Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 16-19ars Of DICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 16-19 Date: June 17, 2019 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: 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: 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. Report PLN 16-19 June 17, 2019 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 2 1. Background 1.1 Property Description 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-I-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. 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 CeII Tower Protocol The City's CeII 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 CeII 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. 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. Report PLN 16-19 June 17, 2019 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 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 CeII 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 Report PLN 16-19 June 17, 2019 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 6 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Cody o on Plan er I Nilesh S rti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CM:Id Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner ,-;bc Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 312.01' • ATTACHMENT # 1 TO REPORT # PIM I10 -I9 Proposed Tower Location Cf, Air Photo Map File: Installation #66 o PICKERING City Development Department Applicant: Shared Network Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) Date: May. 28, 2019 9 The Caond'on of lheCM of Ptd ng Produced On part) under ltense ban® Oueens Pnrter, Ortao Maistry of Natural ea. ry MI rights reserved.A Her Majesty then Canada, tlueen Right at da, De partner! of Natl./ Resources All rights reserved.; 9Terani Erearprees Ina and is suppliers al dolts reserved; 0 Mu ntlpal PropatyAuessrMrl Corporelun and b suppliers al rights reserved; SCALE: 1:10,000 THIS IS !IOTA RAN OF SURVEY. ATTACHMENT # TO REPUR1 # P1- 16-19 Proposed Tower Location n nares-( 1.4)(nc6Pq n >rnnv pxw (v isry n) Pas 3{Y z O y N P RI al 1 30 ,SA*, 1 - .;:Q dw t Vy D^F� . "� Ninth Concession Road 1 city oiJ PICKERING City Development Department 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 ATTACHMENT # 3_ "i REPORT # 1(0-1__. ELEVATION PLAN NOT TO SCALE E to OUTER SURFACE =300.00 TOWER TOP =299.5 U AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT =255.Om a0 cc in a0 J 11 0 GROUND =253.50 PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN SCALE 1:200 0 0 0 10.00 r 1 I L El 3m J L 3m J 64 4 PICKERING City Development Department 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 111. shared network CANADA May 13, 2019 Town of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # 'I_N I. — 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 1" shared network CANADA Introduction ATTACHMENT #_ =TO REPORT # P1.N1�—I9 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 r shared network CANADA Coverage Objective ATTACHMENT # 1-1 TO REPORT # NLN ib -19I 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. 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 1.76km 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 shared network CANA ATTACHMENT # REPORT # 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. 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 r shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # PLN 16 -19 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 Cit. shared network CANA ATTACHMENT # 4 TO REPORT # PLN u, -1q 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 0 shared network CANADA Site Profile ATTACHMENT # REPORT # TO The proposed tripole tower, as depicted by the sample photos included as "Appendix B". 7 shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT # `f TO REPORT # PLN Ho to -I9 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 comment received was in opposition of the site 2 comments received were in support of the site 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 shared network CANAA Conclusion ATTACHMENT # REPORT # TO 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 per -tains 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 shared network ATTACHMENT #__ CANADA REPORT # PL e i°� Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via email at dom@shared network. ca . Dom Claros d om@sha red network. ca 10 shared network ATTACHMENT # CANADA REPORT# Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance LN .`j0 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.healthcanada.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 aeronautical 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/civilaviation/regsery/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 shared network REPORT # ATTACHMENT TO C Contact Information 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 municipaIc 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 to 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/epic/site/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: 1-855-465-6307 Email: 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 shared network ATTACHMENT # CANADA REPORT# J j(c l Appendix A 13 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PL December 6, 2017 Dom Clams Shared Network Canada 275 MacPherson Ave, Unit 103 PO Box 69010 Toronto ON M4V 1A4 TO Ib -1' .D.BARNES i ANtJ INre)k YiAi rrrN 5p1clAt ISIS E-MAIL Re: SURVEYOR'S ATTESTATION Airport Zoning Regulations Report SNC0120 CLAREMONT—UNION CEMETERY Site: 5205 Regional Road 5, Pickering ON 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 Part 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: Ground Elev. @ Proposed Tower: Airport Reference Point Elevation: Top of Proposed Tower Elevation: Outer Surface: 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" This information is depicted on Plan Showing Topography and Site Layout Design 17-15-112-00 dated December 6, 2017. 140 Renfrew Surveying I Planning 1 Mapping 1 GIS Drive I Suite 100 ( Markham I Ontario I L3R 6B3 T: 19051477-3600 I F: 19051477-3882 www.ldbarnes.com ATTACHMENT # REPORT # N TO Page 2 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 1 Planning 1 Mapping 1 GIS 140 Renfrew .Drive ( Suite 100 I Markham I Ontario I L3R 6B3 T: [9051477-3600 1 F: [9051477-3882 www.jdbarnes.com shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT # REPORT # PL -s1 1 b -10 Appendix B 14 INC0120 Claremont xrto simulation bastions 0 Tower Locatlon ogle Earth ;, ry _a !-,� # rte' , — _- c- .•#'• .-" rhe _-,-.. - r . .A } *r. a! • • • • -• • -11 jr ir Jet. :r--- e••••••r �•s • J ' shared network CANAA ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # PL I6 -19 Appendix C 15 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # 'L/V 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" <dpickles@pickerinci.ca> Subject: Re: Claremont Communications Tower Date: February 21, 2019 at 11:27:26 AM EST To: Linda Robinson Cc: "municipal@sharednetwork.ca" <municipal@sharednetwork.ca>, "ic.spectrumenod-spectredeno.ic@canada.ca" <ic.spectrumenod-spectredeno.ic@canada.ca>, "Butt, Shaheen, Councillor" <sbutt ickerinci.ca>, "Bentley, Kyle" <kbentley_@pickering.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<te1:905.420.4605> 11.866.683.2760<te11.866.683.2760> dpickles@ pickerinq.ca<mailto:dpickles@ pickerinq.ca> [cid :image003.png@01 D1 F4AD.80090790j<http://enews.pickerinci.ca/en/enews/signup.aspx> [cid:image005.pg@01 D1 F4AD.80090790]<https://www.facebook.com/CityofPickerinq> fcid:image011.png@01 D1 D084.35FE8C30j On Feb 21, 2019, at 11:20 AM, Linda Robinson wrote: To the municipal affairs manager, ATTACHMENT #__q__TO REPORT �/ ____ Ib _j 9 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. ATTACHMENT # REPORT # 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: TO ►b -lei 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. 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 Torontp. 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 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT # 'LN lo -I From: Kathy Keats 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://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 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. 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 ATTACHMENT # REPORT # 'L From: Kathy Keats Subject: Re: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: September 6, 2018 at 9:26 AM To: dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca TO _I . 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 it. 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 am a resident of 5100 Sideline 12, Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # LN �� f 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 Al TACHM Ntfa_ REPORT -1 1 Wednesday May 16, 2018 Mr. Kyle Bentley City of Pickering — City Development Department Pickering, ON Aghlab Al-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 proponent, 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 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 Tight 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). Pi IV AT - 6 -I 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 Tess 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 Tess demand. Less demand means Tess 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. 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 T P�� a-)9 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 ATTACHMENT REPORT 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. ATTACHiVIEN- REPOR I # pLIV) , -I f 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 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. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan shared network ATTACHMENT # REPORT # June 23, 2018 Aghlab Al-Joundi RE: Letter addressed to Mr. Kyle Bentley, dated May 16, 2018. Dear Mr. Al-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://n ati nstsciencelaw. org/ https://nati nstsci a ncel aw. org/e mf -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.sharednetwork.ca 275 Macpherson Ave #103, Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 • shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # i�►� .- ' 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 ofthe 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 Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan 0 shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT TO REPORT #____44•1_16-19 Schedule A shared wo netrk CANADA ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # Schedule B Connecting Canadians: Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada Des Canadiens branches Choix des sites de bads d'antenne au Canada I.. 1.4 ler :'41[5 ;1 'r irjpi :iI Association canadlenne des telecommunications sans III Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Assodation cwta Association canadlonne des telecommunications sans fil Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association acts Contact us at 613 233 4888 or info®cwta.ca Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association 130 Albert Street, Suite 1110 Ottawa, ON KIP 5G4 www.cwta.ca Pour nous joindre : 613 233 4888 ou info®cwta,ca Association canadienne des telecommunications sans fil 130, rue Albert, bureau 1110 Ottawa, ON 1(1P 5G4 www.cwta.ca IT n ttbm nta table of contents table des matieres 5 Connecting Canadians: 5 Des Canadiens branches : Choix des sites Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada de batis d'antenne au Canada 7 Building a New Wireless Tower Reasons for building Antenna Towers The Site Selection Process 13 The Antenna Approval Process Jurisdiction Regulations Governing Wireless Antenna Siting Local Land -Use Authorities 17 Health and Safety Issues Electromagnetic Waves and Fields Jurisdiction over Health and Safety of Antenna Installations Safety Code 6 Other Projects On Health and Safety of Wireless Devices 7 Construction d'un nouveau bad d'antenne Pourquoi construire de nouveaux batis d'antenne? Le processus de selection d'un site 13 Le processus d'approbation relatif aux antennes Competence Cadre reglementaire relatif ['emplacement d'antennes sans fil Autorites regionales responsables de ['utilisation du sol 17 Questions de sante et de securite Champs et ondes electromagnetiques Competence relative a la sante et la securite de batis d'antenne Code de securite 6 Autres projets visant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fil 23 Antenna Tower Information Resources 23 Sources d'information sur les pylones d'antenne ATIAC REQ OR 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 about aesthetics, or about the health and safety of towers. This brochure provides basic information about the many rigorous factors that go into site selection and tower build, and answer some key questions about health and safety issues. For more thorough information, parliamentarians and staff are encouraged to contact the association, or consult the resources section at the end of this guide. Des Canadiens branches : Choix des sites de bads 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 bad d'antenne, qu'on appelle couramment une « tour ». En plus de satisfaire aux besoins individuels des consommateurs canadiens, une meilleure couverture permet un meilleur acres 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. La construction d'un bati d'antenne peut susciter certains questionnements au sein de la communaute, notamment en ce qui concerne leur aspect esthetique, ou la sante et la securite des tours. La presente brochure fournit des renseignements de base sur les rigoureux criteres de selection du site et de la construction de bads d'antenne. Elle repond egalement a des questions primordiales sur la sante et la securite. Pour obtenir davantage de renseignements, les parlementaires et leur personnel peuvent communiquer avec l'association ou consulter la section sur les ressources qui figure a la fin de ce guide. 5 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # lb -la Building a New Wireless Tower In this section • Reasons for Building Antenna Towers • The Site Selection Process Construction d'un nouveau bati d'antenne Dans cette section • Pourquoi construire de nouveaux batis d'antenne? 4 Le praces5us de selection d'un site --I 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. 8 A unique tree -shaped antenna tower. Un py[one d'antenne en forme d'arbre. Pourquoi construire de nouveaux batis d'antenne? Les telecommunicateurs sans fil poursuivent l'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 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 connaitra une augmentation marquee et continue, puisque les Canadiens comptent de plus en plus sur les communications sans fila la maison et au travail. En effet, puisque les policiers, ambulanciers, pompiers et autres premiers repondants utilisent des produits et services de communications sans fil, les telecommunications sans fil sont une 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. 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 eta eliminer les soi-disant - zones mortes », soit les zones oil it y a 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 s! oportent sont des composantes fondamentales d'un systeme de telecommunications. Sans elles, aucun des services sur lesquels peuvent compter la population, les entreprises et les instances gouvernementales du Canada n'existeraient. 9 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. 10 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. wok Ow— Of the 8,000 sites in Canada, 40% are located on structures other than towers_ Le processus de selection d'un site Une fois que le besoin d'etablir un nouveau 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. Parce 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 generale, t'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 cet effet. Choisir une structure deja existante permet de reduire les coifls et le delai necessaires a l'installation, mais la localisation ou la hauteur pourraient ne pas convenir. L'utilisation conjointe de pylones deja en place reduit le nombre de nouveaux pyl&nes, mais elle peut faire en sorte que les tours doivent etre plus hautes et plus visibles. . 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. Des quelque 8 000 emplacements cellulaires ou SCP au Canada, 40 pour cent se trouvent sur des structures autres que des pylones. 11 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT # b -H The Antenna Approval Process In this section • Jurisdiction • Regulations Governing Wireless Antenna Siting • Local Land -Use Authorities Le processus d'approbation relatif aux antenne Dans tette section • Competence • Cadre reglementaire relatif a l'emplacement d'antennes sans fil • Autorites regionales responsables de l'utilisation du sol 13 14 The Antenna Approval Process Jurisdiction Any discussion of tower approval procedures requires an understanding of the jurisdictional issues 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 Canada2 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 I Cmadim Mwddpailtfes and the Resuloaon of Radio Mrerrros and their Support s W cares, mewed toe Industry Canada by David Townsend, E400Uy of Law, Urdvelsily of New pnrawide,1987 2 re Resulaton and Controt of Rollo Communications of Cuawdo [1932] A.C. 304 (Privy Council) 3 Report on the NadoreCMtrma Tower Polity, prepared for Industry Canada by David Townsend, Faculty of Law. University of New Brunswick, 2004 Le processus d'approbdtion relatif aux antennes Competence Toute discussion sur le processus d'approbation d'un pylone 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 controle 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 controle sur les radiocommunications. Des cours d'appel provinciales (telles que celles de la Colombie-Britannique et de ['Ontario) ont respect& 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. Industrie Canada est responsable de la reglementation des radiocommunications au Canada, ce qui comprend l'autorisation d'installer des pylones et des sites de radiocommunication. Cette autorite est conferee par la Loi sur le ministere de ['Industrie, qui precise les pouvoirs et les responsabil'zes du ministere et du ministre,et par la Loi sur la radiocommunication, qui confere explicitement le pouvoir d'autoriser les structures qui supportent les antennes. En effet, la plus recente etude faisant autorite u sujet des politiques d'Industrie Canada visant ['emplacement des installations de radiocommunications, soft le rapport Townsend de 2004, recommandait que l'autorisation legate de reglementer ['emplacement des tours « demeure la competence exclusive du gouvernement du Canada. 3 >> I Les mtnkipaUtes comediennes et la reslemenration des antemes radio et des boas d'unmeref, rapport sounds Industrie Canada par David Townsend. Fetid'& do droll UMversite du Nouveau•BrunswIck, 1987. 2 Conseil Priv&, In re. la reslennmmaon et le contrdte de to radiocommunication au Canoda, [193210..C. 304 3 Ryport asr lesmrm de lapolicaoenaranaleasr lespyleneserrant. rapportsorrnb a Irdiahle Canada par Ovid Toward, Faculte de their. Univers-lei du Nou eroBrwMck, 2004. 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 fiE Les procedures dictees par Industrie Canada pour la construction et l'installation de bats 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 SCR Pour exercer ses pouvoirs, Industrie 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 bads 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 bads 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. 15 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. 16 Autorites regionales responsabies de ['utilisation du sot Parce 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 fit releve du responsable de ['utilisation du sol. Toutefois, Industrie Canada exige comme condition de I cence 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. Industrie Canada croit qu'a partir du moment ou le responsable de ['utilisation du sol concerne a ete avise, celui-ci doit faire connaitre sa decision au requercr t_ dans les 60 joursoutre, ['ensemble du processus de consultation devrait etre termine dans un dela' de 12C icurs. Dans la vaste majorite des cas, les p rocedures et processus en place ont permis de satisfaire aux besoins des collectivites, des individus, des telecommunicateurs sans fit et de leurs P tonnes. Health and Safety Issues In this section • Electromagnetic Waves and Fields • Jurisdiction over Health and Safety of Antenna Installations • Safety Code 6 • Other Projects on Health and Safety of Wireless Devices Questions de sante et de securite Dans tette section • Champs et ondes electromagnetiques • Competence relative a la sante et la securite de bads d'antenne • Code de securite 6 • Autres projets visant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fit 17 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 flowing, a magnetic field is produced. The main natural source of electromagnetic radiation is the sun. Natural electromagnetic energy (Le. 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. 18 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 0.14% 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 Elertromag,,tkk Field Intensity fn the Crty of Tdrarro, Industry Canada. June zooz # 1N3WH3V11V 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. ! "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 che:eux, les cuisinieres electriques, les lampes fluorescentes, les fours a micro-ondes, les chaines 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, Industrie Canada a mene une etude4 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 tette 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 (soft 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. evoluatfon dr 1'fntrmlet du champ etecccomaprkc(que dans to Wife dr Toronto. industrle Canada, juin 2002 19 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 20 Competence reEative 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 mandat, la division: • developpe les lignes directrices pour la protection du grand public et des travailleurs contre l'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 des fours 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 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 Limits of Human Fyosure to Radf*frequnrcy tlectramggrrerfc Fields fn the Frequency Range from 3 WR to 300 Gf • Safety Code 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. Industrie Canada a le pouvoir de reglementer directement l'industrie et exige comme condition de licence que : les stations radio soient installees et ;?loitees 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 clef en place dans le milieu environnant. Le Code de securite 6 correspond 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 Llmfte, d'eq mltfon humafere ave champs dr radfofsequeces fleanay rigors dares la panne de frfqueaces de 3 On d 300 GflZ- Code dr starlit 6 21 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. Pius de 6 millions des appals au 9-1-1 cheque armee sont places a partir d'un cellufaire. 22 Autres projets vfsant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fiI Sante Canada participe egalement au Projet international sur les CEM coordonne par l'Organisation mondiale de la Sante (OMS). Le but de ce projet est de verifier les effets biologiques reportes resultant de l'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. 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. World Health Organisation http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/indexl.html The WHO EMF Project provides information about electro- magnetic fields, including potential health effects of exposure. Sources d'information sur les pylones d'antenne Industrie Canada - Parlons pylones http://www.strategic.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/fr/ sf01637f. html Un apercu du processus de localisation d'antennes de radiocommunications. Comprend une presentation video. Centre R. Samuel McLaughlin devaluation du risque pour la sante des pcoulations 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-sennt/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. 7rganisation mondiale de la Sant§ http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF Project/fr/ 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. 23 1-140 wNinamileleacriem ans. i i.. it, shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT #. `i TO REPORT # �LN 16 —I Schedule C From: Subject: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible lower near Claremont Date: June 24, 2018 at 326 PM To: munlclpal@sharednetwork.ca am a resident ofiNIISidelinel. 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 intemet 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 intemet 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. 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. ATTACHMENT # REPORT # TO b-1 From: Ag Al-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 Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?", please copy and past the following URL to review a summary of the report findings; http ://eiectrom ag netichealth.org/electromag netic-health-blog/survey-property- 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 Al-Joundi From: Dom Claros .dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> Sent: July 10, 2018 3:57 PM To: Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca; Pickles, David, Councillor; murnaghanc@hotmail.corn; Morrison, Cody; kbentley@pickering.ca; crose@pickenng.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal Gnnri AftArnnnn Mr Al-.lr irnrii ATTACHMENT # REPORT # I hope your week is going well. TO 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://shared network.ca 647-544-5090 (direct) dors. claros @ sharednetwork.ca ATTACHMENT # 14 TO REPORT # R -N 110-I From: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal Date: July 23, 2018 at 1:33 PM To: Ag Al-Joundi Cc: sbutt@pickerhiy.ca, riches, uavia, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, murnaghanc@hotmail.com, Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, kbentley@pickering.ca, crose@pickering.ca Good Afternoon Mr. AWoundt, I hope you had a good weekend. Thank you for following up. I have been working with our teem, and I 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 mentioned In our letter, we would be willing to work with your family to relocate the tower to the opposite and of the field to greatly increase this setback, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks for sending the Ilnk, our team will look Into this new website. During our Initial research we carne across this webstte which references the study titled 'Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Properys Desirability? conducted by the 'National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy', but our team has not been able to locate the actual study or published documents with this title or by this organization. Please let us know 11 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 III can help with anything else. Kind regards, Dom Claros Shared Network Canada hh p: flsharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@ sh arednetwork.ce On Jul 19, 2018, at 224 PM, Ag AlJoundl 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; http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-bloq/survey-prr perry -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.c- Sent: July 10, 2018 3:57 PM To Cc: sbutt pickering.ea; ickles, David, Councillor; murnaghanc@hotmail com; Morrison, Cody; kbentley@ ick ring.ca; crose@ icp kering& Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal Good Afternoon Mr. Al-Joundi, 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! nom !:tarns ATTACHMENT # /Tq REPORT # �� �b Shared Network Canada h :llsharednetwark.da 547.544.5080 (direct) com.G Taros@shared f 1 elwQJk.ca Rr PCWil Pu*..l 0: Tuesday July 24, 2018 Mr. Dom Claros Shared Network Canada 275 Macpherson Ave., Unit #103. Toronto, Ontario M4V 1A4 1. 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 -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." 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 -supporting 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. QLty 16-Lq1. Mr. Claros, I have also made it very 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, 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. 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 Cemetery 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 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # , P I6 -I shared network CANADA August 22, 2018 Aghlab Al-Joundi RE: Letter addressed, dated July 24, 2018. Dear Mr. Al-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." 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'. 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 telecommunications 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. sharedne Iwo rk. ca 275 Macpherson Ave #1o3, Toronto, ON M4V 1 Aq shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT # REPORT # TO b -t 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 "1 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)" referencing the research you presented titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found here (http:/felectromagnetichealth.orglelectromagnetic-health-bloglsurvey-property-desirability!), 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:Ilnatinstsciencelaw.org0 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. ATTACHMENT # 4 TO REPORT # PLN I b-19 shared network CANAA Thank you, Dom Claros 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca 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 CAlie shared network CANAA ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # N 1 Schedule A SNC01 20 - Claremont Coverage area of the existing antennae neer the proposed site. Legend :�. Existing Coverage Rogers Towers u. SNCO120CaveregeArea 1T SNC0120 Paposed Location •2.xsdxnaid 101.14.1041 Rogers Towers (1) 55.5rr N44,0133 W79.1369 Google Earth arriso, Yd nygU 2Di6 FON a• -l.tF:nF CI,. shared network CANADA ATTACHMENT # 14 TO REPORT # PU`1 lb -/ 9 Schedule B SNC01 20 - Claremont Coverage area of the proposed ails. v• . � v,F Rogers lowers (1) SS.i .1. N44.0371 W79.13G9 'logsr3 Iow,rs j 4f.e;rin - H4.1.ndsz }k . XA$ ':. :.r. Logond u Existing Coverage Rogers Towers R'. SNC0120 Coverage Area >T SNC0120 Poposed Location enfor1 0.11 shared network ATTACHMENT # REPORT # Appendix D TO -1 16 riSubject Properties ATTACHMENT #417TO REPORT # : —14/ CDRadius around subject properties • Properties inside radius 030002023000000 030002024000000 LORNA JEAN HALL JERRY LEWYCKY 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 L1Y 1A2 030007118000000 LINDA MARIE COMEAU ALISTAIR GEORGE SIMPSON 030007120000000 JOHN RANDOLPH MITCHELL 030007122000000 AGHLAB AL-JOUNDI CYNTHIA ANN MURNAGHAN 030007126000000 SHIOU-MEI LUO 030007127000000 030007128000000 JOHN GABRIEL LAIDER JOHN GABRIEL LAIDER 030007184000000 4 SEASONS INVESTMENTS INC (CLAREMONT) RR #5 1900 EIGHTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A2 CAN POETRY SLAM IN PICKERING A TACHMENT # REPORT # E Jason Llebregts/ Metroland Cheyene Jones from Dunbarton High School competed in the annual Poetry SLAM at Dunbarton High School on May 3. Once again this year, Durham schools brought their best spoken -word poets to compete. Six schools vied to claim the trophy and the title of best SLAM school in Durham this year. ffJSTEVENSONWH ELTON MAcDONALD&S\VAN LLP PERSONAL INJURY + MEDICAL MALPRACTICE F Experienced Trial Lawyers 5ervinE Oshawa, Pickering and Whitby HfSWLawycrs.ca 13 John Street West 289.634.1680 Oshawa TO chotr MU1))).1 GGD DATA ON OUR $50/M0. PLAN' IGK4 .flFD $60.00 - --40,4 tot MII11It M 1414 Ilrn LET'S GET GOING ' Ir,li;�l � l l l lel.• Us .M.IMgr W1fm1,p1111p1uYmin I/1ronedi 141M1.111rni0,1p07>ApI!♦twotwow..frL mote 4/ria iIIfI41ns a11IIMt wink el I ISM St NNII.—I te... mHe ..••••oMm. Choir PUBLIC NOTICE PROPOSED SHARED NETWORK CANADA 45m TRIPOLE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER INSTALLATION SUBJECT: • Type: Wireless 45m tall tripole 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 facility 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 Economic Development Canada (ISEDC) is the governing body for Installations of this type or telecommunication antenna installation and can be contacted at: ISEDC —Toronto District Office —151 Yongo Street, 4° Floor, Toronto, ON, M5C 2W7 ANY PERSON may make a written submission to the Individuals listed below by close of day June 11", 2018, with respect to thls 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 / cmorrlson@pickering.ca -Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are regulated exclusively by Federal Legislation under the Federal Radiocommunication Act and administered by Industry Canada. Provincial legislation such es the Planning Act, including zoning by - laws, does not apply to these facilities, The City of Pickering is participating in lend - use consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of Industry Canada's CP C 2 - 0 - 03. In the case of a dispute between the proponent end the City, a final decision will be made by Industry Canada.'; APPLICANT CONTACT: Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 10 Four Seasons PI, 10°1 Floor Suite 1056 Etobicoke, ON MBB 0A6 (647) 242-9395 municipal@eh arednetwork.ce SITE LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT # `►' TO REPORT # R -M u0-iq SHARED ARED NETWORK CANADA IS PROPOSING TO LOCATE A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER FACILITY, BEING 45 METRES IN HEIGHT, ON THIS PROPERTY, PUBLIC COMMENT IS INV+TED THE CLOSING DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS IS JUNE 1l'", 2018 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS MANAGER: MUNICIPALQISHAREDNET WORK.CA 647.242.9395 TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA SYSTEMS ARE REGULATED EXCLUSIVELY BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION UNDER THE FEDERAL RADIOCOMMUNICATION ACT ANO 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 CPC 2-0-03. IN THE CASE OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PROPONENT AND THE CITY, A FINAL DECISION WILL OE MADE BY INDUSTRY CANADA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT CITY OF PICKERING- CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CODY MORRISON, PLANNER 1 AT905.420.46600R ISEDC - TORONTO DISTRICT OFFICE: 151 YONGE STREET, 46FLOOR, TORONTO. ON M5C2W7 IC.SPECTRUMENOD-SPECTREDENO.IC@CANADA.CA a f} ti F ," ter' , . . a.,'' ar-+ , L', . rte• °4 'j.(', ' . iy�}}� I ;- , • -:-;'SSI • l ATTACHMENT # L# TO REPORT # PLN '1(c --1q Appendix E 17 • 1' 1- 1 t ofl:t.iIM N (i is)011d 1 tti t =1.1 e fill�3 t, 11 111;1 0gill111111111111..::.3 S'0N OYOU 7YN003N L .4r, ilfirliNI:11.70;li7I1;6:11.41.11 _ N O 5 oYOL IYNO 3 J _1 1 41 I i i I i ; I `+i e t II 1 1° 4' • • 1 1 10 4, 0 • 113 j1// Sae 110 ikt 1 114 11 4iiCr;Eli>II 1 10 4, 0 •