Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 13-16 C Report to P ICKE Rl NG Planning & Development Committee U Report Number: PLN 13-16 Date: September 12, 2016 From: Catherine Rose (Acting) Director, City Development Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Shared Network Canada 5293-5295 Markham-Pickering Townline Road North Part of Lot 35, Concession 9 Part 1, 40R — 18594 Installation #65 Recommendation: 1. That Shared Network Canada be advised that City Council does not object to the revised proposal for a 36.9 metre high tripole lattice style telecommunication tower located at 5293-5295 Markham-Pickering Townline Road, based on the design and other details submitted with the revised application. Executive Summary: Shared Network Canada has submitted a revised proposal to construct a 36.9 metre high tripole lattice style telecommunication tower located at 5293-5295 Markham-Pickering Townline Road (see Aerial Photograph, 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 majority of the properties circulated are located in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. The key concerns expressed by the public were related to the perceived impacts on health and property values associated with the proposed cell tower. In response to the comments received, the proponent held a resident meeting to discuss a revised tower siting plan that proposed to locate the tower approximately 325 metres south of the initial location. The tower height was increased to accommodate the lower base elevation of the tower in its new location. The revised location and design was circulated to all the residents that provided comment on the initial proposal and to the City of Markham. Three public comments were received in response to the circulation of the revised proposal and were supportive of the new location. City staff have reviewed the proposed installation against the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The proposed tower is located on an agricultural property, and has minimal impact on the existing development and minimal visual impact on the community. The cell tower meets the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location requirements, and is located with appropriate setbacks from the surrounding neighbourhood. Staff recommends that Shared Network Canada be advised that Council does not object to the proposed telecommunication tower located at 5293-5295 Markham-Pickering Townline Road, based on the design and other details submitted with the application. Report PLN 13-16 September 12, 2016 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 2 Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject property is an agricultural property located at the southeast corner of Markham-Pickering Townline Road and Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road. The telecommunication tower is proposed to be erected south of the existing dwelling and agricultural buildings (see Aerial Photograph and Submitted Plan, Attachments #1 and #2). The subject property is designated as "Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Linkage Area" and "Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Area" in the City's Official Plan, and is zoned "ORM-A" and "ORM-EP — Oak Ridges Moraine Agricultural and Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection Zone 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 Initial and Revised Proposal Shared Network Canada initially proposed a 31 metre high tripole lattice style telecommunication tower at 5293-5295 Markham-Pickering Townline Road. The tower was proposed to be located on the north side of the existing farm buildings and dwelling. In response to the objections received on the initial location, primarily from residents within the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, the applicant presented an alternate tower siting on the subject property during a resident meeting with representatives from the Town of Wh itch u rch-Stouffvi I le. The revised tower location is approximately 325 metres south of the initial proposal and is located south of the existing dwelling and agricultural buildings. As a result of the new location, the tower height was increased to 36.9 metres to address the lower elevation of the tower base. The tower and 4 ground cabinets are located within a fenced compound area measuring approximately 15 metres by 15 metres. Access to the tower and ground equipment will be provided by a new gravel driveway that connects to the existing driveway off of Markham-Pickering Townline Road (see Submitted Elevation and Compound Plan, Attachment#3). Report PLN 13-16 September 12, 2016 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 3 2. Comments Received 2.1 City Departments & Agency Comments Town of Whitchurch-Stoufville • On March 22, 2016 the Council for the Town of Whitchurch-Stoufville passed a resolution to take no position on the proposed tower (see Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Council Resolution, Attachment #4) City of Markham • no objections 2.2 Public Notification of the revised proposal 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 the rural area the minimum circulation radius of 500 metres from the tower location was applied. A majority of the properties within the 500 metre radius are located in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. A total of 114 property owners were notified by mail, and newspaper ads were placed in the February 25, 2016 edition of the News Advertiser and the March 3, 2016 edition of the Stouffville Sun Tribune. The applicant has advised that 22 written comments and two phone calls were received as a result of the circulation (see Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report, Attachment#5). The majority of the concerns were related to the perceived impacts on health and property values associated with the proposed cell tower. The City of Pickering has also received two petitions from residents in Pickering and Whitchurch-Stouffville respecting the initial proposed cell tower location. The petitions contain approximately 442 signatures. The applicant held a meeting with residents on April 7, 2016. At that meeting, Shared Network Canada presented a revised tower siting that proposed to relocate the tower approximately 325 metres south of the initial location. As a result of the new location, the proposal was recirculated to the residents that provided comments on the initial proposal and the City of Markham was added to the circulation, as the new location was within 500 metres of the City boundary. The applicant has confirmed three comments were received as a result of the circulation of the revised proposal and all were supportive of the new location. Report PLN 13-16 September 12, 2016 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 4 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 Design and location of tower comply with City Protocol City Development staff have reviewed the proposed cell tower against the Location and Design Criteria of the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The tower meets the City's preferred location requirements in that it is located on non-residential property and is approximately 580 metres from the nearest residential property (Greenbury Court, in the Town of Whitchurch-Stoufville). The sightlines to the tower will be minimized by the location and existing vegetation that exists on the north and south sides of the proposed tower location. 3.2 Co-location opportunities 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 located on the York Region water tower (on Walter Atkinson Avenue) is approximately 2.3 kilometres away and cannot accommodate their network coverage requirements. Share Network Canada also examined the existing structures in the immediate vicinity and no structures of sufficient height are available. Shared Network Canada has confirmed that the proposed tower has been engineered to accommodate co-location by multiple service providers. 3.3 Majority of comments received were regarding health concerns and impact on property values The majority of the comments received were related to perceived concerns with the health impacts of cell towers and the radio frequencies they emit. The City of Pickering's Cell Tower Protocol does not address health related concerns respecting cell towers as this is not within our jurisdiction or expertise. The licensing of cell towers is regulated by the Radiocommunication Act through Industry Canada. Industry Canada requires all operators to meet the requirements of Safety Code 6, which is prepared by Health Canada. Health Canada reminds all Canadians that their health is protected from radiofrequency fields by the human exposure limits recommended in Safety Code 6. Health Canada indicates that they have established and maintain a general public exposure limit that incorporates a wide safety margin and is therefore far below the threshold for potentially adverse health effects. City staff have confirmed with the Region of Durham Health Department that they rely on the limits established by Health Canada in Safety Code 6. Residents also expressed concerns regarding the impact on property values of the existing homes in the area as a result of the proposed cell tower. The purpose of the City's Cell Tower Protocol is to establish an enhanced public consultation process, and provide the City's specific location and design guidelines for antenna systems located in the City. Concerns about possible impact of the proposal on property values is not a consideration under the City's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol. Report PLN 13-16 September 12, 2016 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 5 4. Conclusion The proposal has been circulated and reviewed in accordance with the City's Cell Tower Protocol, and is now before Council for consideration. Staff recommend that City Council endorse the recommendation in this report as the installation satisfies the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location requirements. The tower is located on an agricultural property and appropriately setback from the existing residential development to the west. Furthermore, the visual appearance of the tower will be mitigated by the existing vegetation on the property. Attachments 1. Aerial Photograph 2. Submitted Plan 3. Submitted Elevation and Compound Plan 4. Town of Whitchurch-Stoufville — Council Resolution (D11) 5. Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report Pre,are• y: Approved/Endorsed By: a ett Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Seni.r Pla ner— Site Planning (Acting) Chief Planner /4)4 ,' Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design TB:so Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Cit Council ���/ z7_5-, A,,,j. °(6 .- _ Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT # PL-N k3- VCo i t • :., :411 r t, 73iy40 " -A __UXBRIDGE PICKERINGTO. NNL NE P -41iitt44." $ ' ti ''• 0 ii,liff.: • - , . - ,At 1 atfit , yY et r ,�a ` t.1 s • r x. * 17 , ONMIli .....- ' ,,,410000000w.... — _ ,, , 7 e 5 '.4 R. a ~ • (t.. i *q. y e x r' A i* k.1•.''E * AN• t {. at ,YM,,. V. r 13 --._ _. • 3',: '--# 1 ii. t ac n i. ti :"'l = •.1'aleemAae;... w�. vk r d1 x1°Is'Mk.' MMUN+.e- +rr+ "'� .at., � 3'.< !4 } A? {^�� 1: ' ' �'f 4--; . 1 .. }a� e h . fe a " f y . '. v Y ' 1. ' _'/:::,t,' e, ,ati .,,,, ,..... , , ,..,,.... Aerial Photograph File: Installation #65 PICKER1 NG Applicant:Shared Networks Canada Property Description: North Part of Lot 35, Con 9, Part 1, City Development PI�n 40R-18594 (5293-5295 Markham-Pickering Townline Road) DATE.Aug 15.2016 ,The coryorargn of rHe city of Picketing Produced On part)under license horn®Queens Printer,Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 8,0001 P N-R U R l rpMS reserved a,s Her Majesty tae Quwn in Right of Canada,QepartmeM of Natural Rewurces.All rgMS reserved.', SCALE.. Teraner EnterQrleee Inc.entl its wppliern all rghrs resevetl.,®Municipal Properly Asaeewnenr Corporation end Its supplwra all rights reserved., HIS IS NU IAPUN OF SUHVCV ATTACHMENT E? TO , REPORT# --- 1- ►3-\(o j 4(wn 1 11 1 1i 1; 16 1 IT r - wx- III —�.� le-'-'t— b _ •y \P\''''' ad" I — _ fie >^ . } >–Y."'' ` S `' \�1 I I 1*'p / g. ± I Z 11 I Z I I '.: O CD li , W 11s. TOWER . Y LOCATION '8 Ce \ = >y Ql .1 O'':. C T to C wvwm & .�s® ( G.A".I6.388-0006 rely.• TOWM SIZ Mv5 o,aof Submitted Plan • City'O FILE No: Installation #65 .M_- r o m' APPLICANT: Shared Networks Canada Id C■N NI II N IO C PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: North Part of Lot 35, Con 9, Part 1 , City Development Plan 40R-18594 (5293-5295 Markham-Pickering Townline Road) Department DATE:Aug.8,2016 ATTACHMENT# 3 TO REPORT# Pert V -■cc) • 299.9 TOP OF TOWER A Il1J .ill PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT 4 N . / 4.00 (�■i/) O NS g • is a, 6.00 I N6 •. © 0 N I � Imo_ 2.00 5.00 1.50! 1.50 5.00 263.0 :..".�:•:❖::':❖ —o v GROUND Submitted Elevation and Compound Plan City'O FILE No: Installation #65 47-11---4'.-1-.E7=1- APPLICANT: Shared Networks Canada Ko�/ti t,i of PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: North Part of Lot 35, Con 9, Part 1, City Development Department Plan 40R-18594 (5293-5295 Markham-Pickering Townline Road) DATE:Aug.8,2016 ATTACHMENT#, 7 TO REPORT # PLN \3-■Co Barnett, Tyler From: Samantha Kong <samantha.kong @townofws.ca> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:58 PM To: sgalbraithsn @gmail.com; Barnett, Tyler; spectrum.cwod @ic.gc.ca Subject: Town of WS Council Resolution - Proposed Telecommunication Tower Attachments: Report 16 - Attachment 1.pdf; Report 16 - Attachment 2.pdf; Report 16 - Attachment 3.pdf; Report 16 - Proposed Telecommunication Tower.pdf RE: PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER INSTALLATION 5295 DURHAM ROAD 30 — CITY OF PICKERING (D11) Please be advised that the above-mentioned report (attached) was brought to Council at its meeting on March 22, 2016, and the following resolution was passed: MOVED by Councillor Hargrave SECONDED by Councillor Ferdinands 1) THAT Council take no position concerning the application by Shared Network Canada for the proposed Telecommunication Antenna Tower Installation at 5295 Durham Road 30; 2) AND THAT Council authorize staff to advertise the proposal on social media and other communication channels to facilitate input from area residents to the applicant, City of Pickering and Industry Canada; 3) AND THAT Council direct staff to forward a copy of Council's resolution and the Development Services Department Report to Shared Network Canada, the City of Pickering and Industry Canada. CARRIED Kind regards, Samantha Kong I Council Coordinator I Corporate Services Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, 111 Sandiford Drive, Stouffville, Ontario L4A OZ8 Customer Service Centre: 905-640-1900 or 1-855-642-(TOWN) 8696 Ext. 2222 Automated Assistant: 905-640-1910 or 1-855-642 (TOWS) 8697 Ext. 2222 Fax: 905-640-7957 www.townofws.ca [111fil - 1 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely forthe use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient,be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use,dissemination,forwarding,printing,or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error,please immediately notify me by telephone at(905)640-1910 ext.2222. 1 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT # PAN 3_i....._‘... Ca, shared. network CANADA May 11,2016 City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering,Ontario L 1 V 6K7 Re: Proposed New Telecommunication Antenna Tower Installation—Post Consultation Report 5295 Durham Road 30 Southeast of York-Durham Line and Pickering-Uxbridge Townline File No.SNC0006 • Introduction Shared Network Canada is proposing a new wireless telecommunications facility at 5295 Durham Rd. 30 in Pickering. The subject property is a 31.5 hectare(78-acre)parcel located in Ward 3,in the SE corner of York-Durham Line (Durham Rd. 30) and Uxbridge-Pickering Townline. As a result of comments received during public consultation, the location of the proposed tower was shifted on the property, as indicated by the on the following aerial photograph: mob- -�iira � ,,�'_ � / Ux �� S `7 , L 1---\\ °I, t \ fiD 4/0 eb 3' it r rr eA t--— !►4- ��te5 i, 4 h.; - ,7--)\ 1 00,03c% W 03c% k • 1 CreSce�t/ SNC0006 - Location eta . C` SNC0006 - New Location a The proposed height of the structure was increased to 36.5 metres to account for the 5-metre decrease in elevation of the new location relative to the old location. The top elevation of the tower is unchanged. ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT # PLN 13-1co Consultation Public consultation consisted of a public information package being provided to all properties within 500 metres of the proposed installation, utilizing a mailing list generated by the City of Pickering. The public commenting window ran from February 29, 2016 to March 31, 2016. Two newspaper ads were also placed, one in the Pickering News Advertiser on February 25, 2016. and one in the Stouffville Sun- Tribune on March 3, 2016. A copy of both are included with this summary report. No public open house was required by the City of Pickering. Sean Galbraith also appeared at Whitchurch-Stouffville council to answer questions that that Council had about the proposal, and Daniel Gibbons met with members of the public, and representatives of Pickering and Whitchurch-Stouffville to discuss the proposal and arrive at an alternative tower siting plan. Twenty-two written comments, a couple phone calls, and a petition, were received during the public commenting window. A copy of all comments received and responses given have been provided to the City of Pickering as they were received/sent, and are included with this summary. The majority of the concerns expressed pertained to perceived impacts on public health and property values associated with the proposed tower. As indicated above, the comments received resulted in the location of the tower being relocated on the property. The new location is located 325-metres south of the original location. The tower design is unchanged, but the height was increased to accommodate the lower base elevation of the tower. The top of the tower height is still limited by the airport zoning restrictions in place. Details of the revised application were provided via email on April 12, 2016 to everyone who provided a comment during the initial public consultation phase. Three emails in response were received, all supportive of the revised location. Pickering was provided a copy of these responses, which are also included with this summary. Details of the revised application were also circulated to Whitchurch-Stouffville and Markham. The former were involved in the process to relocate the tower, and the latter was circulated due to the new location being within 500-metres of the municipality. Markham was provided until May 6, 2016 to provide any comments or questions regarding the proposal, and none were received by the deadline. Conclusion ed revised site is well located to provide and improve Shared Networks Canada feels that the proposed p p wireless voice and data services in the area mentioned above. The proposed site is also situated and designed minimize impacts on surrounding land uses,and is responsive to the concerns of the community. As the proposed,tower is designed to accommodate multiple wireless carrier antenna equipment, it will it also minimize the need for multiple additional antennas in the area in the future. 2 A TAMENTO TO REPORT PLN 1 •i ' " J Shared Network Canada looks forward to working with the City in providing improved wireless services in the municipality. If you require further information about this matter,please contact me anytime. Best regards, Shared Network Canada • Sean Galbraith,MCIP,RPP Municipal Affairs Manager 3 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPOP i f, PLN i3 ■to A shared network CANADA is• Information Package Proposed Shared Network Canada Wireless Telecommunication Antenna Installation 5295 Durham Road 30, Pickering SNC File Number:SNC0006 In response to significant rising demand for wireless voice and data services in this area, Shared Network Canada is proposing to construct a new wireless telecommunication tower installation. The proposed tower would accommodate antenna equipment from licensed wireless carriers. What is being proposed?Where is it being proposed? A 31-metre self-support tri-pole antenna with equipment cabinets at its base is proposed on the property municipally known as 5295 Durham Road 30, Pickering.A photosimulation of the proposed tower is at right. Why is this installation needed? Wireless networks in the area are currently over capacity due to the number of customers in southeast Whitchurch-Stouffville. Customers are also far from existing antennas, and additional coverage is required to maintain service levels.There are no existing towers in the area that are an alterantive to a new --- installation. The public is welcome to request additional information or provide written _ comments to: Sean Galbraith, Municipal Affairs Manager,Shared Network Canada PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street !- Toronto, ON M4T 1K0 (1S3'@Gmail.com XBAT The public commenting period closes March 31, 2016. Please reference • r00'./1 V° SITE SNC0006 in your correspondence. �' _ �^ N Municipal Contact Information Lits ° Tyler Barnett,Senior Planner NPV 5 City Development Department, City of Pickering 19". a 10\13 One The Esplanade, Pickering,Ontario,Canada L1V 6K7 tbarnett @pickering.ca Industry Canada %t'Industry Canada is the governing body for installations of this type and can be F�_N S contacted at: Industry Canada-Toronto District Office • 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Room 909 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 spectrum.cwod @ic.gc.ca General information on wireless infrastructure: industrycanada.ca/antenna SharedNetwork.ca PO Box 69010, 1421 Yonge Street, Toronto ON M4T 1K0 9TTACHMEMIT# TO REPOR T# PAN 'b "'ilk shared network C A N A D A Y Local Land Use Requirements Public consultation is being undertaken in accordance with the City of Pickering's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Protocol. Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are regulated exclusively by Federal Legislation under the Federal Radiocommunication Act and administered by Industry Canada. Provincial legislation such as the Planning Act, including zoning by-laws, does not apply to these facilities. The City of Pickering is participating in land-use consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of Industry Canada's CPC 2-0-03. In the case of a dispute between the proponent and the City,a final decision will be made by Industry Canada. Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance Health Canada's role is to protect the health of Canadians, so it is the Department's responsibility to research and investigate any possible health effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic energy, such as that coming from cell phones and antenna base stations. Health Canada has developed guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy,which are commonly known as Safety Code 6.This regulation has been adopted by Industry Canada and carrier compliance is mandatory. 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 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. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package is excluded from environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), as the antenna system is not incidental to a designated project or located on federal land. 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. No lighting or special painting is expected to be required.Any site-specific Transport Canada requirements will be made available to the City for public review when available. Public Disclosure of Comments Submissions received shall form part of Industry Canada's Public Consultation Process under the Spectrum Management and Telecommunications Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4, and may be made public as part of a report issued to interested parties,the Municipality and Industry Canada. Conclusion Shared Network Canada feels that the proposed site is well situated to provide and improve wireless data services to the community in the area. The proposed site has been situated and designed to minimize any impacts on surrounding land uses. We look forward to working with the City and the community to improve wireless services in the area. SharedNetwork.ca PO Box 69010. 1421 Yonge Street, Toronto ON MAT 1K0 i AyTiACHMEiT# 5 TO Canada locked up the berth with a 3-1 She had I ,_ �� �3_�(o semifinal win over Costa Rica Friday, Feb. whitewa --I i,�PORTfa 19, before falling in the final, 2-0 to the nary rou �� PUBLIC NOT PROPOSED SHARED NETWORK CANADA TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTEN SUBJECT: Industry Canada's CP ` dispute between the I •Wireless tripole tower, decision will be made Ryan Pfeiffer/Metroland 31 metres tall Rejected at the net • Location: 5295 Durham Industry Canada, Ton Road 30, Pickering 55 St. Clair Avenue E Toronto ON M4T 1 M2 UXBRIDGE–Brooke Kucab,left,of the Dunbarton Saprtans blocked a hit by Uxbridge • Legal Description: Part spectrum.toronto @ic. E Tigers' Avery Pottle during their LOSSA AAA senior girls' volleyball semifinal game at of Lot 35, Concession s Uxbridge Secondary School.The Tigers beat the Spartans 2-0 on their way to winning 1 (Geographic Township ANY PERSON may n 3 the LOSSA championship. of Pickering), City of to the individuals liste Durham West Lightning Pickering, Regional March 31,ite SNC0 Municipality of Durham reference site SNC001 ■ •The facility will include: Further information m fi n i s h off fi r st place season the following contacts walk-in radio equipment shelter within a secure APPLICANT CONTAC E compound area with a Sean Galbraith DURHAM —The Durham West Lightning league with a remarkable goals-against 1.8 metre high chain link Shared Network Cane and Whitby Fury finished off a one-two average of 0.83, which included 15 wins security fence topped PO Box 69010 E regular season in the Provincial Women's and seven shutouts in 19 games. with barbed wire around 1421 Yonge Street $ Hockey League last weekend, setting up a The Wolves' Rachel McQuigge was sev- and would include one Toronto, ON M4T 1 KC ti possible meeting in the final four tourna- enth in GAA at 1.25 and led the league with locked gate access (416) 732-5069 ment in Barrie April 1-3. 16 wins in 19 games. point. SGalbraithSN @gmail. With first place already wrapped up head- Offensively, Durham West's Natalie ing into the final weekend, the Lightning Wozney cracked the top 10 with 35 points in •The site will provide dropped a 2-1 overtime decision in Stoney 38 games,while Maria Dominico was close improved wireless SITE L, Creek Saturday, Feb.20 before closing out behind with 33 points in 33 games. voice and data services KEY PLAN a 27-2-5-4 season with a 3-1 win over Cam- Samantha Isbell and captain Briana Col- in the surrounding area. (NOT 10 scALE) ti bridge Sunday at the Ajax Community Cen- angelo shared the lead for Whitby with 32 i tre. points each. Telecommunication The Wolves had some work to do to fin- The first-round playoff schedule had not tower/antenna r ' 1 ish second, and did so with three straight been set as of Wednesday, but the Light- systems are regulated road victories, 3-1 in Cambridge Friday, ping have drawn 16th-place Etobicoke exclusively by Al C f li���3-1 over Southwest Saturday and 3-2 over (9-23-5-1) and the Wolves will face 15th- Federal Legislation 1 . J-' �� Bluewater Sunday to finish at 27-6-5-0,four place Ottawa(13-21-4-0). under the Federal ' +„ V„ , . '~ ederal I , or 1 , points back of the Lightning and two ahead Victories there would advance both Radiocommunication "� t� • s of third-place Mississauga in the 20-team teams to the quarter-finals,where the com- Act and administered - league. petition will be much stiffer and berths at by Industry Canada. Lightning goalie Danika Ranger led the the final four tournament will be at stake. Provincial legislation - Glendale Tennis Club holding registration Sunday such as the Planning * �_ 9 9 Y Act, including zoning '_ - by-laws, does not _,.- PICKERING — Glendale Tennis Club is Glendale Tennis Club offers a wide vari- apply to these facilities. E holding registration for the 2016 season on ety of leagues for all levels of play,as well as The City of Pickering 3 Sunday,Feb.28. junior programs. 1 The registration will run from 1 to 3 p.m.at Visit www.glendatetennis.org for more is participating in E the Pickering Recreation Complex,Room 1. information or call membership director land use consultation An early-bird discount of$5 will be offered. Rika Jacoby at 905-420-0147. pursuant to Issue 5 of ATTACH SENT#_J--TO REPORT# P�'N �'�-1co Stouftville Sun-Tribune 1 Thursday.March 3.2016 1 it •m y(l a v v N 'n v N -1 ¢ -1 0 n ° o ]f a C'I r 'D r C a , sIY:1�' 0) .1 .° m.c•e o t s o go a ° n o m a. f .f',, .-a '•.1 r - - ... o,'a.z o g � n.a�N 0 3 0 0 a a.3 c o n n L 0 . ^ O-C' 0 �cq > > woDD ° N. �m ?2v W m _a��! w mm m m I` ''S, • WV lu° n at.0 .na-r .rF.. /// Q c c 'a o m °U 3 m n m 3 §.u o a x-c 3 4 -m j"„ O >> =ni I T� '�' �p 9� I I O • �•�' 7`~' c' n F m D» u �' 3 p = n» o o m 1 wHI1; t m o_ ly _ `� ',,.o m p ° e Y � I i, - Ho ° c o i _ - - -J! r �-1 yE Nrr v t: y 2•a❑ vC ... MM• °,`4 g a °a 'Ogg-.4 v°o m m j z S a .g-_-;'..°E .'° d i .0 r � ,r]EA Y r-I,. N I 1 ra o rt y R'''.9 O 73„11,.:.1.'i,::: ‘5-'111.1 y a m n » 3 j �. / C - O �'= r , O a i-3 r _ ; tt'1.• m ° �.a ° asy Dm n r ° 3 it 1, n I _i v C ro u J C .-.' _d ._ {�‘ S' 3 m Z .a 3 n •°..a v m m '. n o° n m :1 1 ri .7 _ R 7 m .y.r -ii a 0•0p• Q m w p f7 D o e a -a m = 3 m o ff 'i -11 •' ^ a ,w C Oy.0 c O` a +a u° S �=n m '`m 'a 5`.x a n y^ s`J �-, LLLLLL . . .Ot a .. ... .__l m c :a cgo y it ,n : C r f74- u a - c T t, o ti p rr. T,n^.,• O rt 5 C /,ir�J� T.r �0_.▪c AQsm V ac n-"2 1 g 4. : 1 .�V1 r� in ri) o. ▪ox n m M 0 uir =r U � Oa oo'z oo Vl::s t £P9 7 0°`�G ; 1 i Q i rya S▪ ".,'-'a ve r 0^' w o' Q'•'1 try G (1 °3 :a 1,,,*,•'. 2 C r� ° n n ro p'j 'O' rgliT5 at(k)' o0 0 o f Tg a° ,* C t� c v O f -�'j� • m° 2 E 4 5 f N m ��s.,s ...�. Ot a h `rf, 'J 1�.��p ° o'nm � .. S "'fW i c�nv _r"'O i„ � O xC'"'c O '.1 l q! a o.a. € • u 9 �3 '4' C C•(p O•'�'�.y C: ""y ^� O 4 1 n 3 n,3 ix) o m r_ A' O a o f a,G c, G^7 n,, :�' �� ohs zsr 0 '� CG --je ' c a2. 1 y a^� �O 3•A .a¢n Oat ,..2. �R co- r a J1 vi A ❑ ro ° 7 1 i Ch V_ v C.. '5 n O 1 '� .�0 .C.., C'S.' $ C:5 O C n y� [/�J 5� _ _� tao,oa � w c. � _ cc+,�,aa -n", rf� 7n ' PA • ^ C r ti r s Gwa G A C �' °D R [r'0 O V:a L' CC7 rD o• $ ..�f` ` i. a , y'S.,.-?c�u v ago.`_',g,..r~w `.. ao 5.6-2 C.F"So c 2- ? en AI ik.0 � S IL. N O as g r O .°..v ,.,.i to C C. N �•-c.,•3. 1 'i9 ?S 0 w G . . a; ( 1 . o P., o a c 'L.' w 'Cr, .C,� - V. . o rO- ,7-`6 2 CI 5. a.a 7 ft o ^� v red C �, CD T• 'r,”ry'_'n ,. ❑ �8ca wwD3.^_coat' c? ., vo =_S9ca . z.G • Ct - rn 4 ! } O,° "',r�J • C r `K a N'O 5' as a` O ro v N '� !...,--o O b 5 n �.r - I�� uC+ "". j ry rCR p O N cT 7 g c 7T vv', v,r n:_G Cy "CA /{'°i CI C +I I 9 V+ O i - C cc c.F: t'a'n C w _ ", r G fd ®c I'...`Y C.t' :y•< O :' "rC O C' C C;n o G v' G O.F C o O?� rn• •cqq C - �rti �1 F rR o 5,, F cS v ry-, 0 0 -•0 a.5 ,ro.-n c o R a°1p_ R°' �' (rt) D _I =1 2 .. ice'. n - O a-c 9 C9 o - -. 5 .." .H^. a C.n c;n, co m m <A. .., �} ro,3 c� v a3,ro G -' o.- m .O ^0 c.5. -°i 2 n-r: p 1 rc ' cnr cxi-2,-o F,; G ro mG O r. , l• N @ 1 'O (� r Cam.tD j, ? G y Q• E O w C "' :: O-h o a w '- •cp )�}�jJ ,f 1+ N x ,..7. .,--1.. R Oa r ^.., 1 r C o. -r ,�,'3.O G a P ... 9 7 n .. a '� i O C 7 -':_ a :,:c a,R_-try X O p_5ie -. R " = 6 3^ .-,. L O^ _ id O fir. '' = rr^^ ^^'' a 5 n v ...FA to N 0 .".ch -'J um .. .r^i Y s v^% T 2 'C • A� �� .-1... Vl �+ ruuit � iuo1 R = ;6 N r _ ma - n `-m.n a k d' 6' -o g • �7 '° ,, -' . '� c"'.- . f?o n aL v O• O <D O c D 0 eo —1 r-r F-, -i [� ` [� ? O O 7a w - G Cl. :o '� a C ai el ,2 `• V;-'%. v rt O -t+ r/-�1�t, 'l ddoy+ T CM �, C'SVi O t1.r. n rya=a O {.I n \V (Z� i n a-, -it' !D ,^ " ■O O a i 2 -y, F.,-,73-.` a N '7l V J ^y LI 1 .??. UO fJ " a Cp-'J ' "' G ry J r �('••,'= `r iliV1 �ti 1 V T cn C.s!ry n.r�. y a ^,tn' O 74 7 n'•j i DI (D p.�. �..ui•.3/ 1' C �1 r O T (] Q. C V'�+ _ ,C l0 En S O a o o - Vr ,CSCa s ro 0-'0 r a _ O I 0 R'` - ,ro, r "' ^ B /}� _ v. a y C \V :5 c3 v cn T a a ri rii 4 71.-- 1 2 r7 a fl O 7 ,,5 _ a o - c� Svp. s, In C.raso. a o � r`.. "^�r2.'� o � oc •rr taraaA.,c�M.......;.�., : ..,,d.: M .1•••••• ,, . . ..•. ■ ,. .... lizaidatmamosamslamaitalaufiAl.ad amicarassmansamal. ,,,...tirAioudinzaam ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT # PLN 13-1co • Gmail-SNC0006-Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower-Revised Location 2016-05-11,12:39 PM Gm ail Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmmail.com> SNC0006 - Proposed. Shared Network Telecommunication Tower - Revised Location Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Tue,Apr 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM Cc: "tbarnett @pickering.ca" <tbarnett @pickering.ca>, "mayor @pickering.ca" <mayor @pickering.ca>, "jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca" <jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca>, "dpickles @pickering.ca" <dpickles @pickering.ca>, "rjohnson @pickering.ca" <rjohnson @pickering.ca>, "jane.philpott@parl.gc.ca" <jane.philpott @parl.gc.ca>, "rob.hargrave @townofws.ca" <rob.hargrave @townofws.ca>, "justin.altmann @ townofws.ca" <justin.altmann @ townofws.ca>, "ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca" <ic.spectrumtoronto- spectretoronto.ic @ canada.ca>, Samantha Kong <samantha.kong@townofws.ca> • Hello, • • You recently contacted us expressing concern about a new proposed telecommunication tower in Pickering by Shared Network Canada. We have listened to all of your comments and have determined that we will be able to locate the proposed tower farther south on the property, as • shown on the attached aerial photograph. This new location is approximately 600 metres from the nearest house on Greenbury Court, and 655 metres from the nearest house on Mantle Avenue. Because of this increased distance,the height of the tower needed to be increased to 36.9 metres tall (up from 31 metres), but this will be offset by the significant additional distance, and will • be partially screened by the house and trees on the property. If you have any questions about the revised location;you're welcome to email me anytime. • All the best, Sean Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager • Shared Network Canada 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&q=...qs=true&search=query&msg=1540d98814227061&sim1=1540d98814227061 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT# -5 TO REPORT # Q1-t3 \3—lcc, Gmail-SNC0006-Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower-Revised Location 2016-05-11,12:39 PM Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 ' SNC0006-New_Location_Aerialpng 1561K • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&q=...s=true&search=query&msg=1540d98814227061&sim1=1540d98814227061 Page 2 of 2 • ATTAEf T# .� C I TO • REPORT# <- \3—(c0 Gmail-SNC0006-Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower-Revised Location 2016-05-11,12:39 PM rrta1I Sean Galbraith`sgalbraithsn@gmail.com> • SNCOOO6 Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower - Revised Location Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Wed,Apr 13, 2016 at 9:10 AM Cc: "tbarnett @pickering.ca" <tbarnett @pickering.ca>, "mayor @pickering.ca" <mayor @pickering.ca>, "jennifer.oconnell @ parl.gc.ca" <jennifer.oconnell @ parl.gc.ca>, "dpickles @pickering.ca" <dpickles @pickering.ca>, "rjohnson @pickering.ca" <rjohnson @pickering.ca>, "jane.philpott@parl.gc.ca" <jane.philpott @parl.gc.ca>, "rob.hargrave @townofws.ca" <rob.hargrave @townofws.ca>, "justin.altmann @townofws.ca" <justin.altmann @ townofws.ca>, "ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca" <ic.spectrumtoronto- spectretoronto.ic @ canada.ca>, Samantha Kong <samantha.kong @townofws.ca> • • Hello, In addendum to my previous email to you explaining the change in tower . • location and height, I should have noted that the new location of the tower sits 5.9 metres lower than the originally proposed location. So while the proposed tower is taller than originally proposed,the top of the tower is at the same elevation as the original proposal. It is still limited by the airport zoning restrictions in place. • If you have any questions, please contact me any time. All the best, Sean Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager • On Tue,Apr 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com>wrote: > Hello, >You recently contacted us expressing concern about a new proposed • >telecommunication tower in Pickering by Shared Network Canada.We have . >listened to all of your comments and have determined that we will be https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&q=...&search=query&msg=1540fbe6e25c1608&dsgt=1&sim1=1540fbe6e25c1608 Page 1 of 2 • ATTACH{+ ENT,# 4 TO REPORT# QL _‘%—\ co Gmail-SNC0006-Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower-Revised Location 2016-05-11,12:39 PM >able to locate the proposed tower farther south on the property, as >shown on the attached aerial photograph. >This new location is approximately 600 metres from the nearest house >on Greenbury Court, and 655 metres from the nearest house on Mantle >Avenue. Because of this increased distance, the height of the tower >needed to be increased to 36.9 metres tall (up from 31 metres), but >this will be offset by the significant additional distance, and will >be partially screened by the house and trees on the property. > If you have any questions about the revised location,you're welcome >to email me anytime. >All the best, > Sean. >-- >Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP > Municipal Affairs Manager > Shared Network Canada >275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 >Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 > Cell: (416)732-5069 > Fax: (416)981-7248 • • • • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&q=...&search=query&msg=1540fbe6e25c1608&dsgt=1&sim1=1540fbe6e25c1608 Page 2 of 2 ATTAC ME Tr#. STO email-Reference:SNC00006 EPl� l f P---h �� 2016-03-23,11:16 PM dd Sean Galbraith <sgaibraithsn @gmail.cam> Reference: SNC00006 Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:15 PM To: Cc: "tbarnett @pickering.ca" <tbarnett @pickering.ca>, "mayor @pickering.ca" <mayor @pickering.ca>, "jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca" <jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca>, "dpickles @pickering.ca" <dpickles @pickering.ca>, "rjohnson @pickering.ca" <rjohnson @pickering.ca>, "jane.philpott@parl.gc.ca" <jane.philpott @parl.gc.ca>, ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1%of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area.To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97% of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site (W0076-48m tall): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note, the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing-Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the ' distance to a residence.This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php • While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. . Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): V • ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic@canada.ca https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153a69ea33e0639d&dsgt=1&sim1=153a69ea33e0639d Page 1 of 2 • AT T CM E 4T# 5 TO . Z POR T PL 4 13-t to Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 2016-03-23,11:16 PM • • The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP • Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 • Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 • As of April 1,2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:46 AM, wrote: > I am opposed to the proposed cell tower to be located at 5295 Durham Rd 30. >The tower is within close proximity to our neighbourhood and poses potential > health hazards and decrease in property value.We are asking that you select >an alternate location within significant set back from existing homes that > is less esthetically prominent. •> >thank you • • • • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153a69ea33e0639d&dsgt=1&sim1=153a69ea33e0639d Page 2 of 2 ATTAG ,-AW#�(5 Yo Gmail-Proposed Tower-SNC File Number:SNC0006 REM- O °��- ���`�' 2016-03-14,11:40 AM hid i I Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmaii.corn> byG1,081C Number: SNC0006 File N Proposed Tower - SNC u Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:40 AM To: Cc: "Barnett, Tyler" <tbarnett@picKerrng.ca> Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1%of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area.To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97% of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 427m from the proposed tower. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site (W0076): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Free! Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note,the propose tower siteis between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence. This is a significant • distance. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.ph p While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca • The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but.this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15375c8ffc2bd7bc&dsgt=1&sim1=15375c8ffc2bd7bc Page 1 of 2 AT 'i`hcf4cEadEi!r`_ S TO Gmail-Proposed Tower-SNC File Number:SNC0006 REPORT# `PLN 13—\(o 2016-03-14,11:40 AM Municipal Affairs Manager • Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4T 1K0 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:08 AM, wrote: Dear Mr.Galbraith and Mr. Barnett, My name is and I am writing to express my concerns about the Proposed Shared Network Canada.Wireless Telecommunication Antenna being built at 5295 Durham Road 30, Pickering. My fiance and I recently moved to Stouffville and currently reside at which is in very close proximity to the tower. I have done some very quick preliminary research this morning and have already found information and studies that make me uncomfortable with the location of this tower. My fiance and I are getting married this summer and are planning to have children within the next year. I am very concerned about the levels of radiation that will reach our house and possibly affect the health of our future child(ren), especially since we have fallen in love with our home and Stouffville and are planning to reside here for the foreseeable future. Please forward me any other information that is available or becomes available regarding this proposal. My hope is to see that this tower is built far enough from our home/street/community that we are not within a 500m radius of the tower,which is the distance studies are showing could cause biological effects. Thank you in advance, • • • • • • • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15375c8ffc2bd7bc&dsgt=1&sim1=15375c8ffc2bd7bc Page 2 of 2 • ASS I Cet t EdlY' #5 TO REPO 1r, , pLN l3- 1So Gmail-SNC0006 2016-03-21,2:19 PM • Sean Galbraith <sgaibraithsn @gmaii.com> by(:ooslc SNC0006 Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:21 PM To: Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Cc: "ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic@canada.ca" <ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca>, "tbarnett @pickering.ca" <tbarnett @pickering.ca> Hi Sean, • As per our conversation earlier, I would appreciate being kept in the loop regarding the above noted project. With thanks, • • • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1539a63ec07d2181&sim1=1539a63ec07d2181 Page 1 of 1 • • i . • ATTAmENT# _ . . TO Gmail-SNC0006 1 EPO i 2016-03-01,8:52 PM G grig « Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.coni> SNCOOO6 Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:51 PM To: ' Cc: "Barnett, Tyler" <tbarnem,picKenng.ca>, Thank you for the email. If you provide me with your address, I can give you the exact measurement to your house. The first house on Mantle Avenue is around 347m from the tower. We are limited in where the tower can locate on the property by the airport zoning restrictions and the ongoing farming operations on the property.The tower is in line with the trees currently.As it is taller than all of the trees (by necessity), even locating it behind the trees would not change its visibility. I have copied Pickering's planner on this reply so that they have a copy of your comment in their files. All the best, Sean • Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4T 1K0 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:25 PM, wrote: Dear Mr Galbraith: I just received the information package regarding the proposed antenna installation east of where I reside. While there is no conclusive evidence these types of antennas are harmful to people I'm a bit concerned how close it is to where I live. Has the exact distance from Mantle Avenue been confirmed yet? If so, what is it? All the information package indicates is that it will be within 500 meters of our residences. Is there any way the said"tower could be constructed further east, closer to the tree line as to not be so noticeable to the Stouffville residents? • Regards, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1533505cd92dee76&dsgt=1&simI=1533505cd92dee76 Page 1 of 2 • • ATTACHMENT# -5 TO Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 �iEPO�tT 0.-T4 ‘2,_`� 2016-03-20,9:49 PM ii ' an Gal'b1'i=i'i'h -zsgallm di ih ii! tisail rrvrt> lryl,cwl{i: Reference: SNCO0006 Sean Galbraith <saalbraithsneamail.com> Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 9:49 PM To: Cc: "tbarnett @pickering.ca" <tbarnett @pickering.ca>, "spectrum.cwod @ic.gc.ca" <spectrum.cwod @ic.gc.ca>, "mayor @pickering.ca" <mayor @pickering.ca>, "jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca"<jennifer.oconnell @ parl.gc.ca>, "dpickles @pickering.ca" <dpickles @pickering.ca>, "rjohnson @pickering.ca" <rjohnson @pickering.ca>, "jane.philpott @parl.gc.ca" <jane.philpott @parl.gc.ca>, "rob.hargrave @townofws.ca" <rob.hargrave @townofws.ca>, "justin.altmann @townofws.ca" <justin.altmann @ townofws.ca>, ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation • emit levels of less than 5%of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1% of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area. To compare, a typical home wife router is around 0.97% of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 427m from the proposed tower. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site (W0076-48m tall): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note,the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence.This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has • changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15396dcc594250c7&dsgt=1&sim1=15396dcc594250c7 Page 1 of 2 ATTAC ME T# -5 TO Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 REPORU OLN — 2016-03-20,9:49 PM ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to • make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP • Municipal Affairs Manager • Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1,2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:46 PM, wrote: > I am opposea to me proposed cell tower to be located at 5295 Durham Rd 30. >The tower is within close proximity to our neighbourhood and poses potential > health hazards and decrease in property value.We are asking that you select >an alternate location within significant set back from existing homes that >is less esthetically prominent. • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15396dcc594250c7&dsgt=1&sim1=15396dcc594250c7 Page 2 of 2 AST;f v'I? t9i#5 TO • Gmail-Opposition to the Construction of Cell Tower.-SNC00006 REPORT r� 0-1'1 � 1 ' 'CP 2016-03-22,8:23 PM • • Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn@gmall.corn> by(ax.:{It' Opposition to the Construction of Cell Tower - SNC00006 Sean Galbraith <scialbraithsn @gmail.com> Tue, Mar 22,2016 at 8:23 PM To: Cc: "Barnett, Tyler" <tbarnett@pickering.ca>, mayor @pickering.ca,jennifer.oconnell @ parl.gc.ca, "Pickles, David, Councillor" <dpickles @pickering.ca>, rjohnson @pickering.ca,jane.philpott@parl.gc.ca, rob.hargrave @townofws.ca, justin.altmann @townofws.ca, ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless • technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1%of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area. To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97%of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 402m from the proposed tower. • By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site (W0076-48m tall): 34m • Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m - Rogers's tower on 9th line(C2331 - 131m tall): 139m • Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note,the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the • distance to a residence.This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada'directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153a0da8a5982d90&dsgt=1&sim1=153a0da8a5982d90 Page 1 of 4 • ATTALWENT# TO Gmail-Opposition to the Construction of Cell Tower-SNC00006 REPORT�, PLN i3_1b 2016-03-22,8:23 PM ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to • make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean • Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:41 AM, wrote: > Good morning, > I am writing to expresss my concerns and opposition to the proposed cell >tower to be located at 5295 Durham Rd 30. Formerly from North York, I moved >to Stouffville to enjoy the many health benefits of this region. > Stouffville,the"country close to the city" is recognized for its green >space, picturesque farm sceneries and organic lifestyle. In fact, I chose my > home at as it provided a heart warming view of the > neighbouring farm land and our community's favorite hangout, our pond. My >son enjoys the use of his telescope at night to see the stars from our >porch. > >What was once the ideal location will now be an eye sore.The first >introduction to the Pickering/Stouffville community on York Durham Line: a > 102 ft light flashing object of commercialism at its best right in the >centre of what was one a beautiful field of corn. >The following points of concern require your consideration: >-potential health effects:the World Health Organization is completing a • >study on the heath effects of such towers in 2016 and we are unclear what >the results will reveal.We are currently relying on studies dating back to >2009 which are too premature to gauge the full impacts. Is there • .>consideration of the consolidated impacts of the many towers on one's health >given that the radiation can travel for many KMs? >-There is no consistent approach to cell phone towers among countries. > North American standards are the most liberal with a significant difference >in tolerated exposure levels compared to countries like Switzerland. If >there is a clear view on the health impacts,then why the difference? https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153a0da8a5982d90&dsgt=l&sim1=153a0da8a5982d90 Page 2 of 4 • A.TACHME r# 11i REPORT�' MT.4 t P_N \2j- (. s� Gmail-Opposition to the Construction of Cell Tower-SNC00006 2016-03-22,8:23 PM >-the tower positioning will result in extensive light pollution penetrating >the bedroom windows where our children attempt to sleep. In addition the >intermittent light is annoying at best! >-property values are also a concern. I work in the housing and mortgage >industry and am well aware of the impacts the tower will have on our resale >values.The residents on Mantle Ave in front of the pond paid lot premiums >to face the beautiful greenspace only to realize now that we purchased and >paid more for a front row seat ticket to a 24 hour a day radiation show that >with time will only give off more and more radiation as Shared Networks >engages in additional contracts to increase the number of satellites for > profitability. I have contacted a Real Estate Agent and have confirmed that > I will need to disclose the proposed cell tower to all potential purchasers >as purchase and sale agreements now contain Stigma clauses.Absent of full >disclosures and the potential impacts now make me liable for litigation. >Thank you for that! I have also confirmed that the marketability of my home >as it stands today with simply the consideration of the tower, not the >visibile site, has reduced my homes marketability. In fact my agent recently >attempted to sell a property in a neighbouring community where a tower was >erected three 10 acre farms away from the subject property. She advised that >there were significant concerns that deterred the majority of buyers and she • >was required to extend the listing periods and reduce the values to find a > buyer.We have enjoyed high property demand however our properties will make >it to the bottom of this list over properties that do not include this level >of radiation exposure. >-more needs to be done to protect our right of choice.We are able to make >all conscious decisions related to our health however when it comes to >exposure to these towers, its too bad, if you don't like it move. I fully • > intend to sell my property and move as I am unwillingly to risk my family's > health. For your conscience here are some things to think about as you lay >your head down to sleep: > 1. I will now incur a real estate fee of$40K+ HST to sell my property >2. My property value has already decreased a MINIMUM of 5%for a grand >total of an additional $40K > 3.This 80K means that I will need to reach into my savings to compensate >for these losses to purchase an equivalent property in another location or >alternatively buy a lower quality home for my family. >4. The money saved for my children's education will be consumed as a result > of Shared Network's lack of consideration for the impacts on people's lives. > How ethical is that-SHAME ON YOU! > Reaards > Stouffville >wer is within close proximity to our neighbourhood and poses potential > health hazards and decrease in property value. • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153a0da8a5982d90&dsgt=1&sim1=153a0da8a5982d90 Page 3 of 4 • Gmail-Opposition to the Construction of Cell Tower-SNC00006 RE',P'®RE O 2016-03-22,8:23 PM >We are asking that you select an alternate location within significant set >back from existing homes that is less esthetically prominent. • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153a0da8a5982d90&dsgt=1&sim1=153a0da8a5982d90 Page 4 of 4 • A5 b'Fa NEN # p�S TO Gmail-Fw:Cell phone tower itd. 'i"FOR r# ' 't(' 2016-03-08,10:37 AM iSean Galbraith <sc albraithsn@gmail.com> Fw: Cell phone tower • Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:36 AM To: Hi • You will have to speak with Industry Canada about that, as they are the ultimate regulatory authority for telecommunication towers. All the best, Sean • • Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 • 1421 Yonge Street • Toronto, ON M4T 1K0 Cell: (416) 732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:19 PM, wrote: Hi Sean, • I appreciate your speedy responses. What would potentially stop the tower from being approved, if anything? My neighbors and are very unhappy about the proposed location of the tower and we're trying to find out where to voice our concerns. Of course I realize that you want the tower to be built in.the proposed location and have no interest in helping us stop it, but I would appreciate your input on this topic. Thank you. From: Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> To: Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 11:07 NM • Subject: Re: Cell phone tower . Hi • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15356df8efed68e0&dsgt=1&sim1=15356df8efed68e0 Page 1 of 3 REPORT?) pLN ►3-1 Gmail-Fw:Cell phone tower 2016-03-08,10:37 AM • • Approvals are good for 3 years, so it would be within that time. I don't have the exact timing (it depends on various factors), but I'd imagine it would be within 1 year of the approval date. If you have any other questions, please ask away. Sean Sean Galbraith On Mar 3, 2016,, at 6:48 PM, wrote: Thank you for your reply. When is the tower planned to be built? • From: Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn©gmail.com> To: Cc: "tbarnett©pickering.ca" <tbarnett @pickering.ca> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 9:19 AM • Subject: Re: Fw: Cell phone tower Hello • The proposed tower is about 408m from your house. We are limited in where the tower can locate on the property by the airport zoning restrictions and the ongoing farming operations on the property. The tower is in line with the trees currently. As it is taller than all of the trees (by necessity), even locating it behind the trees would not change its visibility. • All the best, Sean • • Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager • Shared Networks • PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street • hops://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15356df8efed68e0&dsgt=1&sim1=15356df8efed68e0 Page 2 of 3 • • AIRMEN TO TO # -S -- REPORTO PLtS l3`�Co •Email-Fw:Cell phone tower 2016-03-08,10:37 AM Toronto, ON M4T 1K0 Cell: (416) 732-5069 Fax: (416) 981-7248 On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:25 AM, wrote: Dear Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Barnett, I just received a letter informing me that there may be a cell phone tower built within 500 meters of my home at in Stouffville, ON. I am extremely upset by this news. I would like to know exactly how far the tower will be from my home. How can this be confirmed?. Aside from the fact that it will be an eye sore, I am extremely concerned about the health hazards it may pose to • my family. I am not comfortable with the distance at all. Why can the tower not be placed further back, further away from this subdivision and more out of sight? I look forward to your response. • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15356df8efed68e0&dsgt=l&sim1=15356df8efed68e0 Page 3 of 3 ATTAcET#_O I EPO1iiO —Ic.p Gmail-Opposition to cell phone tower SNC0006(5295 Durham Rd 30) 2016-03-19,9:15 PM Gm ,, i i Seen Galbraith <sgalbraitti nAgionli twit> Opposition to cell phone tower SNC0006 (5295 Durham Rd 30) Sean Galbraith <saalbraithsnCc�omail.com> Sat, Mar 19,2016 at 9:14 PM To: Cc: "tbarnett @pickering.ca"<tbarnett @pickering.ca>, "spectrum.cwod @ic.gc.ca" <spectrum.cwod @ic.gc.ca>, "mayor @pickering.ca" <mayor @pickering.ca>, "jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca" <jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca>, "dpickles @pickering.ca" <dpickles @pickering.ca>, "rjohnson @pickering.ca"<rjohnson @pickering.ca>, "jane.philpott@parl.gc.ca" <jane.philpott @parl.gc.ca>, "rob.hargrave @townofws.ca" <rob.hargrave @townofws.ca>, ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1%of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area.To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97% of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 427m from the proposed tower. By comparison;here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site (W0076-48m tall): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line(C5295-40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line(C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note, the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence. This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): • ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic@canada.ca The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean hops://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&g=...search=query&msg=1539196b878ae4c2&dsgt=1&sim1=1539196b878ae4c2 Page 1 of 3 • Gmail-Opposition to cell phone tower SNC0006(5295 Durham Rd 30) EFO �f� 2016-03-19,9:15 PM Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 • Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:51 PM, wrote: I would like to express my opposition to the proposed cell phone tower at 5295 Durham Rd 30. I realize that cell phone towers are necessary but I am requesting that an alternate location be chosen for this structure. There is so much undeveloped land near the proposed site that would be further from densely populated subdivisions, as well as the children's camp, "Camp Treetop", located right behind the proposed tower location. At 31 meters in height and with a tripole design,this structure will "tower" over the subdivision and the pond at Mantle Avenue and York-Durham Line, which is an attraction to so many residents who bike, jog, and walk dogs around the path. There are a great deal of studies which have concluded that it can be hazardous to reside in close proximity to cell phone towers in the long-term. Research also suggests that children are more susceptible to health hazards caused by radiation due to their thinner skulls and developing nervous systems. Because of this uncertainty and the fact that there is an overall lack of long-term studies which prove that long-term exposure to radiation from cell phone towers is safe, every possible effort should be made to build such towers, particularly structures as large as the proposed structure, as far away from residential neighborhoods and vulnerable members of the community as possible. Aside from the potential health hazards, the location selected will likely lower the property value of many of the homes in close proximity. I am extremely disappointed that "Shared Network" did not have a public meeting regarding the tower, and that the map on the notice which was sent to residents within 500 meters of the l proposed tower was unacceptably outdated, as it was conveniently missing the large portion of the subdivision located below Hoover Park. This gives the illusion that the tower will be further away from the residential area than it actually is. This is misleading. Please consider an alternate location for this cell phone tower. Sincerely, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&q=...search=query&msg=1539196b878ae4c2&dsgt=l&sim1=1539196b878ae4c2 Page 2 of 3 REPOT# PL N \3-1 lc Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 2016-03-21,8:59 PM • I I Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn<a>gmail.com> Reference: SNCO0006 Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com>: Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:58 PM To: Cc: "Barnett, -lyler" <tbarnett @pickering.ca>, ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5%of Safety Code 6's limits..In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1% of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area. To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97% of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 590m from the proposed tower. By comparison, here are the distances to . residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site(W0076-48m tall): 34m • Rogers's tower on 10th line(C5295-40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane(OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note,the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence. This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: - http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.is @canada.ca • The email address in the notification package will still work and get https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1539bd4c7dbcd967&dsgt=1&sim1=1539bd4c7dbcd967 Page 1 of 3 ATTAC M o#. . -5 TO REVORi, PLN ;-1 cc) Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 2016-03-21,8:59 PM to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean • Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street • Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416) 732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager • Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 . As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:46 PM, wrote: > Dear Member of Government, > I am writing to oppose the proposed cell tower to be located at 5295 Durham > Rd 30.The tower is within close proximity to our neighbourhood (pretty much >beside my house)and poses potential health hazards and decrease in property >value.This information was not disclosed at the time my wife and I built >our new home here in Stouffville and it appears this plan has been in action >for some time. >The map of the proposed site doesn't include our home or subdivision,which >makes me believe members of government are unaware of the close proximity of >this tower to our homes. • >We are asking that you select an alternate location within significant set >back from existing homes that is less aesthetically prominent. There is tons >of vacant land and farm land south of the proposed location,which would >impact no one. > • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1539bd4c7dbcd967&dsgt=1&sim1=1539bd4c7dbcd967 Page 2 of 3 • ATT a s p_ _TO VoEPOr B t.2 PLN \3 Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 2016-03-21,8:59 PM > Please get this tower moved. > >Thank you, >Stouffville, ON • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1539bd4c7dbcd967&dsgt=l&sim1=1539bd4c7dbcd967 Page 3 of 3 ATTIkCICACN d#5TO Gmail-no Cell Tower in Stouffville REPORT?' 91- \3-' 2016-03-20,9:48 PM • I bid a I Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @grnaii.conn> byC;cx,�(r no Cell Tower in Stouffville Sean Galbraith <saalbraithcnnfmail.com> Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 9:48 PM To: Cc: "Barnett, Tyler"<tbarnett @pickering.ca> Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5%of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1%of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area.To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97% of Safety Code 6 limits. • The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 427m from the proposed tower. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: • Bell's water tower site(W0076-48m tall): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line(C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note, the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence. This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadia ns.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.ph p While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards • should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca The email address in the notification package will still work and get https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15396db9d5e2bae3&dsgt=1&sim1=15396db9d5e2bae3 Page 1 of 2 ATT CEIENiTrt _ _ . TO Gmail-no Cell Tower in Stouffville • 2016-03-20,9:48 PM • to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean Sean Galbraith MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 • 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416) 732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: • 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 8:18 AM, wrote: > Hi, • >This is I am a resident of stouffville near the address 5295 Durham > Rd 30. > > I am opposed to the proposed cell tower to be located at 5295 Durham Rd 30. >The tower is within close proximity to our neighbourhood and poses potential > health hazards and decrease in property value.We are asking that you select >an alternate location within significant set back from existing homes that >is less esthetically prominent. >Thanks > > Regards, • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15396db9dse2bae3&dsgt=1&sim1=15396db9d5e2bae3 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO • REPORT ,# PLC 13-\fin Gmail-Proposed Cell Tower to be constructed at 5295 Durham Road 30,City of Pickering-Reference:SNC00006 2016-03-21,4:07 PM G ii Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn gmail.cem> M,(;ooglc Proposed Cell Tower to be constructed at 5295 Durham Road 30, City of Pickering - Reference: SNC00006 Sean Galbraith <saalbraithsnnnmail rnm> Mon, Mar 21,2016 at 4:07 PM • To: ' Cc: "Barnett, Tyler" <tbarnett@pickering.ca>, spectrum.cwod @ic.gc.ca, mayor @pickering.ca, jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca, "Pickles, David, Councillor" <dpickles @pickering.ca>, rjohnson @pickering.ca, jane.philpott @parl.gc.ca, rob.hargrave @townofws.ca,justin.altmann @townofws.ca, ic.spectrumtoronto- spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca Hi • Within 1 block of where I live I have 5 antenna sites(1 tower, and 4 rooftop installations), so I'd be quite comfortable living over 650m from the proposed tower. • For me, and for many people, having consistent and reliable wireless services is an important consideration in selecting real estate. If • given the choice between living in an area with poor wireless services due to a lack of antenna infrastructure, or living in an area with excellent wireless service (and I note that you will unlikely be able to even see the tower from your house due to the large mature trees close to your house), I would pick the latter every time (I wouldn't even consider the former as I haven't had a land line phone in many years). All the best, • Sean • Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager • Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 . Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 9:56 PM, wrote: > If you had the option to buy a home such as mine with 2 acres with a cell phone tower next door to it, or the exact same house without a cell phone tower beside it,which house would you choose? Most likely the home without the https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1539aca273cd6443&dsgt=1&sim1=1539aca273cd6443 Page 1 of 3 AT Tra k��i 'i tf_ 5 i'u irlEPOR 6 PLN 13—1co Gmail-Proposed Cell Tower to be constructed at 5295 Durham Road 30,City of Pickering-Reference:SNC00006 2016-03-21,4:07 PM tower beside it. This is exactly what was told to us by a municipal tax assessor this week.Therefore, not even taking into consideration the health implications (which we feel are true), the fact that our home's resale value has changed to a lower value is quite obvious. > > Sent from my iPhone >>On Mar 20,2016, at 9:46 PM, Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com>wrote: >> Hello >>As mentioned when we spoke on the phone last week, your house is >>approximately 670m from the proposed tower.The tower is unlikely to >>be visible from your property because of the significant distance, and >>the large trees in proximity to your house. Also as discussed last >>week, public notification is set out in Pickering's telecommunication >>tower protocol, which requires notification to properties within 500m >>of the proposed tower(which would not include your property as it is >>too far away).We also placed 2 newspaper ads in local papers. >>There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless >>technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted >> Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, >>commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is >> mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum >> licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation >>emit levels of less than 5%of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, >> it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1%of SC6 limits >> in the Stouffville residential area.To compare, a typical home wife >> router is around 0.97%of Safety Code 6 limits. >>The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in >> Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 427m from >>the proposed tower. By comparison, here are the distances to >>residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: >> Bell's water tower site (W0076-48m tall): 34m >> Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m >> Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m >>Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane(OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) >>As you note,the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of >>the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the >>distance to a residence. This is a significant distance and does not >> pose a valid health concern based on established science. >> For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please >>visit the following Health Canada sites: >> http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation >> http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-rnaison/cell-eng.php >>While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards >>should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection »of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of >>municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1539aca273cd6443&dsgt=1&sim1=1539aca273cd6443 Page 2 of 3 • ATIACHMENT# TO FILIPONT# 9L1`1 t%—∎co Gmail-Proposed Cell Tower to be constructed at 5295 Durham Road 30,City of Pickering-Reference:SNC00006 2016-03-21,4:07 PM >>directed to Health Canada directly. • >>Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has • >>changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): >> ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca >>The email address in the notification package will still work and get >>to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to >>make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. >>All the best, >> Sean »-- >> Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP >> Municipal Affairs Manager >>Shared Networks » PO Box 69010 >> 1421 Yonge Street >>Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 >> Cell: (416)732-5069 >> Fax: (416)981-7248 • >>As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: >>275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 >>Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 >> On Sat. Mar 19. 2016 at 11:55 PM, _ • » wrote: • »> »> »>We are residents who have resided for 35 years at 45 Uxbridge-Pickering Town >>> Line in the City of Pickering—and our home is right next door to the >>>subject property on which a cell phone tower is proposed to be constructed. »> »> »> >>>We are appalled with regard to the manner in which we casually came across >>>the Tower construction—which was through a random facebook site about >>>community matters in Stouffville- and we are opposed to the proposed cell >>>tower to be located at 5295 Durham Rd 30.The tower is within close >>> proximity to our own home, an environmental children's camp and a >>> Stouffville neighbourhood and poses potential health hazards and a decrease >>> in property value.We are asking that you select an alternate location >>>within significant set back from existing homes that is less esthetically • »> prominent. »> »> • »> »> • • https://mail.goggle.com/mail/u/1/?ui=,2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1539aca273cd6443&dsgt=1&sim1=1539aca273cd6443 Page 3 of 3 A T Cz' cC ENT# 5 I U Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 9LAA 2016-03-20,9:50 PM M 4:11 • I i Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.corn> byt'.s x)8lr • Reference: SNC000O6 Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 9:50 PM To: Cc: "tbarnettgpickering.ca• <tnarnern plckering.ca>, "spectrum.cwod @ic.gc.ca" <spectrum.cwod @ic.gc.ca>, "mayor @pickering.ca" <mayor @pickering.ca>, "jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca" <jennifer.oconnell @ parl.gc.ca>, "dpickles @pickering.ca" <dpickles @pickering.ca>, "rjohnson @pickering.ca" <rjohnson @pickering.ca>, "jane.philpott @parl.gc.ca" <jane.philpott @parl.gc.ca>, "rob.hargrave @townofws.ca" <rob.hargrave @townofws.ca>, "justin.altmann @townofws.ca" <justin.altmann @ townofws.ca>, ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca Hello regarding There Is a lot of confusion and mis information wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is • mandatory at all times and.is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1%of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area. To compare, a typical home wifi • router is around 0.97%of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in, Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 427m from the proposed tower. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site (W0076-48m tall): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note,the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence.This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. • For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards • should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15396ddd1decb307&dsgt=1&sim1=15396ddd1decb307 Page 1 of 2 ATTig, "t a 9`Ei# �TO REEPORTO" PLN �3 1 Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 2016-03-20,9:50 PM ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean -- Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street - Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 ' As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 7:04 PM, vrote: > Hello, > I am opposed to the proposed cell tower to be located at 5295 Durham Rd 30. >The tower is within close proximity to our neighborhood and poses potential >health hazards and decrease in property value. We are asking that you select • >an alternate location within significant set back from existing homes that > is less esthetically prominent. > Best regards, • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15396ddd1decb307&dsgt=1&sim1=15396ddd1decb307 Page 2 of 2 ATTAMENTOTO REPORT 2016-03-23,11:16 PM Gmail-Cell tower G _ * Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @ganail,com> • • I Cell tower Sean Galbraith <saalbraithsnagmail.com> Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:16 PM To: Cc: "tbarnett @pickering.ca"<tbarnett @pickering.ca>, "mayor @pickering.ca" <mayor @pickering.ca>, "jennifer.oconnell@parl.gc.ca" <jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca>, "dpickles @pickering.ca" <dpickles @pickering.ca>, "rjohnson @pickering.ca" <rjohnson @pickering.ca>, "jane.philpott@parl.gc.ca" <jane.philpott @parl.gc.ca>, ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's uidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, 9 P 9Y, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1% of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area. To compare, a typical home wife router is around 0.97%of Safety Code 6 limits. • The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site (W0076-48m tall): 34m • Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note, the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence.This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): • ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153a69f968724113&dsgt=1&sim1=153a69f968724113 Page 1 of 2 A6IMMENT# . S . TO REPORT PLN \c Gmail-Cell tower 2016-03-23,11:16 PM ' The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 • 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416) 732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:10 AM, wrote: > Reference: SNC00006 > I am opposed to the proposed cell tower to be located at 5295 Durham Rd 30. >The tower is within close proximity to our neighbourhood and poses potential . > health hazards and decrease in property value.We are asking that you select >an alternate location within significant set back from existing homes that >is less aesthetically prominent. > Best Regards, • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153a69f968724113&dsgt=1&sim1=153a69f968724113 Page 2 of 2 • • • Gmail-Cell Phone Tower f8EPQW 2016-03-14,8:56 AM • Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> t,(;00;;Ik• Cell Phone Tower Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:55 AM To: • Cc: "tbarnett @pickering.ca"<tbarnett(jpickering.ca> Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines forsafe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1% of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area.p a To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97% of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site(W0076): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line C5295 : 170m 9 ( ) Rogers's tower on 9th line(C2331): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane(OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note,the propose tower site is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence. • For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation • http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health,such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. . Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.is @canada.ca The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person;but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP • Municipal Affairs Manager https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=drafts&msg=1537532605210cb6&dsgt=1&sim1=1537532605210cb6 Page 1 of 2 • A 'CUMEN T L. TO Ft OM sr PLt \3-1c4) Gmail-Cell Phone Tower 2016-03-14,8:56 AM • Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4T 1K0 Cell: (416) 732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:15 AM, wrote: Hello, I would like to voice my concerns regarding a proposal for a cell phone tower in Stouffville (10th Line and Hoover Park). There are so many young children/families in the area, I do not believe these should be situated so close to our community. I urge you to please find another location for this tower—as far away from families and communities. Don't get me wrong I understand the need for them, I just think there are better places—and would rather have a healthier community. We need to protect ourselves as much as we can from the effects of technology on our health. There are studies which link the possible effects—this should outweigh the need for a stronger cell phone signal. Please find another location which far away from our community. I am sure you would agree that you would not want your children living this close to a-tower either. • Thank you • • • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=drafts&msg=1537532605210cb6&dsgt=l&sim1=1537532605210cb6 Page 2 of 2 • ATTAM ENT 11) Gmail-(no subject) 2016-03-19,9:17 PM • G aii • Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> • M c<<x* • (no subject) Sean Galbraith <saalbraithsn @gmail.com> • Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:17 PM To: Cc: "tbarnett @pickering.ca"<tbarnett @pickering.ca>, "mayor @pickering.ca" <mayor @pickering.ca>, ic.spectrumtoronto- spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca • Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding.wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. • Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1%of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area.To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97%of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 427m from the proposed tower. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower.site (W0076-48m tall): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane(OTR0370):Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note,the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence. This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: • http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a ro p posed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.i c @canada.ca • The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean • Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15391.9904aaee22f&dsgt=1&sim1=153919904aaee22f Page 1 of 4 A`ri TAB' MEAT#_ - TO Gmail-(no subject) REPORT ti 2016-03-19,9:17 PM Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks • PO Box 69010 • 1421 Yon • Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 • 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1,.2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:55 PM, . wrote: • jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca" <jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca>, "dpickles@pickering.ca" <dpickles @pickering.ca>, • "rjohnson @pickering.ca" <rjohnson @pickering.ca>, "jane.philpott@parl.gc.ca" • <jane.philpott@parl.gc.ca>, "rob.hargrave @townofws.ca" <rob.hargrave @townofws.ca>, • "justin.altmann @townofws.ca <justin.altmann @townofws.ca> From: Subject: cell tower near Stouffville boarder Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:55:16-0500 Importance: normal X-Priority: 3 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_9C0C3FE8-582D-4547-B429-1857163F7BD3_" --_9C0C3FE8-582D-4547-B429-1857163F7BD3_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable • Content-Type:text/plain; charset="utf-8" • Reference: SNC00006 • I am=C2=A0opposed to the proposed cell tower to be located at 5295 Durham R= d 30. The tower is within close proximity to our neighbourhood and my house= these can poses potential health hazards and decrease in property value.= C2=A0We are asking that you select an alternate location=C2=A0within signi= ficant set back from existing homes=C2=A0that is less esthetically prominen= t. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Sincerely, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153919904aaee22f&dsgt=1&sim1=153919904aaee22f Page 2 of 4 ATTAc ETO i0 • 3EPON N PLN 13-1 Gmail-(no subject) 2016-03-19,9:17 PM --_9C0C3 F E8-582 D-4547-8429-1857163 F7 B D3_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type:text/html; charset="utf-8" <html xmins:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"xmins:w=3D"urn:sc= hemas-microsoft-com:office:word"xmins:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/of= fice/2004/12/omml"xmins=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta ht= tp-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><meta name= =3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 15(filtered medium)"><style><!-- /* Font Definitions*/ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:21552224324;} @font-face {font-family:"Segoe UI"; panose-1:2 11 52424223;} /*Style Definitions*/ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:Ocm; margin-bottom:.0001 pt; • font-size:11.Opt; - font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only;} @page WordSectionl {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; . margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;} div.WordSectionl {page:WordSection l;} --></style></head><body Zang=3DEN-CA><div class=3DWordSectionl><p class=3DM= soNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'background:whit= e'><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segue UI",sans-serif;color:= black'>Reference: SNC00006<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal style= =3D'background:white'><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI= ",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal = style=3D'background:white'><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Seg= oe Ul",'sans-serif;color:black'>i am&nbsp;opposed to the proposed cell tower= to be located at 5295 Durham Rd 30.The tower is within close proximity to= our neighbourhood and my house these can poses potential health hazards an= d decrease in property value.&nbsp;We are asking that you select an alterna= to location&nbsp;within significant set back from existing homes&nbsp;that= is less esthetically prominent. &nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class= =3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p= ><p class=3DMsoNormal>Sincerely,</p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><= - /p><p class=3DMsoNormal>The Milne Family</p><p class=3DMsoNormal>6 Greenbur= y Crt</p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Stouffville, Ont</p><p class=3DMsoNormal>L4A= hops://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153919904aaee22f&dsgt=1&sim1=153919904aaee22f Page 3 of 4 1 • ATTACKENTOTO REPORI V Gmail-(no subject) 2016-03-19,9:17 PM 0S1</p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span= style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif><o:,p>&nbsp;= </o:p></span></p></d iv></body></html>= -- 9C0C3FE8-582D-4547-B429-1857163F7BD3 -- • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153919904aaee22f&ds t=1&sim1=153919904aaee22f Page 4 of 4 4 9 Gmail-Cell Tower Opposition EPOR@ ft 91—'N 13—kcc' 2016-03-08,11:50 AM • maidSean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.conn> kj(,x Hjli Cell Tower Opposition • Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:49 AM To: • Hi • • In the information provided,there are contacts for the levels of government who have approval authority for the proposed site that you can contact. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site(W0076): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Urn (it is on top of a residence) As you note,the propose tower site is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence. All the best, Sean • Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP • Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks • PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4T 1K0 Cell: (416) 732-5069 Fax: (416) 981-7248 On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:43 AM, wrote: Thanks Sean, i have received the hard copies already of the two files you attached. Im looking for actionable items where we can oppose the.construction. I am a local resident and have small children and I dont want this cell tower erected. Who do i turn to?: • On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com>wrote: Hello, As requested, here is some additional information about the proposed tower. If you have any questions, please let me know. . • All the best, • Sean https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15357227aa12f232&dsgt=l&sim1=15357227aa12f232 Page 1 of 2 • A6 r\Cz 'td NT#_�TO KNOW Gmail-Cell Tower Opposition 2016-03-08,11:50 AM . Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4T 1K0 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Nrote: • Hey Shawn, I was given your contact from my neighbor and would like some more information on how to stop the cell phone tower proposal to be located off of York/Durham line and Mantle Ave. I'm also looking for a website that outlines this proposal.and or page to sign an online patition. Any info provided will be most appreciated. • Best regards, • • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15357227aa12f232&dsgt=1&sim1=15357227aa12f232 Page 2 of 2 Gmail-Wireless tripole tower 5295 Durham Road 30 Pickering EMI 't3"∎(4, 2016-03-08,10:35 AM IILaiSean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn(c grnail,coin> Wireless tripole tower 5295 Durham Road 30 Pickering Sean Galbraith <saalbraithsn@gmail.com> Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:25 AM To: Cc: rob.hargrave @townofws.ca, "Barnett,Tyler"<tbarnett @pickering.ca> Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1% of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area. To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97%of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site (W0076): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line(C2331): 139m • Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note, the propose tower site is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation • http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best • directed to Health Canada directly. • All the best, Sean Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4T 1K0 Cell: (416) 732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15356d4e30ccce6c&dsgt=1&sim1=15356d4e30ccceec Page 1 of 2 • • • A TTAS '£'tea MT a# _i f) EPO T ti. Gmail-Wireless tripole tower 5295 Durham Road 30 Pickering 2016-03-08,10:35 AM On Mon, Mar 7,2016 at 9:07 PM, wrote: Hello Mr. Galbraith, The tripole tower intended to be installed at 5295 Durham Road location is very close to the large residential area of homes in the vicinity. In 2011, International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization, classified wireless radiation as Group 2B—possibly carcinogenic. risk"p p y gen c.That means that there "could be some risk of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of wireless devices needs to be conducted.[5] (Quote from WHO) This tower is not healthy for the community at large and should be located further away from any residential homes Please reconsider the location of the tower. . • Regards, Ward 6 • • • • • • • • • • • https://mail.google.cam/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15356d4e30ccce6c&dsgt=1&sim1=15356d4e30ccce6c Page 2 of 2 • • AIRCAIENTILTO REPO 9 t2 f C4-1\1 \3 b Gmail-SNC0006-Information -- 2016-03-21,3:48 PM 9 , Gm ! ! Sean Galbraith <sgaibraithsn @gmail.com> SNCO006 - Information Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:46 PM To: Cc: "Barnett, Tyler" <tbarnett(a�plcKeting.ca> Hi It was great to speak with you about the proposed tower. Here's some additional information as promised. . If you have any questions, please drop me a note or give me a call anytime. All the best, . • Sean Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager • Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: , 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 4 attachments • k.% SNC0006-Aerial.png ' 4 1649K • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=sent&msg=1539ab701917fbab&sim1=1539ab701917fbab Page 1 of 2 • Gmail-SNC0006-Information 2016-03-21,3:48 PM SNC0006-Nearest_Residence.png 1706K • 4. • I SNC0006_v3.PDF 272K SCN0006 Landowner Information Package.pdf 609K • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=sent&msg=1539ab701917fbab&sim1=1539ab701917fbab Page 2 of 2 MAMA:Afro .5 TO REIM PL \3-11/4a Gmail-Proposed Cell Tower at 5295 Durham Road 30,Pickering(SNC File#SNC0006) 2016-03-21,9:01 PM iiSean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> b•,(;closte Proposed Cell Tower at 5295 Durham Road 30, Pickering (SNC File # SNC0006) Sean Galbraith <saalbraithsn( gmail.com> Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:00 PM To: Cc: "Barnett,Tyler" <tbarnett@pickering.ca>,jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca, "Pickles, David, Councillor" <dpickles @pickering.ca>, rjohnson @pickering.ca,jane.philpott @parl.gc.ca, rob.hargrave @townofws.ca, justin.altmann @townofws.ca, ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance With these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's,limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1% of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area. To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97%of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site (W0076-48m tall): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m . . Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om(it is on top of a residence) As you note,the proposed tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence.This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation • http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): ic.spectru mtoronto-spectretoronto.is @canada.ca https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1539bd680e532e98&dsgt=1&sim1=1539bd680e532e98 Page 1 of 2 ATTACH-WNW _. - TO Gmail-Proposed Cell Tower at 5295 Durham Road 30,Pickering(SNC File#SNC0006) 2016-03-21,9:01 PM The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean • Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager • Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416) 732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: • 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 . Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 Sean Galbraith;MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 • As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 • Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 • On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:11 AM, wrote: >We are writing to oppose the proposed cell tower to be located at 5295 Durham Road 30, Pickering. The tower is within close proximity of dense neighbourhoods and where a school is going to be built, posing potential health hazards and decreasing property values. >We ask that you select an alternate location within a significant set back from existing homes and neighbourhoods. > Sincerely, • • • • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1539bd680e532e98&dsgt=1&sim1=1539bd680e532e98 Page 2 of 2 • ATIAMENT# 11) Foo v PLN 13-1Q, .Gmail-Telecommunication Tower on Durham Road 30(SNC0006) 2016-03-22,7:58 PM • Sean Galbraith <sgaibraithsn.@gnaii.cam> bf( Telecommunication Tower on Durham Road 30 (SNC0006) Sean Galbraith <saalbraithsn( nmail.com> Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:58 PM To: . Cc: "Barnett, Tyler" <tbarnett@pickering.ca> Hi There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses.'Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1% of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area.To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97%of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site (W0076-48m tall): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295.40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note,the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 1 Ox the distance to a residence. This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: V http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to hops://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=drafts&msg=153a0c3b4cca52c9&dsgt=1&sim1=153a0c3b4cca52c9 • Page 1 of 3 ATTIkCET# PTO REPONN-1 PAN \3-ica Gmail-Telecommunication Tower on Durham Road 30(SNC0006) 2016-03-22,7:58 PM make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. To your numbered questions: 1)Unfortunately, we are significantly limited in where we can move the tower.While it seems like there should be a lot of flexibility because its a big farm,we are constricted in our options by the Pickering Airport Zoning restrictions in place. This also prevents us from building a taller tower(which we would need to do if it moved • farther away).This distance is already a significant compromise from where we need to be (which is as close as possible to the residential • area). 2)The tower design is less visually intrusive than a monopole design, in my experience. Monopoles, being a solid wide mass, have more of a "visual weight"against the sky than does an open lattice style design, which allows for views through the tower. On grey days especially,their prominence visually is greatly diminished. 3)Can you provide your address on Greenbury? I'll need this to try and answer this one, please. All the best, Sean • • Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 • 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 • On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:16 PM, wrote: > Good afternoon, > > > I am a Stouffville resident that lives on Greenbury Court,which is within >very close proximity to the proposed telecommunication tower on Durham Road > 30(SNC0006).The proposed tower will be within direct eyesight of my home >and I am concerned about the health impacts,the unsightly appearance, and >the negative impact on my home value,that will come as a result of this >tower being built. > I am requesting the following: • > https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=drafts&msg=153a0c3b4cca52c9&dsgt=1&sim1=153a0c3b4cca52c9 Page 2 of 3 • • - - 3I PLr► `3-lam. Gmail-Telecommunication Tower on Durham Road 30(SNC0006) 2016-03-22,7:58 PM • > 1. Please consider moving the proposed tower further from the subdivision in >the south east quadrant of Stouffville. Hundreds of Stouffville residents . >are being affected by this tower. Even if the tower can be moved 600-700 >feet to the east(beyond the tree line)it would be an improvement, both >visually and in terms of health impacts. >2.The proposed tower is extremely unsightly in appearance. If the tower >must proceed, I would like to see alternate design options (I.e.A monopole >type design).The proposed tri-pole design is unsightly and unacceptable. > • > 3. Please provide me with a schematic view of what the tower will look like >from my vantage point on Greenbury Court. The information provided on the >flyer illustrates an extremely outdated Map (my street is not even outlined >on it). I would like a better understanding of what the tower will look like >from my vantage point. > Please put yourself in the position of the neighbouring home owners.While I >understand the need for the tower,there must be a compromise in terms of > its location. > • > Regards, > Stouffville resident > > • • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=drafts&msg=153a0c3b4cca52c9&dsgt=1&sim1=153a0c3b4cca52c9 Page 3 of 3 REPORTO Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 2016-03-20,9:41 PM giii Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmaii.corn> t:,(;00plc Reference: SNC00006 • Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 9:40 PM To: Cc: "Barnett, Tyler" <tbarnett@pickering.ca>, spectrum.cwod @ic.gc.ca, mayor @pickering.ca, jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca, "Pickles, David, Councillor"<dpickles @pickering.ca>, rjohnson @pickering.ca, jane.philpott@parl.gc.ca, rob.hargrave @townofws.ca,justin.altmann @townofws.ca, ic.spectrumtoronto- spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed, telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5%of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1%of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area.To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97%of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 427m from the proposed tower. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site(W0076-48m tall): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note, the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence. This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has • changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15396d4fd99be120&dsgt=1&sim1=15396d4fd99be120 Page 1 of 2 REPONN3 PLP X3-1 Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 2016-03-20,9:41 PM ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca The email address in the notification package will still work and get. to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager • Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 • Cell: (416) 732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 • Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 • On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:17 AM, • > wrote: > Reference: SNC00006 > I am opposed to the proposed cell tower to be located at 5295 Durham Rd 30. >The tower is within close proximity to our neighbourhood and poses potential > health hazards and decrease in property value.We are asking that you select >an alternate location within significant set back from existing homes that >is less esthetically prominent. > >Thank you. • • • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15396d4fd99be120&dsgt=1&sim1=15396d4fd99be120 Page 2 of 2 FIEPO TP PL'' ►3-1� Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 2016-03-19,9:25 PM Ghod- 1 Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Reference: SNC00O06 Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:25 PM To: Cc: "Barnett, Tyler" <tbarnett(cp,plcKermg.ca>, spectrum.cwod @ic.gc.ca, mayor @pickering.ca, jennifer.oconnell @parl.gc.ca, "Pickles, David, Councillor"<dpickles @pickering.ca>, rjohnson @pickering.ca, jane.philpott@parl.gc.ca, rob.hargrave @townofws.ca,justin.altmann @townofws.ca, ic.spectrumtoronto- spectretoronto.ic@canada.ca Hello There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will'far less than 1%of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area.To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97%of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 427m from the proposed tower. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: • Bell's water tower site(W0076-48m tall): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note, the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence. This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15391a02f622d9a3&dsgt=1&sim1=15391a02f622d9a3 Page 1 of 2 Gmail-Reference:SNC00006 VIEPO �W (� 13-�� 2016-03-19,9:25 PM Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell: (416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 • As of April 1, 2016 our new address will be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Nrote: I am very much opposed to the proposed cell tower to be located at 5295 Durham Rd 30. The tower is within close proximity to our neighbourhood and poses potential health hazards and decrease in property value. We are asking that you • select an alternate location within significant set back from existing homes that is less esthetically prominent and most importantly not a health hazard or impacting my property value. • Regards, Stouffville,ON • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15391a02f622d9a3&dsgt=l&sim1=15391a02f622d9a3 Page 2 of 2 f EPONft2 • PLO \S-\k° Gmail-No Stouffville Cell Tower 2016-03-19,9:23 PM • ail . • • Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @ginail.corn> No Stouffville Cell Tower Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:22 PM To: Cc: "Barnett, lyier <taarnettgpickering.ca> Hello here is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding•wireless technology and health in the public. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory at all times and is a condition of carriers'spectrum licenses. Commonly, proposed telecommunication antenna installation emit levels of less than 5% of Safety Code 6's limits. In this case, it is anticipated that this tower will far less than 1%of SC6 limits in the Stouffville residential area.To compare, a typical home wifi router is around 0.97% of Safety Code 6 limits. The proposed tower is located around 347m from the nearest house in Stouffville, on Mantle Avenue.Your house is approximately 427m from the proposed tower. By comparison, here are the distances to residences for some of the existing antenna sites in Stouffville: Bell's water tower site (W0076-48m tall): 34m Rogers's tower on 10th line (C5295-40m tall): 170m Rogers's tower on 9th line (C2331 - 131m tall): 139m Wind's rooftop antenna on Freel Lane (OTR0370): Om (it is on top of a residence) As you note, the propose tower site is shorter in height than all of the existing Stouffville towers, and is between 2.5x and over 10x the distance to a residence. This is a significant distance and does not pose a valid health concern based on established science. For more information on Safety Code 6 and cellular technology, please visit the following Health Canada sites: • http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/consumer-consommation/home-maison/cell-eng.php While I appreciate that many believe that the federal health standards should be changed and that they are not appropriate for the protection of public health, such considerations are outside of the scope of municipal review for a proposed antenna installation and would be best directed to Health Canada directly. Also, please be advised that the email address for Industry Canada has changed (since they are no longer called Industry Canada): ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic @canada.ca - The email address in the notification package will still work and get to the right person, but this would be more direct and I wanted to make sure you had it, should you wish to provide comment to them. All the best, Sean . Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager hops://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153919e1f7c4b32e&dsgt=l&sim1=153919e1f7c4b32e Page 1 of 2 A BI Cr:.'AG1J'4 tl O 1 V Gmail-No Stouffville Cell Tower �L 3_ � �ae�'�Ja@ t� \ 1 2016-03-19,9:23 PM Shared Networks PO Box 69010 1421 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 Cell:(416)732-5069 Fax: (416)981-7248 As of April 1,2016 our new address will.be: 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 2M3 On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:51 PM, wrote: Reference: SNC00006 I am opposed to the proposed cell tower to be located at 5295 Durham Rd 30.The tower is within close proximity to our neighbourhood and poses potential health hazards and decrease in property value.We are asking that you select an alternate location within significant set back from existing homes that is less esthetically prominent. Regards, • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=153919e1f7c4b32e&dsgt=1&sim1=153919e1f7c4b32e Page 2 of 2 REPO NN .PL-1`1 \3-\� Gmail-SNC0006-Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower-Revised Location 2016-05-11,12:40 PM Gmail Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn(a?gmaii.corri> • SNC0006 - Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower - Revised Location • Wed,Apr 13, 2016 at 10:39 AM To: Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> Thanks! > From: sgalbraithsn @gmail.com > Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:24:56-0400 >Subject: Re: SNC0006-Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower- Revised Location >To: > Hi > It is around 325ish metres south of the original site. (see attached) > >Sean >-- I >Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP > Municipal Affairs Manager >Shared Network Canada >275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 >Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 > Cell: (416) 732-5069 > Fax: (416)981-7248 • > > On Wed,Apr 13, 2016 at 9:39 AM, wrote: > > Thanks Sean.This is good news. How many metres further south is the new location from the old location?That wasn't quite clear. >> Sent from my iPhone >>> On Apr 13,2016, at 9:10 AM, Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com>wrote: >>> >» Hello, >>> > >> In addendum to my previous email to you explaining the change in tower > >> location and height, I should have noted that the new location of the > >>tower sits 5.9 metres lower than the originally proposed location. So • >>>while the proposed tower is taller than originally proposed,the top > >>of the tower is at the same elevation as the original proposal. It is > >>still limited by the airport zoning restrictions in place. >>> >>> If you have any questions, please contact me any time. • >>> >»All the best, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&q=...&search=query&msg=15410100698d163f&dsgt=1&sim1=15410100698d163f Page 1 of 2 F3TI(tVPLN Gmail-SNC0006-Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower-Revised Location 2016-05-11,12:40 PM >>>Sean >>> >>>-- > >> Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP >>> Municipal Affairs Manager >>> >>> >>> • >>>>On Tue,Apr 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com>wrote: • >>>> Hello, >»> > >>>You recently contacted us expressing concern about a new proposed > >>>telecommunication tower in Pickering by Shared Network Canada.We have > >>> listened to all of your comments and have determined that we will be > >>>able to locate the proposed tower farther south on the property, as >>>>shown on the attached aerial photograph. • > »> • > >>>This new location is approximately 600 metres from the nearest house > >>>on Greenbury Court, and 655 metres from the nearest house on Mantle > >>>Avenue. Because of this increased distance,the height of the tower >>>> needed to be increased to 36.9 metres tall (up from 31 metres), but > >>>this will be offset by the significant additional distance, and will >>>> be partially screened by the house and trees on the property. >»> >>>> If you have any questions about the revised location, you're welcome > >>>to email me anytime. > »> > »>All the best, > >>>Sean > »> >>»-- > >>> Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP > >>> Municipal Affairs Manager • > »> • > >>>Shared Network Canada > >>>275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 >>>>Toronto,ON M4V 1A4 >>>> Cell: (416) 732-5069 >>>> Fax: (416)981-7248 • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&q=...&search=query&msg=15410100698d163f&dsgt=1&sim1=15410100698d163f Page 2 of 2 1 REPORT erl Gmail-SNC0006-Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower-Revised Location 2016-05-11,12:41 PM Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> SNC0006 - Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower - Revised Location • Thu,Apr 14, 2016 at 12:58 AM To: Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> • Hi Sean, Thanks for sharing the new info. Have a good day. > On Apr 13, 2016, at 9:10 AM, Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com>wrote: • > Hello, > In addendum to my previous email to you explaining the change in tower > location and height, I should have noted that the new location of the >tower sits 5.9 metres lower than the originally proposed location. So >while the proposed tower is taller than originally proposed, the top > of the tower is at the same elevation as the original proposal. It is >still limited by the airport zoning restrictions in place. > If you have any questions, please contact me any time. >All the best, >Sean >-- > Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP • > Municipal Affairs Manager • >>On Tue,Apr 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com>wrote: >> Hello, >>You recently contacted us expressing concern about a new proposed >>telecommunication tower in Pickering by Shared Network Canada. We have >> listened to all of your comments and have determined that we will be >>able to locate the proposed tower farther south on the property, as >>shown on the attached aerial photograph. • >>This new location is approximately 600 metres from the nearest house >>on Greenbury Court, and 655 metres from the nearest house on Mantle >>Avenue. Because of this increased distance,the height of the tower >> needed to be increased to 36.9 metres tall (up from 31 metres), but >>this will be offset by the significant additional distance, and will • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&q=S...&search=query&msg=154108f759cf4c26&dsgt=1&sim1=154108f759cf4c26 Page 1 of 2 EFONI PAN �3-1� Gmail-SNC0006-Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower-Revised Location 2016-05-11,12:41 PM • >>be partially screened by the house and trees on the property. >> If you.have any questions about the revised location, you're welcome >>to email me anytime. • >>All the best, >> Sean »-- >> Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP >> Municipal Affairs Manager >> Shared Network Canada 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 >>Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 >> Cell: (416)732-5069 >> Fax: (416)981-7248 • • • • • • • • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&g.S...&search=query&msg=154108f759cf4c26&dsgt=1&sim1=154108f759cf4c26 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT O .�e.iU - ?EPOTO Ti PAN 31Le Gmail-SNC0006-Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower-Revised Location 2016-05-11,12:41 PM • ' tall Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @grrtail.com> • • SNCO006 - Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower - Revised Location Wed,Apr 13,2016 at 5:09 PM To:Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com> - Thank-you all very much for addressing our concerns so promptly. It is awesome to think we have politicians on our councils who answer questions and solve problems for residents quickly and effectively. Thank-you • On Wed,Apr 13, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com>wrote: Hello, In addendum to my previous email to you explaining the change in tower location and height, I should have noted that the new location of the tower sits 5.9 metres lower than the originally proposed location. So while the proposed tower is taller than originally proposed,the top of the tower is at the same elevation as the original proposal. It is still limited by the airport zoning restrictions in place. If you have any questions, please contact me any time. All the best, Sean Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP Municipal Affairs Manager • On Tue,Apr 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Sean Galbraith <sgalbraithsn @gmail.com>wrote: • > Hello, >You recently contacted us expressing concern about a new proposed >telecommunication tower in Pickering by Shared Network Canada.We have > listened to all of your comments and have determined that we will be >able to locate the proposed tower farther south on the property, as >shown on the attached aerial photograph. >This new location is approximately 600 metres from the nearest house >on Greenbury Court, and 655 metres from the nearest house on Mantle '>Avenue. Because of this increased distance, the height of the tower >needed to be increased to 36.9 metres tall (up from 31 metres), but >this will be offset by the significant additional distance, and will https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&q=S...&search=query&msg=1541174dbf1e987b&dsgt=1&sim1=1541174dbf1e987b Page 1 of 2 • Anil:mm-0-S,- tr 'P1-11 1 —1 Gmail-SNC0006-Proposed Shared Network Telecommunication Tower-Revised Location 2016-05-11,12:41 PM >be partially screened by the house and trees on the property. > If you have any questions about the revised location, you're welcome >to email me anytime. > >All the best, >Sean • > Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP > Municipal Affairs Manager >Shared Network Canada >275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 >Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 > Cell: (416) 732-5069 > Fax: (416) 981-7248 • • • • • • https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ui=2&ik=12d76163c1&view=pt&q=S...&search=query&msg=1541174dbf1e987b&dsgt=1&sim1=1541174dbf1e987b Page 2 of 2