HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO 02-11
Report To
Executive Committee
PICKERING Report Number: CAO 02-11
Date: January 10, 2011
05
From: Tony Prevedel
Chief Administrative Officer
Subject: Request of Russ Phillips for Financial Compensation from the
City for alleged reduction in property value due to the installation of a
Cell Tower at 2585 Sixth Concession Road, City of Pickering
Recommendation:
1. That Report CAO 02-11 of the Chief Administrative Officer be received;
2. That the request of Russ Phillips for financial compensation from the City for an
alleged reduction in property value due to the installation of a Cell Tower at
2585 Sixth Concession Road be denied; and
3. Further, that the City Clerk advise Russ Phillips of Council's decision.
Executive Summary: Russ Phillips, owner of 2595 Sixth Concession Road, has
requested that the City compensate him for the alleged reduction in property value he
has experienced due to the erection of a cell tower in 2001 by Microcell Connexions on
lands immediately south of his property at 2585 Sixth Concession Road. He is seeking
a one-time payment equal to six percent of the market value of his property.
Russ Phillips is seeking this compensation due to what he considers to be inappropriate
action taken by the City in 2001 to not object to this tower installation.
This report stems from Russ Phillips' delegation to Council on July 12, 2010, and his
subsequent meeting with senior City staff on July 26, 2010. While there are emails
outlining various elements of the Phillips' concerns and opinion that they are due
compensation, there is no formal request in writing for a one-time payment equal to six
percent of property market value. This was a verbal request made by Russ Phillips at
the July 26, 2010 meeting.
MPAC has responded to Russ Phillips' concern respecting property value through a
reduction in assessment and the resultant property taxes. Staff do not recommend that
any additional compensation be paid by the City respecting this matter as there is no
basis for one. This position is supported by a legal opinion obtained by the City. The
City followed the process that was in place at the time respecting the review of cell
tower installation proposals. Further, the approval responsibility for cell tower
installations rests fully with Industry Canada.
Report CAO 02-11 January 10, 2011
Subject: Request of Russ Phillips for Financial Compensation Page 2
U
Financial Implications: There are no financial implications associated with the
recommendations of this report.
Sustainability Implications: The recommendations of this report do not contain any
sustainability implications.
1.0 Background:
Mr. and Mrs. Russ Phillips are the owners/residents of a 1.9 acre property
supporting a detached dwelling and various out-buildings located at 2595 Sixth
Concession Road, Pickering (see Location Map - Attachment #1). Russ Phillips
appeared as a delegation to Council at its July 12, 2010 meeting and outlined his
concerns respecting an existing cell tower installation located at 2585 Sixth
Concession Road, south of his property, that was erected in 2001 by Microcell
Connexions (now Rogers) (see site plan, tower elevation, and aerial
photo - Attachment #2, #3 & #4).
Russ Phillips contends that the installation of the cell tower at its present location
has devalued his property and that the City did not properly evaluate the
installation proposal at the time it was consulted by Microcell Connexions or
notify neighbouring residents of the proposal. He advised Council that he was
successful through MPAC in achieving a six percent reduction of his property's
assessment retroactive to the tower installation date, due to the location of his
property adjacent to lands now considered by MPAC to support a commercial
use (cell tower). Specifically, the reduction in assessment provides for a six
percent reduction in property taxes each year which is approximately $385.00
per year, increasing over time. By 2012, it is estimated that the reduction in
assessment will be $33,000 or $452.00 in annual taxes. Russ Phillips is
requesting further compensation from the City due to the existence of the tower
and what he considers to be inappropriate action by the City in 2001 to not object
to this installation. He was clear in conveying his likely intent to pursue legal
action against the City, should compensation not be forthcoming.
. ,
At the July 12, 2010 meeting, Council recommended that Russ Phillips meet with
the CAO to further discuss and evaluate the matter. A meeting took place on
July 26, 2010, with Mr. and Mrs. Phillips, the Director, Planning & Development,
and the CAO. Russ Phillips outlined his position on the matter and orally set out
his request that the City compensate him for what he believes to be a loss in
property value due to the erection of the tower. He specifically noted the fact that
his home was designated as a heritage building in 1986 by the City and that
interest in his property for filming opportunities had dropped severely since
erection of the tower. Further, he claims that construction of the tower (footings)
has caused interference with the well on his property.
Report CAO 02-11 January 10, 2011
Subject: Request of Russ Phillips for Financial Compensation Page 3
07
Russ Phillips requested that compensation be paid by the City through a
one-time payment equal to six percent of the current appraised market value of
his property, or approximately $30,000. The assessed value of the Phillips
property on January 1, 2008 was $480,000, which was reduced to $447,000 to
reflect the MPAC reduction. Six percent of the $480,000 assessed value is
$28,800 which will increase to $33,000 when the phase-in of the 2008
assessment increase is completed in 2012. The final current market value of the
Phillips property would have to be determined by a professional appraisal and is
likely higher.
2.0 Discussion:
Staff has reviewed the file on this cell tower installation. The file is ten years old
and no longer contains complete information. However, it is clear from
information in the file that Microcell's proposal was processed by staff in a
manner consistent with City processes in place at the time for cell tower review.
At the time of processing Microcell's proposal, Industry Canada was the Federal
body responsible for the approval of cell towers. Although the City did not hold
any approval authority, Industry Canada requested cell tower proponents to
consult with area municipalities.
Microcell's proposal was reviewed at the City as a site plan submission and went
through the site plan review process in place at the time. Mayor & Council were
advised of the application by staff in August 2000 and comments sought. The
Ward 3 Councillors were notified in writing of the application in October 2000
inviting comments, and the matter was also presented to the Site Plan Advisory
Committee in October 2000. The file does not contain any record of concerns
from the Mayor or Councillors, other than a question to staff from Councillor
Pickles in an email dated July 14, 2001 (when the tower was under construction)
respecting adjacent resident notification protocol. There was no public
notification requirement or procedure at that time through either Industry Canada
or the City.
It appears through file records that City staff attempted to have Microcell consider
a different location more distant from Greenwood, but the current location was
required for technical functionality of the Microcell grid. It appears that,
considering the functional needs of Microcell, the support of the property owner
(Bitondo's Market Limited) to accommodate the tower, the significant separation
of the site from the built up area of the Hamlet of Greenwood, the siting of the
tower behind (south of) the existing barn and silo on the Bitondo property, the
need for improved cell communication in the area, and the absence of concern
from Mayor & Council, staff did not object to the installation. Industry Canada
provided the actual approval.
We note that in January 2008, new antenna siting and approval procedures took
effect at Industry Canada which provide a clearer process for public notification
and required consultation with the local land use authority.
Report CAO 02-11 January 10, 2011
Subject: Request of Russ Phillips for Financial Compensation Page 4
U
City staff is'currently preparing a protocol for the review and approval of Radio
Communication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, which will be brought
forward for Council's consideration.
We have considered the argument forwarded by Russ Phillips and do not
recommend any additional financial compensation as there is no basis for any
payment from the City. This position is supported by a legal opinion obtained by
the City. City staff appears to have followed the process that was in place at the
time for reviewing cell tower proposals. Further, it is important to note that the
City does not hold any approval authority for cell tower installations. This
authority rests fully with Industry Canada. Even if the City had indicated concern
or objection over the tower location, Industry Canada remained the sole approval
authority. Compensation for perceived negative visual impacts and property
value depreciation due to cell tower installations approved by another body is
unwarranted and could well establish a dangerous precedent for future claims.
The appropriate recourse for this matter is through MPAC (which has been
pursued by Russ Phillips) and the owner of the cell tower, not the City of
Pickering. Furthermore, MPAC, through a reduced assessment, has already
recognized the potential decrease in value which is being reflected through
reduced property taxes and which will continue as long as the tower remains in
its current location.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Tower Elevation
4. Aerial Photo
Report CAO 02-11 January 10, 2011
Subject: Request of Russ Phillips for Financial Compensation Page 5
09
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Neil arrP&I CIP.., RPP Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Director, ing & Development Chief Administrative Officer
i is aterson, C.M.A.
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
NC:jf
Recommended for the consideration
of PickerinVCiounni t
. -2-1,2-0 /a
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
ATTACHMENT #_L-TO REPORT #-cAb od I
/i F0 CNURC ~
J. & R. PHILLIPS
2595 SIXTH CONC SION RD
LOT AREA =
SIXTH C N RDA
SIXTH CONC SION 3 ROAD
REEK 00
PUB, e
~J ,/BRA Y
ueut SVIEW
, APPROXI TE LOCATION
OF CELL GWE R (48.0m
GREENWOOD /
PARK d• OREENRIDOE
COMMUNITY CENTRE
I
GREENWO D, /
/
BITONDO MARKET LTD.
8 2585 SIXTH CONCESSION RD /
W LOT AREA = 222 acres /
U
A
/
3 OHO/
/
/
/
I
/
1 /
/
City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Concession 5, Part of Lots 9 & 10
OWNER N/A DATE July 27, 2010 DRAWN BY JB
FILE No. N/A SCALE 1:5000 CHECKED BY NC N
°Ter -AC P';," Ina. and ite suppliere. All righla Reaervad. Not o plan of e"rvey.
4005 5 .1-AC ono :ts supDl~ere. All r'.ghts Reserved. Nol o peon of S.-ay. PN-RUR
e ~
A ~ ` ¢ eN
iE ~ 8 e zoo
ri W W 11111 g8 g
.7 7
x _ J OSl <I Z s
ATOTACIAMENT #a TO REPORT a -~rZa ~o m S s i
a W pr 70 < o1 1
N o ~ aW c
J J C' yCW~ O Nt<(7 Rl T:i;.
<
44 Va= 3 O Z W a0 J o'
Z N W
Via
0 Li
CL z a v < J o rt E>NO y
W ~
W O m
O p d~ O It
X 3 N nu00 ga <°u
U < J fS W W S J N
d
W {,zj < W W W y z U~ ZZU
N Ir G9 a _a a N m 0 ~ q 0 3 ~ ~
7 W 0 = a O Sa K _ ° 6 2
z 0 IL N S IL < ar- n6
<2
a -W R,
W o Q S W d d
U csi x 0 0 0 a
O N O G S O O O O wWK
N 0 0 z -Lw N
V . O X O p 2 z z z . z 0 0 0 0 00
V7-
I"' ~p{EER
O O O Z Z 0i O Z O m F F F F F a n. m a 0 o
CL IL CL. Fx Fx z p a p 0 N N N 0 0 0 O O O O W N
w 0 z aO a x z a X x x ~Z is C z C K z~ f b6 G f
Z a a a W W< W CL W W W W W S A. 6 d W N E 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 _ ~Z
N n e in o n w m o^ N n- w u n- a N Ne
zzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z W i rii. W r`~a
~ °6 = 3 2" USX
0
Z I I S~,n
zl ?I ^I h"If
N 1
ha I j
U O O \ z I W
W I - G~r1EER j~
a ~ a z I ,~c~ iba ~
a=W x I ¢ 2Pv S U YZ
0 IC
Oacoox 1 ~ o p ~ m
2I N Z
CL W
U x o 1 0 0 ♦ WI ~3SN.311 aQ
4 ~ ~ ~ SS~jj y
O F W ♦'1,yN •f y
O0x 01
U p 3 ♦ Hr,~,~~y0 ^ I
0 o z ab-•• _ - I
J ~ N x ~
- -
Z I 1 ~ I
1 1 .
~I
it
.j I
~I
3Nt1 J~J3d02ld-~Nt1SIX3 ,
- 1
I t
i•W
E~ 1 :a
s
c\ ^ I
3Nn AIU!3d02id 0 lkSM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x
-'-'-'3Nft 3NbHr'aa f31 JAL61A3-.
- 3NIl J.12l3d021d ~N1151X3 - I
, _1 I
p SECTOR HEIGHT
T./GN
# Cho va
ATTACHMENT #3-TO REPORT C
" 1 N2 R s 1 47.4m Tx1A
N5 _ o N RX1A
N6 - TYP 0 T TX2A
48.Om S E 2 47.4m
N RX2A
- - E N TX3A
D A 3 47.4m
S RX3A
A n n~ 45.Om HEIGHT
P SECTOR NT./GNP
43.Om F S 4 45.Om TX1 A
TYP N4 T N RX1A
U T 5 45.Om TX2A
R E
E N RX2A
TX3A
N N
38.Om A 6 45.Om I
s RX3A
TYP N3 F A No. SECTOR AGL
T N 1 - 38.Om
U T
_ R E 2 - 38.Om
v = E N 3 - 43.Om
m
0 o / s .4 - 43.Om
wz w - - -
~w .
N 1 wm cwr
a q
4 N2 TYP.
oc -
0 \TX ~q/R
110.
SECTION A
N8 N.T.S. -
N7 -
TYP - NOTES
N1 - PROPOSED SELF SUPPORT TOWE
N2 - PROPOSED PCS ANTENNA.
O.Om N3 - FUTURE MICROWAVE ANTENNA. P
L[ 7 ABOVE TOP OF ANTENNA.
N4 - FUTURE PCS ANTENNA.
N5 - OBSTRUCTION LIGHT.
TOWER ELEVATION N6 - AIR TERMINAL.
SCALE NTS N7 - CHAINLINK FENCE C/W BARBED
N8 - MICROCELL PREFABRICATED EQUI
(3.05m x 3.2m)
t 1 >L. r"!e"~I(v! f? i'1'„! F 1~ ~tl ~t~; .,Y` M 4
CAv. 00.2
1 J
1 F
x ~ i AMY
om~
1L. 101.01
Vag,
1.212
r•. s
AA6
{ ar" rim 1r ~ ~ •
P,~- ~rwTC: 4 p s
/ ) • Z
06
,(yy,,..p~aa .Yi.ti17 4'ktFMe k et }
-Cllr.' ~ } O
2 C
w
FA*
2
1~ ~'4r~ a,. . r
?)ARTS WWWP.
xi+ I rL~{~1Ut~1If•~ 'hGt~'.gi
fi y
CI)
;r
4 ~,d Syr Q U
tom.°~" fir", Mtn' - - W ~
~a u .sr 4
Y
A~
1
r
! . C
r i ,d
U
a
Z
jAk