impacts on property value associated with the proposed cell tower •the business model of the applicant, which is to maximize revenues by erecting and operating for profit the maximum number cell towers •inconsistency with the design and location criteria of the City's Cell Tower Protocol, and •inaccurate representations in the supporting materials submitted Written comments from two other households expressed support for the proposed cell tower, citing that they experience unreliable cellular and internet services on a daily basis. The letters indicated that they believe the proposed cell tower will improve such services and their quality of life. Staff also received written comments from the adjacent property owner to the east. The owners sought clarification regarding future building permit implications to their lands as a result of the proposed tower location. City staff confirmed that the proposed tower at the Claremont Union Cemetery would not preclude the ability to obtain a building permit for their lands. 3.Assessment of the Proposal against the City's Cell Tower Protocol The City's Cell Tower Protocol was established to provide direction for proponents on the location and design of antenna towers and provides criteria for staff, in order to assess a proposal. City Development staff have reviewed the proposed cell tower against the location and design criteria of the City's Cell Tower Protocol (the Protocol). 3.1 The proposal does not maintain the location criteria of the City's Protocol The Protocol specifies "preferred" and "discouraged" locations for new antenna systems in order to minimize the number of towers and facilities required to service the City and limit the visual impacts of towers on the surrounding area. The Protocol outlines that sites within industrial, commercial, and non-residential, or that maximize the distance from residential areas are preferred locations for antenna system installations. Additionally, the use of City owned lands or facilities where technically feasible is strongly encouraged. The City discourages the installation of new antenna systems in residential areas, on sites of topographical prominence that would obscure public views, and within environmentally sensitive lands or immediately adjacent to Heritage Properties. Though the tower is proposed on a non-residential property, the location of the proposed tower does not meet the City's preferred location criteria as it is located on an elevated site that has topographical prominence within a residential area. The proposed tower is located within approximately 100 metres of the closest residential dwelling and less than 500 metres away from 7 additional residential dwellings. - 59 - Report PLN 16-19 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 June 17, 2019 Page 4 The location of the proposed tower will have significant visual impacts on the immediate property owners, due to the higher elevation of the subject lands and the close proximity of the tower to residential properties. 3.2 The proposal does not incorporate the design considerations of the City's Protocol The Protocol outlines specific design criteria that is required to be maintained in order to minimize the visual impact of an antenna system on the surrounding area. The criteria requires designs that: •accommodate for future co-location of additional carriers •utilize stealth techniques such as flagpoles, clock towers, trees and light poles, where appropriate and in harmony with the context of the surrounding area •utilize monopole towers with antennas shrouded or flush mounted, particularly when the tower is proposed near a residential area •are not illuminated, unless required by Transport Canada and •screen equipment shelters by landscaping in a matter that is compatible and sensitive to the surrounding area The proposed tower does not maintain the criteria established by the Protocol. The design recommendations outlined have not been incorporated into the proposal. The location of the tower does not lend itself to utilizing stealth techniques such as a flagpole or tree design as the surrounding area is rural and does not benefit from having mature vegetation. However, alternative design techniques or alterations, which would limit the visual impact on the abutting residential properties, were not considered by the applicant for the proposed tower. A monopole tower with covered antennas and an overall reduction in the height of the proposed tower from 46.0 metres, could contribute to reducing the visual impact of the tower on adjacent residents. 3.3 Co-location and Alternative Locations have been examined The applicant provided a justification report to the City Development Department in support of the tower. The applicant investigated the opportunity to co-locate their equipment in the immediate area. Shared Network Canada advised that the closest existing tower was located approximately 1.8 kilometres away in Claremont and is operated by Bell. The applicant outlined the Bell tower is located within a building and does not exceed 4.0 metres in height. This tower would not be available for co-location and does not service the capacity issues in the proposed area. Three towers were also identified, which are located approximately 6.8 kilometres to the west, approximately 4.7 kilometres to the north and approximately 7.4 kilometres to the east. Shared Network Canada indicated that these towers would not accommodate their network coverage requirements or desired service area, and were therefore not viable for co-location. - 60 - Report PLN 16-19 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 June 17, 2019 Page 5 Shared Network Canada has confirmed that the proposed tower has been engineered to accommodate co-location by multiple service providers, including Rogers, Bell, and Freedom Mobile. Following the Public Consultation process, City Staff requested that the applicant examine alternative properties for the proposed tower, which were further from residential dwellings. Shared Network Canada advised that following an extensive review of the surrounding area, no viable alternative sites were available for their desired service area. The applicant cited airport zoning regulations limiting height, unwilling property owners and topography as limiting factors for an alternative site. City Staff requested the applicant explore relocating the proposed tower in an alternative location on the subject lands, in order to maximize the distance from residential dwellings and provide additional screening. Shared Networked Canada advised that the tower was unable to be relocated on the subject lands as the majority of the lands were already occupied, and the Claremont Union Cemetery intends to expand the existing cemetery on the balance of the lands. 4.Conclusion The proposal has been circulated and reviewed in accordance with the City's Cell Tower Protocol. Staff recommend that City Council endorse the recommendation in this report as the installation does not satisfy the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location requirements. The tower is located within a rural area that has a number of residential dwellings and based on the design of the tower, will have a negative visual impact for the residents residing in the immediate area. Attachments 1.Air Photo Map 2.Submitted Draft Reference Plan 3.Submitted Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan 4.Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report - 61 - Report PLN 16-19 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 June 17, 2019 Page 6 Prepared By: I t rti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CM:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council u Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Approved/Endorsed By: !�!\� Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO - 62 - -Cdt;�I­P1CKER1NG City Development Department ATTACHMENT# f TORtf'ORT, PLf\ llo-19 Air Photo Ma File: Installation #66 - 63 - Proposed Tower Location --Q�of-­Pl(KER]NG City Development Department ATTACHMENT# � TORf:f'ORl # .eL lt:r/9 Submitted Draft Reference Plan File: Installation #66 Applicant: Shared Networks Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) DATE: May 7, 2019 - 64 - ATTACHMENT# 3 TO Rf:PORT # _pLI� \lo-19 ELEVATION PLAN NOT TO SCALE OUTER SURFACE =300.00 -C4/o/­p1(KERlNG City Development Department E '° ..,. TOWER TOP =299.5 AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT =255.0m PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN SCALE 1:200 0 0 10.00 �--------, r-----, I:�:! fN2'E!I I I � l')I I ®1 I I I I! ! L __ 3_m_J I I I I C,2\ L----------1 (@ � ..,- r-----, I I ;;:;). I r.:;;,.. E' � : � ,,,: L_ 3m __ J r-----,I I I r.:;;,.. I I��: L_.Jrn __ J Submitted Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan File: Installation #66 Applicant: Shared Networks Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) DATE: May 7, 2019 - 65 - shared network ATTACHMENT I � TOREPORT# PL!\[ G-19 CANADA May 13, 2019 Town of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L 1V 6K7 Re: Proposed New Telecommunication Tower Installation Claremont Cemetery, Concession 9, Claremont, ON File No. SNC0120 Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2 Coverage Objective ................................................................................................ 3 Site Profile ............................................................................................................. 7 Public Consultation .................................................................................................. 8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 9 Appendix A-AZR (Airport Zoning) Report Appendix B -Detailed Site Profile Appendix C -Public Consultation Comments/ Responses Appendix D -Public Consultation Proofs Appendix E -Site Survey 1- 66 - shared network CANADA Introduction ATTACHMENT# 4 TO Rl:PORl # PLN j (q-1 q Shared Network Canada is proposing a new wireless telecommunications facility at the Claremont Cemetery in Claremont -Pickering. The subject property is a parcel located in Claremont, northwest of the intersection of Concession Road 9 and Sideline Road 12. The proposed location is indicated by the blue star on the following aerial photograph: The proposed structure is a 45-metre tower. The telecommunications tower location has been situated based on the anticipated current network improvement needs of wireless telecommunication companies. Approval of the tower would allow carriers to locate upon the tower instead of constructing their own, single carrier installations. The tower height and compound size will accommodate multiple wireless service providers, including licensed cellular carriers. As of the date of this application, an incumbent national carrier has expressed interest in collocating on the proposed pole. The tower is being designed to accommodate multiple antenna equipment from Rogers, Bell and Freedom Mobile, including space for their radio equipment cabinets within the fenced area located on the north end of the field. Space on the tower will also be made available for any fixed wireless Internet tenants, as well as for municipal/public communication equipment purposes. 2 - 67 - shared network CANADA Coverage Objective ATTACHMENT# L/--TO Rf:PORT u . PLN \ 6 -19 The proposed installation is designed to improve wireless services in the Town of Claremont due to high capacity of users in the surrounding farm areas as well as the high traffic demand of this busy intersection. Significant suburban development in this location has increased demand for wireless services in the area, and the increase in demand will continue as additional properties are developed, and people discard their fixed lines. As residents continue to rely solely on their mobile devices and mobile device coverage, safety issues arise as residents require the ability to call for help in the case of an emergency. As fixed household -lines are no longer seen as necessities, having access to good signal for mobile devices in houses, stores and in vehicles in order to have the ability to contact emergency services has become a necessity. Gaps in cellular coverage are evident in Claremont, both in residences or while outside driving. Wireless internet connectivity and speeds to local residents, especially rural, is lacking due to its proximity to the nearest wireless connection point. ,, I I 31 I ·The nearest existing installation to the proposed SNC0120 facility (blue star on the map photograph below) is an in-building Bell Mobile installation at small building owned by Bell on Joseph St. & Wixson St. approximately i .76km from the proposed site. This system is not meant to service the entirety of the region as the maximum height of the building is 4m, and there is no opportunity for co-location. 3 - 68 - shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT# # ·-� REJ'ORT # PL I lo·-/� Image of the Bell installation location surrounded by residential properties in the heart of Claremont where co-location is not an option as a tower or pole would not be a suitable option for the surrounding community. i -- l ., T " ·•· . I I C arC'ITlOnt .• 23 ;31 I The next nearest tower installations are found 6.82km to the west, 4.66km to the north, and 7.36km to the east from the Town of Claremont. These grand setbacks are the main contributor to a lack of cellular coverage, and co-location opportunities in Claremont. 4 - 69 - shared network CANADA I •. ATTACHMENT# 4 TO REPORT # PLN I b --/ q 31 Above is our proposed location, we chose to set the proposed tower back as far as possible from the Town of Claremont while continuing to allow the installation to provide great coverage to the entire Town, surrounding communities and commuting traffic. 5 - 70 - shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT# 4 TO RE:PORT # ,PL� I l? -1 q Shared Network Canada has been searching for a proposed site in this area to adequately cover the Town of Claremont since 2017. Following each meeting with the Planning Department of the City of Pickering and in order to address one comment received during the public consultation process we exhausted every possible alternate location. Due to airport zoning restrictions in the area, Claremont and the surrounding area is considered to be in the Outer Surface and no obstruction is permitted above an elevation of 300.0m above sea level. Attached in "Appendix A" is such report for the proposed location, but this depicts our necessity to find a property with a low elevation (as seen in Site Profile) in order to comply with the federal regulations. Moving to the north of Claremont is not an option since the elevation rises the further we moved away from the Town. We explored any alternative location possible, but due to many constraints, the airport constraint mentioned along with the other constraints below, the location we are proposing is the only adequate location to propose a tower to service the Town. We've attached the above map for reference: • depicts Landlords we've approached who either weren't interested or weren't open to discussing. •Yellow Cross Hatching is Federally owned land for the purposes of the prospective airport. • were areas that are restricted by the conservation authorities as well as the height restriction issue. • is an owner that was interested but his property is surrounded by many residential properties abutting in very close proximity. 6 - 71 - shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT#· Lj.. TOREPORT# �/t::f Site Profile The proposed tripole tower, as depicted by the sample photos included as "Appendix B". 7 - 72 - shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT# 4 � TORl':PORT #PLN 11:, -/ 9 The tower design has been selected to provide maximum collocation potential with a relatively small footprint and limited visual impact on the immediate surrounding. The proposed tripole tower blends in with the rural community, minimizing its profile against the surrounding area and is also a compatible design with the character of its immediate area. Public Consultation On Sept. 2, 2014, City of Pickering adopted a protocol (City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol) -File A-1110-004 The City's Protocol can be viewed at www.pickering.ca. In consideration of the community and at the City's request, Shared Network Canada conducted a public consultation on _the proposed site at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont in order to provide the community with the information on the proposal. This process allowed the City, Shared Network Canada and the public to exchange information pertaining to our installation. The City of Pickering has developed a protocol for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. In accordance with the City's Protocol, Shared Network Canada is required to provide a notice to all property owners located within 500m of the furthest point of the tower compound. In fulfillment of the City's request for public notification, Shared Network Canada provided an information package to all those property owners located within a radius of up to 500 metres from the base of the installation. Concurrent to the mailing of this invitation Shared Network Canada placed a notice in the local community newspaper, News Advertiser, and erected 1 sign on the property notifying the public of the consultation period. Copy of this information package was also provided to the City of Pickering's Planning Department and Industry Canada as part of the municipal consultation process. In agreement with the municipality, 13 notices were mailed to neighbouring property owners, located within the radius from the subject property, up to 500m. Of the 13 notices mailed during the consultation, Shared Network Canada received a total of 3 comments. 1 commenf received was in opposition of the site 2 comments received were in support of the s_ite Both comments in support come from residences outside of the information package notification radius (500m from installation). All comments and responses have been attached into "Appendix C". 8 - 73 - shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT#r#-TO REPORT# P I !fr 19 Conclusion Reliable wireless communication services are a key element of economic development across Canada. It facilitates the growth of local economies by providing easy access to information, and connectivity for residents and business alike. As identified in the City of Pickering's Economic Strategic Plan, telecommunications is a powerful economic enabler that supports Pickering's· goal to promote home occupations, teleworking, telecommuting and improved community networking and information dissemination. Like many areas of the province, Claremont is experiencing a growing demand for wireless services. As people rely more on wireless devices such as smartphones, tablets and laptops for business and personal use, network improvements are required to ensure high quality voice and data services are available. In response to this growing demand for wireless services, Shared Network Canada has worked to find the most suitable location for a new telecommunications tower in efforts to provide improved coverage within the surrounding area of the Town of Claremont. In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are also critical to ensuring the accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Wireless communications products and services, used daily by police, EMS, firefighters and other first responders, are an integral part of Canada's safety infrastructure. Shared Network Canada has undertaken and now completed a comprehensive public consultation process as it pertains to the wireless communications site located at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont in fulfillment of all the requirements under City of Pickering Protocol and Industry Canada guidelines. While we appreciate there remains one concern with the location due to public's health concern or proximity to their property, unfortunately due to a lack of alternative sites in the area, the only workable solution continues to be the current location at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont. In addition, Shared Network Canada assures and attests that our site and all wireless carriers on the tower will be fully compliant with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. Shared Network Canada has at all times been transparent and fully compliant with both municipal protocol and federal regulations pertaining to this proposal. Furthermore, Shared Network Canada has demonstrated our strict adherence obligations pertaining to health and have provided the parties that had submitted comments with numerous resources for the Federal and Provincial government bodies, as Shared Network Canada has no input into review or setting of standards and regulations. 9 - 74 - Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via email at dom@sharednetwork.ca. Dom Claros dom@sharednetwork.ca 10 - 75 - shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT# 1/. TO REPORT u PLN 16 -} i.__ Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance Health Canada's role is to protect the health of Canadians, so it is the Department's responsibility to research and investigate any possible health effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic energy, such as that coming from cell phones and base stations. Health Canada has developed guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, which are commonly known as Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 has been adopted by Industry Canada and is included in their regulatory documents on radiocommunication licensing and operational requirements. Industry Canada requires all proponents and operators to ensure that their installations and apparatus comply with the Safety Code 6 at all times. Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits, as may be amended from time to time, for the protection of the general public including any combined effects of additional carrier co-locations and nearby installations within the local radio environment. For more information on Safety Code 6, please visit the following Health Canada site: www.hea lthcanada.gc.ca/radiation. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system as proposed for this site will comply with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as the facility is exempt from review. The proposed location creates no impact on area environmental features. It is located on an already disturbed area of an existing industrial operation. No trees or vegetation is being removed to accommodate the installation. Transport Canada's Aeronautical Obstruction Marking Requirements Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will comply with Transport Canada / NAV CANADA aerona·utical safety requirements. When Transport Canada / NAV Canada have determined if any aeronautical safety features are required for the installation, such information will be provided to the Town. For additional detailed information, please consult Transport Canada at: http:/ /www.tc.gc.ca/ eng/ civi laviation/regserv/ cars/part6-standards-standard621-512. htm Engineering Practices Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system as proposed for this site will be constructed in compliance with the Canadian Standard Association and comply with good engineering practices including structural adequacy. 11 - 76 - shared network CANADA Contact Information ATTACHMENT#_4 TO REPORT # _Pl.&['n;-/ 1 As a representative of Shared Network Canada, you can contact us at the following: Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 (647)360-8197 municipal@sharednetwork.ca Municipal Consultation Process Shared Network Canada builds and operates shared wireless telecommunications infrastructure, designed to ensure that service providers can address their customers' needs in the most efficient manner. As a federal undertaking; Shared Network Canada is required by Industry Canada to consult with land-use authorities in siting telecommunication infrastructure locations. The consultation process established under Industry Canada's authority is intended to allow the local land­ use authorities the opportunity to address land-use concerns while respecting the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over the siting and operation of wireless and data systems. Shared Network Canada welcomes comments from the municipality and its agencies fo address any expressed comments that are deemed relevant by Industry Canada's CPC-2-0-03 Issue 5. Industry Canada's Spectrum Management Please be advised that the approval of this site and its design is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of Canada through Industry Canada. Shared Network Canada is participating in this consultation in accordance with Industry Canada's guidelines CPC-2-0-03 Issue 5. For more information on Industry Canada's public consultation guidelines including CPC-2-0-03 contact http://www.ic.gc.ca/epidsite/smt-gst.nsf/en/sf08777e.html or the local Industry Canada office: Industry Canada, Spectrum Management Toronto District Office 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Room 909 Toronto ON M4T 1 M2 Telephone: 1-8_55-465-6307 Ema ii: ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto. ic@canada.ca General information relating to antenna systems is available on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/home 12 - 77 - shared ne�qi;,� AT ACHIVJENT #�.--,;-TOREPORT# PLN \(q-1'1__ Appendix A 13 - 78 - December 6, 2017 Dom Claros Shared Network Canada 275 MacPherson Ave, Unit 103 PO Box 69010 Toronto ON M4V 1A4 Re: SURVEYOR'S ATTESTATION Airport Zoning Regulations Report SNC0120 CLAREMONT-UNION CEMETERY Site: 5205 Regional Road 5, Pickering ON J.D.BARNES LIMITt D L A N D I � I O I! 1,1 1\ 1 I O N S I' [ C I A I I � I � E-MAIL Part of Lot 14, Concession 9 Geographic Township of Pickering PIN 26392-0178 (LT} JDB File 17-15-112-00 Dear Sir/Madam: This report details the proposed tower installation with respect to Pickering Airport Zoning Regulations under the Federal Aeronautics Act, at a location more particularly described as being Paii of Lot 14 Concession 9, Geographic Township of Pickering (Part of PIN 26392-0178), in the City of Pickering. This location lies within the Outer Surface as defined by the Pickering Airport Zoning Regulations SOR/2004-212. No obstruction is permitted above an elevation of 300.0m (984.25') at the location of proposed telecommunications tower described below (in NAD83 Coordinates): Proposed Tower Centre: Latitude N 43°58'44.7" 253.5m (831.69') 255.0m (836.6') 299.5m (982.61 ') 300.0m (984.25') Longitude W 79 °06'33.5" Ground Elev. @Proposed Tower: Airp01i Reference Point Elevation: Top of Proposed Tower Elevation: Outer Surface: This info1mation is depicted on Plan Showing Topography and Site Layout Design 17-15-112-00 dated December 6, 2017. Surveying I Planning 140 Renfrew Drive I Suite 100 I Markham T: [905)477-3600 Mapping I GIS Ontario I L3R 683 F: (905)477-3882 www.Jdbarnes.com - 79 - Page 2 ATTACHMENT ti Y-_ TO REPORT# f1_1-l lb-,9 In summary, based on a proposed tower height of 46m, there is 0.5m (1.64') clearance from tower top to the plane of the Outer Surface. Yours Truly, J.D.BARNES LIMITED M.J.Fisher, P.Eng, OLS MF Surveying I Plannlng 140 Renfrew Drive I Suite 100 I Markham T: 1905]477-3600 Mapping I GIS Ontario I L3R 6B3 F: [9051477-3882 w w w. J db a.r n es.com- 80 - shared network · CANADA ATTACHMENT# ii O REPORT # PLN ) le ··/ � Appendix B 14 - 81 - - 82 - ATTACHMENT 11��4'--_TO REPORT # LN llo -19_· _ - 83 - ATTACHMENT# REPORT# - 84 - ,4 TO ATTACHMENT #�-\b-Jq RE:PORT II - 85 - - 86 - ... ·. ATTACHMENT II L£ 1 � r_9c., __REPORT # _.p_L_� ___ ...,,!fZ..._,_1_ �I-- 87 - ATTACHMENT fl m TO. q REPORT# J--1 th-I - 88 - shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT# � .. TO RE:PORT fl p L I b -/ q Appendix C 15 - 89 - ATTACHMENT ti L/--. TO Rl:f'ORT # . J?t.N I b-19 From: SNC Municipal Relations municipal@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Fwd: Claremont Communications Tower Date: February 21, 2019 at 11 :29 AM · To: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Regards, Leticia Avanse Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca municipal@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Pickles, David, Councillor" <Q.pickles@oickering.ca> Subject: Re: Claremont Communications Tower Date: February 21, 2019 at 11:27:26 AM EST To: Linda Robinson Cc: "municiQal@sharednetwork.ca" <municipa l@share dnetwork.ca >, "ic.spec t rumenod-sQectredeno.ic@canada.ca" <ic.spec trumenod-sQectredeno.ic@canada.ca>, "Butt, Shaheen, Councillor" <sbutt@oickering£2>, "Bentley, Kyle" <kbentiey..@Qickerinq.ca> Hi Linda ·• I am sharing your email with our planning staff. They review and comment on these applications. To be clear the towers are by owned and constructed by private sector companies not the city. The city reviews and provides comments to the federal government who is the approval agency for communications towers. Signals will also depend on what cell services are using which towers. By copy of this email I will ask staff to update both of us on this application. Thanks David Pickles Regional Councillor -Ward 3 905.420.4605<1el:905.420.4605> I 1.866.683.2760<1el:1.866.683.2760> QRickles@Rickering.ca<mailto:d[lickles@[lickering.ca> [cid :image003. RlliJ ®01 D 1 F4AD. 80090790)<httR ://enews. pickering .ca/en/enews/signu[l. aSjE> [cid :image005. RlliJ ®01 D 1 F4AD.80090790)<htt[ls://www.facebook.com/Cit)'.Of Pickering> [cid:image011.gng@01 D1 D084.35FE8C30) On Feb 21, 2019, at 11 :20 AM, Linda Robinson To the municipal affairs manager, wrote: - 90 - ATTACHMENT# I_/ TO REPORT # eLNI lb-, q My husband and I are residents on Canso Drive, and I am writing to give my support for the proposed tower in Claremont. My family and I moved to Claremont in 1996, and have enjoyed living in this quiet area of Pickering. However, over the years, we have noticed the cell-service and wireless coverage is less than adequate in this area. Calls will drop when travelling north on Brock road, and there are areas in our house where calls will also drop, or the Wifi signal is low or non-existent. The cell coverage in the general area is spotty and unreliable at best. Sometimes we have to move to a particular area of our house just to make a call, or be able to pick up Wifi. It frustrates us but we have accepted it as a part of living out of the city, but we would appreciate better service in the area. It has come to our attention that a cell phone tower in closer proximity to Claremont will help this problem, and we are in full support of this proposal, and trust that it can be built soon and that it will not get tied up in the bureaucratic process. Thank you for your time and please take our support into consideration. George and Linda Robinson This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. - 91 - From: Leticia Avanse leticia@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Fwd: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: July 5, 2018 at 12:25 PM To: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Kathy Keats Subject: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT To: municioal@sharednetwork.ca I am a resident of 5100 Sideline 12, Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard. • At my location, we have no access whatsoever to internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. -We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. -We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL. -Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable. Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use , too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which ... -... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest internet functions hopelessly slow, if not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modern world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available-literally 40 minutes from downtown To ront9. This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure. I highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont. Thank you for your efforts in this regard. Kathy Keats - 92 - From: Kathy Keats Al lACH1VIU� 1 II 4 TO Hf.POR I fl Ql� \ lo -/ q_ ---- Subject: Re: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: July 26, 2018 at 9:46 AM To: dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Hey! • I was just wondering if you had any news re: this tower. Both Bell towers in the area (Claremont and Dagmar) are malfunctioning and so the other towers in the area is overwhelmed. Kathy Keats On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:28 PM Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> wrote: Hi Kathy, Hope your week is going well. Sorry I'm just getting back into the office from vacation. Thank you very much for sending this email, really appreciate it. Kind regards, Dom Claros Shared Network Canada httP-:l/sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Kathy Keats Subject: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT To: municiRal@shared network.ca I am a resident of 5100 Sideline 12, Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard. At my location, we have no access whatsoever to internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. -We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. -We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL. •Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable. Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use, too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which... -... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest internet functions hopelessly slow, if not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modern world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available-literally 40 minutes from downtown Toronto. This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure. I highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont. Thank you for your efforts in this regard. Kathy Keats - 93 - From: Kathy Keats _ _ Subject: Re: SNC File Number: 8NC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: September 6, 2018 at 9:26 AM To: dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Hi Dom, I know I'm being a bit of a stalker, but any news on the tower (SNC0120) in Claremont? Thanks so much for your efforts! Kathy Keats On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:23 PM Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> wrote: Hi Kathy! • Thanks for letting us know, we are working hard to get everything approved by the City of Pickering and should hopefully have an update for you shortly. Thanks! Dom Claros Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca On Jul 26, 2018, at 9:46 AM, Kathy Keats Hey! I was just wondering if you had any news re: this tower. Both Bell towers in the area (Claremont and Dagmar) are malfunctioning and so the other towers in the area is overwhelmed. Kathy Keats On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:28 PM Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> wrote: Hi Kathy, Hope your week is going well. Sorry I'm just getting back into the office from vacation. Thank you very much for sending this email, really appreciate ii. Kind regards, Dom Claros Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Kathy Keats _ . Subject: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca I am a resident of 5100 Sideline 12, Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. - 94 - Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard. At my location, we have no .access whatsoever to internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. -We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. -We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL. -Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable. Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use, too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which ... -... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest internet functions hopelessly slow, if not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modern world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available-literally 40 minutes from downtown Tor onto. This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure. I highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont. Thank you for your efforts in this regard. Kathy Keats - 95 - Wednesday May 16, 2018 Mr. Kyle Bentley City of Pickering -City Development Department Pickering, ON Aghlab AI-Joundi Re: Proposed Shared Network Canada ("SNC") Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Claremont-Union Cemetery, Pickering, ON, SNC File Number: SNC0120 Dear Mr. Bentley, As a follow up to my email sent May 14, 2018, I have additional material concerns about the above noted cell tower proposal. I will outline them below. 1.SNC business model emphasizes erection of towers, not provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services Are you aware that the propone nt, SNC, is not in the business of providing cellular communications and internet services to residential and commercial clients, but rather their business model is specifically about generating maximum revenues from the erection of as many cell towers as possible? This is very clear from statements on their website including, "We build towers and rent space on them for radio equipment, such as cellular antennas". They add, " ... we think it makes more sense than ever before for wireless carriers to recognize that towers are not their core business, and that these assets can be more efficiently built, owned and managed elsewhere." Given their undisputed business mandate is to maximize revenues by erecting the maximum number of new towers (there is nothing in their attestations about cell based services to end users/communities as a primary business objective), there is a fundamental conflict with the Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, "before building a new antenna-supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first - 96 - explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a} consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b} consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards". Not surprisingly, both Industry Canada and the CPCTP prioritize any cell services provider to utilize existing infrastructure to support installation of their electronics, and even the wording of such prioritization is almost identical between the two authoritative bodies. Fundamental to Industry Canada's position about the erection of such towers is also found in their website which states about their rules, "rules are designed to make sure companies are looking at ways to reduce the number of new towers they are building". Mr. Bentley, given SNC's business model, please provide evidence that they seriously made efforts to reduce the erection of additional towers by utilizing existing infrastructure. Given their business model, it is obvious that SNC would not have seriously considered existing infrastructure. Fundamentally, both the Industry Canada and CPCTP requirements are based on a carrier type of business model, where the carrier's business model is about maximizing revenues through the maximizing of cellular telecommunications and internet residential and commercial subscriptions to such services. Within that model, the erection of cell towers are necessary to deliver such end user services, but the erection of the towers themselves is not a primary business objective, though the rental of space on such towers becomes perhaps a secondary source of revenue. In this traditional carrier business model, such service providers have a primary motivation in maximizing revenues through cell tower based services to the community, hence not only would they be interested in erecting towers to facilitate the delivery of such services, but also in installing their electronics on existing infrastructure for the provision of services. The risk with the SNC model is that they have absolutely no interest in utilizing existing infrastructure, but rather erecting as many new towers as possible, and as quickly as possible. I use the word "risk" deliberately because there is no doubt that given the existing Industry Canada and associated municipal guidelines (including those of the City of Pickering}, SNC sees a loop hole for their business model that they want to exploit as quickly as possible. In this sense they create "facts on the ground" that a municipality would very likely end up having to grandfather even when more current, relevant guidelines are developed. The SNC business model which in effect is, "get as many towers up, as quickly as possible", is completely incompatible with the rules and protocols relating to the provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services as espoused by the Industry Canada and related City of Pickering municipal guidelines and protocols (i.e. CPCTP). - 97 - 4 Hi PLl'-l I b --/ q 2.Negative impact on my property value, and unfair Risk/Benefit model Based on research publicly available, there is no doubt that residential property within the immediate vicinity (i.e. distance, view) of wireless telecommunications towers that is for sale, realizes less demand from potential buyers than other similar properties where everything else is the same. The phenomena of lower demand for such properties where everything else is equal, is a fact. According to the research, the lower demand for such properties is driven primarily by two concerns as expressed by potential buyers, a) aesthetics -such towers are aesthetically unpleasing, they are not compatible with the nature of the neighborhood or natural features. They create a visual blight, and change the character of the area, especially when constructed in rural settings, and b) health concerns -notwithstanding Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance which every proponent of cell towers is quick to reference, the fact is that there remains widespread media attention about scientific studies regarding the potential long term effects of proximity to such towers, and persistent health concerns that the public continues to express. In fact, a US study by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy published in June 2014, titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas -Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found: •94% of home buyers and renters are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna; •79% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas; and •90% said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in residential neighborhoods The above public perception is very disconcerting to any property owner within the vicinity of an existing or proposed cell tower. The salient point here, the incontrovertible point, is that perception is what influences a potential buyer. With widespread concerns (as acknowledged in part by every cell tower proponent feeling they have to quickly make reference to the Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance), comes widespread negative perception. Negative perception means less demand. Less demand means less competition. Less competition means a lower price/value. It is that simple and categoric. As well, consider how unfair this proposed cell tower site is for my family and I. Under this site, SNC generates rental revenue for itself. Under this site, Claremont­ Union Cemetery enjoys a monthly annuity from SNC, while none of the owners have to live with the tower looming over them. Under this site, notwithstanding that my home will be close to, and the closest to the site, my family receives absolutely zero income though as outlined above, yet we assume all of the risks. - 98 - I cannot count on SNC to protect my property value, and mitigate my risks when they propose to erect a cell tower. However as a longtime resident and tax payer within the community of Claremont, my family needs to know, that the City of Pickering is not encumbering my family with major risks and zero benefits associated with the proposed cell tower site, and is doing everything it can to ensure that my family's wealth and economic prosperity is protected from opportunistic, for profit business interests ? 3.Attempt to avoid Environmental considerations Within the Public Notice Package ("PNP"), SNC suggests that the proposed cell tower "is excluded from environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012)". However, it is common knowledge that the Trudeau government is replacing this Harper era Act of 2012, with the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) under Bill C-69 which is being finalized at this time. According to prominent Law firm Tory LLP, the IAA "is intended to enable more comprehensive impact assessments" and represents a "shift to broader assessment of project impacts, including environmental, health, social and economic effects", including "more public consultation". Therefore it is not legitimate for SNC to claim that the proposed cell tower falls outside any necessary environmental considerations when a new, more comprehensive environmental assessment regime under the IAA is in the process of being implemented. 4.PNP is misleading -The single photo in the PNP with an alleged (so small, i.e. one quarter of an 8.5" X 11" page) rendering of the proposed tower is misleading, understated and promotes an inaccurate impression of size and actual location of the tower. Selective, south facing view point is misleading. It does not reflect the alarming reality of how close the proposed tower would be to my family's house, and it avoids the key topographical prominence of the actual Oak Ridges Moraine rolling hills and vistas that a more common, north facing view (i.e. associated with the vehicular traffic traversing Concession 9/Regional Road 5), provides of the proposed site . 5.Proposed site service road is an issue The proposed site service road runs the length of the cemetery and immediately alongside my property. Under the SNP proposed business model, it would be reasonably expected that multiple services providers would install their equipment on the proposed tower, resulting in regular service vehicular traffic through the cemetery on this service - 99 - ( 'f . PU\) \h-1q road. This would add further noise and disruption to enjoyment of my residential property, especially worrisome given that my outdoor patio and deck face, and are in proximity to this part of the cemetery. My home is situated in a mixed residential/agricultural area. It is not in an industrial or commercial zone where nobody resides, and where the regularity of such service vehicles is more expected/accepted. 6.Lack of Public Information Session as per Industry Canada guideline CPC 2-0-03, article 4.2 Within the PNP, why is there no requirement by the City of Pickering for a "Public Information Session" as had been provided by SNC in their other PNP's, such as for example to those residing within the vicinity of 459 South River Road, Centre Wellington, Ontario, under SNC file number, SNC0133? Why would the City of Pickering not require SNC to hold a "Public Information Session" as it appears other municipalities have done? Industry Canada requires the proponent to " ... (engage) the public and the land-use authority in order to address relevant questions, comments and concerns regarding the proposal. This was never done. Why_ not? 7.SNC PNP was understated and mistaken for "junk mail" As per Industry Canada's requirement article 4.2, "Public notification of an upcoming notification must be clearly marked, making reference to the proposed antenna system, so that it is not misinterpreted as junk mail. The notice must be sent by mail or be hand delivered. The face of the package must clearly reference that the recipient is within the prescribed notification radius of the proposed antenna system. The SNC notice was delivered in a regular, plain white envelope with no special markings, which we initially threw out because it resembled the many items of junk mail that we have stuffed into our mail box. Equally, there was NO notification or reference that we are within the prescribed notification radius. It was only upon sorting our recycling material for our blue bin that we opened the SNC envelope to discover the PNP. How was this allowed to happen? Aside from the content of the PNP for such a matter of public concern, have you actually investigated/confirmed how SNC delivers such content to ensure that people are not inadvertently throwing out such content without first being made aware that what they are receiving is specific to them, and not "junk mail"? For example, why would the - 100 - CPCTP not also include that such content be delivered through priority post, or other hand delivered service? 8.Preferred Location under City of Pickering Cell Tower protocol Under 6.2 " ... where co-location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible, proponents are encouraged to: "Select sites for new towers that are within industrial, commercial or non-residential areas, and/or that maximize the distance from residential areas." "Consider the use of City owned lands and/or facilities" Neither of these articles of the CPCTP have been satisfied with the proponent's proposal. Under 6.3 -Discouraged Locations "The City discourages the installation of new antenna systems in the following locations: Residential areas ... On sites of topographical prominence that would obscure public views and vistas." AND, "Within Environmentally sensitive lands." Given that the selected site is on the Oak Ridges Moraine and is of topographical prominence, the City of Pickering needs to disqualify this proponent's site selection. Mr. Bentley, as the above suggests, there are serious flaws and concerns with respect to the proposed SNC cell tower scheme. Everything about the SNC proposal suggests an opportunistic, for profit, private business entity that is highly motivated to erect as many cell towers as possible, create the "facts on the ground" before any new Industry Canada and associated City of Pickering municipal protocols are developed to consider their type of business model, which is all about erecting towers, and not services, and before the full weight of the IAA comes into effect. The SNC proposal is not fair to my family by having us assume significant risks with zero benefits, is incompatible with the fundamental Industry Canada and CPCTP rules, is incomplete, and is misleading. These facts, and all the likely changes associated with the IAA, and my family's absolute rejection of a proposal to erect such a cell tower so close to our home, not to mention such a tower's blight on our vista and landscape, logically conclude that this proposal must be rejected by the City of Pickering, or at the very least delayed indefinitely until new protocols are developed to consider SNC types of business models and the IAA comes into full effect. - 101 - Mr. Bentley, given the serious nature of this proposed engagement, I request a meeting with you, and my Councilor's Mr. David Pickles and Mr. Shaheen Butt to ensure that you all also have my family's interests at heart. I will be reaching out accordingly shortly. Thank you, Aghlab AI-Joundi Cc. Mr. David Pickles -Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt -Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell -MPP Pickering-Uxbridge Mr. Cody Morrison -Planner, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan - 102 - shared network June 23, 2018 Aghlab AI-Joundi CANADA ATTACHMENT# l/ T REPORT ti ]!LN \ 0 -I q RE: Letter addressed to Mr. Kyle Bentley, dated May 16, 2018. Dear Mr. AI-Joundi, Thank you for your letter dated May 16, 2018. We appreciate you sharing your comments and concerns in regards to the proposal for a tower near Claremont, Ontario. Shared Network Canada values the input of all participants in this process, whether in support or opposition. While Shared Network Canada does not currently provide cellular or internet service, the process of determining potential tower locations does not differ from companies which provide such services. As you mentioned, Shared Network Canada is a third-party infrastructure provider, in which much of the capital cost of building and operating a tower is born by Shared Network and space on the tower is rented to customers who provide cellular and internet services. As such, the tower would not be constructed if the space on the tower were not needed by customers providing either cellular or internet services. We understand your concern regarding the proximity to your residence and are willing to work with you and your family in order to potentially relocate the tower. As illustrated in Schedule A of the attached, we can look into relocating the tower to the opposing corner of the property, over 100m further setback from your residence surrounded by the mature tree line. In regards to the safety concerns, our team attempted to.locate the study from the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" published in June of 2014 titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas -Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" and could not locate the article. We attempted both web pages below to locate any information regarding this article or the Institute but were unable to locate anything, we may be making a mistake in our research, would you mind pointing us in the direction of the correct article mentioned above. https ://nati nstsci e ncel aw .org/ https://natinstsciencelaw.org/emf-safety-%26-health Please also see attached in Schedule B the "Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Associations" published handbook with more detailed information in regards to the process and safety of . Telecommunications sites. www.sharednelwork.ca 275 Macpherson Ave #103, Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 - 103 - shared network CANADA Shared Network Canada does and will continue to abide by and follow all environmental and safety requirements for all proposed tower locations. As with the proposed Claremont site, Shared Network Canada has been working with and will continue to work with all necessary health, safety and environmental approval processes in place for the construction of the tower. When proposing the access road, it was placed along the mature tree line in order to mask the majority of the viewshed of any potential vehicles passing through. Once the equipment is installed on the tower, only quarterly maintenance inspections would be .done on the tower save for times of emergency (i.e. Power Outage). When looking to relocate the tower to the opposing end of the property, we can also look into relocating part of the access road as well. The proposed location was determined as there is a need to service and coverage to the residents of Claremont, please see one letter we receive in Schedule C, outlining the residents' concerns and comments supporting the towns need for a tower. As the town needs a tower, Shared Network is proposing to locate the tower away from the town of Claremont on the rural portion of the not for profit cemetery land. We will continue to work with your family to receive your input regarding the potential relocation of the proposed tower on other portions of the cemetery land. Again, thank you for your valued input. Yours sincerely, Dom Claros CC: Mr. David Pickles -Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt -Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Cody Morrison -Planner, City of Pickerini:r Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan - 104 - shared network: CANADA Schedule A - 105 - shared network: CANADA ATTACHMENT#� 'J:.. TO REPORT# J[N lb-/9 Schedule B - 106 - ATTACHMENT npj lb-J�Rt.PORT# - 107 - ATTACHMENT#p� TB REPORT# lb-/ 1 - 108 - 2l 'iii Ill QJ "'Cl X ·5 m .c "'Cl u �m i '; u m C QJ e C .0 C Ill .l!l C C QJ m 'g "'Cl C. Ill cu :p �� QJ QJ 0 ."'Cl :,; C m '6 m C m u onC p u QJ C C 0 u lt'I m "'Cl m C m u .!= Oil C p vi �QJ � i2 m C C QJ ..,C <( Ill Ill .!!! ·QJ .._ � QJ C C .l!lC m =-o C 0 ·..:; u 2 . ..,Ill C 0 u .._ QJ � i2 i2 m C C QJ Ill ._, Ill C QJ <( � � Ill Ill QJ u e f z Oil c.. C C :§ 0 ·s '.D .0 lrl .._ QJ ltl ,2 Vl Ill QJ C .., 0 vi Oil C :§ ·sa:l Ill m QJ & -{=. ATTACHMENT #TJ[.l/ TO RE:PORT # � q Ill Ill QJ u e c.. iii e 0. 0. <( � C C 0 � B C '6 <( Ill GJ ·c.c ::l I- -, M ..... ..... Ill Ill QJ � � Oil C ·c.._ QJ > 0 I.:> Ill C 0 ·..:; m :5 Oil & Ill QJ p ·c 0 .s::. ..,::l <( Oil Sl :§ :::> vi -6C � � � iii .., u C 0 <( ...J Ill QJ ::l Ill .!!? >, .., QJ .....m Vl "'Cl C m .s::. .., iii QJ J: ........... VI ....,C: a, ...., C: 0 u \t­o a, - QJ m ii: Vl "'Cl "'Cl C C m m Ill .s::. ..,QJ iii> m QJ � J: .._u QJ ·..:; > QJ 0 C C Oil m 0 E p u 0 .._ '6 .., Ill u ·cQJ ::l w -, VI a, L. ,a, ........, ,a E VI a, ""C a, - Ill C 0 ·..:; .!!! iii .., Ill '°E QJ m "'Cl C 0 C u QJ .., >, C .., QJ <( --m 0 Vl Vl "'Cl C m .s::. .., iii QJ J: Ill C QJ 0 u·s; Ill QJ .., u 0 QJ Ill '5' Ill QJ .._ QJ c.. .._ �QJ .s::. .., -0 0 Ill QJ C <O I Ill .!!! .._ ::l Ill C 0 ·..:; m E .._ .2 C "'Cl 2! Ill C QJ QJ u.., .._ C 5 _m Vl "'Cl Ill QJ �::l 0 Ill Ill & & C 0 p m C 0 p m E E .._ .._ 0 -.2 C C .._ QJ � i2 m C C QJ ..,C <( M N - 109 - - 110 - Connecting Canadians: Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada There are about 8,000 cell sites in all of Canada. As communities demand new or improved wireless service, local carriers respond to this need by building a wireless antenna structure, commonly called a "tower." In addition to meeting the needs of individual Canadian consumers, improved cellular coverage means better access to emergency services such as fire, police, or ambulance, and business development opportunities as business services are enhanced . An antenna structure build may raise concerns in the community Des Canadiens branches Choix des sites de batis d'antenne au Canada On retrouve environ 8 000 sites cellulaires au Canada. A mesure que les communautes exigent de nouveaux services sans fil ou encore des services ameliores, les telecommunicateurs regionaux repondent a cette demande en construisant un bati d'antenne, qu'on appelle couramment une «tour». En plus de satisfaire aux besoins individuels des consommateurs canadiens, une meilleure couverture permet un meilleur acces aux services d'urgence fournis par les pompiers, policiers et ambulanciers, et de meilleures occasions d'affaires, puisque les services commerciaux s'en trouvent ameliores. about aesthetics, or about the health and safety of towers. La construction d'un bati d'antenne peut susciter certains This brochure provides basic information about the many rigorous questionnements au sein de la communaute, notamment en ce factors that go into site selection and tower build, and answer qui concerne leur aspect esthetique, ou la sante et la securite some key questions about health and safety issues. For more des tours. La presente brochure fournit des renseignements thorough information, parliamentarians and staff are encouraged de base sur les rigoureux criteres de selection du site et de la to contact the association, or consult the resources section at the construction de batis d'antenne. Elle repond egalement a des end of this guide. questions primordiales sur la sante et la securite. Pour obtenir davantage de renseignements, les parlementaires et leur personnel peuvent communiquer avec ['association ou consulter la section sur les ressources qui figure a la fin de ce guide. "XJ:t,. ,,.., -I 7:' -I 0):, :J:lc-:, --I -,-""' � ,,, 2 -I ffl �l('o 5 - 111 - ATTACHMENT# 'i__. TOq RE:PORl # @ lb-I - 112 - ATTACHMENT #pzfis ___ ro REPORT# � lb-/q - 113 - 8 Why a new tower? Wireless carriers continue to build out their networks in response to the tremendous consumer demand for their services. Today, more than 18 million Canadians have a cellphone or wireless device, a number that is growing by more than 10% annually. People take the availability of wireless service for granted and expect that their service provider will provide coverage anywhere and everywhere they live, work or play. Indications are that this demand will only increase dramatically as Canadians' reliance on wireless communications at home and in the workplace, increases . Indeed, as wireless communications provide the communications services, and products, used daily by police, EMS, firefighters, and other first responders, wireless is also an integral part of Canada's safety infrastructure. Every year, Canada's wireless carriers spend over $1 billion in capital improvements to their networks and have cumulatively invested over $20 billion to date in building Canada's world-class wireless infrastructure. Across Canada there are approximately 8,000 cellular/PCS antenna sites. For comparison purposes, the United Kingdom, with its much smaller land mass, has approximately 35,000 sites. A considerable portion of this is spent improving network availability, both in terms of coverage and capacity. Network coverage consists of extending the reach of the network to new areas as well as eliminating the so-called "dead zones," areas where cellular coverage breaks off. Increasing capacity allows more users within the existing footprint of the network and provides for faster transmission speeds for wireless data services. Radio antennas, associated equipment and supporting structures are fundamental components of a radiocommunication system. Without them, none of the services on which Canadian individuals, businesses and governments have come to depend would exist. A unique tree-shaped antenna tower. Un pyl6ne d'antenne en forme d'arbre. :::0:,;,. rT"' -1 --c> -I O:i:,, :,:, C, -I-,- "<, s: r-n 2 -I , �'.:::: z: � - '(S" j I �3 I - 114 - Pourquoi construire de nouveaux batis d'antenne? Les telecommunicateurs sans fil poursuivent ['expansion de leurs reseaux en reaction a la tres forte demande de services de la part des consommateurs. Aujourd'hui, plus de 18 millions de Canadiens ont un telephone cellulaire ou un appareil sans fil, un nombre qui augmente de plus de 10 pour cent chaque annee. Les gens tiennent le service sans fil pour acquis et s'attendent a ce que leur fournisseur offre une couverture partout ou ils se rendent pour des raisons personnelles ou professionnelles. Tout porte a croire que cette demande connailra une augmentation marquee et continue, puisque les Canadiens comptent de plus en plus sur les communications sans fil a la maison et au travail. En effet, puisque les policiers, ambulanciers, pompiers et autres Une part considerable de ce milliard de dollars investis chaque annee est consacree a l'amelioration de la disponibilite du reseau, tant sur le plan de la couverture que sur le plan de la capacite. L'amelioration du reseau consiste a agrandir la portee de celui-ci sur de nouvelles zones et a eliminer les soi-disant« zones mortes », soit les zones ou il ya bris de couverture. Ameliorer la capacite signifie un plus grand nombre d'utilisateurs potentiels parmi la zone de couverture existante du reseau et une transmission de donnees plus rapide. Les antennes radio, l'equipement connexe et les structures qui les supportent sont des composantes fondamentales d'un systeme de telecommunicati0!7S. Sans elles, aucun des services sur lesquels premiers repondants utilisent des produits et services de peuvent compter la population, les entreprises et les instances communications sans fil, les telecommunications sans fil sont une gouvernementales du Canada n'existeraient. composante primordiale de l'infrastructure de securite au Canada. Chaque annee, les telecommunicateurs sans fil canadiens consacrent plus d'un milliard de dollars a l'amelioration de leurs immobilisations de reseau et ont investi jusqu'a maintenant plus de 20 milliards de dollars pour doter le Canada d'une infrastructure sans fil de classe mondiale. On compte environ 8 000 emplacements de pylones cellulaires ou SCP au pays. Par comparaison, au Royaume-Uni, qui occupe une aire geographique beaucoup plus petite, on en retrouve environ 35 000. ::0,::, ..,., -l i:' -l 0:I:, :0 0 _, ::i:: � s:: n, z _, * l �--o1-.c 9 - 115 - 10 The Site Selection Process When a requirement for a new site has been identified, the wireless carrier begins evaluating the options in an area based on radio frequency characteristics. These frequency characteristics are influenced by: the local terrain, existing structures, the number of subscribers, distance from existing sites, the availability of existing structures (buildings, other towers, etc.), and the availability of a willing landlord. Because they are considerably more cost effective and time to service is reduced, the first consideration is typically to look for existing structures such as building rooftops, water towers, hydro corridors, or towers belonging to other carriers or other utilities. The use of existing structures generally results in a smaller impact on local surroundings. Of the roughly 8,000 cellular /PCS sites in Canada, 40% are located on structures other than purpose-built towers. Choosing an existing structure can reduce costs and the time to complete an installation, but the location or height may be unsuitable. Co-locating on existing towers may reduce the number of new towers but can result in the need for taller, more visible towers. Some municipalities actually prefer smaller, individual towers, to one massive, but collocated, tower. Bell and TELUS have employed an infrastructure sharing agreement to reduce the need for additional sites. When all of these strategies are considered, approximately 60% of all cell sites in Canada are shared in one way or another. Sites are only selected after thorough analysis of expected coverage outcomes based on field measurements and predictions com­ bined with customer requirements. Upon selecting a preferred site, a carrier will begin the approval process. � --....,._� Of the 8,000 sites in Canada, 40% are located on structures other than towers. :::0):, IT' -I ""t' -I 0 ):, :D 0 -•::1: 'I!,$'; rn z -l � �H:: cr-1, --Oc - 116 - Le processus de selection d'un site Une fois que le besoin d'etablir un nouyeau site se manifeste, le telecommunicateur sans fil commence a evaluer les options presentes dans la zone en question, selon les caracteristiques des radiofrequences. Plusieurs facteurs influent sur ces caracteristiques: le terrain, les structures existantes, le nombre d'abonnes, la distance relative aux emplacements deja en place, la disponibilite de structures existantes (immeubles, autres tours, etc.) et la presence d'un proprietaire dispose a louer l'usage d'une structure. Paree qu'elle est considerablement plus economique et qu'elle permet une mise en service plus rapide, la premiere option est habituellement de chercher des structures deja en place, comme des toits d'immeubles, des chateaux d'eau, des corridors hydroelectriques, ou . des tours appartenant a d'autres telecommunicateurs ou d'autres services publics. En regle generate, l'utilisation de structures deja en place a un impact restreint sur l'environnement immediat. Des quelque 8 000 emplacements cellulaires ou SCP au Canada, 40 pour cent se trouvent sur des structures autres que des pylones construits a cet effet. Choisir une structure deja existante permet de reduire les couts et le delai necessaires a ['installation, mais la localisation ou la hauteur pourraient ne pas convenir. L'utilisation conjointe de pylones deja en place reduit le nombre de nouveaux pylones, mais elle peut faire en sorte que les tours doivent etre plus hautes et plus visibles. A l'heure actuelle, certaines municipalites preferent des tours a usage unique plus petites mais plus nombreuses plutot qu'une seule tour a usage multiple plus imposante. Bell et TELUS ont conclu une entente de partage d'infrastructure qui reduit le besoin d'etablir de nouveaux sites. Toutes ces strategies font en sorte que 60 pour cent de tous les sites cellulaires au Canada sont partages, d'une maniere ou d'une autre. Les sites ne sont choisis qu'a la suite d'une analyse exhaustive de tous les resultats potentiels sur le plan de la couverture, fondee sur les previsions et les mesures sur le terrain, mise en parallele avec les besoins de la clientele. Une fois qu'un site specifique est choisi, le telecommunicateur entreprendra le processus d 'approbation. ---�;:.;.--::=':--.· --� _- -:i Des quelque 8 000 emplacements cellulaires ou SCP au Canada, .---------�__.­--------- ------- 40 pour cent se trouvent sur des structures autres que des pylones. :0 l> IT' -f -c' -f O:i:,, ::0 C") --1 ::i:: � $ rn z -I �r �6'i ..l.� ,. // 11 - 117 - ATTACHMENT #_..!l:-:-r.-TO RE:PORT # ft.� \ kr/ q - 118 - €}· I. �· :;.,_'"',};.­}!�r·.:�: �-....ff:' .::�?:'::· ATTACHMrnT # 4 TO Rl:PORT # �-;q "'"'a, u 0 I-. 0. -,a > 0 I-. C. C. <( ,a C C: C: a, 0 ...., 'P C: u (I) <( Ill Ill ... I-C: OJl C :.;::::; in rel C C Q) ...., C <t Ill Ill � Q) ,_Ill � Q) :.;::::; OJl ·;:: C 0 'c: ..c ...., ,_ ::J Q) <t> Q) � Ill ::::) C 0 :.;::::; -�"O .!!! a, C C a, (!= ...., Ill C C rel ,a Ill Ill >< Q) ::s C C ,a Q) ...., \t-C ·-rel ...., "O ,a ...., -C a, Q) I-. E Q) C u 0 � ·-0.. E ...., ,a Q) .c � 0 ,rel I-. 4-'.µ C. rel C.�,a .. "t, "' C: 0 ::s 'P"' 0 Ill ::J "O C 0 :.;::::; rel Ill '.µ ::J � Q) "O Ill � • ;..t' -_:, � ,.,. . -.-. ��i1.-.1 ·'..... _·••...':'; .. ,.. ... :.:_ :� .-t',.{� �-·To,_::·'" - 119 - 14 The Antenna Approval Process Jurisdiction Any discussion of tower approval procedures requires an understanding of the jurisdictional issaes and the facts upon which jurisdiction is based. Canada's federal government has exclusive and comprehensive jurisdiction over the area of radiocommunication and telecommunications. 1 The Privy Council determined in its decision re Regulation and Control of Radio-Communications in Canada 2 that the Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and control ra­ diocommunication. Provincial Courts of Appeal (such as British Columbia and Ontario) have followed the Privy Council's decision without reservation. National jurisdiction over telecommunications, including the authorization of radio­ communication facilities, is a common characteristic of the regulatory structures of all countries having advanced radiocommunication networks. Industry Canada is responsible for regulating radiocommunica­ tion in Canada including authorizing the installation of radio­ communication towers and sites. This authority is derived from the Department of Industry Act, which describes the powers and duties of the department and the minister, and the Radiocommunication Act, which specifically provides the authority to approve antenna supporting structures. Indeed, the most recent authoritative review of Industry Canada's policies governing the siting of radiocommunications facilities, i.e. the 2004 Townsend Report, recommended that the legislative authority to regulate the siting of towers "should remain exclusively with the Government of Canada." 3 1 CIYlodion Munidpalldes and Che Resulodon of Radio Ant MOOS and t11elr Support Structures, prepared for l�try Cao.ida by Cbvid T�. FaCl.llty of Law, University of New Bn6i:.wick, 1987 2 � R�farion and Control of Radio Communications of Canodo (193ZJ A.C. 304 (Privy Councill 3 R�rt on the HodonalAncemo Tower Policy, prepared for lndu5try C;uu.da by O.tvfd Towrncnd, F.:iculty of Lo1w, University of t-lC!W 81'1.1"1swick. 2004 Le processus d'approbation relatif aux antennes Competence Toute discussion sur le processus d'approbation d'un pyl6ne necessite une bonne comprehension des questions de competence et des faits sur lesquels reposent Les champs de competence. Au Canada, Les radiocommunications et Les telecommunications sont un champ de competence relevant exclusivement et entierement du federal 1• Dans In re, la reglementation et le contr8le de la radiocommunication au Canada 2, le Conseil prive a determine que le Parlement du Canada a la competence exclusive de reglementer et d'exercer un contr6le sur Les radiocommunications. Des cours d'appel provinciales (telles que celles de la Colombie-Britannique et de l'Ontario) ont respecte la decision du Conseil prive sans reserve. Les telecommunications, et l'autorite des installations de radiocommunications, sont communement de competence nationale dans tous les pays dotes de reseaux de radiocommunications avances. lndustrie Canada est responsable de la reglementation des radiocommunications au Canada, ce qui comprend l'autorisation d'installer des pyl6nes et des sites de radiocommunication. Cette autorite est conferee par la Loi sur le ministere de l'lndustrie, qui precise Les pouvoirs et les responsabilites du ministere et du ministre,et par la Loi sur la radiocommunication, qui confere explicitement le pouvciir d'autoriser les structures qui supportent les antennes. En effet, la plus recente etude faisant auto rite au sujet des politiques d'lndustrie Canada visant l'emplacement des installations de radiocommunications, soit le rapport Townsend de 2004, recommandait que l'autorisation legale de reglementer ['emplacement des tours « demeure la competence exclusive du gouvernement du Canada. 3 » 1 Les municipalitis c011odfr:nnes ct lo rigleml'ntation des antemes radio ,..c des bad$ d'antennes, rapport �ls a tndu:-..tric C;m.ida p.ir �vid Towmcnd, F.icultC de-droit, Univcr1itC' du Houvcau•Brum,wfck, 1987. 2 Con=;cil PrivC, In re. la rC9lcmencarion ct tc contr6lc de fa radiocommunicarion au Canada. [1932) A.C. 304 3 Rq;,port SI.Jr l'c� de !apolitiquencrionak �r tcspyfonn d'cnrtn7t>. rapports.cune a lndustrleUn.'.ld., par David T�. FacultC-dc droit. Univcrsitt' du tlouvenu-Srunswid<, 2004. :::0)::, r,,-, 6� :::0 C, -j -,-""' � 2 -l � pl 1z: � ..l.'­�c - 120 - Regulations Governing Wireless Antenna Siting Industry Canada's procedures for constructing and installing antenna structures are covered in a Client Procedure Circular entitled Environmental Process, Radiofrequency Fields and Land-Use Consultation. For cellular/PCS service providers, com­ pliance with these procedures is required as a condition of licence. In exercising its authority, Industry Canada also makes use of the input and expertise of federal departments and agencies. To ensure the environment is not harmed, antenna structures must conform to the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. To ensure the safety of air navi­ gation, antenna proponents must comply with Transport Canada's antenna structure clearance procedures. Similarly, Health Canada's Safety Code 6, which wireless carriers rigidly ahere to, ensures that radio frequency emissions are more than well within safe levels. Cadre reglementaire relatif a !'emplacement d'antennes sans fit Les procedures dictees par lndustrie Canada pour la construction et l'installation de batis d'antennes sont enoncees dans une Circulaire des procedures concernant les clients intitulee Processus environnemental, champs de radiofrequences et consultation sur / 'utilisation du sol. Le respect de ces procedures est une condition de licence pour les fournisseurs de services cellulaires ou SCP. Pour exercer ses pouvoirs, lndustrie Canada peut egalement compter sur les commentaires et l'expertise d'autres ministeres et organismes federaux. Afin de s'assurer que l'environnement est protege, les batis d'antenne doivent etre conformes aux exigences prescrites par la Loi canadienne sur /'evaluation environnementale. Afin de s'assurer que la navigation aerienne est securitaire, les antennes doivent etre conformes aux procedures d'autorisation de ['emplacement et des batis d'antenne par Transports Canada. De plus, le Code de securite 6 de Sante Canada, auquel les telecommunicateurs sans fil adherent rigoureusement, fait en sorte que les emissions en radiofrequence sont de beaucoup inferieures aux limites permises. *�-c' -I 0 )> ::0 C') --I ::c � � rn z -I � ·1:a�Il--{:::: I G'. 1--0 15 - 121 - 16 Local Land-Use Authorities As a result of the federal jurisdiction of telecommunications operations, traditional municipal land-use planning controls such as zoning by-laws, development approvals, and Building Code requirements are rendered inoperative to the extent that they affect or interfere with the siting, physical location, design, construction and operation of federal undertakings such as cellular/PCs carriers. In other words, the prohibition, restriction or regulation of land for its use as a wireless telecommunication facility would be the authority of the Land-Use Authority. Nevertheless, as a condition of their wireless licences, Industry Canada requires carriers to consult with the municipal/land-use authority when proposing the installation of significant antenna structures in order to gain the land-use authority's concurrence. Industry Canada generally considers that once a participating land-use authority is contacted, it should make its views known to the applicant within 60 days. Further, the entire consultation process should be completed within 120 days. For the vast majority of cases, the procedures and processes in place have worked well in meeting the needs of communities, individuals, wireless carriers and their subscribers. Autorites regionales responsables de ('utilisation du sol Paree que !'exploitation des telecommunications est de competence federate, les mesures de controle traditionnelles de l'amenagement du territoire, telles que les reglements de zonage, !'approbation de lotissements et les normes et reglements de construction, sont sans effet pour ce qui est de la localisation, !'emplacement materiel, la conception, la construction et ['exploitation d'immobilisations relatives a des secteurs regis par le federal, comme le sont les telecommunications cellulaires ou SCP. En d'autres mots, !'interdiction, la restriction ou la reglementation de ['utilisation du sol relativement a des installations de telecommunications sans fil releve du responsable de ['utilisation du sol. Toutefois, lndustrie Canada exige comme condition de licence que les telecommunicateurs consultent les responsables de !'utilisation du sol municipaux ou regionaux lorsqu'ils prevoient installer une structure d'antenne d'importance, afin d'obtenir leur assentiment . lndustrie Canada croit qu'a partir du moment ou le responsable de !'utilisation du sol concerne a ete avise, celui-ci doit faire conna'itre sa decision au requerant dans les 60 jours . En outre, !'ensemble du processus de consultation devrait etre termine dans un delai de 120 jours. Dans la vaste majorite des cas, les procedures et processus en place ont permis de satisfaire aux besoins des collectivites, des individus, des telecommunicateurs sans fil et de leurs abonnes. ::0 l> IT' -I -=' -I 0 )> ::0 0 -I :r: ""' s: z -l }pk.�?1 � ..1.:::.: ..t:) - 122 - ATTACHMEN, #@4 TO RE:POR, # · \b -1 q VI C: 0 :.:::; ..!:9 "'io ...., VI C: IU C: C: (I) ...., C: <t \f--0 VI � "O V\ a:i (I) a, Li: 'tu :J V) V\ "O "O C V\ IU C: IU VI ..c: >(I) ...., � > "'io1 a, ,(I) \i-::i::: ,,a u '-V, :.:::; (I) fl -c (I) "C C (I)-C: mi�.·§ "O C 0 0 ,a :.:; E -µu u 0 u >, .c a, '-� ...., ...., � VI u VI. a, -Ill (I) ·c \f--,a :E w ::::, IU --, V) a, .... • • • :::c: C: VI (I) u -�0 VI VI (I) a:i '-� \f--0 >, ...., (I) \f--IU V) "O C IU ..c: ....,"iu (I) :::c C 0 VI ...., u (I) . ...., 0 '-0.. '-(I) ..c: ...., 0 • :.:::; -(I) C: on IU E 0 '­....,u(I) :a; (I) C C (I) ...., C IU "O VI :.:::; <IU .c (I) "O •(I) ...., ·c::::, u -(I) VI ..!:9 ,(13 (I) > . �.µ VI IU C: (I). a:i o· .-o ._ :.:; C (I) u O u V\ a, ...., C C ell (I) a., O 2 ��---�­:ti t ,'E • '!'\-. V\ -�.1.J, ,.� IU :v .• E, -:-0 .• � QJ' · ,.:"'.Y,�.--.0�.-0 ...., (I) -(I) ...., C IU VI :· ,, vi·: ·u.,. U ":'U .,, ... C: ·. .< ,. iia· • .., ttS • z • . .... J . ,._ Ci O . �-_,s>�-- 123 - 18 Health and Safety Issues Electromagnetic Waves and Fields One of the most volatile issues related to antenna sites anywhere in the world is the potential effects they may have on human health because they emit electromagnetic energy. Wireless devices use radio frequencies (RF) that are non-ionizing waves below the visible light part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Waves above visible light are of the ionizing type such as gamma and X-rays, which are know to be harmful to humans. Electromagnetic waves are a form of energy that consist of vibrating electric and magnetic fields. Electric fields are produced by forces of electric charges, and magnetic fields are produced when electric charges are in motion. When an appliance is plugged in, an electric field is produced around the appliance; when the appliance is turned on and the electrical current is fl owing, a magnetic field is produced. The main natural source of electromagnetic radiation is the sun. Natural electromagnetic energy (i.e. sunlight) is necessary for photosynthesis in plants. Man-made sources, however, account for most of the electromagnetic radiation in our environment. With the proliferation of new technological devices in our home and workplace we are all exposed to electromagnetic radiation daily. Everyday household electrical devices such as hair dryers, electrical ovens, fluorescent lights, microwave ovens, stereos and computers all emit electrical and magnetic fields of varying intensities. Mobile phones and the transmitters that support these items, just like all radio systems, function because they are able to send, receive and manipulate these fields. Studies have shown that cellular/PCS emissions represent less that 25% of the ambient RF emissions in an urban area. In 2002, Industry Canada conducted a study4 examining the level of RF fields in the City of Toronto, where the highest concentration of radio systems exists in Canada. The study took measurements at 61 locations around the city and found that on average, ambient RF field levels are 0.1 4% of Safety Code 6 allowable levels (705 times less). The study also found that cellular/PCS transmissions represented only 9% to 24% of measured RF energy. 4 Evaluation of Eltctromasnetfc Field lnttnslty In the Clry of Toronto, lodll$try C.mada, June 2002 :::0):,, rr- -I ""C'-l 0):,, :X:,c, _, ::c �s m 2 -I 'll, - 124 - Questions de sante et de securite Champs et ondes electromagnetiques Une des questions les plus tumultueuses associees aux antennes partout au monde est leurs repercussions eventuelles sur la sante humaine, puisqu'elles emettent de l'energie electromagnetique. Les appareils sans fil utilisent des radiofrequences qui sont des longueurs d'ondes non ionisantes inferieures au rayonnement visible du spectre electromagnetique. Les longueurs d'ondes superieures au rayonnement visible sont de type ionisant, comme Les rayons gamma et Les rayons X, qui sont reconnus comme etant nocives pour les humains. Les ondes electromagnetiques sont une forme d'energie qui consiste en des champs electriques et magnetiques vibrants. Les champs electriques sont produits par la force de particules electriquement chargees, alors que les champs magnetiques sont engendres par le deplacement de charges electriques. Quand un appareil est branche, un champ electrique se forme autour de l'appareil; quand un appareil est mis sous tension et que le courant electrique y passe, un champ magnetique se forme. Le soleil est la principale source naturelle de rayonnement electromagnetique. L' energie electromagnetique naturelle (c'est-a-dire la lumiere du soleil) est necessaire a la photosynthese des vegetaux. Toutefois, l'essentiel du rayonnement electromagnetique present dans notre environnement provient de sources artificielles. Compte tenu de l'abondance de nouveaux appareils technologiques dans nos foyers et nos lieux de travail, nous sommes tous exposes quotidiennement au rayonnement electromagnetique. Des appareils electriques de tous les jours comme les sechoirs a cheveux, les cuisinieres electriques, les lampes fluorescentes, les fours a micro-ondes, les cha1nes stereo et Les ordinateurs emettent tous des champs electriques et magnetiques d'une intensite variable. Comme tout systeme de radiocommunication, Les telephones mobiles et Les emetteurs qui les soutiennent fonctionnent parce qu'ils ont le potentiel d'emettre, de recevoir et de manipuler ces champs. Des etudes ont demontre que moins de 25 pour cent des emissions de radiofrequences ambiantes en milieu urbain proviennent du cellulaire ou SCP. En 2002, lndustrie Canada a mene une etude 4 sur l'intensite des champs de radiofrequences dans la ville de Toronto, la ou l'on retrouve la plus forte concentration de systemes radio au Canada. Dans le cadre de cette etude, on a pris des mesures a 61 endroits un peu partout dans la ville pour conclure qu'en moyenne, l'intensite des champs de radiofrequences ambiants representaient 0, 14 pour cent des limites prescrites par le Code de securite 6 (soit 705 fois moins). L'etude a egalement demontre que les transmissions cellulaires OU SCP ne representaient que 9 pour cent a 24 pour cent de l'energie en radiofrequences mesuree. 4 tvaruaeion de /"fntensit(, du champ l!fec:troma9nJtiqvc dan:: la ville de Toronto, lndu:;td(' C.:m;:id:,, JUm ZOOZ :0 )> rT' -I ;g� :::0 C"') _, ::;: ,;:, s: rn z _, 1m: ()'. 1:: � 19 - 125 - 20 Jurisdiction over Health and Safety of Antenna Installations The Electromagnetics Division of Health Canada has primary responsibility for ensuring that devices that emit electromagnetic fields are not harmful to Canadians. In order to meet this man­ date, the Division: •develops guidelines for the protection of the general public and workers from exposure to EMFs •conducts research in the assessment of EMF exposure levels in residential and workplace environments •conducts laboratory studies and monitors external . research on the biological effects of EMFs •sets regulations for the safe use of microwave ovens and enforces their compliance •advises government departments and agencies, industry, and the general public on exposure to EMFs Competence relative a la sante et la securite des batis d'antenne La responsabilite de s'assurer que Les appareils qui emettent La responsabilite de s'assurer que Les appareils qui emettent des champs electromagnetiques ne sont pas nocifs pour la sante des Canadiens repose principalement sur la Division d'electromagnetisme de Sante Canada. Afin de remplir ce inandat, la division: •developpe Les lignes directrices pour la protection du grand public et des travailleurs contre ['exposition aux champs electromagnetiques •mene des recherches relatives a l'evaluation des niveaux d'exposition des champs electromagnetiques dans le secteur residentiel et en milieu de travail •mene des recherches en laboratoire et surveille Les recher­ ches effectuees ailleurs, portant sur Les effets biologiques des champs electromagnetiques •etablit des reglements pour une utilisation securitaire desfours a micro-ondes et veille a leur observation •conseille Les ministeres et Les organismes publics, l'industrie ainsi que le grand public au sujet de questions relatives a l'exposition aux champs electromagnetiques ::0 )> IT' -4 -c' -4 0)::, ::0 C, -I:;:: �:s:: ,.., z -I -P' zk �t l ::: ...{\ '- - 126 - Safety Code 6 The guideline that applies to mobile phones, base stations and all other RF transmitters is Safety Code 6. 5 This safety code is one of a series of guidelines Health Canada has produced on the safe use of devices that emit radiation. Safety Code 6 has been adopted by many organizations across Canada and referred to in a number of regulations, including the Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations. The limits given in Safety Code 6 were arrived at after looking at many scientific studies on the health effects of RF energy exposure and considering international exposure standards. At ground level, the level of exposure to RF emissions is typically a small fraction of Health Canada's Safety Code 6 levels. Health Canada does not directly regulate mobile phone manufacturers or network operators. Industry Canada does directly regulate the industry, and requires, as a condition of licence, that: radio stations are installed and operated in a manner that complies with Health Canada's limits of human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields for the general public including the consideration of existing radiocommunication installations within the local environment. Safety Code 6 is consistent with standards from around the world and is based on a large body of scientific research including a review performed by the Royal Society of Canada prepared at the request of Health Canada. 5 Umit5 of Human Exposure to Radiofr�,:ncy Electromagnetic fj,:fds in the Fr�,:ncy Rans,: from 3 KHZ co 300 GHZ· S<Jfety Cod,: 6 Code de securite 6 Le Code de securite 6 est la directive qui s'applique aux telephones mobiles, stations de base et tout autre emetteur de radiofrequences 5. Ce code de securite fait partie d'une serie de directives au sujet de l'utilisation securitaire d'appareils emetteurs de rayonnement produite par Sante Canada. Le Code de securite 6 a ete adopte par de nombreuses organisations partout au Canada; on y fait reference dans nombre de reglementations, y compris dans le Reglement canadien sur la sante et la securite au travail. Les limites prescrites par le Code de securite 6 ont ete etablies suite a une revue de nombreuses etudes scientifiques sur les consequences sur la sante de l'exposition a l'energie des radiofrequences et en tenant compte des normes internationales d'exposition. Au niveau du sol, le degre d'exposition aux emissions de radiofrequences represente habituellement une fraction minime des limites prevues au Code de securite 6. Sante Canada ne regit pas directement les fabricants de telephones mobiles ou les exploitants de reseaux. lndustrie Canada a le pouvoir de reglementer directement l'industrie et exige comme condition de licence que /es stations radio soient installees et exploitees conformement aux limites d'exposition humaine aux champs de radiofrequences electromagnetiques etablies par Sante Canada qui visent le grand public, en tenant compte des installations de radiocommunications deja en place dans le milieu environnant. Le Code de securite 6 corresp.ond aux normes internationales et est fonde sur de nombreux documents de recherche scientifique, y compris un examen mene par la Societe royale du Canada a la demande de Sante Canada. 5 Limit,:s d'c;cposir/on hvmafne aux champs de radiofrtqt/enccs ci-fcctromasnl.'tiqucs dens la samm,: de frC'qUMCt'S de J KHZ a JOO GHZ-Code de SCC!Jrlct 6 ::n:t;:-­(""\"""-; -v --l O:i:,, :0 C"') _, :::c � $ n� z -I � ,p. z.,�- cr--I --, �o I 21 - 127 - 22 Other Projects on Health and Safety of Wireless Devices Health Canada has also been taking part in the International EMF Project, coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO). The goals of this project are to verify reported biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields and to characterize any associated health risks to humans. A valuable source of information on the state of the science around the health effects of EMF is RFcom.ca based at the Uni­ versity of Ottawa McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment. RFcom.ca is an internet-based information resource managed by a Science Panel that reviews and reports on the most recent research studies about wireless technology and health from around the world. • • More than 6 million calls to 9-1-1 are made per year from cellular phones. ( Plus de 6 millions des appels au 9-1-1 chaque annee sont places a partir d'un cellulaire. Autres projets visant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fil Sante Canada participe egalement au Projet international sur Les CEM coordonne par !'Organisation mondiale de la Sante (OMS). Le but de ce projet est de verifier Les effets biologiques reportes resultant de ['exposition aux champs electromagnetiques et de caracteriser n'importe quel risque associe au detriment de la sante humaine. RFcom.ca, au Centre R. Samuel McLaughlin d'evaluation du risque pour la sante des populations a l'Universite d'Ottawa, est une source precieuse de renseignements sur l'etat des recherches scientifiques au sujet des effets de forces electromotrices sur la sante. RFcom.ca est une ressource documentaire sur Internet dirigee par un groupe d'experts scientifiques qui passe en revue et commente Les recherches les plus recentes menees dans le monde entier sur les technologies sans fil et leurs effets sur la sante. ::0 :c,. [f: =1 0 :c,. Xln -1 ::i:: � � m 2 -I f -i -o - 128 - Antenna Tower Information Resources Industry Canada -Let's Talk Towers http://www.strategis.ic.gc.ca/ epic/site/ smt-gst. nes/ en/ sf01637e.html An overview of the process for radiocommunications antenna siting. Includes a video presentation. University of Ottawa McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment www.rfcom.ca A comprehensive source of information about electromagnetic frequencies and their health effects. Includes a primer on electromagnetic frequencies, wireless phones and an up-to-date bibliography of scientific journal articles on the health effects of EMF. Health Canada Safety Code 6 http:/ /www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/ 99ehd-dhm237 / preface-preambule_e. html A link to Safety Code 6, the Government of Canada developed safety standard that governs antenna siting. Sources d'information sur les pylones d'antenne lndustrie Canada -Parlons pylones http://www.strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf /fr/ sf01637f.html Un apen;:u du processus de localisation d'antennes de radiocommunications. Comprend une presentation video. Centre R. Samuel McLaughlin d'evaluation du risque pour la sante des populations a l'Universite d'Ottawa www.rfcom.ca Une source complete de renseignements sur les frequences electromagnetiques et leur effet sur la sante. Comprend une introduction sur les frequences electromagnetiques, les telephones sans fil et une bibliographie a jour sur des articles de revues scientifiques sur les effets des champs electromagnetiques sur la sante. Code de securite 6 de Sante Canada http:/ /www. hc-sc. gc. ca/ ewh-semt/ pubs/ radiation/ . 99ehd-dhm237 / preface-preambule_f. html Un lien vers le Code de securite 6, la norme de securite etablie par le gouvernement du Canada qui regit l'emplacement d'antennes. World Health Organisation Organisation mondiale de la Sante http:/ /www.who.int/peh-emf /about/WhatisEMF /en/index1 .html http:/ /www.who.int/peh-emf /project/EMF _project/fr/ The WHO EMF Project provides information about electro­ magnetic fields, including potential health effects of exposure. index.html Le Projet CEM de l'OMS fournit des renseignements sur les champs electromagnetiques, y compris les consequences eventuelles sur la sante de l'exposition a ceux-ci. ::0 l> IT' --l 7:'-i O:i:,. ::0 c-, _, :::c ,.,,,s;: � ft)' zJ� -IS"" J_c 23 - 129 - ATTACHMENT If '-fN \1;�9q Rl:PORT # .....i:.;PL:=.!-,.;;....:.I ___ IO __ I _..___ - 130 - shared network CANADA Schedule C From: Subject: SNC Ale Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Dnte: June 24, 2018 at 3:26 PM To: munlcipal@sharednetwo1k.ca I am a resident of-Sidelin� Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard. At my location, we have no access whatsoever to internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. -We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. -We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL. -Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable. Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use, too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which ... -... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest internet functions hopelessly slow, if not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modem world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available-literally 40 minutes from downtown Toronto. This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure. I highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont. Thank you for your efforts'in this regard. - 131 - ATiACHMENT #_ Y-_ TO RE:PORT # _PL� t (o-/ 9-- From: Ag AI-Joundi • Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada -SNC0120 -Claremont Proposal • ' Date: July 19, 2018 at 2:24 PM To: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca, Pickles, David, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, murnaghanc@hotmail.com, Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, kbentley@pickering.ca, crose@pickering.ca Good afternoon Mr. Claros, Thank you for your email below dated July 10, 2018. However it does not address the relevant issues presented in my letter to the Council of Pickering at all, which mostly have to do with your sales proposal not respecting/adhering to the Industry Canada and City of Pickering rules about the erection of cell towers. I will respond to your letter more specifically and completely in a separate letter to be sent to you and the City of Pickering within the next week. However, at this time, I would like to know why your report to teh City of Pickering about the proposed site suggests that my home is no less than 212 meters from the proposed cell site, when in fact a quick Google Maps view clearly shows my home is approximately 98 meters from the proposed site. Does this inaccuracy represent the same extent of due diligence behind your report Mr. Claros? As for the study from the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" published in June of 2014 titled "Neighborhood Cell To wers & Antennas -Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?", please copy and past the following URL to review a summary of the report findings; httP-:l/electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-P-roP-erty.: desirability/ Notwithstanding the above study, on the matter of the impact of cell towers on residential real estate values, with everything else being equal, would you really argue that there would exist the same demand for properties within or without proximity to cell towers? If you reasonably conclude that yes, everything else being equal, of course there would be less people interested in properties close to cell towers, i.e. less demand, then how could you not logically also conclude that the price for such properties would also be lower. Is this not the most basic economics principle? Lower demand ... lower price. Will SNC protect my family against any such depreciation in property value? Thank you, Aghlab AI-Joundi From: Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> Sent: July 10, 2018 3:57 PM To: Cc: sbutt@P-ickering.ca; Pickles, David, Councillor; murnaghanc@hotmail.com; Morrison, Cody; kbentleY-@P-ickering.ca; crose@P-ickering.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada -SNC0120 -Claremont Proposal Gnnrl AflArnnnn Mr Al-.lrninrli - 132 - I hope your week is going well. Please find the attached response to your comments and concerns attached. Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached letter, or anything else regarding this project. Thanks! Dom Claros Shared Network Canada httP-:l/sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca - 133 - From: Dom Claros dom.clar os@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada -SNC0120 -Claremont Proposal Date: July 23, 2018 at 1 :33 PM To: Ag AI-Joundi Cc: sbutt@pickeri11y.t;a, t'ICKIes, uavI0, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, murnaghanc@hotmail.com, Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, kbentley@pickering.ca, crose@pickering.ca Good Afternoon Mr. AI-Joundi, 1 hope you had a good weekend. Thank you for following up. I have been working with our team, and l believe when they were on site they made a mistake In reporting the street address and our engineer calculated a different address as the closest. You are absolutely right, after following up with the team and looking over the plans, your property Is approximately 100 metres from the proposed location. As menUoned In our letter, we would be willing to work with your famlly to relocate the tower to the opposite end of the field to greatly Increase this setback, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks for sending the link, our team will look into this new website. During our initial research we came across this website which references !he study titled •Neighborhood Cell To wers & Antennas -Do They Impact a Property's Deslrabilityr conducted by the ·National lnslitule for Science, Law & Public Policy-, but our team has not been able to locale the actual study or published documents with this title or by this organization. Please let us know if you could help our team locate this study for our review. We will look forward to receiving your response this week. Please let me know if I can help with anything else. Kind regards, Dom Claros Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca On Jul 19, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Ag AI-Joundi Good afternoon Mr. Claros, Thank you for your email below dated July 10, 2018. However it does not address the relevant issues presented in my letter to the Council of Pickering at all, which mostly have to do with your sales proposal not respecting/adhering to the Industry Canada and City of Pickering rules about the erection of cell towers. I will respond to your letter more specifically and completely in a separate letter to be sent to you and the City of Pickering within the next week. However, at this time, I would like to know why your report to teh City of Pickering about the proposed site suggests that my home is no less than 212 meters from the proposed cell site, when in fact a quick Google Maps view clearly shows my home is approximately 98 meters from the proposed site. Does this inaccuracy represent the same extent of due diligence behind your report Mr. Claros? As for the study from the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" published in June of 2014 titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas -Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?", please copy and past the following URL to review a summary of the report findings; htt1:1://electromagnetichealth .org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey�1:1roRfil1Y.-desirability/ Notwithstanding the above study, on the matter of the impact of cell towers pn residential real estate values, with everything else being equal, would you really argue that there would exist the same demand for properties within or without proximity to cell towers? If you reasonably conclude that yes, everything else being equal, of course there would be less people interested in properties close to cell towers, i.e. less demand, then how could you not logically also conclude that the price for such properties would also be lower. Is this not the most basic economics principle? Lower demand ... lower price. Will SNC protect my family against any such depreciation in property value? Thank you, Aghlab AI-Joundi From: Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork ca> Sent: July 10, 2018 3:57 PM ��: JRickfilingl!!'lcfaes, David, Councillor;.!!1Y.ffi.gghanc@hotmail.com; Morrison, Cody;.!ill.en.t!ey...@pickering.ca; crose@pickering..lli!. Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada -SNC0120 -Claremont Proposal Good Afternoon Mr. AI-Joundi, I hope your week is going well. Please lind the attached response to your comments and concerns attached. Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached letter, or anylhing else regarding this project. Thanks! nnmr:l:irnc:. - 134 - Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork ca 647•544·5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca ATTACHMENT#L/-f Rf:PORT # 'f3.....,.L..,..�-\ fo-q_ - 135 - Tuesday July 24, 2018 Mr. Dom Claros Shared Network Canada 275 Macpherson Ave., Unit #103 Toronto, Ontario M4V 1A4 Re: Proposed Shared Network Canada (''SNC") Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Claremont-Union Cemetery, Pickering, ON, SNC File Number: SNC0120, and response to your letter to me dated June 23, 2018, and email to me dated July 23, 2018 Dear Mr. Claros, Thank you for your letter to me dated June 23, 2018, as well as your email to me more recently on July 23, 2018. As I mentioned to you in my initial, email, response to your June 23, 2018 letter, said letter does not address the relevant issues I presented in my May 16, 2018 letter to the City of Pickering, addressed to Mr. Kyle Bentley. A primary issue presented in this May 16, 2018 letter is that SNC ignores the most basic Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, "before building a new antenna-suppmting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards" Mr. Claros, in the two communications you have extended to me (as noted above), you have not addressed this point about making use of existing infrastructure. Instead, you quickly offer to move the tower about 100 metres to the east. Such a proposal does not address the critical issue of making use of existing infrastructure. Please demonstrate to Industry Canada, The City of Pickering, and my family, that you have conducted an independent engineering study that proves you have explored available, alternative, antenna-suppmting infrastructure, and that such alternatives are not viable thereby confirming that a cell tower is required, and is required only in the specific location you propose. You mention specifically in your June 23, 2018 letter to me that, "while Shared Network Canada does not currently provide cellular or internet service (a point which I asserted in my letter dated May 16, 2018 to emphasize that SNC's business model is not directly linked to improving community cellular and internet services, but rather is directly linked to the erection of cell towers), the process of determining potential tower locations does not differ from companies which provide such services". Hence clearly you acknowledge that the requirements ( as noted above) for the erection of such towers is the same for SNC, however you do not address this requirement other than to acknowledge it, and continue to avoid providing any evidence that you have adhered to such requirements in determining that the proposed site is exactly the site required to erect a new cell tower. - 136 - Mr. Claros, I have also made it ve1y clear to my City of Pickering Council members that I will not accept any negative impact on my property value in association with the erection of a cell tower within the vicinity of my property. I find it curious that notwithstanding the research that is abundantly available suggesting a deprecation in residential property values within the proximity of a cell tower (an example of which has been referenced in my May 16, 2018 letter, and my July 19, 2018 email to you), you appear to not accept what is also obvious to most home owners, and residential property agents. That is, re.sidential property within the immediate vicinity (i.e. distance, view) of wireless telecommunications towers that is for sale, realizes less demand from potential buyers than other similar properties where everything else is the same. If you are so confident that this is not the case, let us explore an arrangement whereby SNC guarantees to reimburse my family for any depreciation in the market value of my residential property in the event your proposed tower is erected. I would be happy to consider a model proposed by an independent third party professional market valuation service provider for such. If however you are not so confident, then, is it fair, or reasonable even, to consider your proposed model, whereby SNC generates rental revenue for itself, the Claremont-Union Cemete1y enjoys a monthly annuity from SNC, while neither of the associated principals of either SNC, nor the Claremont-Union Cemetery have to live with the tower looming over them, while my family receives absolutely zero income or benefit (notwithstanding Schedule C in your June 23, 2018 letter about an alleged, single, Claremont community resident suggesting they are in need of improved cellular and internet services because they live in a valley, my family has great mobile cell and internet service ... we don't suffer in this regard, and based on discussions I have had with community members, they don't suffer in this regard either), and my family assumes all of the risks? Finally, Mr. Claros, in the event you do provide independent evidence that, as per section 6.2 of the CPCTP, " ... where co-location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible", please do follow the rules as set out in the same section which stipulates that under such circumstances, proponents are encouraged to: "Select sites for new towers that are within industrial, commercial or non-residential areas, and/or that maximize the distance from residential areas." "Consider the use of City owned lands and/or facilities". Thank you, Aghlab Al-Joundi CC: Mr. David Pickles- Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt -Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell -MPP Pickering-Uxbridge Mr. Kyle Bentley-Director, City of Pikcering Development Ms. Catherine Rose-Chief Planner, City of Pickering Mr. Cody Morrison -Planner, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan - 137 - shared network CANADA August 22, 2018 Aghlab AI-Joundi ATTACHMENT fl REPORT II RE: Letter addressed, dated July 24, 2018. Dear Mr. AI-Joundi, Thank you for very much for taking the time to respond in your letter dated July 24, 2018. Thank you for your comments which state: "SNC ignores the most basic Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, "before building a new antenna-supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc'." S(milarly, the CPCTP states in section 6. 1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards"'. To the contrary, SNC follows Industry Canada Protocol and prioritizes the sharing of existing equipment. While SNC does not directly distribute a telecommunication network, the process by which SNC determines a new location for a telecommunications tower matches the process used by telecommunicatii::ms carriers. SNC and its team determine locations in great need of telecommunication or internet services, in which there is no current infrastructure upon which carriers or providers could go. In turn, SNC provides the infrastructure for all carriers and providers to co-locate upon the tower to provide service to the area. If the telecommunication service was not needed, or if there was currently existing infrastructure providing such service, the need for an SNC built tower would not exist. The need for a tower near Claremont can be seen below. As illustrated in "Schedule A" attached, the two nearest towers to the proposed site (SNC0120) are located over 4.3 kilometres northwest (1) and over 5.5 kilometres northeast (2). The surrounding rings (red circles) demonstrate the approximate radius of good coverage attained by each tower. The need for a tower to service Claremont, Brock Road and the surrounding community can be seen in a gap of good coverage to the south of the two towers. Please also see attached in "Schedule B" the proposed area of coverage SNC aims to deliver, by providing infrastructure with the ability for co-location of any and all wireless carriers or internet www.sharednelwork.ca 275 Macpherson Ave #103, Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 - 138 - shared network ATIACHME!�H' 4 _l(•Rr-PORT fl _e_L� \b-/q CANADA providers as per Industry Canada Protocol. The tower is proposed in an optimal location in order to serve as the only infrastructure needed in the Claremont area to deliver the services needed, providing co-location to all service providers while eliminating the need for the proliferation of any other tower nearby. SNC understands your concern regarding the initial proximity of the proposed tower to your property, and we are willing to relocate the tower on the Claremont-Union Cemetery property, fully masked by mature trees on all sides in order to greatly reduce its visual impact. Moving the tower over 100 metres further from the proposed location will have a great impact on viewshed from your property and eliminate potential noise from any technicians driving.to the site. In regards to your comment "I find it curious that notwithstanding the research that is abundantly available suggesting a deprecation in residential property vc1lues within the proximity of a cell tower (an example of which has been referenced in my May 16, 2018 letter, and my July 19, 2018 email to you)" referencing the research you presented titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas-Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found here (bttp://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-desirabilityl), this potential study and survey cannot be located anywhere, more specifically in a scientific journal. The data and facts presented are not reinforced by any scientific journal or governmental agency. Upon research of the "National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy (NISLAPP)" found here (https://natinstsciencelaw.orgL) which is mentioned as the agency which performed the survey, the data nor the survey itself could be found. We could not determine if the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" has any published anecdotal studies or if it is an agency with any government association. SNC has followed and will continue to follow all rules stipulated in the Industry Canada Protocol. As previously mentioned, the co-location of equipment is not possible to service the Claremont area as there is currently no infrastructure available. Due to airport zoning restrictions surrounding Claremont, the topography of the proposed location had to be considered, as there is a maximum height of 300 metres above sea level for any structure constructed in the area. With much of the property surrounding Claremont owned by the Provincial Government for use of the potential future airport, and in complying with Industry Canada's Protocol to maximize its distance from residential areas, SNC has proposed this location. This location maximizes the distance of the tower from the densest residential areas of Claremont, is currently found on non-residential land, on non-profit owned property -which is most favourable after eliminating the option to locate the tower on City-Owned land or facilities. We are here to work with you and your family if you would like to discuss determining an alternate location on the Claremont-Union Cemetery Property. Our next step will be to work with you, if interested, in order to determine an alternate location. We will look to propose a new location 100 metres away from your property if no other proposed tower location is provided in order to move the proposal forward in our application with the City of Pickering and in order to bring the proposed application forward to Council. I hope the above helps to clarify the need for a tower in the area, please feel free to reach out to discuss alternate locations. - 139 - sha.Ted network CANADA Thank you, Dom Claros 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca CC: ATTACHMENT #_fl ff, REPORT 11 _rl.LN I 0-/9_ Mr. David Pickles -Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt -Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell -MPP Pickering-Uxbridge Mr. Kyle Bentley -Director, City of Pikcering Development Ms. Catherine Rose -Chief Planner, City of Pickering Mr. Cody Morrison -Planner, City of Pickerinq Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan - 140 - shared network SNC0120 • Claremont Google Earth &ZJIO<'.l.K.\jl, Sch.tkn• nogo O 2016 A rat Briao CANADA ATTACHMENT#_,____..,___ro REPORT # �N I fa-I q Schedule A - 141 - shared network CANADA SNC0120 • Claremont ATTACHMENT# 4 TOREPORT# ' ]JLN \0-i 1._ Schedule B - 142 - � shared network CANADA Appendix D 16 - 143 - Subject Properties 0 Radius around subject properties □Properties inside radius _, --· ,.., Ii • th Jr -·-··-�·-· - 144 - 030002023000000 LORNA JEAN HALL 030002051000000 WHITSHED LTD. P.O. BOX 105/ SCOTIA PLAZA 40 KING ST W Suite 4802 TORONTO ON M5H 3X2 CAN 030007119000000 DAVID FENECH LISA FENECH 030007121000000 JOHN RANDOLPH MITCHELL INDIRA JAIKARAN 030007123000000 CLAREMONT UNION CEMETERY C/O DOUGLAS CUMMINGS 4750 SIDELINE 12 CLAREMONT ON L 1Y 1A2 030007127000000 JOHN GABRIEL LAIDER 030007184000000 4 SEASONS INVESTMENTS INC (CLAREMONT) RR#5 1900 EIGHTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L 1Y 1A2 CAN 030002024000000 JERRY LEWYCKY 030007118000000 LINDA MARIE COMEAU ALISTAIR GEORGE SIMPSON 030007120000000 JOHN RANDOLPH MITCHELL 030007122000000 AGHLAB AL-JOUNDI CYNTHIA ANN MURNAGHAN 030007126000000 SHIOU-MEI LUO 030007128000000 JOHN GABRIEL LAIDER - 145 - <41 TAGl·IIV/tlfl It' Y:_ ff REPOR, II �� I b-1 CJ_ !_ CO_MMUNITY POETRY SLAM IN PICKERING llfSTEVENSON\VHELTON MAcDONALD&S\VAN LLP PERSONAL INJURY +MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Experienced Trial Lawyers Serving Oshawa, Pickering and Whitby llf S\iVLt1\/,.,YC'I �,.Cd 289.634.1680 13 John Street West Oshawa chotr I,' II till l &GB DATA ON OUR 850/MD. PLAN IG I(� Stto $60.00- -#i1bU tU UIIIIB Ill Utt. ttr rJ,A LETS BET DOING 11ATIOH A ,',11,11:r.l•''l'I I I fll.' cnat,: PUBLIC NOTICE PROPOSED SHARED NETWORK CANADA 45m TRI POLE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER INSTALLATION SUBJECT; Type: Wireless 45m tall lripole tower. Location: 2170 Ninth Concession Road, Pickering -Claremont-Union Cemetery, Pickering. Legal Description: PART OF LOT 14, CONCESSION 9, NOW PART 2 TO PART 4, 40R-20211 Facility: The facilfty will include a proposed 10m x 10m fenced compound. Site: The site space for Improved wireless voice and data services in the surrounding area. Innovation, Science and Econpmlc Development Canada (ISEDC) is the governing body for lnsta\latfons of this type or telecommunlcatlon antenna Installation and can be contacted at: ISEDC -Toronto District Office-151 Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5C 2W7 ANY PERSON may make a written submission to the lndlvfduals listed below by close of day June 111\ 2018, with respect to this matter. Please reference site SNC0120 In your correspondence. Further Information may also be obtained through the following contact: Municipal Contact Information Cody Morrison, Planner I City of Pickering -City Development Department (905) 420-4660 I cmorrison@pickering.ca ·Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are regulated excluslvely by Federal Legislation under the Federal Radiocommunication Act and administered by Industry Canada. Provincial legislation such as the Planning Act, Including zoning by -laws, does not apply to these facilities. The City of Pickering is participating In land -use consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of Industry Canada's CP C 2 - 0 -03. In the case of a dispute between the proponent and the City, a final decision will be made by Industry Canada.·: APPLICANT CONTACT: Munfclpal Affairs Manager Shared Nehvork Canada 10 Four Seasons Pl, 10th Floor Suite 1056 Etoblcoke, ON M98 0A6 (647) 242-9395 munlclpal@share'dnetwork.ca SITE LOCATION MAP - 146 - A TACHMENT #_,... __ '"':" REPORT II PUBLIC NOTICE -CELL TOWER � SHARED NETWORK CANADA IS PROPOSING TO LOCATE A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER FACILITY, BEING 4S METRES IN HEIGHT, ON THIS PROPERTY. PUBLIC COMMENT IS INV(TED THE CLOSING DATE F\)R SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS IS /UNE J J°", 2018 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE MUNICIPAL J\FFAIIIS MANAGER: MUNICIPAL@SllMEDNETWORK.CA 647-242-9395 TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA SYSTEMS ARE REGULATED EXCLU IVELY BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION UNDER HIE FEDERAL RADIOCOMMUNIC/\TION ACT ANO ADMINISTERED OY INDUSTRY CANADA. PROVINCIAL LEGISLA�ION SUCH AS THE PLANNING ACT, INCLUDING ZONING BY-LAW S, DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE FACILITIES. THE CITY OF PICKERING IS P,\RrtCIPAIING IN LAND-USE CONSULTATION PURSUANT TO ISSUES OF INDUSTRY CANADA'S CPC 2·0·03 IN THE C,\ f OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PROPONENT ANO THE CITY, A FINAL DECISION Will Of MADE BY INDUSTRY CANADA . . , FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT CITY OF PICKCRING-CITY OEVHOPM(NT O(PARTMfNT CODY MDltRISON, PLANNER I AT90S •120-4660 OR ISEDC -TORONTO DISTRICT OFFICE: JSJ YONGE STRECT, .,"noon, TORONTO, ON MSC 21V7 l(SP[CTRUMENOD-SPECTRW[NO.IC@CANADA.CA - 147 - A TACHMENT ti 4 ·1R!:POR II PLI \ 1o -i 1 shared network CANADA Appendix E 17 - 148 - ) r � �� ' I! w& t ·'d ;b �! I; I 11 ltl�!! iii L,i I� It 11 mn � iii 11 l�I Iii IJ) \I) I.ti • -·--·--·--·--·--·--·-7 q �ll OYOll "'IIOOJl!__ -! ----I , ,,. ... M ! I -I f I ------. ! ,-,' '•,...-, I , I I/ i I ·I '\ i rJ , L I f \ : I / f' \ I I�-=- - - ! jU! \ I 6 ij 'b� / ! i, ,I -" I 'O ,' ', 1, I '1,.. ' I' 'O ,' ·, ', , ....... ,.,,..,, I -.. ___ .,._,.,...... ' Iii (!) § �.,. � <I �I i' L I I i . . . r-·-·-i--·-·1 -·1i �9 I i I t· I !i • I I • � I i N "'\;si i I t-g • • ! j �I ■11 I I I ! i ••·I I I ; ;:l . ll ! i !.ol EI � I; I ,�, • a. ! ·i!u f I I t • -1 ! �--r::,1H:.· -., i .. -� il 3 I � f .(0 >- 149 - --Cif!o/-­p](KERJNG Report to Planning & Development Committee From: Subject: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-004/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18 Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1, 40R-29457 Report Number: PLN 17-19 Date: June 17, 2019 (Southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue) Recommendation: 1.That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-004/P, submitted by Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation, to re-designate the lands located on the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue from "Urban Residential Areas -Medium Density Areas" to "Urban Residential Areas -High Density Areas" to allow a maximum site density of 161 units per net hectare in order to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of 264 stacked units, be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 37 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 17-19 be forwarded to Council for enactment; 2.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18, submitted by Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation, to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of 264 stacked units on lands located on the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue, be endorsed subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 17-19, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment; 3.That Informational Revision 25 to the Pickering Official Plan Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Map 25 to delete the symbol for a "Proposed Separate Elementary School", as set out in Appendix Ill, be approved; and 4.That the changes to the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guideline Figure A - Tertiary Plan, as shown on Appendix IV to Report PLN 17-19, to delete the "Future Elementary School", be approved. Executive Summary: The subject lands are located on the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map and Air Photo Map, Attachments #1 and #2). - 150 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) June 17, 2019 Page 2 Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation has submitted applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high density residential condominium development consisting of 264 stacked units, accessed through an internal private road (see Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3). The proposed site layout and design represents a logical and orderly development, and is in keeping with other recently constructed residential condominium developments within this neighbourhood. City Development staff are in support of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with Provincial Plans and conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan. While the current Pickering Official Plan designation does not permit the requested number of units, the request can be supported based on a relatively small development area, the dedication of a public park, underground parking area, the inclusion of appropriate private amenity spaces, and the opportunity for 60 to 100 families to receive mortgage assistance from Trillium Housing. The development complies with urban design and relevant policies of the Pickering Official Plan and the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Guidelines. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-004/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18. Additionally, staff recommends approval of the housekeeping changes to the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Map 25 of the Pickering Official Plan, and the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Tertiary Plan of the Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1.Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands are located at the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands have an area of approximately 1. 7 4 hectares with approximately 196 metres of frontage along William Jackson Drive and approximately 98 metres of frontage along Earl Grey Avenue. The lands are presently vacant with a few clusters of trees that are proposed to be removed to accommodate the development (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). Surrounding land uses include: North: East: South: Across Earl Grey Avenue is a residential subdivision consisting of freehold semi-detached and townhouse dwellings. Vacant lands that are designated as "Open Space Systems -Natural Areas", the Urfe Creek valley lands and further east is the Pickering Golf Club. Hydro corridor that includes a parking lot that services the Pickering Golf Club and further south is Creekside Neighbourhood Park. - 151 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) June 17, 2019 Page 3 West: Across William Jackson Drive is a residential condominium development by Averton (Brock) Limited. The development includes a mix of townhouse units on the north and south sides of Rex Health Drive, and two 8-storey apartment buildings and townhouse units along Brock Road (not yet under construction) .. In late 2017, Averton (Brock) Limited submitted a rezoning application to permit an increase in the number of apartment units and an increase in the height of the apartment buildings. 1.2 Applicant's Proposal Trillium Housing has submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of 264 stacked units accessed through an internal private road. The conceptual plan illustrates 13 residential blocks fronting William Jackson Drive, Earl Grey Avenue, a private road and internal courtyards areas (see Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3). The residential blocks will have four levels. However, all buildings will appear as though they are 3-storeys from William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue (see Conceptual Elevation Plan and Rendering, Attachments #4 and #5). A mix of one, two and three bedroom units are proposed. Vehicular access to the internal private road will be provided from William Jackson Drive across from Rex Heath Drive and from a second access on the south side of the site. An underground parking garage is proposed providing 405 spaces for residents and visitors, and an additional 16 surface spaces for visitors. Resident parking is provided at a ratio of 1.25 spaces per unit, and visitor parking at a ratio of 0.25 spaces per unit, for a total of 421 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a 935 square metre park block to be conveyed to the City as parkland dedication, which is approximately 5 percent of the land area. The block is located at the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the hydro corridor. Also proposed is a centrally located private amenity area that includes an indoor amenity building and an outdoor amenity area. This space is intended to include a landscaped area, and areas of decking, decorative paving or other similar surfaces. The design of these areas will be determined as part of the site plan approval process. Along the easterly edge of the site is a 30 metre buffer area from a natural heritage feature located on adjacent lands owned by Infrastructure Ontario. In consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the applicant has refined the limits of the buffer area so that a consistent separation limit is established between the development block and the natural area. The revised boundary line will be fenced, and lands east of the fence will be naturalized. - 152 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) 2.Comments Received June 17, 2019 Page 4 2.1 November 28, 2018 Open House Meeting, January 7, 2019 Public Information Meeting, Written Submissions and a Petition An Open house meeting was held on November 28, 2018 and a Public Information Meeting was held on January 7, 2019 at which a number of households attended to voice their concerns with the proposal. In addition, staff also met with a group of residents to further discuss their concerns on December 20, 2018, and a petition was received by the Clerks Department on January 14, 2019, signed by approximately 173 households outlining a list of concerns. In summary, the key concerns and comments included: •an objection to the application to re-designate and rezone the lands to a high density residential development •concerned with the increase number of new stacked residential developments in the area •the proposal will increase traffic congestion on neighbourhood streets and intersections •the proposal will create a greater strain on Creekside Park that is already heavily used by residents and by the Pickering Soccer Club •the proposal will further impact on-street parking issues •that the City look into a long-term strategy for the neighbourhood prior to further approving new developments in the area including the need for common spaces, City facilities, parks and schools A letter was received from Averton (Brock) Limited, the owner of lands located at the northwest and southwest corner of William Jackson Drive and Rex Heath Drive. Averton (Brock) Limited requested further clarification and information regarding servicing capacity available to participating landowners of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group. 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham •the Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional approval •the proposed residential development will support new affordable higher density development at the periphery of a neighbourhood, efficiently utilizing existing infrastructure and in proximity to existing transit service. The proposed development is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement •the proposed development is in confo rmity with the objectives of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe •the Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Living Areas", which are intended to be used predominantly for housing purposes with a mix of housing types, sizes, and tenure •the proposal conforms to the policies of the Regional Official Plan •municipal water supply is available to service the proposed development from the existing watermain on William Jackson Drive- 153 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) June 17, 2019 Page 5 •a Waste Management Plan illustrating how waste collection can be accommodated is required at the site plan application; if the development does not meet Region's standards for municipal waste collection on private property, then the applicant will be responsible for retaining private waste collection services •as a condition of approval, the Region requires the applicant to include all recommended noise attenuation measures of the Noise Feasibility Study in a future condominium/site plan agreement to the satisfaction of the Region 2.2.2 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department •no objection to the proposal •matters with respect to grading and drainage, fencing details, stormwater management details, construction management requirements, snow storage location, landscaping requirements will be further reviewed through the site plan approval process 2.2.3 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority •no objection to the proposal •technical matters will be further reviewed and addressed through the site plan approval process 2.2.4 Hydro One Networks Inc. (HONI) •the development proposal is abutting and encroaching onto HONI high voltage transmission corridor •all technical requirements are required to be addressed to HONl's satisfaction 3.Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal is consistent and conforms with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides provincial policy direction on land use planning. The PPS provides for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. The PPS supports improved land use planning and management, which contributes to a more effective and efficient land use planning system. The PPS indicates that healthy, livable and safe communities are to be sustained by, among other matters, promoting efficient development and land use patterns and accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential. The proposed development promotes residential intensification and provides appropriate density where existing infrastructure and public service facilities are available. The proposed development is consistent with the PPS policies that encourage the efficient use of land, infrastructure and planned public service facilities. - 154 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) June 17, 2019 Page 6 The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) sets out a planning vision for growth throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The subject lands are located within the "built up area" of the City of Pickering. The proposed development provides for a compact form of development that is consistent with the Growth Plan. 3.2 An amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to increase the density on the subject lands is appropriate The subject lands are within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood and are designated Urban Residential Areas -Medium Density Areas. The Medium Density Areas designation provides for housing at a residential density of over 30 units and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. The applicant is proposing 264 units on a 1.64 hectare of developable land, resulting in a density of 161 units per net hectare, which is not within the permissible density range and therefore an Official Plan Amendment is required to facilitate the proposal. The applicant has submitted an Official Plan Amendment application to re-designate the lands from Urban Residential Areas -Medium Density Areas to Urban Residential Areas - High Density Areas. The proposed density of 161 units per net hectare exceeds the maximum High Density Areas permission of 140 units per hectare. Therefore, the Official Plan Amendment includes a site specific exception to permit a maximum density of 161 units per net hectare. The policies of the Official Plan state that City Council shall encourage a broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure and cost within the neighbourhoods so that the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over time. City Council shall maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure and minimize the consumption of vacant land by encouraging infill development of vacant or underutilized blocks of lands. Furthermore, City Council shall encourage the provision of an adequate supply of housing throughout the City including the provision of an adequate supply of affordable housing. Trillium Housing is a non-profit housing provider which has a mortgage assistance program providing financial support for buyers entering the housing market, who otherwise could not afford to buy a new home. Trillium advises that this program will be available to assist approximately 60 to 100 purchasers and therefore this proposal provides and promotes an affordable housing option for future residents of this neighbourhood. The proposed development reflects a compact urban form that makes efficient use of resources and infrastructure. The proposed stacked unit housing type and built form will create a safe, attractive and pedestrian friendly environment and is appropriate, desirable and in keeping with the current and evolving Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. Staff support the site specific amendment to re-designate the subject lands from Urban Residential Areas -Medium Density Areas to Urban Residential Areas -High Density Areas with a maximum residential density of 161 units per net hectare. It is recommended that the By-law to adopt Amendment 37 be forwarded to Council for enactment (see Appendix I). - 155 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) June 17, 2019 Page 7 3.3 The proposal is consistent with the design objectives of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies and Development Guidelines The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan require a broad mix of housing form, location, size and affordability within the neighbourhood. New development is required to demonstrate how the proposal is consistent with the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan (ESP) to the satisfaction of the Region, City and the TRCA. As a condition of approval, the landowners are required to become a party to the cost sharing agreement for Duffin Heights or receive an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Landowners Group Inc. that the benefitting landowner has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportion of the shared development costs. The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines provide design objE3ctives for the neighbourhood. The Tertiary Plan identifies the lands as residential. The intent of the Guidelines is to further the objectives of the Official Plan and to achieve the following: •an accessible pedestrian-oriented residential areas, distinct in character and harmonious with the larger neighbourhood •a streetscape which is attractive, safe and encourages social interaction with the neighbourhood •a central focus to the neighbourhood which is safe, lively and attractive •a diversity of uses to support neighbourhood and City functions, and •a mix of housing types, forms, affordability and tenure on a variety of lot frontages The plan conforms with the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies and Development Guidelines. The overall design and layout of the plan facilitates a pedestrian-oriented residential development by creating an attractive urban streetscape along a public road, allowing for convenient pedestrian circulation through enhanced internal pathway connections and open space areas. The proposal also provides and promotes new affordable ownership housing. Through the site plan approval process, staff will continue to work with the applicant to further review detailed urban design and architectural matters in accordance with the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines including, but not limited to: detailed building location and siting; internal pedestrian circulation and connections; internal landscaping and final design of the private amenity areas; architectural design and materials; and the location of community mailboxes, water meter room, hydro transformers, gas meters and other utilities. 3.4 The proposal will have minimal traffic impacts on surrounding road network The submitted Transportation Study, prepared by R.J. Burnside & Associates, investigated the traffic conditions and effects of the proposed development on the surrounding area and the intersections of Brock Road and Zents Drive/Rex Heath Drive, William Jackson Drive and Rex Heath Drive/proposed north driveway and William Jackson Drive and proposed south driveway. The Study found that under existing, background and total conditions, during the morning and afternoon peak hours, all study intersections are operating and will operate with excess capacity and roadways will continue to function with minimal delay. - 156 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) June 17, 2019 Page 8 The Study also concludes that the proposed parking supply will meet future demand. Furthermore, the Study indicates that the site is well designed to provide access by pedestrian and cyclist to area sidewalks, multi-use path along William Jackson Drive, bike routes and tr�nsit, and as a result, provides choices in mode of travel. Engineering Services has reviewed the submitted Transportation Study and concur with the consultant's recommendations. 3.5 New Parks planned and park improvements in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood City Council Resolution #323/17 directed staff to work with developers and agencies to plan and provide appropriate outdoor recreation areas/parks in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. As noted in Section 1.2 of this report, the applicant is proposing a 935 square metre park block to be conveyed to the City as parkland dedication, which is located at southwest corner of the site adjacent to the hydro corridor. Staff have explored opportunities to improve and expand playground areas within existing parks and have approved new parks spaces within the Duffin Heights neighbourhood that are anticipated to be completed in the next two to three years. A summary of the key improvements and new initiatives include: •approved funding in the 2019 capital budget to construct a pre-school aged play area within the Jackson Green parkette located at the corner of William Jackson Drive and Misthollow Drive, which is anticipated to be constructed by August 2019 •an expansion of the playground area which may include swings and other play structures in the Creekside Park has been included in the Capital Budget forecast for 2020 •the Pickering Soccer Club has moved a portion of its soccer programming from Creekside Park to Kinsman Park providing additional times for the area residents to use the soccer fields •a new park, having an area of 0.76 of a hectare located at William Jackson Drive and Carousel Mews, known as Carousel Green, will include a walking path, seating and small playground area (timing of park construction is dependent on the finalization of plans for a residential development north of the site) •a new park, having an area of 0.62 of a hectare, located on the west of Brock Road and the future Four Seasons Lane, will include walking paths, seating, a multi-use court, playground area and shade structure (anticipated to be constructed in 2021) •a new public school with outdoor playing fields is anticipated to be located on the decommissioned City Operations Centre located west of Brock Road, at the intersection of Tillings Road and Dersan Street •the City is investigating entering into a long-term lease with Infrastructure Ontario for use of hydro corridor lands for future recreational uses - 157 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) June 17, 2019 Page 9 In addition to improvements to existing park spaces and new parks to be completed over the next two to three years, new condominium developments within Duffin Heights that are either approved or proposed also include private parkettes serving the residents of those developments. A map titled Duffin Heights Parklands (see Attachment #6 to this report), has been prepared identifying the locations of existing park spaces, proposed parks and private amenity spaces. The proposed improvements will help to alleviate concerns regarding the lack of public park space in the Duffin Heights neighbourhood. 3.6 Response to Key Concerns raised at the January 7, 2019 Public Information Meeting, Written Comments and January 14, 2019 Petition The table below summarizes the key concerns raised by area residents and staff's response. Concerns Staff's Response Traffic Congestion The proposal will have minimal traffic impacts on surrounding road networks Ensuring sufficient parking Strain on local park As further discussed in Section 3.4 of this report, staff are satisfied that the traffic generated by this proposal will have minimal traffic impacts within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhoods. Key intersections are currently operating and will continue to operate with excess capacity, and existing roadways will continue to function with minimal delay. Sufficient number of parking spaces are available to accommodate the proposal Resident parking is provided at a ratio of 1.25 spaces per unit, and visitor parking at a ratio of 0.25 spaces per unit, for a total of 421 parking spaces. An underground parking garage is proposed providing 405 spaces for residents and visitors, and an additional 16 surface spaces for visitors. Resident and visitor parking ratios provided are slightly higher than other new developments in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. Staff are satisfied that there are sufficient parking spaces available to accommodate the proposal. New Parks planned and Park improvements in the Duffin Heights neighbourhood As discussed in Section 3:5 of this report, the City is proposing park improvements to Creekside Park and other local parks in the community, and new parks are also planned in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing a 935 square metre park block to be conveyed to the City as parkland dedication, which adds additional park space within the neighbourhood. - 158 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) June 17, 2019 Page 10 Concerns The Pickering Soccer Club and Creekside Park Compatibility with surrounding neighbourhood Number of residents that will benefit from the Trillium program Staff's Response The Pickering Soccer Club has moved a portion of its programming from Creekside Park The Pickering Soccer Club has moved a portion of its soccer programming from Creekside Park mini fields to Kinsman Park in an effort to address recent traffic and on-street parking concerns raised by local residents during the soccer season. The remaining soccer program will continue at a reduced capacity. The proposal is compati ble with the surrounding neighbourhood Through building scale, form and siting of buildings, this proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposal facilitates a pedestrian-oriented residential development by creating an attractive urban streetscape along a public road, allowing for convenient pedestrian circulation and enhanced internal pathway connections and open space areas. The development is anticipated to assist a minimum of 60 purchasers The development is anticipated to assist 60 purchasers with a Trillium mortgage and could be increased up to 100 purchasers depending on the availability of additional financing. 3.7 Region of Durham will monitor sanitary capacity as development within the Duffin Heights Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station service area occurs over time Averton (Brock) Limited, owner of the lands directly west of the subject lands at the northeast and southeast corners of Brock Road and Rex Heath Drive, submitted a letter requesting additional information confirming the actual capacity available at the Duffin Heights Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (SSPS) and to review the allocation of capacity to the participating landowners. The Region of Durham has advised that based on projections of flows generated by existing and future developments (pending approval and/or not constructed) located within the Duffin Heights area, it is anticipated that ultimately the theoretical flow at the Duffin Heights Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (SSPS) may exceed the capacity of the facility. The remaining sanitary capacity will be on a first come first serve basis, and is allocated at the time of signing a servicing agreement. Diversion of future flows away from Duffin Heights SSPS may be needed in the future. The Region will continue to monitor this situation as development within the Duffin Heights SSPS service area proceeds. - 159 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) June 17, 2019 Page 11 3.8 The applicant is required to become a party to the Duffin Heights cost sharing agreement or pay their proportionate share of the development costs A letter was received on behalf of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group Inc. The letter advises that the applicant has not signed the Duffin Heights Developers Group Cost Sharing Agreement (CSA) and is currently a non-participant with regards to the CSA. Therefore, the Group would like to confirm that approval of applications will be conditional upon the Trustee confirming to the City that the Owner has executed the CSA and satisfied obligations thereunder related to the development of the subject lands. The implementing zoning by-law amendment will include a Holding provision on the subject lands until such time as the City receives an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group that the applicant has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportionate share of the development costs to the Landowners Group. 3.9 Zoning By-law to be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment Staff supports the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18 and recommends that the site specific implementing by-law, containing the standards set out in Appendix II to this Report be finalized and brought before Council for enactment. To ensure compatibility with the surrounding community and an appropriate design, the zoning by-law will have an appropriate residential zone category to implement the proposal including but not limited to, maximum building height, minimum building setbacks, built-to-zone, maximum number of units, minimum number of resident and visitor parking spaces. The zoning by-law will also include an appropriate zone category for a neighbourhood park that will be dedicated to the City and an appropriate zone category for the open space lands along the easterly edge of the site as determined by the TRCA. As noted above, the by-law will include a Holding provision on the lands to address cost-sharing. 3.10 Housekeeping amendments to the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Map and the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines are required The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guideline, Figure A-Tertiary Plan, has a symbol for a "Future Elementary School" on the subject lands. A "Proposed Separate Elementary School" symbol also appears on the Map 25: Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Map of the Pickering Official Plan. The City has received written confirmation from the Durham Catholic District School Board that a separate elementary school is no longer needed at this location. - 160 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) June 17, 2019 Page 12 Housekeeping changes to the Official Plan and Neighbourhood Guidelines are required. Accordingly, staff recommend Council approve Informational Revision 25 to the Pickering Official Plan Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Map 25 to delete the symbols for a "Proposed Separate Elementary School", as set out in Appendix Ill to Report PLN 17-19, and approve the changes to the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guideline Figure A - Tertiary Plan to delete the "Future Elementary School", as shown on Appendix IV to Report PLN 17-19. 3.11 Technical matters will be addressed through site plan approval process Detailed design issues will be dealt with through the site plan approval process. These requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to: •architectural treatment •landscaping and fencing •lighting •pedestrian circulation and connections •amenity area design •drainage and grading •site servicing •construction management plan •resident, visitor and accessible parking spaces •waste management collection •location of community mailboxes •location of water meter room, hydro transformers, gas meters and other utilities 3.12 Draft Approval of the Draft Plan of Condominium is delegated to the Director, City Development Applications for standard and common element condominium are delegated to the Director, City Development for final approval. No further approvals are required at this time. 3.13 Applicant's Comments The applicant supports the recommendations of this report. Appendices Appendix I Appendix II Appendix Ill Appendix IV Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 37 to the Pickering Official Plan Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18 Informational Revision 25 to the Pickering Official Plan Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Guidelines -Tertiary Plan Amendment - 161 - Report PLN 17-19 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18) June 17, 2019 Page 13 Attachments 1.Location Map2.Air Photo Map3.Conceptual Site Plan4.Conceptual Elevation Plan5.Conceptual Rendering Plan6.Duffin Heights Parklands Prepared By: Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Pri:i�e Pia�:'• Development Review Nilesti Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CC:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering� Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. rf//_ Chief Administrative Officer App;;;;:x� Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner f;/4µ/r, Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO - 162 - Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 37 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix I to Report PLN 17-19 - 163 - f Pickering By Being a By-law to adopt Amendment xx to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 18-004/P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21 (1 ), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may, by by-law, adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; And whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas on February 23, 2000, Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000, which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 37 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That Amendment 37 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted; 2.That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments. 3.This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2019. FT David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 164 - Exhibit "A" to By-law XXXX/19 Amendment 37 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 165 - Purpose: Location: Basis: Actual Amendment: Proposed Amendment 37 to the Pickering Official Plan The purpose of this amendment is to re-designate the lands located on the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue from "Urban Residential Areas -Medium Density Areas" to "Urban Residential Areas -High Density Areas" to facilitate a residential condominium development including a site specific exemption to permit a maximum density of 161 units per net hectare. The site specific amendment affects the lands located on the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue described as Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1, 40R-29457, City of Pickering. Through the review of Official Plan Amendment Application 18-004/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18, City Council determined that the Amendment facilitates a development that is compatible with the surrounding community, is an appropriate intensification project in Pickering's urban area, and provides an opportunity for 60 to 100 households to access funding from Trillium Housing's second mortgage program adding to Pickering's supply of affordable ownership housing. The Amendment is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2014, and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Durham Regional Official Plan. The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: 1.Amending Schedule I -Land Use Structure by replacing the "Urban Residential Areas -Medium Density Areas" designation with "Urban Residential Areas -High Density Areas" designation for lands located on the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue, as illustrated on Schedule 'A' attached to this amendment. 2.Revising policy 12.17, Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies, in Chapter 12 -Urban Neighbourhoods, to add a new subsection (q) as follows: "(q) despite Table 9 of Chapter 3, establish a maximum net residential density of 161 units per net hectare on lands located on the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue described as Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1, 40R-29457." Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. OPA 18-004/P A09/18 Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation - 166 - I City of Pickering City of Pickering City Development Dopartmcmt OJuly,2018 Thi• M;;r,p Form• P:art of EdlUon a of tho Pickering on1c1:11 Plan and Mu,t Bo Ro:id In Conjunction with tho Other Schodula1 and the Tc1tl Schedule 'A' to Amendment 37 Extract of Schedule I to the Pickering Official Plan Edition 8 Land Use Structure Open Space System --Seaton Natural Heritage System Natural Areas Active Recreational Areas Urban Residential Areas � Medium Density Areas [� �I High Density Areas Mixed Use Areas -Mixed Corridors - 167 - Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment A 09/18 Appendix II to Report PLN 17-19 - 168 - Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18 That the implementing zoning by-law permits the establishment of the following zoning provisions: 1.Permitted Uses: a.Stacked Dwellings b.Neighbourhood Park c.Open Space/Resource Management 2."H" Holding Provision on all lands until such time as the City receives an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group that the applicant has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportionate share of the development costs to the Landowners Group. 3.Number of Dwelling Units: a.minimum number of units 133 b.maximum number of units 264 4.All buildings and structures shall be located entirely within a building envelope with a minimum setback of 3.0 metres from all lot lines. 5.A 4.0 metre wide build-to-zone adjacent to William Jackson Drive A 3.0 metre wide build-to-zone adjacent to Earl Grey Avenue 6.No building or portion of a building or structure shall be erected within the building envelope, unless a minimum of 60 percent of the entire length of the build-to-zone is occupied by,a continuous portion of the exterior wall of a building. 7.Stairs; cover and uncovered porches and platforms; bay, box and bow windows; balconies, box windows; eaves; canopies, window sills and other similar features are permitted to project beyond the building envelope, but no closer than 0.6 of a metre to any lot line. 8.Maximum Building Height of 15.0 metres and 4-storeys. 9.Minimum 4.5 square metres of private outdoor amenity space is required per dwelling unit. 10.Minimum 230 square metres for private park area (outdoor amenity area). 11.Minimum 1.25 parking space per dwelling unit and an additional 0.25 of a space per dwelling unit for visitors. 12.The separation distance between the front wall of a building where it faces the front wall of another building shall be a minimum of 14.0 metres, not including the front wall of the private indoor amenity building. 13.Provisions to permit model homes, if required. - 169 - Informational Revision 25 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Appendix Ill to Report PLN 17-19 - 170 - Purpose: Location: Basis: Actual Revision: Informational Revision 25 to the Pickering Official Plan The purpose of this revision is to change Map 25, Neighbourhood 15: Duffin Heights, to delete the symbols for a proposed separate elementary school. The subject lands are located on the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue. The informational revision has been determined to be appropriate to keep the Official Plan up to date. The Durham Catholic District School Board has advised it does not require an elementary school site in this location. The lands are to be developed as a residential condominium consisting of 264 stacked units. The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby revised by: 1.On Map 25, Neighbourhood 15: Duf fin Heights, deleting the "Proposed Separate Elementary School" symbol from the subject lands and deleting the "Proposed Separate Elementary School" symbol from the Legend, as illustrated on Schedule 'A' attached to this Informational Revision. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Revision. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Revision. Cross Reference: OPA 18-004/P (Related Files: A 09/18) (Applicant: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit) (Date: May 27, 2019) - 171 - Schedule 'A' MAP25 NEIGHBOURHOOD 15: DUFFIN HEIGHTS / LEGEND NEW ROAD CONNEC TIONS (PROPOSED) DETAILED REVIEW AREA L..ANOS FOR WHICH COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES (REFER TO COMPENDIUM DOCUMENT) CITY or PIC)(£FU1•,IG CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JULY, 2018 IC THIS: U,l,,P FORMS PAAT or 1mmOH 8 OF i!"!E P'.Ct<ER"NG liFF1C\.ll. PlAl,f ANO MUST BE RUD IN COKJU-.CTION VJllH nu: OTHER SCttEOllLES HID 1t£ TElCT, -SYMBOLS NEIGHBOU RHOOD ICEMI BOUNDARY CEMETERY PLACE 'i1 OF" WORSHIP � PARK z ;;: 0 I- 1' PUBLIC E'.LEMENTARY r.::E:\ PROPOSED SEPARATE SCHOOL \l:::::JI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL St.PARATE ELEMENTARY ti" PROPOSED PARK SCHOOL � �rirt?Jr����gOL Delete Proposed Separate Elementary School from Legend NOTE: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS APPEAR ON SCHEDULE I - 172 - Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Guidelines Tertiary Plan Amendment Appendix IV to Report PLN 17-19 - 173 - _______ ,) ___ ,,,.,..,,,. CEMETERY ----------- City of Pickering Planning & Development Department. TERTIARY PLAN -DUFFIN HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD -GUIDELINE BOUNDARY � FUTURE ROADS RESIDENTIAL EXISTING ROADS � BROCK ROAD STREETSCAPE � GOLF COURSE � EMPLOYMENT � {"� FOCAL POINTS TABLELAND FOREST <1:, FIGURE A •VILLAGE GREEN TERANET\studies\Duffin Heights\0esign and Ter-tiory Plon\DH_ Ter-itoryplon2009MAY1 2.dwg ,-.. ISMPI FUTURE STORMWATER 1' .. _, MANAGEMENT POND �;i FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD i.;.; ;.J PARK •FUTURE ELEMENTARY IV Js!. SCHOOL SCALE 1 : 1 2500 100 0 100 ... � .,.._ __ -., I (CF t FUTURE COMMUNITY metres .. J FACILITY MAY 22, 2019 - 174 - Zents Drive Dersan Street -�¢f­ P1CKERlNG City Development Department �f Grenwich�Glen·-rai Cf) ., Cf)1:h ... n-", � u 1c: u re � ;© 0 <.? -"'-.!/l ' c: Io I t:; lo ,3 J I� I� \-�-'!!.--.z Adirondack Chase 1 L.:.J ..... - .11l� ----__)� Location Ma File: OPA 18-00 4/P and A 09/18 Applicant: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation Pro ert Descri tion: Part of Lot 18 Concession 3 Part 1 40R-29457 (SE corner of William Jackson Dr and Earl Grey Ave) Date: Ma . 28, 2019 SCALE: 1 :5,000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY - 175 - Air Photo Map -Cdt;cf-File: OPA 18-004/P and A 09/18 P1CKER1NG Applicant: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation City Development Property Description: Part of Lot 18 Concession 3 Part 1 40R-29457 Department (SE corner of William Jackson Dr and Earl Grey Ave) Date: May. 28, 2019 1ne \;Ofporaoon o, ""' .. nyo,, , ..... enng t'rooooeo \In par1) unoerucense om: guueens t'nrner, uniam ,..,� .... , or NanKa ttesoun:es. SCALE: 1 :5,000 I\JI rights res1m"td.;CHer Ma/esty lhe Queen n Right or canada, Department or Natural Resouroes.. Allrlghlsreserved.; DTeranet Enlerorises Inc. and .ts suoolie,sal riohls reseM!d.;C Mun!ciDal Pro""'.tu Assessment Comoral.bn and Is suooUersal ri hts reserV11d.· lHIS IS NOT A PLAN Of SURVEY. - 176 - f\lJ Ji)I t ;r11 !�If,_-Tl• J1·; Private Road 1' -C�,i­p](KER]NG City Development Department ATTACHMENT #_3 TO Rf:PORl # PLF!'7'7=i 9 �------ Conceptual Site Plan File No: OPA 18-004/P and A 09/18 Applicant: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation Fence Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1 40R-29457 (SE corner of William Jackson Dr and Earl Grey Ave) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DE VELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: May 15, 2019 - 177 - i=-=-=-=-==i=���.::---·--TI>P<lFP� +--Jaj N!TAINMIWAIJ..�1 --@ 1:,ao,-,- ...__, i��1�5 � l�l �I� 11��1�[ I ��l ��::1, �:12%:L.(a+T=.i A ::+iih{;f .. --� g, ---��Lt1� <:: I --�tiv;:;;·, �! ····"""""""""".l-j:1�� ..... ._ _L!;;;;; ...,�L!J 1:tOO\R--eJ /� T0PC#PNW'£T � . I I I I' I! I I 11 I I I I I I I I---� ii I 1111 _____________________ l.0WIIA:lSVCL -0/pri­Pl(KERlNG City Development Department l!at._.t:i:J1:100TRi-eJ Conceptual Elevation Plan File No: OPA 18-004/P and A 09/18 Applicant: Trillium Housina Oak Non-Profit Corporation Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1 40R-29457 (SE corner of William Jackson Dr and Earl Grey Ave) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Dec 17, 2018 :::0 :,;::,­I"'"'-! �-I c� ::0 C, -I :::i:: � s !TI 2 -I ir ..0--l 0 - 178 - -C:�(Jf­P1CKER1NG City Development Department Conceptual Rendering File No: OPA i 8-004/P and A 09/i 8 Applicant: Trillium Housinq Oak Non-Profit Corporation Property Description: Part of Lot i 8, Concession 3, Part i 40R-29457 (SE corner of William Jackson Dr and Earl Grey Ave) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Dec 17, 2018 ::0 ):,, IT'-1 --c>-1 0 )> ::0 0 _, ::i:: ,.., s m z -I �r -I 0 - 179 - -0',o/­PICKERING City Development Department Duffin Heights Parklands SCALE:1:6,000 •c:•c:••-•===:::11•••-====:::iMet.er,� � m m - - Cemetery Vilage Green Natural Area �Golf Course �-�.-,h,..c,.,.o,1t_,,..,.,.,,..,..._n,,,c,,t1-•"1-...i,.., .. ..., .. ,. .. r1 ................ 1 .... .........., .. .,, .... 1o ... .-11, .... ,,, ... ... .......... n,4 c., ...... _.. _...._,..,,.,,._in_ .............. ... ,, .. ,.coC ... , ... l .... ,k...Ml>;.K co..-•"'rl•.O-Owl•""�,.,,n...,.,11 .. ,.,., ... ,11 . .,,,,,.,......i.; c .... u,;,•,.,.t::'!'i.�;';-;t.:·!::=;!!•:.-::.!';',::;J''t<••ur.-'-: c.._..,.,"'-•,�•--C..,,,......, ..,.,.....,u•ri,-.:1,0,rMa THSISIIOTAPL.1,110'Slllf".£t. P1o,..,,v1110IIU.,:!IU - 180 - --Clff o/-­P l (KER 1 NG Report to Planning & Development Committee From: Subject: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Work Program File: D-1100-101 Recommendation: Report Number: PLN 18-19 Date: June 17, 2019 1.That Council endorse the Work Program for Pickering's Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review and authorize staff to proceed as outlined in Appendix I to Report PLN 18-19, and 2.That Council authorize staff to prepare and release a Request for Proposal to retain external planning consultants to assist with the completion of Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review as outlined in Appendix II to Report PLN 18-19, and report back to Council on the hiring recommendation. Executive Summary: A zoning by-law is a set of legally enforceable regulations and mapping that implements the objectives and policies of a municipality's Official Plan. The City is regulated by six parent Zoning By-laws. Recently, Council has enacted parent by-laws for Seaton and the City Centre. Four of the City's six parent by-laws were originally enacted by Council in the 1960's, and have been amended hundreds of times by site specific by-laws and minor variance applications. These older by-laws require updating to implement the City's Official Plan, and to provide a strategic direction on a range of zoning issues. Staff is proposing a Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (CZBR) of which the primary purpose will be to update and consolidate the City's current by-laws into one zoning by-law that conforms with and implements the City's Official Plan. A new by-law will also implement recent policy changes regarding intensification, built form, environmental matters and mapping changes. Performance standards will be updated, and current development and building practices will be reflected. A review also provides an opportunity to convert the by-laws to an accessible web-based format enhancing service delivery to City residents and the development community. The scale of a CZBR requires both in-house and consulting expertise to direct the project and engage the community. Staff is proposing a work program consisting of 3 phases, with Phase 1 to be initiated later this year (see Appendix I, Proposed Work Program). Phase 1 will be conducted from 2019 to 2021, and includes: the preparation of discussion papers on various topics; hosting open houses to present the findings and obtain feedback from the community; and reporting the findings, including the community's comments, to Council (see Appendix II, Proposed Work Program -Phase 1 ). It is recommended that Council authorize staff to initiate a CZBR, and issue a Request for Proposal to retain external planning consultants to assist staff in undertaking Phase 1 of the CZBR. Staff will report to Council with a hiring recommendation. - 181 - PLN 18-19 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review June 17, 2019 Page 2 Financial Implications: The 2018 Council approved budget included the amount of $100,000.00 (2611.2392.0000 Consulting & Professional) to cover the initial portion of the first phase of a multi-year Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. However, staff was unable to initiate the review in 2018 so the line item was re-budgeted in the 2019 Council approved budget submission. As a growth related study, 67.5 percent of the required funding is anticipated from Development Charges ($67,500.00), with the remaining $32,500.00 from the tax levy. Staff anticipate that the $100,000.00 budgeted to-date will only cover three or four discussion papers. Future budgets will be required to cover the remainder of the discussion papers, and complete Phases 2 and 3 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. Staff will report back to Council prior to proceeding with issuance of any further Requests for Proposal. 1.Discussion 1.1 Review of existing zoning by-laws and zoning framework The objectives and policies of a municipality's Official Plan are implemented by zoning by-laws which are a set of legally enforceable regulations and mapping. Generally, zoning by-laws regulate land use, the scale and intensity of development, and protect areas by preventing incompatible uses. More specifically, a zoning by-law outlines how land may be used by specifying permitted uses and other development criteria including where buildings and structures can be located, lot sizes, parking requirements, and building heights and setbacks. Lands in Pickering are regulated by six parent Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036, 3037, 7364/14 and 7553/17 (see Attachment #1, Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws). With the exception of Zoning By-laws 7364/14 (Seaton Urban Area) and 7553/17 (City Centre), the other parent by-laws were originally enacted by Council in the 1960's and were prepared under different jurisdictional context and policy framework pre-dating the City's Official Plan. These parent by-laws have been amended by site specific zoning by-laws with standards regulating development for specific sites. Many of the provisions are dated and do not reflect current performance and development industry standards. 1.2 Why undertake a comprehensive zoning by-law review? It is intended that official plans and zoning by-laws work together and that zoning by-laws be updated to implement the current official plan objectives and policies. Section 26(9) of the Planning Act requires official plans to be in conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and in 2016, the requirement was added that zoning by-laws be brought into conformity with the official plan within three years of an official plan update. The City's Official Plan review has resulted in a series of amendments to the Official Plan implementing changes in legislation, provincial plan and policy updates, and amendments to the Region of Durham Official Plan. The amendments to the Pickering Official Plan have included a revised vision for Duffin Heights, new policies for the City Centre, implementing the Urban Growth Centre designation under the Provincial Growth Plan, updated Environment and Countryside policies, implementation of the Greenbelt Plan and the Central Pickering Development Plan (Seaton and the Agricultural Preserve), introduction of planning tools resulting from changes to the Planning Act, and a general review of various policy topics.- 182 - PLN 18-19 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review June 17, 2019 Page 3 With the exception of Seaton and the City Centre, Pickering's zoning by-laws in their present form do not implement the recent amendments to the Official Plan. In addition, the by-laws are not in an accessible format, and are not available online, making it difficult for the community and development industry to navigate and understand. The current by-laws also present administrative challenges for building and by-law enforcement staff. The consolidation of various parent by-laws into a single comprehensive zoning by-law is an approach also underway by many other municipalities across the Greater Toronto Area and within the Province. Advantages of a comprehensive by-law review resulting in a consolidated by-law includes the replacement and removal of outdated definitions and provisions, the elimination and amalgamation of site specific provisions, and consistency in interpretations. In addition, certain legislative tools are available where City wide comprehensive by-laws exist. An example is the 'two year time out' provision of the Planning Act where amendments to City initiated zoning by-laws are prohibited two years following the adoption of a comprehensive zoning by-law. 1.3 What will the comprehensive zoning by-law review deliver? The zoning by-law review will update the by-laws that regulate development across Pickering recognizing current industry standards and recent legislative changes. The review will result in one new City wide zoning by-law that implements Pickering's future vision, and manages land use and development in a user friendly format that is also accessible on the internet. Typically, zoning by-laws have a number of main sections that apply to all zone categories including administration, general regulation, definitions and parking regulation, and will also contain sections for specific zone categories including residential, mixed use, employment, community use, utility, and natural heritage (see Attachment #2, Zoning By-law 7364/14 (Seaton Urban Area) Table of Contents). 1.4 How will studies and development applications that are underway be addressed by the review? The Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study, and the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study are underway. The findings of these studies will inform the comprehensive zoning by-law review, and be incorporated in the preparation of the City wide zoning by-law. Private development applications submitted prior to the initiation of and during the zoning by-law review will not be impacted and will continue to be processed. The Committee of Adjustment will continue to consider applications for minor variances to the existing zoning by-laws during the zoning by-law review. Existing use and legal non-conforming rights will need to be reviewed and, where appropriate, addressed by special provisions in the new City wide zoning by-law. - 183 - PLN 18-19 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review June 17, 2019 Page 4 1.5 Staff is recommending that Council endorse the Work Program and authorize staff to initiate Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review A multi-year phased CZBR is proposed (see Appendix I, Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Proposed Work Program). The scale of the proposed CZBR requires both in­ house and consulting expertise to direct the project, conduct the required research and to engage the community. Phase 1 includes the preparation of a series of discussion papers focused on various topics that will inform the preparation of the new comprehensive zoning by-law (see Appendix II, Proposed Work Program -Phase 1). The following is a list of discussion papers identified by staff: •Guiding Principles & Vision •Administration/Geographic Information/Technology •General Provisions in All Zones/Definitions •Minor Variances •Secondary Suites •Cannabis Production •Residential Zoning •Employment Zoning •Mixed-use Areas/Intensification Areas •Agricultural/Rural/Hamlet/Open Space & Environment •Identification of Zone Categories •Parking/Active Transportation Each discussion paper will review the existing planning and zoning framework, identify the various issues, discuss the current policy context, address best practices from other municipalities and provide strategic directions in order to inform the preparation of the draft comprehensive zoning by-law (see Appendix Ill, Potential Topics for the Discussion Papers). This phase will be undertaken by staff with the assistance of external consultants. Information on the issues analysis will be presented to the public at open houses for their input, and staff will report to City Council on the findings after three or four discussion papers are completed. 2.Next Steps In late July or early August, staff propose to release a Request for Proposals to retain external land use planning consultants to assist with the preparation of the Phase I issues analysis and community engagement. Staff will report to Council with a hiring recommendation in the Autumn of 2019. - 184 - PLN 18-19 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review June 17, 2019 Page 5 To-date staff have completed the scope of the work for the review and developed a preliminary communications strategy. For the remainder of 2019, prior to the initiation of Phase I, the request for proposals will be issued and a steering committee will be established. The steering committee will allow City departments, stakeholders and agencies to provide input with respect to the issues analysis. Staff will report to Council prior to proceeding with the later portions of Phase 1. Appendices Appendix I Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Proposed Work Program Appendix II Proposed Work Program -Phase 1 Appendix Ill Potential Topics for the Discussion Papers Attachments 1.Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws 2.Zoning By-law 7364/14 (Seaton Urban Area) Table of Contents Prepared By: Deborah Wylie, CIP, RPP Principal Pia n r, Development Review Nilesh Su i, M IP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design DW:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Cit Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Approved/Endorsed By: {�/� Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner K�I� Director, City Development & CBO - 185 - - 186 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Proposed Work Program 2019 -2021 Phase 1 Discussion Papers 1 Discussion Papers 1-2 1.Guiding Principles & Parameters 2.Review and assessment of Existing Parent By-laws Open House(s) Report to Council Discussion Papers 3-5 3.Residential Zoning 4.Employment Zoning 5.Mixed-use Areas/I nte ns ificatio n Open House(s) Report to Council Discussion 6-8 6.Agricultural/Rural/ Hamlet/Open Space & Environment 7.Parking/Active Transportation 8.Cannabis Production Open House(s) Report to Council .. 2021-2022 ,.�;:.i.:�'1"',· -.:· )"� .. :::':'.t ,•· •.. .,." ' ... _.-·�···�,-:-,;. (I;,. 1·-, , ·Phase 2 : .Ora� _By-la� Prepare New By-law Draft New By-law Circulate for Comment Required Revisions Open House(s) 2023 Statutory Public Meeting Statutory Public Meeting / Information Report to Council Council Adoption Recommendation Report to Council ado'pting Zoning By-law Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) Appeals (if applicable) 1 Order of Discussion Papers is subject to review and finalization by the Steering Committee and Consultant - 187 - Proposed Work Program -Phase 1 Appendix II to Report PLN 18-19 - 188 - 2019 Establish Steering Committee Release RFP Select Consultants •Review proposals •Finalize order of Discussion Papers Report to Council •Enter into Agreement with Successful Consultant Start-up Meeting Commence Discussion Papers 1-2 Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Proposed Work Program -Phase 1 .. 2020 Finalize Discussion Papers 1-2 1 1.Guiding Principles & Parameters 2.Review and assessment of Existing Parent By-laws Open House(s) Report to Council Discussion Papers 3-5 1 3.Residential Zoning 4.Employment Zoning 5.Mixed-use Areas/Intensification .. 2021 Open House(s) Report to Council Discussion 8-10 6.Agricultural/Rural/ Hamlet/Open Space & Environment 7.Parking/Active Transportation 8.Cannabis Production Open House(s) Report to Council 1 Order of Discussion Papers is subject to review and finalization by the Steering Committee and Consultant - 189 - Potential Topics for the Discussion Papers Appendix Ill to Report PLN 18-19 - 190 - Guiding Principles and Parameters Review and Assessment of Existing Parent By-laws Residential Zoning Provisions Potential Topics for the Discussion Papers Details • • • • • • Intended to provide a high-level framework to guide future work on this assignment Review and assess zoning methods, format, structure, layout and mapping to identity issues and options for addressing these issues in the new comprehensive zoning by-law Review recent best practices of other municipal zoning by-laws in Ontario that have undertaken comprehensive reviews of their respective by-laws Identified issues (common and unique issues discovered in the p�rent by-laws) together with the best practice review, to provide a list of options for consideration for the new comprehensive zoning by-law and provide some general conclusions. This may include: •Options and associated requirements for the implementation of an innovative and interactive GIS, web-based comprehensive zoning by-law •Exploring the possibilty of including sustainable provisions in the zoning by-law •Analysis of the benefits and weaknesses of implementing a development permit system •Zoning to implement the affordable housing strategy •lnclusionary zoning, and •Bonusing----- Review and assessment of: •Site-specific amendments •Minor variances to the parent by-laws •Definitions and exploring the use of illustrations for effective communication •General provisions for all zones •Zone categories Conduct a detailed review of: •Existing Provincial, Regional and City Policies •Existing residential zones within the parent by-laws and site-specific amendments •Existing issues, including residential minor variances •Best practices from other municipalities - 191 - Ill Topic Details •Identify the proposed zone categories (e.g., low, medium and high density) and permitted uses •Review and assess general residential provisions, for instance: •Residential amenity space •Driveway widths/garage standards/restrictions on residential parking •Minimum landscaped areas •Accessory buildings and structures •Decks and platforms •Home occupations •Conduct a detailed review and assessment on secondary suites, rooming, lodging, group homes, and temporary short-term residential/student housing •Review existing Provincial, Regional and City's Official Plan •Distance separation for crisis care facilities • Location/standards for group homes and boarding houses • Standards for secondary suites and short-term residential____ ,........ _____ ..__. _______ _ Employment Zoning Provisions Mixed-use Areas/Intensification Areas •Conduct a detailed review of: •Existing Provincial, Regional and City Policies •Existing employment zones within the parent by-laws and site-specific amendments •Existing issues, including employment area minor variances · •Best practices from other municipalities •Identify the proposed zone categories and permitted uses •Review and assess existing zoning issues: •Outdoor storage •Sensitive land uses (minimum separation distance) •Conduct a detailed review of: •Existing Provincial, Regional and City Policies •Existing mixed-use/intensification zones within the parent by-laws and site-specific amendments •Existing issues, including mixed-use/intensification area minor variances •Best practices from other municipalities •Identify the proposed zone categories and permitted uses - 192 - Agricultural, Rural, Hamlet, Open Space and Environment Parking, Active Transportation and Loading Details Review and assess existing zoning issues: •Automotive uses •Zoning approach for mid and high rise buildings •Development transition to lower density development •Conduct a detailed review of: •Existing Provincial, Regional and City Policies •Existing Agricultural, Rural, Hamlet, Open Space and Environment zones within the parent by-laws and site-specific amendments •Existing issues, including residential minor variances •· Best practices from other municipalities •Identify the proposed zone categories and permitted uses (including for Hamlets, Natural Heritage System) •Review and assess existing zoning issues: •Develop strategy for Natural Heritage System •Zoning strategy for lands within the Rouge National Park •Ministry Zoning Orders •Accessory parking •Zoning strategy for Federal airport lands •Agri-related uses •Conduct a detailed review of: •Existing Provincial, Regional and City Policies •Existing parking standards, including setbacks for parking areas, drive aisle widths, minimum landscaped areas within parking facilities •Best practices from other municipalities •Review and assess the following topics: •Shared parking formulates •Bicycle parking requirements •Drive-through facilities •Loading facilities •Cash-in-lieu of parking •Maximum parking (City Centre/Intensification Corridors) - 193 - Cannabis Production Facilities and Retail Details •Conduct a detailed review of relevant legislation (e.g., Federal, Provincial) •Conduct a detailed review of best practices from other municipalities •Health Canada requirements/licenses •Appropriate locations •Zoning standards - 194 - -Cift;c/­PJ(KERJNG City Development Department ATTACHMENT# I TO R�PORT # PLN IS -19 Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws D By-law 7364 D By-law 3037 -By-law7553D By-law 3036D By-law 2511D By-law 2520 2511 2520 3036 3037 7634/1 4 & 7553/1 7 Applicant: Cit Initiated Date: Ma . 21, 2019 - 195 - Table of Contents ATTACHMENT #_d. TORl:PORl # _EJ.,_� \8-19 . How to Read and Use This By-law ........................................................................................ 1 1.0 Administration ................................................................................................................ 2 1.1 Title ............................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Application .................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Purpose ......................... : ............................................................................................... 2 1.4 Repeal of former By-laws .............................................................................................. 2 1.5 Effective Date ................................................................................................................ 3 1.6 Certificate of Occupancy ............................................................................................... 3 1. 7 Conformity and Compliance .......................................................................................... 3 1.8 Enforcement .................................................................................................................. 3 1.8.1 Administration ........................................................................................................... 3 1. 8.2 Penalties .................................................................................................................... 3 1.9 Severability .................................................................................................................... 3 1.10 Establishment of Zones ............................................................................................... 3 1.10.1 Zones ...................................................................................................................... 3 1. 10. 2 Location of Zone ..................................................................................................... 4 1. 10. 3 Special Zone Symbols ............................................................................................ 4 1.11 Interpretation ................................................................................................................. 5 1. 11. 1 Zone Boundaries .................................................................................................... 5 1.11.2 Definitions ............................................................................................................... 5 1.11.3 Examples and Illustrations ...................................................................................... 5 1.11.4 Reduction of Lot Area Due To Public Acquisition or Conveyance ......................... 5 2.0 General Regulation ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Prohibited Uses ............................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Human Habitation Not Within Main Buildings ................................................................ 6 2.3 Frontage on A Street ..................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Public Uses Permitted In All Zones ............................................................................... 6 2.5 Linear Utilities Permitted in All Zones ...................................... .' ..................................... 7 2.6 Permitted Yard Encroachments ..................................................................................... 7 2.7 Legal Non-Conforming Uses ......................................................................................... 8 2.8 Legal Non-Complying Buildings or Structures ............................................................... 8 2.9 Legal Non-Complying Lots ............................................................................................ 8 2.10 Air Conditioners ........................................................................................................... 8 2.11 Swimming Pools .......................................................................................................... 9 2.12 Satellite Dish Antenna ................................................................................................. 9 2.13 Accessory Dwelling Unit .............................................................................................. 9 2.14 Home-Based Business ................................................................................................ 9 2.15 Accessory Buildings and Structures .......................................................................... 11 2.16 Standards for Detached Private Garages Accessed by a Driveway From a Street ... 11 2.17 Standards for Detached Private Garages Accessed by a Lane ................................. 13 2.18 Standards for Attached Private Garages on Lots Accessed by Lanes ...................... 13 2.19 Standards for Attached Private Garages Accessed by a Driveway from a Street ..... 14 2.20 Coach Houses ........................................................................................................... 15 2.21 Live Work Unit ..................................................................................................... : ..... 15 2.22 Model Homes ............................................................................................................ 15 Seaton Area Zoning By-law - 196 - /\TTJl,CHiVlENT # r;;) TO c:[PUFn # EN I B ·-· I c1 2.23 Lots on Public and Private Streets ............................................................................. 15 2.24 Yards abutting Daylighting Triangles ......................................................................... 16 2.25 Primary Entrance Door Location on a Through Lot ................................................... 16 3.0 Parking Regulations ..................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Parking Space Requirements ...................................................................................... 17 3.2 Part Spaces ................................................................................................................ 20 3.3 Parking for Multiple Uses on One Lot ......................................................................... 21 3.4 Size of Parking Spaces and Aisles ............................................................................. 21 3.5 Setbacks of Parking Spaces and Lots ........................................................................ 21 3.6 Standards for Parking Pads ........................................................................................ 22 3.7 Parking and Loading within yards ................................................................................ 22 3.8 Parking Space Uses ................................................................................................... 22 3.9 Restrictions on Vehicles in a Residential Zone ............................................................ 22 3.10 Loading Standards ..................................................................................................... 23 3.11 Tandem Parking ........................................................................................................ 23 3.12 Private Garage Parking Size ..................................................................................... 24 4.0 Residential Zone Regulations ........................ _ ............................................................. 25 4.1 Uses Permitted ............................................................................................................ 25 4.2 Low Density Type 1 (LD1) Zone Provisions ................................................................ 26 4.2.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type .................................................. 26 4.2.2 Additional Provisions ............................................................................................. 28 4.3 Low Density Type 1, Heritage Lot "LD1-HL" Provisions .............................................. 28 4.4 Low Density Type 1 -Townhouse (LD1-T) Zone Provisions ....................................... 29 4.4. 1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type .................................................. 29 4.4.2 Additional Provisions ............................................................................................. 30 4.5 Low Density Type 2 (LD2) Zone Provisions ................................................................ 30 4.5.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type .................................................. 30 4.5.2 Additional Provisions ............................................................................................. 32 4.6 Low Density Type 2 -Multiple (LD2-M) Zone Provisions ............................................ 33 4. 6. 1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type .................................................. 33 4.6.2 Additional Provisions ............................................................................................. 35 4.7 Medium Density-Detached & Semi (MD-DS) :Zone Provisions ........ ; ........................ 36 4. 7. 1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type .................................................. 36 4. 7.2 Additional Provisions ............................................................................................. 37 4.8 Medium Density -Multiple (MD-M) Zone Provisions ................................................... 38 4.8.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type .................................................. 38 4.8.2 Additional Provisions ............................................................................................. 40 4.8.3 Additional Apartment Provisions ............................................................................ 40 4.9 High Density (H) Zone Provisions ............................................................................... 41 4. 9. 1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type .................................................. 41 4.9.2 Additional Apartment Provisions: ........................................................................... 42 4.10 Exceptions ................................................................................................................. 43 5.0 Mixed Use Zone Regulation ......................................................................................... 46 5.1 Uses Permitted ............................................................................................................ 46 5.1.2 Additional Use Provisions ...................................................................................... 47 5.2 Mixed Corridor Type 1 (MC1) Zone Provisions ........................................................... 48 5.2.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type .................................................. 48 Seaton Area Zoning By-law ii - 197 - t\TI f1,CHlv1Ei\ll # � TO FlU'Of11 II • PL�� 18 -,,q 5.2.2 Additional Provisions ............................................................................................. 50 5.2.3 Additional Apartment Standards ............................................................................ 50 5.3 Mixed Corridor Type 2 (MC2) Zone Provisions ........................................................... 51 5.3.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type .................................................. 51 5.3.2 Additional Provisions: ............................................................................................ 53 5.3.3 Additional Apartment Provisions: ........................................................................... 53 5. 3.4 Additional Commercial Building Provisions: .......................................................... 54 5.4 Mixed Corridor Type 3 -Gateway Sites (MC3) Zone Provisions ................................ 55 5.4. 1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type .................................................. 55 5.4.2 Additional Apartment Provisions: ........................................................................... 56 5.4.3 Additional Commercial Building Provisions: .......................................................... 56 5.5 Minor Commercial Clusters -(MCC) Zone Provisions ................................................ 57 5. 5. 1 Building Types and Related Standards ................................................................. 57 5.5.2 Additional Provisions: ............................................................................................ 57 5.6 Local Node (LN) and Community Node (CN) -Zone Provisions ................................ 58 5. 6. 1 Building Types and Related Standards ................................................................. 58 5.6.2 Additional Apartment Provisions: ........................................................................... 59 5.6.3 Additional Commercial Provisions: ........................................................................ 59 5.7 Community Node -Pedestrian Predominant Area (CN-PP) -Zone Provisions .......... 61 5.7. 1 Building Types and Related Standards ................................................................. 61 5. 7.2 Additional Apartment Provisions: ........................................................................... 62 5. 7.3 Additional Commercial Provisions: ........................................................................ 62 5.8 Exceptions ................................................................................................................... 64 6.0 Employment Area Zone Regulation ............................................................................ 66 6.1 Use Categories Permitted ........................................................................................... 66 6.2 Use Limitations ............................................................................................................ 67 6.3 Uses Prohibited ........................................................................................................... 67 6.4 Employment Zone -Zone Provisions ................................................................ : ......... 69 6.4. 1 Lot and Building Requirements .............................................................................. 69 6.4.2 Additional Provisions: ............................................................................................ 69 6.4.3 Prestige Employment-Heritage Lot "PE-HL" Provisions ...................................... 70 6.5 Exceptions: .................................................................................................................. 70 7.0 Community use Zone REgulations ............................................................................. 71 7.1 Uses Permitted ............................................................................................................ 71 7.2 Community Use (CU) Zone -Zone Provisions ............................................................ 71 7.2.1 Lot and Building Requirements .............................................................................. 71 7.2.2 Height Maximum ..................................................................................................... 71 7.2.3 Additional Provisions: ............................................................................................ 72 7.3 Exceptions: .................................................................................................................. 72 8.0 Natural Heritage and Open Space Zones ................................................................... 73 8.1 Uses Permitted ............................................................................................................ 73 8.2 Open Space (OS) Zone -Zone Provisions ................................................................. 74 8.2.1 Lot and Building Requirements .............................................................................. 74 8.2.2 Height Maximum ..................................................................................................... 74 8.2.3 Additional Provisions: ............................................................................................ 74 8.3 Exceptions: .................................................................................................................. 75 9.0 Utility Zone .................................................................................................................... 76 Seaton Area Zoning By-law iii - 198 - 9.1 Uses Permitted ............................................................................................................ 76 9.2 Utility Zone -Zone Provisions ..................................................................................... 76 9. 2. 1 Lot and Building Requirements .............................................................................. 76 9.3 Exceptions: .................................................................................................................. 76 10.0 Definitions ................................................................................................................... 77 11.0 Holding Provisions .................................................................................................... 93 12.0 Zoning Maps ............................................................................................................... 94 Seaton Area Zoning By-law iv - 199 -