Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 10, 2020Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming Present: Deputy Mayor Kevin Ashe Councillors: M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean D. Pickles Absent: Mayor David Ryan Also Present: M. Carpino K. Bentley J. Yoshida S. Cassel C. Rose N. Surti C. Morrison F. Chau L. Harker 1. Roll Call - Interim Chief Administrative Officer - Director, City Development & CBO - (Acting) Fire Chief - City Clerk - Chief Planner - Manager, Development Review & Urban Design - Planner II - Planner I - Deputy Clerk The City Clerk certified that all Members of the Committee were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20, with the exception of Mayor Ryan who was absent due to illness. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Statutory Public Meetings Councillor Cumming, Chair, gave an outline of the requirements for a Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act. He outlined the notification process procedures and also noted that if a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City before the By-law is passed, that person or public body are not entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), and may not be 1 Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming entitled to be added as a party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of LPAT, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, appeared before the Committee to act as facilitator for the Statutory Public Meeting portion of the meeting, explaining the process for discussion purposes as well as the order of speakers. 3.1 Information Report No. 10-20 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. Lots 1, 2, 43 & 46, Plan 316 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 (1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road) A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above -noted application. Cody Morrison, Planner II, provided the Committee with an overview of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Morrison outlined the location plan, and noted that the initial application had been submitted in 2018 with a revised proposal submitted by the applicant on May 6, 2020. He provided an overview of the revised proposal, and noted that the Official Plan amendment seeks to increase the maximum permitted residential density on Block 1, and Block 2 is proposed to be rezoned to an appropriate open space category to permit passive and active recreational uses. Mr. Morrison outlined the potential recreational uses for Block 2, and outlined public comments and matters identified by Staff for further review and consideration. Mike Pettigrew, The Biglieri Group Ltd., on behalf of Highmark (Pickering) Inc., joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Pettigrew noted that the 2018 proposal was for a mix of stacked townhomes and apartments, and that the revised submission is for a 14 and 18 storey building, and a daycare facility. Mr. Pettigrew noted that the stacked townhouses had been removed from the application due to the height impacts in relation to the surrounding neighbourhood, as well as a major change to the proposed connection to the hydro corridor via the single lot on Guild Road which was identified as the most appropriate location to provide public access for the proposed parkland. Mr. Pettigrew stated that in redesigning the site, they looked at relocating units within the apartment buildings, transition massing and urban design along the Kingston Road corridor, especially where adjacent to existing residential. He noted that the factors used in determining the appropriateness of the height in the new application were ensuring compliance with the angular plane, and consideration of the shadow 2 Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming impacts, noting that the taller building is proposed for the west side, resulting in the shadows being absorbed by the 14 storey building. Mr. Pettigrew noted that this stretch of Kingston road is slated to be a rapid bus transit line, and that transit oriented and supported development are intended within this corridor. Mr. Pettigrew further noted that the height and densities proposed in the application are in line with the Official Plan, and that the lands are appropriate for new infill and intensification. Mr. Pettigrew stated that concerns had been raised regarding traffic, and that in the previous application, a traffic impact study had been drafted and at that time, the Region and the City noted no significant concerns, but that they are still awaiting official comments at this time. Mr. Pettigrew noted that the proposed parking in the revised application would generate the same number of residential parking spaces, as the apartments would generate less vehicular demand and would be more transit supported. Rob Rollings, 1974 Guild Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Rollings noted strong support for the development of this site, as the site is currently an eyesore, but stated that this development is not the answer. He expressed concerns regarding the negative traffic impacts on Guild Road, and that the proposed density of the development is much higher than what is currently in the area. He noted that both of these issues were identified at the previous meeting and in the petition that had been submitted to the City, and that the revised application does not address these issues. Mr. Rollings stated that a second petition had been submitted to the City requesting that the application be denied, and that these signatures reflect the overwhelming support for the refusal of this application. Mr. Rollings noted that there are currently 29 homes on Guild Road, and that the application includes 346 proposed new units, to be accessed via Guild Road, resulting in a 1200% increase in traffic. He added that with the addition of the new daycare, and the units being proposed, there would be a negative impact on this quiet street. Mr. Rollings further noted that at the end of Guild Road there are two residential care homes for children and youth with disabilities, and that these homes require numerous pick-ups and drop offs with specialized vehicles, resulting in greater traffic congestion, longer delays, and potential issues with emergency vehicles on the street. Mr. Rollings noted that the proposed parking space of less than 1 spot per unit is not realistic, and noted that overflow parking would end up on Guild Road. He stated that the traffic impact studies conducted took place on Finch Road and Kingston Road, and that the traffic impacts to Guild Road have been ignored. Mr. Rollings noted the new development at 1555 Kingston Road and that it had a new entrance onto Kingston Road, and requested that this development also have an entrance onto Kingston Road to reduce the traffic impacts on Guild Road. Alan Jeffs, 1995 Royal Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Jeffs made reference to documents he had submitted to the City prior to the 3 Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming meeting, noting that he is a 7 year resident of Royal Road and supports the redevelopment of this site in a responsible way with minimal or no adverse impacts on residents and the surrounding area. He noted that there had been very little reliance on the City's plans and guidelines in this application, and that developers have an obligation to prepare a design that complements existing neighbourhoods without causing adverse impacts on existing neighbourhoods. He stated that there should be low to mid rise development in this area, and that the proposed density is 2.5 times higher than what is provided for on these lands. Mr. Jeffs commented that these issues were identified in the original submission, and were not only ignored in the revised submission, but in some cases, have been exacerbated. Mr. Jeffs noted that this is both a Guild Road and Kingston Road development, and that since the public meeting, the highest priority concerns, including traffic volume, onsite and surface level parking, density, height, and matters relating to the interface of the development and the neighbourhood and character of the neighbourhood, have not been addressed. He stated that he is looking for responsible re -development of these properties, and asked that the applicant align their application with the City's requirements and move the site access from Guild Road to Kingston Road. Rick Gallant, 1961 Guild Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Gallant noted that he shared the concerns outlined by the previous delegations. He expressed further concerns regarding car headlights shining into his house, and questioned where individuals visiting the park area would park their cars. Mr. Gallant expressed further concerns regarding the potential impact on property values, the shadow effects on his property, and increased traffic. Elizabeth Snowden, 1991 Guild Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Ms. Snowden noted that Guild Road is a lovely, quiet street in the middle of a busy area, and is one of Pickering's best kept secrets. Ms. Snowden expressed concerns with traffic, the increase in density, and incompatibility with the character of the existing community. She further noted that there are two residential care homes for children and youth with disabilities on Guild Road, and that most of these children are in wheelchairs and require specialized transit, which can take considerable time to load, and leaves little room for other cars to get by when the transit vehicles are stopped. Ms. Snowden noted that she has witnessed many near misses with cars attempting to go around these vehicles, and noted that this safety issue would only increase if traffic volumes increase, and it would become increasingly difficult for residents to exit their driveways. Ms. Snowden stated that this development would completely change the character of the community, and that this corner does need to be developed. She requested that the city and developer develop the space in a way that honors the community and ensures that the character of the neighbourhood remains intact. 4 Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming Steve Gilchrist, 1995 Royal Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Gilchrist noted that he is a 16 year resident of Royal Road, and that the application is completely at odds with the peaceful, low density nature of the neighbourhood and the long term interests of the City. Mr. Gilchrist noted that he is aware that City Staff must present all received planning applications to the Committee, but questioned why this process occurs following the applicant hiring consultants for studies, and that the onus should be on the applicant to prove the merits of the application prior to submission. Mr. Gilchrist further questioned why the City was considering an application that is in opposition to its Intensification By-law. Mr. Gilchrist noted that for 50 years this lot has held a variety of retail uses, and that homeowners were aware there would be a limited amount of traffic when purchasing their properties, and that all of the traffic from this development would exit onto Kingston Road. Mr. Gilchrist noted that the City recently approved an intensification project by Marshall Homes at 1555 Kingston Road that had lower densities than those being proposed in this application, and questioned if Council and Planning Staff were being thoughtful, respectful of the needs of the neighbourhood, and consistent in applying the Intensification By-law, and if so, why they were considering an application with increased densities. He expressed concerns regarding an increase in traffic, couriers, food delivery, on street parking safety and access issues for existing residents, and suggested that the people that would buy these apartments would buy at least one car and are not likely to use local transit. Mr. Gilchrist requested that the City reject the application, and consider an application similar to the Marshall Homes application in density and height, and that there be an exit exclusively onto Kington Road. There were no further delegations from the public. Mike Pettigrew, The Biglieri Group Ltd., returned to respond to questions raised by the delegations, noting that he has heard the comments and would bring these forward to Highmark (Pickering) Inc., for consideration, and that they were also waiting for comments from other agencies on a number of issues. Mr. Pettigrew responded to comments regarding the access onto Kingston Road, noting that the current access is not within the applicant's property, and that there is no opportunity to use that access road for this development. Mr. Pettigrew made reference to the Marshall Homes Development, noting that the Region of Durham does not allow access to a Regional road when access is available from a local street, and that the Marshall Homes Development had a joint access onto Kingston Road, and it was not a similar situation. He noted that they are awaiting comments from City Staff regarding the conformity of the application, that the development is in line with the City's requirements to support future transit goals, and that the daycare is an opportunity to provide a service for the local community. He noted that methods to curb on street parking would be considered, and that although this may be the first application that provides increased density 5 Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming and urban form development on Kingston Road, that it won't be the last. Mr. Pettigrew concluded, stating that the shadow study uses the Fall and Spring equinox, which ensures that the orientation and height of the buildings do not create significant lasting shadows on the properties on the north and east side, and would not impede on the ability for people to use their yards or amenity spaces. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, Mike Pettigrew, and City Staff regarding: • whether the City could enter into a lease with Hydro One to use the access onto Kingston Road for this development; • whether the intersection of Kingston Road and Guild Road would be signalized; • the lands within the hydro corridor that were being proposed for public park purposes and what would occur with these lands if the lease with Hydro One was not renewed for a further 5 years; • what potential recreational uses would be located within the hydro corridor; • the size of the proposed daycare; • whether the development would include the requirement that 25% of the homes were affordable housing; • parking ratios and how this would be determined for the daycare centre; • whether the City would be reviewing this application in light of the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study - Intensification Plan and Draft Urban Design Guidelines; • whether the Region of Durham would be reviewing issues such as traffic lights and Kingston Road transit issues, how these comments are provided back to the City for review, and whether the comments would have a significant impact on the final approval; • discussions with the Region of Durham regarding access to the development being required from Guild Road and the possibility of it being from Kingston Road; and, • whether the parking allotment for the daycare centre would be included within the final number of residential parking spots. 3.2 Information Report No. 11-20 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/20 Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148 (631 Liverpool Road) 6 Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above -noted application. Felix Chau, Planner I, provided the Committee with an overview of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/20. Through the aid of a PowerPoint application, Mr. Chau provided an overview of the property location and surrounding land uses, noting that the property currently contains a 3 -storey mixed-use building with a total gross floor area of approximately 950 square metres. Mr. Chau noted that on August 22, 2018, the Committee of Adjustment approved a Minor Variance Application to permit a private school on a temporary basis, subject to a number of conditions, and that the applicant had submitted a rezoning application to permit a permanent private school use with a maximum of 50 students and 4 rental apartment dwelling units. Mr. Chau provided an overview of key matters that Staff have identified for further review. Morry Edelstein, RAI Architect Inc., representing the applicant, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Edelstein noted that he was joined by Nick Spingos, property owner, and Nicola Phillips, Head of Montessori Learning Centre, for questions if required. Mr. Edelstein noted that the application was to permit the existing private school which was temporarily permitted by a minor variance in 2018, to remain as a permanent use. He noted that the school had been successfully operating for the last two years, and that they would like to continue to occupy the ground floor and basement. Mr. Edelstein stated that the proposal includes the conversion of the existing dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling unit into 4 apartment dwelling units and noted that the school is in operation from September to June, and would not conflict with the increased summer activities that occur in the area. He stated that many residents in the area have commented favorably on the school remaining in operation and that the 2 proposed apartment units facing Liverpool Road are spacious units with balconies facing Liverpool Road, however, through consultation with the neighbours, it was determined that the units facing east would not have balconies, but rather sliding glass doors, as the neighbours felt that balconies would encroach on their privacy. Mr. Edelstein further noted that the traffic review indicated that the proposed parking spaces exceed the required number of spaces, and that the school won't have any negative traffic impacts in the area. There were no delegations from the public. A question and answer period ensued regarding whether there was an outdoor play area, with Nicola Phillips, Head of Montessori Learning Centre, noting that there was no mandated requirement for a permanent onsite playground, but that the school uses area parks, the waterfront, and the rooftop amenity space. Further questions ensued regarding the building rendering, with Nick Spingos, property 7 Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming owner, advising Members of the Committee that there are pictures on their website which depict how the building looks. Ms. Phillips responded to questions regarding the school calendar, noting that the school operates from September to June, with no summer classes. 4. Delegations 4.1 Doug Cummings Claremont Union Cemetery Re: Report PLN 14-20 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 Doug Cummings, Claremont Union Cemetery, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Cummings noted that he and his wife are the Directors of the Claremont Union Cemetery that they are in support of this application and that in Report PLN 14-20, Attachment #6, the number of those in support of the application exceed those against it. Mr. Cummings noted that at the June 2019 Planning & Development Committee meeting, this Report was referred back to Staff for further review, and since then, there have been a number of discussions with neighbours and local farmers regarding the lack of cellular and internet access, and that in discussions with Bell Canada, there is not likely to be increased service in the near future. He further noted that there are multiple dead zones, noting that the Hamlet of Claremont borders on the Oak Ridges Moraine, which has multiple dips and valleys. Mr. Cummings noted that adequate cell service is as much of a tool as a wrench for farmers, and that there could be emergency situations that leave them without the ability to call for help. Mr. Cummings noted that this issue is of prime importance to the safety of the community, and that with more telecommunications towers, access to reliable and secure internet and cellular service would be available to all residents. 4.2 Aghlab Al-Joundi Re: Report PLN 14-20 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 8 Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming Aghlab Al-Joundi, a Pickering resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Al-Joundi, stated that he has never experienced issues with Internet or cellular connections in Pickering, nor did he know anyone in the area that has experienced such issues, and that 11 people have noted their opposition to the installation of this tower. Mr. Al-Joundi noted that the City's Report from 2019 stated that the tower does not meet the requirements with respect to design and location and would have a significant negative visual impact on the area. He further noted that nothing from the 2019 Report has changed and that the tower was only moved 100 metres and the profile has been narrowed at the top. He stated that principally the objection is about the height, and that the proposed tower is still as tall as a 15 storey building. He referenced the distances of the tower in relation to the existing residences and a future residence, on a lot adjacent to the cemetery, noting it was too close and would negatively impact the area. Mr. Al-Joundi questioned why the City was approving this tower now, when the original proposal had been to reject the application in 2019. Mr. Al-Joundi requested more time to understand the criteria for approving the tower installation. A question and answer period ensued with Members of the Committee asking Mr. Al-Joundi what type of device and service he was using to be connected into the virtual Planning & Development Committee Meeting, and whether he had experienced any issues with his Internet connection. Mr. Al-Joundi responded to further questions from Members of the Committee regarding the visibility of the proposed telecommunications tower, noting that it would be very visible. Mr. Al- Joundi further noted that he is unaware of any local residents complaining about issues with their Internet or cellular service. 4.3 Dom Claros Shared Network Canada Re: Report PLN 14-20 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 Dom Claros, Shared Network Canada, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Claros stated that Shared Network Canada has been working with the City for 3 years on this application, and that the process began by identifying a location based on the needs of national carriers, noting that some carriers do have adequate service in the area. Mr. Claros noted that Shared Network Canada was looking to bring increased service to Claremont and the surrounding community. In determining a location, Mr. Claros stated that they looked primarily at City owned properties, and that following this, they looked at non-profit properties or 9 Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming properties that would benefit the community as a whole, and that is how the Claremont Union Cemetery was selected. Mr. Claros noted that they have worked with many stakeholders, and that the criteria established by Transport Canada and NAV Canada specifies that the maximum height for structures is 300 metres above sea level, it is difficult to find areas that can support a tower. He commented that most of the land surrounding the Hamlet of Claremont is owned by the Government of Ontario, and is designated for future use and not to be used for immediate transfer of the property, and there is contention regarding what the land would be used for in the future. Mr. Claros stated that due to these constrictions, the Cemetery is one of the only properties that they could use to provide adequate cellular and internet coverage without infringing on government land and maintaining the setback requirements from Transport Canada and NAV Canada. Mr. Claros noted that when the original proposal was deferred in June 2019, Shared Network Canada worked with the City to review other lands for a tower to provide service to the area, and that during this time they heard from many residents enquiring about the status of the tower as it would provide a benefit of increased service. Mr. Claros noted that they did not find another adequate location, but that they did move the proposed tower as far away from current residents to the most easterly part of cemetery property line. He further noted that over the last 6 months, they had held public consultations, and had received unsolicited feedback from many residents that want a tower in this area, demonstrating the strength of proposal. Mr. Claros requested that the application not be deferred again. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Dom Claros, Shared Network Canada, regarding: • whether tower spots would be rented or sold to national carriers; • whether 5G technology would be supported on the tower now or in future; • whether a smaller tower could address the coverage needs for residents; • which carriers would be on the tower, and whether all national carriers would be invited to join the tower to extend their coverage; • whether roaming charges would apply if residents used a different carrier than their own; • whether Bell or Rogers had identified a gap in cellular coverage in Claremont; • the area that the tower would cover and whether it would cover all of Claremont; and, • whether Shared Network Canada was seeking any Federal funding opportunities for towers in rural areas. 4.4 David Donnelly Donnelly Law Re: Report PLN 14-20 10 Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming 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 David Donnelly, Donnelly Law, representing the owners of 2220 Ninth Concession Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Donnelly stated that he had been retained to provide an opinion, and in consultation with Allan Ramsay, Senior Land Use Planner, they were of the opinion that this proposal should be deferred for at least 30 days to allow residents to thoroughly review the proposal and make submissions. Mr. Donnelly noted that this Report was only released 6 business days prior to the meeting and did not give residents sufficient time to review and address the issues raised. Mr. Donnelly further noted that a letter had been sent to the City Clerk on August 7th, but that due to the limited time prior to the meeting, a supplemental submission was also provided to the City Clerk today, along with Mr. Ramsay's report. Mr. Donnelly noted that if Members of Committee did not see fit to defer this item, that the alternative would be that they recommend the City send a strong message to Industry Canada that Pickering does not support a tower in this area for the following reasons: 1. The City of Pickering Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Protocol (Cell Tower Protocol) discourages the installation of towers in areas of high visual or topographic prominence and the tower proposed is in a high prominence area. 2. The tower is adjacent to 3 existing dwellings and would be located 40 metres or less of a future dwelling, which is in violation of the City's Cell Tower Protocol. 3. The location of the proposed cell tower is on a cemetery which is considered an institutional use. The City of Pickering Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Protocol notes that there should be maximum separation of institutional and cell tower land use and that there are numerous preferred alternative sites noted by Mr. Ramsay, and that he should be given the opportunity to share these alternative sites with the proponent and the City. 4. No visual impact assessment was provided to the proponent or Staff. Residents should be given the opportunity to peer review the visual impact assessment report. 5. The City of Pickering Fill and Topsoil Disturbance By-law 6060/02 applies in this case. Residents should be provided with geotechnical and site alteration information prior to a decision being made by the Committee. 11 Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming 6. Health impacts relating to the cell tower, including the impacts of 5G technology. The matter should be deferred until the applicant confirms that the 5G proposal would be put through a proper assessment in which the public can participate. 7. The City's Cell Tower Protocol speaks to encouraged and discouraged locations, and in both cases public lands are preferable to private lands but this is not demonstrated to be an effective mitigation technique. The preference should be that towers are located on lands that create the least impact to residents and the public. Mr. Donnelly expressed concern that residents have not been included in the application submission. He noted that the City of Pickering's Sustainable Placemaking Policy outlines questions that should be asked when reviewing a cell tower application such as "Is it beautiful?", "Do people want to use the space?", and that this proposal does not pose questions as outlined in the Policy and does not address them. Mr. Donnelly noted that the Sustainable Placemaking Policy also suggests that Council draw on the expertise of the community, and that this has not been leveraged by Staff. Mr. Donnelly noted that the release of the Report did not provide adequate time for residents to respond. He recommended that this proposal not proceed and that a deferral should be granted to afford an opportunity for Mr. Ramsay's opinion to be circulated to allow for community engagement. Mr. Donnelly noted that the proposed location is an area of prime agriculture, just metres from Duffins Creek, and that future public services should be located in areas that avoid the most sensitive areas, such as Duffins Creek and the Oak Ridges Moraine. In closing, Mr. Donnelly noted that more work is necessary to determine the appropriate location for the cell tower, and requested a deferral of the item this evening. 5. Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 14-20 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: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 12 Cfl h DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming That Report PLN 14-20, be deferred to the September 14, 2020 Planning & Development Committee meeting, to give time for those involved to submit information and rationale regarding the decision making process. 6. Other Business There was no other business. 7. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt That the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 9:49 pm. 13 Carried Carried