Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
September 14, 2015
Ott/ 470 PICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, September 14, 2015 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson (I) Part 'A' Information Reports Pages Subject: Information Report No. 04-15 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 9/15 Kingsett Brookdale Centre Inc. Concession 1, Part lots 23 and 24, 40R-25448 Part 1,2, 4-37, 44-47 and Parts 3, 38 (1105 Kingston Road) City of Pickering Subject: Information Report No. 05-15 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 15-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/15 Duffin's Point Inc. Concession 3, Part Lot 19, 40R-2548, Part 1 and 40R-26764, Part 1 (2460 and 2470 Brock Road) 1-7 8-20 (II) Part 'B' Planning & Development Reports 1. Director, City Development, Report PLN 09-15 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Rogers Communications Inc. - 1822 Whites Road Part of Lot 29, Concession 1, Parts 2 to 7, 40R-9979 Installation #63 21-104 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 Irobertsapickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, September. 14, 2015 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson Recommendation That Rogers Communications Inc. be advised that City Council does not object to the 14.9 metre high telecommunication tower located at 1822 Whites Road, based on the design and other details submitted with the application. 2. Director, City Development, Report PLN 10-15 105-156 Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures Located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale Recommendation 1. That Council in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessments, object to the demolition of buildings located at 498 and 1050 Whitevale Road, and 1740 Fifth Concession Road; That Council also object to the demolition of the building located at 615 Whitevale Road but not object to the demolition of the outbuilding at this location; That Council not object to the demolition of buildings located at 3490 Brock Road, 1469 Taunton Road, 170 Highway 7, 2750 Whitevale Road and 2900 Brock Road; 4. That Council also not object to the demolition of the building located at 650 Whitevale Road and request's the Province install a commemorative plaque on the property at the proposed trail head location; 5. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to designate 498, 615 and 1050 Whitevale Road, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and that staff be authorized to prepare the appropriate materials and report back to Council at a future date; 6. That Council request staff to write the school boards to determine their interest in incorporating the building located at 3280 Sideline 16 into a future school board block, and if the school boards are not interested, that Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 3280 Sideline 16; City a PICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, September 14, 2015 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson 7 That Council express its strong concern with the Province for its disregard of significant heritage resources in Pickering through the lack of maintenance and occupancy of such resources, in contravention of the Provincial Policy Statement, and request the Province to restore and reuse these structures and manage them in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; 8. That Council request the Province to record, document and provide to the City in the form of photographs and/or measured drawings all buildings to be demolished, as well as make available exterior or interior heritage features for salvage to interested parties prior to any demolition; and 9. Further, that a copy of this Report and Council's Resolution be forwarded to: the Premier of Ontario; Infrastructure Ontario; and Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and the Whitevale and District Residents' Association. 3. Director, City Development, Report PLN 11-15 Federal Lands Revised Pickering Airport Site and Revised Airport Zoning Regulations 157-166 Recommendation 1. That Transport Canada be advised that the City of Pickering does not object to the Order that appeared in the Canada Gazette, Part 1, on July 18, 2015, proposing to declare a smaller Pickering Airport Site and the corresponding revised Airport Zoning Regulations; and 2. Further, that a copy of Report PLN 11-15 be forwarded to Transport Canada, the Region of Durham, the Region of York, the City of Markham, the Town of Whitby, the Town of Ajax, Township of Uxbridge, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, the Township of Scugog, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Other Business Adjournment Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 04-15 Date: September 14, 2015 From: Catherine Rose, MCiP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 9/15 Kingsett Brookdale Centre Inc. Concession 1, Part Lots 23 and 24, 40R-25448 Part 1, 2, 4-37, 44-47 and Paris 3, 38 (1105 Kingston Road) City of Pickering 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Kingsett Brookdale Centre Inc., to remove the floor area restriction for a food store use and to permit a seasonal outdoor garden centre accessory to a food store use. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. Planning & Development Committee will hear public -delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decisions on this application is being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2. Property Location and Description The subject property is a commercial site located on the south side of Kingston Road, east of Dixie Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The property is approximately 7.5 hectares in size, irregular in shape, and is currently tenanted by a mix of commercial/retail uses such as Horne Depot, Michaels, Shoppers Drug Mart, and a vacant building previously occupied by Future Shop. Surrounding land uses include: north across Kingston Road, a two-storey commercial building containing business and professional offices and personal service uses, as well as existing low density residential development primarily consisting of detached dwellings east automotive repair related business, a mixed use commercial plaza and open space lands associated with the Pine Creek south Highway 401 west commercial buildings containing offices, restaurant, and retail uses 1 Information Report No. 04-15 Page 2 3. Applicant's Proposal The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning by-law to facilitate the reuse of a vacant building formerly occupied by Future Shop (see Building B on Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachment #2). The specific amendments include removing the maximum floor area restriction for a food store use, and permitting a seasonal outdoor garden centre accessory to a food store use. The proposed seasonal outdoor garden centre is contemplated to be in operation between the months of May and August. The garden centre will be approximately 460 square metres in size and will occupy approximately 15 parking spaces, plus a portion of an aisleway, when in operation. At this time, no exterior changes to the building facade, or additions to the vacant commercial building are being proposed. Should this change, a Site Plan Application will be required. 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Pickering Official Plan The Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Use Corridors", which provides for the highest concentration and diversity of uses in the City, including residential, a range of retail uses, offices, restaurants and community, cultural and recreational uses. This designation permits a maximum floor space index of up to and including 2.5. The applicant's proposal complies with the policies of the Official Plan. 4.2 Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6778/07 The subject lands are currently zoned "MU -21" Mixed Use, which permits a broad range of office and commercial uses, such as but not limited to, business and professional office, convenience store, day nursery, discount department store, drug store, food store, home improvement centre, personal service shop, restaurant — Type A, and retail store. The by-law also permits a garden centre accessory to a home improvement centre. By-law 6778/07 restricts the maximum floor area for a food store use to 750 square metres. The intent of this provision was to permit a small scale food store. The applicant is seeking to is delete the maximum floor area provision for a food store use and to permit a seasonal outdoor garden centre accessory to a food store use. 5. Comments Received 5.1 Resident Comments No comments or concerns have been received in response to the circulation of the notice of public meeting. 2 Information Report No. 04-15 Page 3 5.2 Agency Comments Region of Durham • the subject lands are designated "Living Areas" in the Regional Official Plan with the "Regional Corridor" overlay • the "Living Areas" designation allows for Major Retail Uses subject to the inclusion of the appropriate provisions and designations in area municipalities • Corridors are to be planned and developed as mixed use areas, which include residential, commercial, and service uses with higher densities • the applicant's requested amendments are permitted by the Regional Official Plan 5.3 City Departments Comments Engineering & Public • no concerns or objections with the Zoning By-law Works Amendment application 6. Planning & Design Section Comments 6.1 Sufficient parking supply is available on-site to accommodate the additional uses The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Statement and Parking Assessment, prepared by BA Group, dated July 10, 2015, in support of the rezoning application. Based on a survey of the existing on-site parking supply, a total of 763 spaces are currently available to serve the site's parking requirements. Parking for the site is provided at a rate of 4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area (GLA) for all non-residential uses. Based on this parking ratio, when the vacant commercial building is occupied with the proposed food store, the site will require a total of 745 parking spaces and 766 parking spaces when the outdoor seasonal garden centre is in operation. Parking utilization surveys were undertaken by the consultant to understand the site's existing peak parking demand on Friday, June 12, 2015 between 12:00 pm to 6:00 pm and Saturday, June 13, 2015 between 11:00 am to 5:00 pm. The peak parking accumulation occurred on Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 12:00 pm with approximately 288 occupied parking spaces. The consultant concludes that the proposed parking supply will adequately serve the parking needs of the food store with a seasonal outdoor garden centre, and the rest of the commercial uses on the subject lands. The ultimate build -out of the subject lands, as illustrated on the Applicant's Submitted Plan, (see Attachment #2) includes the extension of Walnut Lane and a total parking supply of approximately 902 parking spaces, which exceeds the parking requirements in the current site specific zoning by-law. 3 Information Report No. 04=15 Page 4 The consultant also indicated that the introduction of the food store use and the optional outdoor seasonal garden centre can be accommodated by the existing road network without undue impact. City and Regional staff have reviewed this study and are satisfied that the proposed food store with a seasonal outdoor garden centre will not unduly impact the functionality of the site. 6.2 No further issues or concerns have been identified The application has been circulated to all internal departments and external agencies for their review. No significant issues or concerns have been identified . through the circulation of this application. Furthermore, the City Development Department has no significant concerns with respect to the Zoning By-law Amendment Application. 7. Information Received Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Planning Justification Report prepared by Hunter & Associates, and dated July 8, 2015 • Traffic Impact Statement and Parking Assessment prepared by BA Group, and dated July, 2015 • Survey, prepared by RPE Surveying Ltd., and dated November 14, 2012 • Conceptual Site Plan, prepared by K & K Architects, and dated June 24, 2015 8. Procedural Information 8.1 General • Written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • Oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting • All comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • Any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal • Any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 9. Owner/Applicant Information The owner of the property is Kingsett Brookdale Centre Inc. and is represented by Diana Mercier of Hunter & Associates Ltd. 4 Information Report No. 04-15 Page 5 Attachments • 1.. Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Plan Prepared By: Amy Emm, MCIP, RPP Planner 11 Nilesh Surti, MCIP', RPP.` - Manager, Development Review & Urban Design AE:Id Date of Report: August 26, 2015 Copy: Director, City Development Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Attachment #__L_to Infnrn tinct Qe0Ort# Or/ i RATHMORE i to to z CRESCENT Lu 0 LJ W U z 0 0 CO z 0 0 1111110114" 100 MEADOW ORES, ROAD 0 CU ROSS AVENUE 11111111111/11111 WNW nag COURTP MPS 4400fr 4 Ar p W = 0 0 cc oG}` w " STREET W 0 0 Ln z r= to City Development Department Location Map FILE No:A 09/15 APPLICANT: Kingsett Brookdale Centre Inc. WAYFARER LANE RAV N DOUG PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con 1. Pt. Lot 23, 24, 40R-25448 Part 1,2,4-37, 44-47 and Pt. Parts 3, 38 (1105 Kingston Road) DATE: July 21, 2015 00(0 Sources: e. 2013 eMPACerprdts its Ino. and its suppliers. s. All rights Reserved. Not o plan of survey. a o � suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not o plan of Survey. SCALE 1:5,000 PN -8 Existing Outdoor Seasonal Area accessory to Home Depot 924 Square Metres 42 Spaces HIGHWAY 401 Proposed Outdoor Seasonal Area accessory to proposed food store 458 Square Metres 15 Spaces City Development Department Applicant's Submitted Plan FILE No: A09/15 APPLICANT: Kingsett Brookdale Centre inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Concession 1, Part of Lot 23 and 24, 40R-25448 Part 1,2,4-37,44-47 and Pt Parts 3,38 (1105 Kingston Road) DATE: August 7, 2015 Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 05-15 Date: September 14, 2015 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 15-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/15 Duffin's Point Inc. Concession 3, Part Lot 19, 40R-2548, Part 1 and 40R-26764, Part 1 (2460 and 2470 Brock Road) 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Duffin's Point Inc., to facilitate a retail/commercial development within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan, Zoning By-law and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the applications, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decisions on these applications are being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2. Property Location and Description The subject lands are located on the west side of Brock Road, north of the Hydro Corridor in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands comprise of two properties, which have a combined area of approximately 3.2 hectares, with approximately 180 metres of frontage along Brock Road. Clusters of existing trees and hedgerows are scattered throughout the site, which are proposed to be removed to accommodate the development. Surrounding land uses include: north vacant lands owned by the City of Pickering, which are designated as "Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Corridors" within the City's Official Plan south - a Hydro Corridor and further south is the Third Concession Road east across Brock Road are lands owned by Pistritto's Farms and Greenhouses, .which are designated as "Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Corridors" within the City's Official Plan 8 Information Report No. 05-15 Page 2 west - vacant lands that were recently acquired by Stonepay from the City, which are designated as "Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas" within the City's Official Plan; a portion of these lands are to be developed as a stormwater management pond 3. Applicant's Proposal The applicant has submitted applications for approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a retail/commercial development. The overall proposal includes a retail/commercial development with a total gross floor area of 13,700 square metres distributed over 7 single -tenant and multi - tenant buildings (see Submitted Concept Plan, Attachment #2). The applicant is proposing a broad range of retail/commercial uses, including but not limited to, commercial fitness/recreational centre, personal service, day care centre, financial institution, office, medical office, restaurant, retail store and supermarket, as well as high density residential uses. The high density residential uses are anticipated to be part of a future redevelopment plan for the subject lands. The table below summarizes the proposed gross floor area, number of functional storeys and building massing; and proposed uses for each building: Proposed Building Gross Floor Area Number of Functional Storeys Building Massing Proposed Uses Building 'A' 7,021.8 m2 2 storeys 3 storey massing Food Store Retail/ Commercial Fitness Centre Retail Building 'B' 1,095.6 m2 1 storey 2 storey massing Retail Building 'C' 3,903.7 m2 3 storeys storey massing Retail/Office Building 'D' 580.6 m2 1 storey 2.storey massing Retail Building `E' 394.8 m2 1 storey 2 storey massing Financial institution Building 'El' 418.0 m2 1 storey 2 storey massing Retail Building 'F' 371.6 m2 1 storey 2 storey massing Restaurant with Drive-through facility Total GFA 13,786.1 m2 9 Information Report No. 05-15 Page 3 • Buildings 'B' and 'D' will be designed and constructed such that a functional second floor can be added should the demand evolve for more second floor commercial space In conjunction with the proposed development, the applicant will be required to construct the section of Valley Farm Road that will abut the north limits of the subject lands. This parcel is currently owned by the City of Pickering. The extension of Valley Farm Road has been identified as a Type C Arterial Road, which is to be designed to carry lower volumes of traffic, at slower speeds than Type A and Type B Arterial Roads; provide access to properties; and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 26 to 30 metres. The concept plan illustrates a full -movement access to the site from the extension of Valley Farm Road and a right-in/right-out access to the site from Brock Road, approximately 130 metres south of the future signalized Valley Farm Road and Brock Road intersection. In support of the proposal, a total of 686 parking spaces are to be provided on-site and on the adjacent Hydro Corridor lands: • 402 parking spaces provided on the subject lands • 284 parking spaces to be provided within the Hydro Corridor, to be leased by the applicant from Hydro One The development will be subject to.site plan approval. 3.1 Requested Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law To facilitate the proposed retail/commercial development, the applicant is requesting site specific amendments to certain policies of the City's Official Plan and to rezone the subject lands to a mixed use zone category. The following chart outlines the requested amendments: Current Official Plan Policy Requested Official Plan Amendment require all buildings within land designated "Mixed Corridor" to be multi-storey [Section,11.17(h)(i)] to allow for single -storey commercial buildings with a minimum 2 storey massing require commercial development to provide a second -storey functional floor with 3 storey massing [Section 11.17(h)(ii)1 not permit the establishment of drive-through facilities, either stand-alone or in combination with other uses [Section 11.17(h)(vii)] to permit a drive-through facility, in combination with a permitted use 10 Information Report No. 05-15 Page 4 The applicant is requesting the following site specific amendments to the Zoning By-law: Current Zoning Requested Amendment Rural Agricultural Zone — "A", permits a detached dwelling Mixed Use Zone — "MU" with site specific zoning to permit a broad range of retail/commercial uses and high density residential use, as well as implement appropriate performance standards minimum required off-street parking for any lot in any zone shall be provided on the same lot (Section 5.19.1) to permit required parking spaces to be provided on the adjacent Hydro One lands 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The subject lands are designated as "Living Areas" with a "Regional Corridor" overlay in the. Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this designation are predominately intended for housing purposes. In addition, limited office development and limited retailing of goods and services, in appropriate locations, as components of mixed use developments, are permitted. In the consideration of development proposals, regard shall be had to achieving a compact urban form, including intensive residential, office, retail and service, and mixed uses along arterial roads, in conjunction with present and potential transit facilities. Regional Corridors shall be planned and developed in accordance with the underlying land use designation, as higher density mixed-use areas, supporting higher order transit services and pedestrian oriented design. Regional Corridors are intended to support an overall, long -terra density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare and a floor -space index (FSI) of 2.5, with a wide variety of building forms, generally mid -rise in height, with some higher buildings, as detailed in municipal official plans. Brock.Road is designated as a Type A Arterial Road and a Transit Spine in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Type A Arterial Roads are designed to carry Targe volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds, have some access restrictions and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 36 to 50 metres. Transit Spines are recognized corridors where higher levels of transit service is to be encouraged. The applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Regional Official Plan during the further processing of the applications. 11 Information Report No. 05-15 Page 5 4.2 Pickering Official Plan The subject lands are located within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood and are designated "Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Corridors". Mixed Use Areas are recognized as lands that have or are intended to have the widest variety of uses and highest levels of activity in the City. The Mixed Corridors designation is intended primarily for residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale serving the community and provides for a range of commercial uses and residential development at a density range of over 30 units up to and including 1.40 units per net hectare and a maximum floor space index (FSI) up to and including 2.5 FSI. The proposed development has a floor space index of 0.43. An Official Plan Amendment is required to permit single -storey commercial buildings and a drive-through facility. 4.3 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies Policies for the Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Corridors designation in this neighbourhood require the following: • new development to provide a strong and identifiable urban image by establishing buildings closer to the street, providing safe and convenient pedestrian access and requiring all buildings to be multi-storey • commercial development to provide a second -storey functional floor space with three-storey massing • the development of future roads adjacent to the Mixed Corridor designation on both sides of Brock Road to provide alternative access, potential transit routes, and boundaries for the land use designations; andon the west side of Brock Road, one of the future roads is the extension of Valley Farm Road The Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Corridors designation in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood does not does not permit the establishment of drive-through facilities, either stand-alone or in combination with other uses. The subject lands are located at the intersection of Brock Road and the extension of Valley Farm Road, which has been identified as a Focal Point within the Duffin , Heights Neighbourhood. Development within Focal Points is to contribute to the prominence of the intersection by requiring: • initial development on each property to occur at the corner of the intersection • the inclusion of appropriate provisions in the implementing zoning by-law to address such matters as the location and extent of build -to -zones,. mix of permitted uses, and required building articulation • the use of other site development features such as building design, building material, architectural features or structures, landscaping, public art and public realm enhancements such as squares or landscaped seating areas to help achieve focal point prominence, and • all buildings to be a minimum of three functional storeys with four storey massing 12 Information Report No. 05-15 Page 6 The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies also require landowners to: • submit a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report that demonstrates how the proposal is consistent with the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan to the satisfaction of the Region, City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • become a party to the cost sharing agreement for Duffin Heights or receive an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group Inc. that the benefitting landowner has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportion of the shared development cost The applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications. 4.4 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines The intent of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines is to further the objectives of the Official Plan and to achieve the following design objectives for the neighbourhood: • to create a streetscape which is attractive, safe and encourages social interaction within the neighbourhood • to establish a central focus to the neighbourhood which is safe, lively and attractive • to provide a diversity of uses to support neighbourhood and City functions The subject lands are delineated as Brock Road Streetscape on the Tertiary Plan, which encourages higher density, mid -rise and mixed use buildings with a high level of architectural quality. The Tertiary Plan also identifies the intersection of Brock Road and the extension of Valley Farm Road as a focal point that will require special design considerations through the use of appropriate building heights, massing, architectural features and landscaping in order to establish a prominent image at these intersections. The guidelines for lands within the Brock Road Streetscape include the following: • the creation of outdoor public space is encouraged at focal points • properties fronting Brock Road shall be required to provide a built form across a minimum of 60 percent of the lot frontage, and all primary frontages of buildings shall front Brock Road and provide pedestrian access directly to the sidewalk and multi -use trail along Brock Road • multiple pedestrian linkages shall be provided to commercial development, including direct sidewalk connections at intersections and through mid -block developments • non-residential floors facades are encouraged to be at least 33 percent transparent on all the floors, and must be at least 60 percent transparent on the ground floor, to encourage pedestrian interaction with retail and commercial activities 13 Information Report No. 05-15 Page 7 • large walls visible from Brock Road shall be articulated through various treatments such as offsets in massing; blank facades will not be permitted facing Brock Road or any street • lands within the Hydro Corridor are encouraged to be utilized for parking areas to serve abutting development The applications will be assessed against the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines during the further processing of the applications. 4.5 Zoning By-law 3037 The subject lands are currently zoned "A" — Rural Agricultural Zone under Restricted Area Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, which currently permits a detached dwelling, home occupation, and various agricultural and related uses. An amendment to the zoning by-law is required to facilitate the development of the subject lands for commercial uses. 5. Comments Received 5.1 Resident Comments • No comments received 5.2 Agency Comments Region of Durham • the Planning Department advises that the proposed commercial development, with predominantly one -storey buildings and an FSI of 0.43, is not consistent with the policy intent of the Regional Official Plan Brock Road is a key corridor within the City of Pickering, linking Pickering's City Centre with the Seaton Community and Highway 407 • the City's Official Plan policies for the Duffin Heights neighbourhood, which came into effect in 2009, recognized the importance of Brock Road as a Mixed Use Corridor, and the Region has concerns regarding the proposed site-specific amendments • strongly encourages the City to maintain building height requirements on the subject site and explore options to provide further intensification on the site given the proposal falls well below the 2.5 FSI required in the Regional Official Plan • Regional Official Plan policies state that land uses adjacent to Type A Arterial Roads and Transit Spines, such as Brock Road, shall provide for complementary higher density and mixed use development and facilities which support non -auto modes of travel • the applications are subject to the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), which encourages developments within settlement areas that support a mix of land uses that efficiently use land and resources, are appropriate for, and efficiently use, available infrastructure, and are transit -supportive • the PPS also directs municipalities to develop appropriate development standards which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety 14 Information Report No. 05-15 Page 8 • the concept of mixed-use commercial development is consistent with the PPS; however, the proposal would benefit from an intensification of uses and a more compact form • the proposed development generally conforms to the Growth Plan by facilitating the redevelopment within the built boundary; however, the proposal falls short in the area of intensification and compact form and would benefit from an intensification of uses and a more compact form • the submitted Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) identified that potentially contaminating activities have occurred on the site and recommended that a Phase 2 ESA be undertaken • a Phase 2 ESA must be submitted to the Region for review; pending the results of this study, a Record of Site Condition submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) may be required • due to the applicant's long-term intent for high density residential use, the Phase 2 ESA and any subsequent remediation that may be required should address the MOECC requirements for residential land uses • a Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance is required for the ESA • the submitted Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment identified the need for a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, and no land disturbing activities should take place prior to the Ministry reviewing these reports and indicating there are no archaeological concerns • the submitted Noise Assessment addresses the potential noise impact of the stationary noise sources associated with the proposed commercial development on adjacent residential uses; the mitigation measures recommended in the submitted Noise Assessment must be met • prior to any residential development being permitted on-site, a detailed Noise Impact Assessment will be required • the applicant must provide a phasing plan, illustrating the potential location for high density residential uses, including the proposed commercial buildings to be demolished • the Region of Durham is the approval authority for the Official Plan Amendment, in accordance with the Procedures for Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • a portion of the subject lands was accounted for in the design of Stowmwater Management Pond #4 (SWMP#4); however, additional lands in the Hydro Corridor have been added; the applicant is required to demonstrate how drainage from the additional lands will be addressed • a conceptual level of information on the location, size and detail for the Low Impact Development treatment is required • an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is required • the Hydro Corridor south of the proposed development is an important corridor linking the three main tributaries of the Duffins Creek, and encroachment of this development into the Hydro Corridor in this area will further restrict wildlife passage between Ganatskiagon Creek and Urfe Creek 15 Information Report No. 05-15 Page 9 5.3 City Departments Comments Engineering & Public Works • a Development Agreement will be required for all off-site works including, but not limited to, the construction of Valley Farm Road from the intersection of Brock Road to the west limit of the property • the proposed southbound right turn queuing lane along Brock Road has reduced the width of the boulevard; this must be further reviewed to ensure that there is sufficient space for the installation of all required infrastructure • tree compensation will be required for the loss of existing tree canopy • the submitted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report recommended that SWMP#4 be redesigned to accommodate the proposed development; however, SWMP#4 is currentlyunder construction • an updated Functional Servicing. and Stormwater Management Report will be required to ensure necessary controls can be achieved without revisions to the approved design of the SWMP#4 • the erosion criteria outlined in the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan must be applied to the site; calculations must be provided to the City demonstrating how the required erosion control for the site area will be achieved on the site • an updated water balance strategymust be provided based on the infiltration targets provided in the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan • a functional design of the proposed infiltration systems must be provided for review 6. Planning & Design Section Comments The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • ensuring conformity with the intensification policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and the Regional Official Plan • evaluating the merits of the requested official plan amendment to eliminate second -storey functional floor space and permit a drive-through facility associated with a permitted use • ensuring conformity with the intent of the remaining City's Official Pian and Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies • ensuring the site layout and design of the proposal addresses the goals and objectives of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines with respect to building siting, building heights and massing, architectural features and materials, landscaping, outdoor open space, transparent glazing and pedestrian connectivity within and external to the site • ensuring an appropriate integration with the residential lands to the west of the subject lands • ensuring sufficient parking is provided to support the mix of uses being proposed 16 Information Report No. 05-15 Page 10 • reviewing the appropriateness of providing an off-site parking area within the Hydro Corridor and the impact on the natural features and wildlife passage between Ganatskiagon Creek and Urfe Creek • require the submission of a phasing plan to demonstrate the location of future high density residential development on the subject lands • ensuring satisfactory arrangements have been made regarding the construction of Valley Farm Road, including financial contributions to the signalized intersection at Brock Road and Valley Farm Road, ahead of Regional warrants being met • ensuring that an updated Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report is received that is consistent with the Council endorsed Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan to the satisfaction of the Region, City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • submission of an ESA Phase 2 and a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham • ensuring that the proposed development contains appropriate sustainable development components ensuring that required technical submissions and reports meet City standards The City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated department, agencies and public. 7. Information Received Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Archaeological Assessment , • Environmental Noise Assessment • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report • Parking Justification • Phase One Environmental Site Assessment • Planning Rationale/Sustainable Development Guidelines Report • Retail Market Demand and Impact Analysis • Soil Report • Traffic Impact Study • Tree Inventory and Assessment Report 8. Procedural Information 8.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting . • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council " 17 Information Report No. 05-15 Page 11 • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Pickering Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk; any member of the public who wishes to be notified of the Region of Durham's decision of this proposal must request such in writing to the Regional Clerk 9. Owner/Applicant Information • the owners of the subject lands are Duffin's Point Inc. who are represented by GHD Inc. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Submitted Concept Plan Prepared By: Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner — Development Review Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP .` Manager, Development Review & Urban Design MM:Id Attachments Date of Report: August 27, 2015 Copy: Director, City Development 18 Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Attachment Information Re000# ��` THIRD CONCESSION ROAD ,1 ROAD /� SII/► • Al City o, .ma m"t 'Fs.I City Development Department Location Map 0 0 0 0 Y 0 0 l • T. WILFRED'S SEPARATE FILE No: OPA 15-001/P & A 06/15 APPLICANT: Duffin's Point Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con 3 Pt. Lot 19, 40R-2548, Part 1, and 40R-26764, Part 1 (2460 and 2470 Brock Road) DATE: Aug 6, 2015 Data Soura.a 2073IMPAC ands It Ina, d Ito I ,1gI t. R ..r .d t No=ene pioln N! =Surv.ly. o! .urv.y. •uppind I NI r77 0 SCALE 1:5,000 PN -15 19 1 Attachment # Z to Information Report # 05- i 5 BUILDING HEIGHT AND MASSING 1 STOREY (2 STOREY MASSING) 2 STOREY (3 STOREY MASSING) 3 STOREY (4 STOREY MASSING) J 1 1 1 3 ACRE PARKING AREA ON HYDRO PROPERTY Department Submitted Concept Plan FILE No: OPA 15-001/P & A 06/15 APPLICANT: Duffin's Point Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con 3 Pt. Lot 19, 40R-2548, Part 1, and 40R-26764, Part 1 (2460 and 2470 Brock Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Aug. 6, 2015 20 Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 09-15 Date: September 14, 2015 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Rogers Communications Inc. 1822 Whites Road Part of Lot 29, Concession 1, Parts 2 to 7, 40R-9979 Installation #63 Recommendation: 1. That Rogers Communications Inc. be advised that City Council does not object to the 14.9 metre high telecommunication tower located at 1822 Whites Road, based on the design and other details submitted with the application. Executive Summary: Rogers Communications Inc. has submitted an application to seek concurrence from the City of Pickering respecting a 14.9 metre high monopole telecommunication tower erected in July 2014 in the parking area on the Amberlea Shopping Centre lands located at 1822 Whites Road. Rogers Communications Inc. has completed the public consultation process in accordance with the City's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol (Cell Tower Protocol). The notification radius was expanded beyond the required minimum radius and an open house meeting was held. The applicant has advised that 14 comments were received as a result of the circulation with 13 comments in objection and 1 comment in support. In addition, the City has received two petitions in objection to the telecommunication tower (both petitions total approximately 860 signatures). The key concern expressed by the public was related to the perceived health impacts of cell towers and the radio frequencies they emit. City staff have reviewed the proposed installation against the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The proposed tower is located within a commercial plaza 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 Rogers Communications Inc. be advised that Council does not object to the proposed telecommunication tower located at 1822 Whites Road, based on the design and other details submitted with the application. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 21 Report PLN 09-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 2 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The cell tower is located in the parking area of the commercial plaza known as the Amberlea Shopping Centre, which is located at the northwest corner of Whites Road and Strouds Lane. The commercial plaza is owned by Valiant Rental Inc. The telecommunication tower has been erected immediately west of the TD Canada Trust Bank near the Whites Road entrance to the plaza (see Location Map and Submitted Plan, Attachments #1 and #2). The subject property is designated as "Mixed Use Area — Community Node" in the City's Official Plan, and zoned `CCA -2' -- Community Central Area by Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1340/81. A telecommunication tower is a permitted use under the public utilities exemption of Zoning By-law 3036. 1.2 Applicant's Initial Location In 2011, Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) initially proposed a 14.9 metre high telecommunication tower at the Amberlea Presbyterian Church, located at . 1820 Whites Road. At that time, the City of Pickering did not have an established city protocol for cell tower proposals. Therefore, Rogers was obligated to follow Industry Canada's protocol (Client Procedures Circular- Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems — CPC -2-0-03 Issue 4). Industry Canada's protocol,that was in effect at that time provided exemptions from public consultation for installations under 15.0 metres in height. Rogers conducted an informal courtesy meeting with the immediate neighbours and proceeded to commence construction on the church property. Upon commencement of construction, the City conveyed its objection to Industry Canada, and Rogers abandoned the project at this location. 1.3 Applicant's Proposal In response to the objections expressed by the City, Rogers began a search for a new location and the Amberlea Shopping Centre was looked at as a possible location for a telecommunication tower. Rogers advised that they finalized their lease with the landowner and commenced construction of the 14.9 metre high shrouded monopole tower on July 9, 2014. Given the close proximity of the tower to the existing residential neighbourhood surrounding the commercial plaza, the City felt that a public consultation process should have been conducted prior to the construction of the tower. The City of Pickering requested Industry Canada to investigate this matter. Rogers replied to Industry Canada and the City, indicating that they proceeded with the construction of the tower in accordance with Industry Canada's protocol in effect at the time of construction, which' provided an exemption from public consultation for towers less than 15.0 metres in height. 22 Report PLN 09-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 3 On July 15, 2014, Industry Canada's new protocol (Issue 5) came into effect. This version no longer exempted towers under 15.0 metres in height from following the public consultation process of Industry Canada's Protocol. Rogers indicated that they proceeded with construction as Industry Canada provided a transition period for proposals already under construction, which permitted proponents to continue under the provisions of the previous protocol. Industry Canada advised Rogers. Communications to cease construction and undertake a formal consultation process with the City ofPickering. However, the tower was substantially complete, but was not activated for service. In response to Industry Canada's instruction and the request of the City of Pickering, Rogers filed an application with the City in December 2014 to facilitate the public consultation process for the tower constructed at the Amberlea Shopping Centre. Rogers Communications has followed the consultation process prescribed within the City's protocol, which was adopted in September 2014, as Industry Canada requires applicant's to follow local protocols where they exist. 1.4 Proposal Details The tower and ground cabinet are located within the commercial parking lot, on a concrete island, west of the existing TD Canada Trust Bank. Access to the tower and ground equipment is provided from the surrounding parking area (see Submitted Plan, Submitted Elevation and Compound Plan, and Site Photos, Attachments #2, #3 and #4). 2.1) Comments Received 2.1 Public Notification of the revised proposal has been completed Rogers expanded the public notification at the City's request, beyond Industry Canada's minimum required radius, to include residents along Chiron Crescent, Miranda Court, Amberlea Road, Arcadia Square, Village Street, Sultana Square and Stonepath Circle. A total of 357 property owners were notified by mail; an ad was placed in the April 16, 2015 edition of the News Advertiser; and 3 public notification signs were installed on the property (one on each frontage). The applicant has advised that 14 comments were received as a result of the circulation, with 13 comments in objection and 1 comment in support (see Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report, Attachment #5). A Public Open House meeting was held on May 14, 2015 at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre, and 15 members of the public signed in at -the meeting. Rogers provided information boards and had representatives present to respond to questions from the public. The majority of the concerns expressed at the meeting were related to the potential health effects of cell towers. The City has also received two separate petitions in objection to the cell tower. The petitions contain approximately 860 signatures: 23 Report PLN 09-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 4 The applicant has confirmed that the public consultation process has been completed in accordance with the City's Cell Tower Protocol and Industry Canada's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Protocol. 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments Engineering & Public Works • no objections to the proposed tower 3.0 Planning Analysis 3.1 Design and.location of tower comply with City Protocol City Development staff have completed the reviewed the constructed cell tower at Amberlea Shopping Centre against the provisions of the City's CeII Tower Protocol. The tower meets the City's preferred location requirements in that it is located on commercial property and is approximately 80 metres from the nearest residential property. The sightlines to the tower are minimized by the existing commercial buildings. to the north and west. In addition, the tower is a shrouded monopole, which allows the antenna equipment to be screened from public view. This type of tower design is required by the City's Protocol, particularly when located near residential areas. 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. Rogers advised that there were five existing installations in the area that were considered for co -location. The closest site (at 1467 Whites Road) is approximately 1.3 kilometres away and cannot accommodate their network coverage requirements. Rogers has confirmed that the proposed tower provides limited co -location opportunities due to the small height and monopole design of the tower. 3.3 Majority of comments submitted were Health concerns The majority of the comments received including those expressed at the Public Open House 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. 24 Report PLN 09-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 5 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. 4.0 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 within a commercial plaza and appropriately setback from the existing residential development to the north and west without impacting the operation of the plaza. Furthermore, the visual appearance of the tower will be screened by the existing commercial buildings on the property and given the height and location of the tower, it will have minimal visual impacts on the surrounding community. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Submitted Plan 3. Submitted Elevation and Compound Plan 4. Site Photos 5. Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report 25 Report PLN 09-15 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation September 14, 2015 Page 6 Prep;. By• 26 arnett Senior Planner — Site Planning Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP 1 anager, Development Review & Urban Design TB: Id Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner 12. Thomas Meiymu} MCIP, R Director, City Development Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P. Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT # 1 TO REPORT # PIA Yq-I3 14I in„0,Lu411.11 44x DRIVE ,. Mal MINN La z - a - MINIM D minima n=OM 41111111111, AMP,1P44, 1111111111 d ?Fly MINIMNIF CRESCENT CRESCENT COURT 9� 11► ASHEIELD � ,po: 't o�siir- HIGHBUSH `,11111 UBLIC SCHOOL 117491 I IS wn z• CR ANDA :Am S AMBERLEA 0 0 r- SQUARE 0 1 0 0 w ST. MARY CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL ROAD ARCADIA mo -m = mm 111111.0. Mos IIIIIIIMIN —MO QUARE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER PRESBYTER/AN CHURCH LANE 0 00„„ 41i PARK ry 9p ►y2 FLAVELLE COURT U) w 1- 0 ce I al SI 0 41•11-.4,40. AO. NEW 1111111TICwin; MIL min Nom Elm INN MIN INN rim MINIM INN mom umt INMINN .11111 wmum minim m_o_ MOM =- Emu moan C�Ant a Id z 1- 0) 0 a CT! C J. McPHERSOi PARK MILLBANK STREE 0 0 NA WOODRUFF STROUDS 461 grarevio 0 z 0 • o 0 m HEDGEROW SHADYBROOK PARK • AVENUE City Development Department Location Map FILE No: Installation #63 APPLICANT: Rogers Communications Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con 1 Pt. Lt. 29, 40R-9979 Parts 2-7 (1822 Whites Road) Data source.: 0 Teranet Enterprises Inc. d Its supPplier.. NI Aphis Reserved. Nat a plan aF survey. 201'3 14FAe d Its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not a plan of Survey. DATE: Aug. 18, 2015 SCALE 1:5,000 PN -11 27 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # RA tY -I5 City Development Department Submitted Plan FILE No: Installation #63 APPLICANT: Rogers Communications Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con. 1. Pt. Lot. 29, 40R-9979, Part 2 to 7 (1822 Whites Road) DATE: Aug, 18, 2015 28 ATTACHMENT REPORT # "Pl.N oQ -1 PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN SCAM 1,150 I ' e- .-SEE ELEYNTION FLAN- - 0 COUCRFTE SOMALI( • MS (t0 BE &PLACED iki1H 1t7,ECOW LONVER - NI • • l 3,50 J 4,48 / 1,627 41.50/ ELEVATION PLAN NOT 10 $C ■ City Development Department Submitted Elevation and Compound Plan FILE No: Installation #63 APPLICANT: Rogers Communications Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con. 1. Pt. Lot. 29, 40R-9979, Part 2 to 7 (1822 Whites Road) DATE: Aug. 18, 2015 29 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT # PLN 01-15 PIC City Development Department Site Photos FILE No: Installation #63 APPLICANT: Rogers Communications Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con. 1. Pt. Lot. 29, 40R-9979, Part 2 to 7 (1822 Whites Road) DATE: Aug. 1a, 2015. ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # 1- o61 -i5 ROG E RS" June, 1, 2015 Tyler Barnett, Senior Planner City of Pickering, City Development Department, Site Planning One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Rd. Brampton, •ON L6T 0C1R E C E V E D JUN 0 2 2015 CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Wireless Communication Site — C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N., Pickering, ON Part of Lot 29, Concession 1, Pickering, Regional Municipality.of Durham Dear Mr. Barnett, On behalf. of Rogers Communication Inc. ("Rogers"), 1 would like to submit for your review a summary of the municipal and public consultation process and a request for concurrence concerning a wireless communication site located on the property known as Amberlea Plaza at 1822 Whites Rd. N., Pickering, ON. Project Description & Location Rogers is constantly improving and expanding its infrastructure to meet the ever-growing demand for high-quality reliable wireless voice and data services. The site constructed at 1822 Whites Rd. N, is necessary to provide an adequate contiguous communications Zink between our existing and planned base stations in the surrounding area. This location has been chosen as a result of a detailed physical survey of the area, through radio frequency propagation' prediction tools, and via comprehensive testing of existing Rogers network. Municipal & Public Consultation Process The City of Pickering has developed a protocol for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City (City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol) — File A-1110-004 The City's Protocol can be viewed at www.pickerina.ca. In accordance with the City's Protocol, Rogers is required to provide a notice to all property owners located within 150m, or three times the tower height, whichever is greater. In fulfillment of the City's request for public notification, Rogers agreed to an extended notification. As such, on Apr1113, 2015 notification packages were mailed to 357 property owners (all properties located within a radius of up to 375m from the site). Concurrent to the mailing of this invitation Rogers placed a notice in the local community newspaper, News Advertiser, and erected 3 signs on the property notifying the public of the consultation period. The circulation provided the public with a 30 day commenting period. Rogers also hosted an Open House Information Session on Thursday, May 14, 2015 at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre. Based on the public notification process, Rogers logged and received comments from the public which are summarised in the attached Consultation Summary and Response Report. 31 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # f` Y- N CXR- i5 ROGERS' Of the 357 notices mailed during the consultation and the Open House hosted on May 14m, 2015, Rogers received a total of 14 comments. (5) of the comments received were from properties within expanded circulations of up to 375m from the site. 13 comments received were in opposition of the site 1 comment received was in support of the site Conclusion Based on a comprehensive notification process and addressing of all relevant concerns brought forward, Rogers feels that the site is well located to provide improved wireless voice and data services in the targeted area of Pickering. The site is also situated and designed so as to have minimal impact on surrounding land uses. Rogers' concessions made on the site in consideration of area setting, the surrounding community and the comments received for the original site location on the church property, decrease the visual profile of the installation and eliminate the needs of an additional site in the area, therefore meeting the intent of the City's Protocol on design requirements and reducing infrastructure proliferation. Request for Concurrence Rogers has now fulfilled all circulation requirements under City of Pickering Protocol and in accordance with Industry Canada's Consultation Process for the development of wireless communication structures. Rogers has followed all the necessary steps in accordance with City's Protocol and Industry Canada's guidelines CPC -2-03, issue 5 in consulting with the municipality; advising the public of the site; in addressing all reasonable and relevant concerns pertaining to our site; and in keeping and producing all associated communications to the municipality and Industry Canada. In order to conclude this land -use consultation and meet industry Canada's requirements, Rogers Communications Inc. respectfully requests for staff to move forward with the assessment of the process Rogers has undertaken to date and put forward a report to Council with their recommendations. Rogers would like to request for the item to be put forward on the next Council Agenda for Council's review and issuance of a formal Letter of Concurrence to Rogers with a copy to Industry Canada in order to permit Rogers to move forward with placing the site in-service. If you require any further information about this matter, please feel free to contact me at any time. Rogers looks forward to working with the City of Pickering in obtaining the concurrence on this, site for the purpose of improving wireless services in the City. Yours Truly, Rogers Communications Inc., Network Implementation Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist Phone: 647-747-2351, e-mail:Tatyana.Moro c('�,rci.rogers.com cc. Industry Canada 32 2 .ATTACHMENT #, 5 TO REPORT # N O9-6 Public Consultation Summary and Response Report Prepared for: City of Pickering Rogers Site: C3751 (1822 Whites Rd. N.) Part of Lot 29, Concession 1, City of Pickering, ON Rogers Communications Inc. f 8200 Dixie Road j Brampton ON LOT OC1 Tatyana Moro , Municipal Relations Specialist I 647-747-2351 33 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT # RtA 09-15 Contents Introduction 3 1. Network Coverage Requirements 3 2. Site Selection History 3 Aerial of alternatives assessed • 4 3. Selection of Proposed Site 5 Aerial 6 Photos 7 4. Public Notification 8 Public Open House Attendees and Information 9 Display Materials 10 Public Comments/Questions/Rogers Responses. Overview 10 • Summary of Questions/Responses and Rogers' Concessions 11 5. Conclusion 14 • APPENDIX 1- Public Consultation Comments and Responses APPENDIX 2 - Sign in Sheet/Open House Comments APPENDIX 3 - Site Survey 34 0 ROGERS_ ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # Pzr'. &3-I5 The purpose of this report is to summarize the process undertaken by Rogers relevant to the site located on a privately owned property known as Amberlea Plaza at 1822 Whites Rd: N., Pickering, ON. The report will outline the questions which were posed by members of the public as a result of the Public Notification and an Open House Information Sessions held on Thursday, May 14, 2015 at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre, 470 Kingston Rd. The information in this report will be systematically addressed in the following order: 1. Network Coverage Requirement: identification of a coverage gap in the wireless network and its geographical translation 2. Site Selection History: previously proposed, and considered site locations as part of the site selection analysis 3. Selection of Proposed Site: identification of proposed candidate site and the resulting coverage 4. Public Notification: questions and comments submitted by members of the commenting public . 5. Conclusion 1. Network Coverage Requirement Designing and maintaining a wireless network is a complicated task requiring the balance and consideration of a number of factors in meeting the current and future communication needs of the public and governmental authorities. A wireless telecommunications facility is a puzzle piece in a very complex radio network, whether that site is situated in an urban, suburban or rural setting. Customer demand and sound engineering principles direct where sites are required to be located. As people rely more on wireless devices such as smartphones, tablets and laptops for business and personal use, network improvements are required to ensure high quality voice and data services are available. In order for a wireless network to be reliable, an operator must provide "seamless" coverage so that gaps in the network are avoided. Gaps create dropped calls and overall poor service to customers. Rogers is committed and mandated by its license to ensure the best coverage and service to the public and private sectors. In response to this growing demand for wireless services, Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) has worked since 2011 to find a suitable location for a new telecommunications structure in efforts to provide improved coverage within the general area of Whites Rd. N. and Strouds Lane. 2. Site Selection History Rogers's site selection process is a balanced exercise that must meet Rogers's network coverage objectives, will respect local land -use constraints, will listen to community concerns, while at the same time reflecting Rogers obligation to its customers to provide a high quality of service.' 3 0 ROGERS.. 35 ATTACHMENT #. 5 TO REPORT # �� 09-15 AH efforts have been made to minimize the number of cellulai- base station locations required throughout the targeted Pickering area and yet allow for a network design which can adequately provide wireless voice and data service to our existing and new customer base, This site location and antenna support characteristics were chosen such that an adequate communications Zink can be achieved between surrounding sites. Any other choice would either result in the inability to adequately serve our customers or raise the need for additional cell site locations in the area, both of which we are committed to avoid in accordance with the City's Policy. Rogers always makes an initial effort to co -locate on existing structures. Apart from being a requirement in most telecommunication protocols, co -location is one of the cornerstones of Rogers's site development philosophy. Other potential site locations were evaluated and opportunities to co - locate onto existing structures were also investigated. However, the wireless communication structures in the surrounding area that were evaluated are all beyond the distance; below the height required; or could not be utilized in order to address the coverage deficiencies in the area. As a suitable alternative structure was not readily available, Rogers had to consider the construction of its own site. Our site selection process started in 2011 with a proposal for a 14.9m pole at Amberlea Presbyterian Church, located at 1820 Whites Rd. The initial location was situated just over one times the tower height away from the closest residential lot line. While the site fell within the exemption criteria relevant to consultation in accordance with CPC, Issue 4, which was in effect at the time of the proposal, Rogers conducted an informal courtesy community meeting through the church. Upon commencement of construction, the public and the City of Pickering opposed the location. To respect the wishes of public and the City, Rogers abandoned the project at the church property and searched for a new suitable location. In identifying a potential tower location and design, Rogers examined the surrounding area, assessed the visibility of the structure and considered a possible structure design. Rogers evaluated the best location for a new facility. In response to public comments and as suggested at the Council meeting on April 21, 2011, Rogers proceeded to explore 1822 Whites Rd. N., a commercial plaza and a favourable alternative to the initial proposal considering its significant setbacks from residential uses. The 1822 Whites Rd. N. site is situated more than three times the tower height to the closest residential lot line (83m to the east, 190m to the south, 176m to the west and 88m to the north). Therefore, no residential dwellings fell within the three times the tower height circulation requirement and no public or municipal consultation was undertaken prior to construction of our site. Furthermore, the site was built to specifications which contained a pole with a height of less than 15m, which was within the exclusion criteria under Industry Canada's process, in effect at the time of construction. The site constructed at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will achieve the necessary engineering coverage objectives for our network. The location will enhance much relied upon communication services in the area such as EMS Response, Police and Fire; will significantly improve our wireless signal quality for the local residents, those traveling along the major roads, as well provide local subscribers with Rogers' 3.5G wireless network coverage and capacity for products and services such as iPhones, Tablets, smart phones and wireless Internet through the Rogers Rocket Stick technology in the surrounding area. 4 36 0 ROGERS_. ATTACHMENT # .5 _ TO REPORT i 7k OG -/5 As.a result of our selection, the site does not impede on the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring properties. The pole base is screened by the commercial setting of the subject property and by the trees bordering the property boundaries to the surrounding neighbourhoods 3. Selection of Proposed Site It is important to note that the selection of a site for a telecommunication antenna support structure does not occur randomly. Among the factors considered are: 1. expected usage patterns of service and proximity to users 2. local topography and building types 3. interaction with existing and future sites 4. line of sight requirements for high quality communications 5. opportunities to use existing structures 6. availability of a willing Landlord 7. the industry's commitment to high service standards and customer satisfaction As part of evaluation process it was determined by Rogers' Radio Frequency Engineers that a minimum of 14.9 metres high structure was required in order to meet Rogers' network requirements. Rogers has entered into an agreement with the land owner at the property located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. for the installation of telecommunications equipment. Only when all required approvals are obtained will the land agreement be finalized. We chose Amberlea Plaza property as the site for our installation for a number of reasons. Firstly, it fits the requirements of our network. A site at this location provides the coverage we need in the surrounding area, and will also be able to link up with the other sites in area. Secondly, the site takes into consideration the commercial setting of the subject property for some mitigation means. The location and size of the structure has been designed in order to allow it to blend into the surrounding environment. Furthermore, in recognition of the comments received on the original location at the church, the site's location reflects the request of a large separation between the community and the installation. The site is located at an approximate distance of 56m east of Whites Rd. N., 155m north of Strouds Ln. intersection; 165m west of Amberlea Rd. and 130m south of Arcadia Sq. The Site is located on a property in the Neighbourhood 11 - Amberlea, and is designated as Community Nodes under the City's Official Plan - Edition 6 - Land Use Structure. Rogers feels that the location and design chosen provides a significant buffer between residential uses; utilizes existing property setting in mitigating the visual impact on the immediate land uses; addresses Rogers' coverage deficiencies surrounding Whites Rd. N. and Strouds Ln. area for accessibility and enhancement of emergency communication services; as well as provides a structure for the purpose of improving wireless services for the area residents. Please refer to the site plan provided for your reference as well as an aerial of the site on the following page and photos of the site on page 7. 5 $ ROGERS.. 37 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # PZ -)5 Figure 2 — Structure location on the subject property is outlined in an aerial below. Please refer to the following page for photos of the installation for your reference (Figure 3). 6 38 0 ROGERS_ ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT I PI.i'. 09-15 Figure 3 — Site Profile 7 0 ROGERS.. 39 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # fi.N 0"1-15 4. Public Notification Rogers has a strong history of consultation with municipalities and understands the importance of land - use protocols and transparency in consultation. Industry'Canada requires that consultation be undertaken with the appropriate' land -use authorities to ensure those authorities are aware of significant structures within their boundaries and so that local land -use issues can be raised, while respecting the federal government's jurisdiction in the siting and operation of wireless voice and data systems. At the time of the initial proposal at Amberlea Presbyterian Church, City of'Pickering did not have a developed protocol for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. Therefore, Rogers followed Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process (CPC -2-0-03, Issue 4). In accordance with Industry Canada's CPC -2-0-03, Issue 4, the site fell within the exemption criteria relevant to consultation due to its height being below 15m. Nevertheless, Rogers conducted an informal courtesy community meeting. In consideration of the comments received from the community, Rogers respected the wishes of the public and the City and worked on obtaining a new suitable location for our site. Rogers worked with the retail plaza owner at 1822 Whites Rd., as suggested at the City Council meeting in April of 2011, and were able to agree on a suitable alternative in an effort to fulfil our.federal obligations for providing connectivity to essential communication services (EMS, Police and Fire), as well as provide improved wireless high speed Internet and phone services for the surrounding community, while respecting City's overall intent of the Official Plan in minimizing the visual aspects of the installation in relation to the surrounding land uses. The decision to proceed in the new location was the result of input from the public and municipal authorities, and a general preference for greater separation from the residential communities. For these reasons, the new site location at 1822 Whites Rd. was exempt under the CPC, Issue 4, which was in effect at the time of the commencement of construction. Furthermore, in proceeding, Rogers relied upon the Minister's decision document relevant to the CPC, Issue 5 (Effective July 15, 2014) transition period to ensure that the process and considerations under Issue 4 would continue (Section 4 (63) - Implementation and Next Steps). 4. Implementation and Next Steps 63. These changes are reflected in CPC -2-0-03 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System, Issue 5, and become effective July 15, 2014 for all new proposals and in relation to all ongoing obligations. Proposals where construction or consultation has already commenced may continue under the provisions of CPC -2-0-03, Issue 4, for the purpose of satisfying any requirements in relation to consultations. On Sept. 2, 2014, City of Pickering adopted a protocol (City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol) — File A-1110-004 The City's Protocol can be viewed at www.pickerinq.ca. Rogers' site located at 1822 Whites Rd. was constructed prior to City's Protocol being in effect, therefore Rogers believes that our compliance obligations have .been fulfilled in consideration of the process in place at the time of site's construction. Furthermore, Rogers' site at 1822 Whites Rd. did not encounter residential properties within three times the tower height to warrant a public consultation. 40 Q ROGERS.. ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # /41\1 09 -15 In consideration of the community and at the City's request, Rogers conducted a public consultation on the constructed site at 1822 Whites Rd. N. in order to provide the community with the information on the site. This process allowed the City, Rogers and the.public to exchange information pertaining to our installation. The City of Pickering has developed a protocol for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. In accordance with the City's Protocol, Rogers is required to provide a notice to all property owners located within 150m, or three times the tower height, whichever is greater. In fulfillment of the City's request for public notification, Rogers agreed to an extended notification and as a courtesy provided an information package to all those property owners located within a radius of up to 375 metres from the base of the structure. Concurrent to the mailing of this invitation Rogers placed a notice in the local community newspaper, News Advertiser, and erected 3 signs on the property riotifying the public of the consultation period. Copy of this information package was also provided to the City of Pickering's Planning Department and industry Canada as part of the municipal consultation process. Public Open House Attendees and information Provided on August 11/14 and August 25114: Rogers Communications Inc.: 1. Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist 2. Michelle Vivar, Municipal Relations Specialist 3. Adele Biggs, Municipal Relations Specialist 4. Brent Spence, Site Acquisition Specialist 5. Uwe Richter, Manager of Radio Engineering 6. Emebet Haile, Senior Radio Systems Engineer 7. Richard Zhang, Senior Radio Systems Engineer City of Pickering: 1. Tyler Barnett, Senior Planner 2. Jennifer O'Connell, Regional Councilor -- Ward 1 Members of the Public: (Sign -in record attached) — Attendees of the May 14th Open House: 1. , 778 Stonepath Crc. 2. ' 688 Hilview Cres. 3. 635 Chiron Cres. 4. 1522 Amberlea Rd. 5. 501 Charnwood Crt. 6. 1642 Arcadia Sq. 7. 261 Pendermere Pkwy. 8. , 711 Sunbird Trail 9. , 772 Stonepath Crc. 10. 621 Ariel Cres. 11. 814 Wingarden Cres. 12. 677 Highview Rd. 13. 1614 Arcadia Sq. 14. 580 Eyer Dr. 15. 690 Chiron Cres. 9 0 ROGERS.. 41 ATTACI-$MENT # 5 TO REPORT # P4N Ce -/5 Display Materials: The following is a summary of the materials on display at the open house: • Context aerial view; • Proposed structure design and Photo Simulations from different angles; • Consultation requirements in accordance with Federal Regulations; • Land -use authority and Industry Canada roles; • Engineering coverage plots and justification on site requirements; • Co -location map of other sites evaluated; • . Other relative information to regulations of wireless antenna structures and compliance requirements such as: D Additional general information related to telecommunications and the land use approval and standards for these types of facilities; • Industry Canada's Brochure "Wireless Communication and Health — An Overview, Safety Code 6-2009; D Industry Canada - Frequently asked questions on Radio Frequency; D Rogers' Wireless Brochure; D Health Canada Brochure "It's Your Health"; D Safety Code 6 information package Public Comments, Questions and Rogers' Responses Overview: In agreement with the municipality, 357 notices were mailed to neighbouring property owners, located within the extended radius from the subject property, up to 375m. This requirements is more stringent than the City's Protocol and the requirement under Industry Canada's Default Consultation process, (the circulation under the Industry Canada's process would have not encountered any properties within • the required circulation mandate, being 45m (3x tower height) circulation from the site). Of the 357 notices mailed during the consultation and the Open House hosted on May 14th, 2015, Rogers received a total of 14 comments. (5) of the comments received during consultation were from properties within expanded circulations of up to 375m from the site. 13 comments received were in opposition of the site 1 comment received was in support of the site Please refer to the summary of the questions/comments raised at the meeting and the written comments received (copies submitted to the municipality, and Industry Canada) - attached for further reference. 10 42 0 ROGERS__ ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # " RN N OG -/5 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS/RESPONSES AND ROGERS' CONCESSIONS: Question: • Siting and site selection Answer: Wireless network coverage is not an exact science able to be measured in concrete terms for an infinite period of time in a given geographical location. The ability to install wireless sites in the Engineering Group's preferred location at the preferred height level provides more assurance to longevity and reliability of the network coverage. Our sites are chosen based on numerous factors including consideration of the local topography, Rogers' existing infrastructure in the area and the relevant data on coverage deficiencies. Other important factors in our site evaluation process also include: • proximity to users (wireless technology is a proximity technology, therefore we need to be close to our users); • line of sight requirement (communication between our existing structures is essential); • • availability of a willing host for our structure location.. Rogers makes every effort in order to minimize the visual impact of our installations. The following are some of the considerations used by Rogers in development criteria of the proposal outlined in order to minimize the visual profile of the installation: • the proposed site location has been set back on the property in order to minimize its potential impacts on the community; • the location of, the site on the subject property maximizes the existing commercial setting and foliage around the subject property and assists in mitigating potential visual impacts; • esthetically pleasing design, small footprint and low height in order to blend the installation into the surrounding land uses; Question: • Health Concerns Answer: At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. Ni. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Electromagnetic radiation is all around us. Much of the communication technology used today depends on radiofrequency transmission — cellular devices, wireless transmission towers/antennas, EMS/Fire/Police communication systems, broadcast TV and FM radio, etc. 11 0 ROGERS.. 43 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT .0 �Nyq_16 Furthermore, anything that uses electricity to operate, including everyday household electrical devices such as hair dryers, baby monitors, electrical ovens, microwaves, stereos, cordless phones, computers and Wi-Fi routers, emit EMFs of varying intensities. As reported by Canadian Wireless Telecommunication Association (CWTA), studies have shown that wireless phone emissions represent less than 25% of the ambient RF emissions in an urban area. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid 1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific (peer-reviewed studies) link between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, a federal government agency, sets the safety limits for exposure to radio signals and Canadian carriers are required to adhere to these guidelines. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non -peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. These safety limits are defined within a standard known as "Safety -Code 6" and are based on current accepted scientific data. Health Canada works closely with the World Health organization in defining Safety Code 6 guidelines. Scientists at Health Canada continuously update their research in order to ensure that Safety Code 6 guidelines continue to protect public health. According to Health Canada, to date there is no convincing scientific evidence to support any contention of adverse health effects that might be speculated to occur at levels below the exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 is based on an ongoing review of published scientific studies, including both internal and external authoritative reviews of the scientific literature spanning the last 40 years. These statements have been backed by other medical associations and journals to the point where even hospitals and apartment buildings allow cell phone structures on their buildings. The guidelines specified in Safety Code 6 have been adopted by Industry Canada and are included in their regulatory process for radio communication licensing and operational requirements. Industry Canada requires that all proponents and operators ensure that their radio communication and broadcasting installations comply with its regulatory limits at all times. Rogers attests that our radio antenna systems at all times comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. In addition, Safety Code 6 and the specified limits for public exposure apply to all sectors of the public and living organisms, such as animals, birds, and insects. Over and above this, Rogers' site will not only meet the specification, but in fact we are a mere 2.3% of the specifications, therefore the site exceeds the compliance requirements by a significant margin. Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry; therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. 12 44 0 ROGERS._ ATTACHMENT #__,5 TO REPORT #�cq-!5 While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the • development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view, such standards are designed to protect the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. Questions pertaining to this subject can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario — Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc()hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. Question: • Consultation • Answer: With regards to comments relevant to consultation, Rogers feels that the process undertaken is in compliance with City of Pickering Protocol requirements and Industry Canada Process and was conducted openly and fairly. Rogers has gone beyond the requirements of the City's Protocol to ensure that the details of the site have been communicated to the community. Rogers' site at 1822 Whites Rd. N., was located on a commercial plaza and a favourable alternative to the initial proposal on Amberlea Presbyterian Church, which took into consideration the comments received from the public on providing a buffer between residential uses and our site. At the time of construction, the City did not have a process in place pertaining to placement of wireless communication sites, therefore the consultation obligations fell under Industry. Canada's Consultation requirements, Canada's Default Public Consultation Process (CPC -2-0-03, issue 4). In accordance with Industry Canada's policy, the site at 1822 Whites Rd. N. fell within the exemption. Furthermore, Rogers' site at 1822 Whites Rd. did not encounter residential properties within three times the tower height to warrant a public consultation. The site was built.to specifications which contained a pole with a height of less than 15m, exempting the site from further consultation. Due to the above noted exemption criteria in accordance with the process in place at time of construction, no public or municipal consultation was undertaken and the site was constructed in July of 2014. On Sept.'2, 2014, City of Pickering adopted a protocol (City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol)— File A-1110-004. In consideration of the community and at the City's request, Rogers conducted a public consultation on the constructed site at 1822 Whites Rd. N. in order to provide the community with the information on the site. The City of Pickering's Protocol requires for proponents to provide a notice to all property owners located within 150m of the site. to fulfillment of the City's request for public notification, Rogers has agreed to an extended notification and as a courtesy provide an information package to all those property owners located within a radius of up to 375 metres from the base of the structure, placed a notice in the local community newspaper, News Advertiser, and erected 3 signs on the property notifying the public of the consultation period. Copy of this information package was provided to the City of Pickering's Planning Department and Industry Canada as part of the municipal consultation process. 13 ROGERS.. 45 ATTACHMENT & 5 TO REPORT #f �n4 Oq -/5 Question: • Signage Answer: In reference to comments raised relevant to the signs erected on the property, it should be noted that there were 3 signs posted on the property at 1822 Whites Rd. The placement of the 3 signson Apr. 15th was done in consultation with the City, therefore was conducted with open communication and consent on the locations from the City. Question: • Rogers' Corporate Responsibility Answer: In response to concerns from the public about how our decision to proceed with this site aligns with our Corporate Responsibility (CSR) Policy, it should be noted that as per our policy Rogers complies with all applicable laws and regulations wherever we operate, and we also abide by industry standards applicable to our products, services and operations. Furthermore, Rogers does not have any input into the review and adoption of the standards set out by the Government of Canada. 5. Conclusion Reliable wireless communication services are a key element of economic development across Canada. It facilitates the growth of local economies by providing easy access to information, and connectivity for residents and business alike. As identified in the .City of Pickering's Economic Strategic Plan, telecommunications is a powerful economic enabler that supports Pickering's goal to promote home occupations, teleworking, telecommuting'and improved community networking and information dissemination. Like many areas of the province, Pickering is experiencing a growing demand for wireless services. As people rely more on wireless devices such as smartphones, tablets and laptops for business and personal use, network improvements are required to ensure high quality voice and data services are available. In response to this growing demand for wireless services, Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) has worked to find the most suitable location for a new telecommunications structure in efforts to provide improved coverage within the general area of surrounding Whites Rd. N. and Strouds Ln. In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are also critical to ensuring the accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Wireless communications products and services, used daily by police, EMS, firefighters and other first responders, are an integral part of Canada's safety infrastructure. 14 46 ROGERS._ ATTACHMENT TO REPORT it N 0/-15 Rogers has undertaken and now completed a comprehensive public consultation process as it pertains to the wireless communications site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. in fulfillment of all the requirements under City of Pickering Protocol and Industry Canada guidelines. While we appreciate there remains some concems with the location due to public's health concerns, unfortunately due to a lack of alternative sites in the area, the only workable solution continues to be the current location at 1822 Whites Rd. N. In addition, Rogers assures and attests that our site will be fully compliant with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. Rogers has at all times been transparent and fully compliant with both municipal protocol and federal regulations pertaining to this proposal. Furthermore, Rogers has demonstrated our strict adherence obligations pertaining to health and have provided the parties that had submitted comments with numerous resources for the Federal and Provincial govemment bodies, as Rogers has no input into review or setting of standards and regulations. . Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via email at Tatyana.Moro cr rci.rogers.com, or via phone at (647)747-2351. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist Rogers Communications Inc. Network Implementation 15 0 ROGERS.. 47 16 48 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REFURT # ' /M Com' -15 APPENDIX 1 Public Consultation Comments & Responses 0 ROGERS.. 1 Tatyana Moro ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT #ISN 09-15 C -o 1m. r / From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thursday, April 16, 2015 6:27 PM Tatyana Moro; tbarnett@pickering.ca rogers tower This is a joke. The proposed site already has major construction just north and west of the TD bank. I was wondering what was being installed. You ask the resident's now? This is already going in without a doubt! How much do the Pickering residents have to have stuffed down their throat. A 49.2 meter tower, are you kidding mel Oh well the Rogers customers travelling through Pickering will get great reception, what a crock. I don't see Bell putting these towers in residential area's? The city of Pickering has to grow a pair and say NO! The church • site didn't go through because resident's said no, not because of the crap in Rogers package sent to me. All nice package sent $1.65 paid for postage!! Propaganda B.S. Will be a great view trying to relax in our yards, thanks a lot Rogers, I will be at the public meeting and will be heard. 663 Chiron cres. Pickering,Ont 1 ATTACHMENT # REPORT # k � Tatyana Moro LN TO Cq-!5 4,f0Ar...W a4,,t From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 3:41 PM To: tbarnett@pickering.ca Subject: RE: rogers tower Good afternoon Thank you for your comments submitted pertaining to Rogers site in the City of Pickering - Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge receipt of your comments. Your comments will be included in the report to Council and Industry Canada. We can further discuss your comments at the Open House on May 14t. Best regards, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. ' 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana,Moro(rci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 0 RO G E RS` From: Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 6:27 PM To: Tatyana Moro; tbarnett pickering.ca Cc: - ' Subject: rogers tower This is a joke. The proposed site already has major construction -just north and wesE' of the TD bank. I was wondering what was being installed. You ask the resident's now? This is already going in without a doubt! How much do the Pickering residents have to have stuffed down their throat. A 49.2 meter tower, are you kidding me!' Oh well the Rogers -customers travelling through Pickering will get great reception, what a crock. I don't see Bell putting these towers in residential area's? The city of Pickering has to grow a pair and say NO! The church site didn't go through because resident's said no, not because of the crap in Rogers package sent to me. All nice package sent 50 1 $1.65 paid for postagel I Propaganda B.S. Will be a great view trying to relax in our yards, thanks a lot Rogers, I will be at the public meeting and will be heard. 663 Chiron cres, Pickering,Ont ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT 0 Pi -N Qq -1.5 2 51 i - 1“ Tatyana Moro ATTACHMENT # -5 TO REPORT # , PLN 09—).5 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tatyana Moro Monday, April 27, 2015 3:36 PM tbarnett@pickering.ca RE: Rogers site - c3751 Comments due May 15, 2015 Good afternoon Thank you for your comments submitted pertaining to Rogers site in the City ofPickering - Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge receipt of your comments. Your comments will be included in the report to Council and Industry Canada. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.MoroCc�rci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 0 ROGERS` From: Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:03 PM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: Rogers site - c3751 Comments due May 15, 2015 RE: C3751 -1822 Whites Rd. N. Pickering Public consultation of this site: I work from home regularly. It is not possible in this dead zone inside the GTA to do my job properly. 4G doesn't allow my mobile applications testing to work well enough for Mobile Payment applications to work properly. If LTE is provided in the Pickering, many people in Pickering will be able to telecommute, socialize and make Pickering a better place to live. This is a necessity! 52 1 { Tatyana Moro ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # PLAA 01—is From: Sent: To: Subject: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:03 PM Tatyana Moro Rogers site - c3751 Comments due May 15, 2015 RE: C3751 - 1822 Whites Rd. N. Pickering Public consultation of this site: I work from home regularly. It is not possible in this dead zone inside the GTA to do my job properly. 4G doesn't allow my mobile applications testing to work well enough for Mobile Payment applications to work properly. If LTE is provided in the Pickering, many people in Pickering will be able to telecommute, socialize and make Pickering a better place to live. This is a necessity! Regards, 53 ATTACHMENT f5 TO REPORT # ?LN C7q —15 Tatyana Moro (-o 43 From: Sent: To: Subject: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 5:36 PM Tatyana Moro Whites Road Cell tower I notice this write-up hidden in the bushes behind the Amberlea Shopping Plaza on Amberlea Road. This should be a posting at each entrance to the Plaza! You should be aware of the dangers of connecting this Cell Tower to some of us. I have some very good . evidence of research done on Cell towers and it is totally irresponsible for you to put it in a place just because that particular Plaza is exempt from the `rules'. I am "Electrically Sensitive" (I can prove this with a doctor's certificate) Of course you probably want to hide this information - so I suggest in fairness to the people you should post it at each entrance. If I don't see it I will bring it up at the meeting - as well as bring it to the attention of the Mayor of Pickering who should be made aware of this dangerous placement of a Cell Tower. I have in my possession research of the dangers of living this close to a Cell Tower which I can present at the meeting. 621 Ariel Crescent, Pickering. 54 • ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # PLN c -15 Tatyana Moro From: Barnett, Tyler <tbarnett@pickering.ca> Sent: • Friday, May 01, 2015 2:47 PM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: FW: Whites road Cell Tower Attachments: Cell Tower Risks.rtf; ATT00001.txt; ATr00002.htm From: Sent: April -29-15 11:45 AM To: Barnett, Tyler Subject: Whites road Cell Tower 1 55 56 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # ??.IS 09 -LS •4. • -1 .f^• �.� y. �5f.y` s•'i'M�. j ^.tom^.�i +{!. "-.: •fie _ . -t ¢ �7b.• . . • 3 4 s r•' Set ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT 0 R.acl —15 Dear Mr Barnett, 1 am simply terrified at the fact Rogers isgoing to be putting that Cell Tower within less than half a kilometre of m; home. I am an Electrically sensitive person and already suffer every day from this distressing painful malady. I want you to read the two studies I am sending you. How can the responsible people in Pickering allow this dangerous Monster tower to be placed among us -a residential area? My home address is 621 Ariel Crescent. I can show you my Toronto General hospital letter pertaining to the fact that I also have what has become an "incurable" lung illness that ishampered by the fact I can no longer have CT Scans because of my radiation sensitivity. You are, taking a huge risk by allowing this Cell Tower in our neighbourhood to expose both young and old to these harmful fields. I am a sick person - and you are welcome to come to my home one evening where I can prove to you how much I am affected by what is already passing through our home from my neighbours Wi-Fi 's which penetrate our walls. You will not find anything wireless. I have a T.V - which I sit 14 feet away from - and my computer is a Mac Mini and my Keyboard is 40 inches away from the screen. - I can only spend short periods on it. I trust you will send me an answer to this email. 3 57 ATTACHMENT/ 5 TO REPORT U' !aL N c c! -15 Rogers Site - C3T51 1822 Whites Rd. N., Pickering, ON Public Comment Record Coo -7,n 7 Rogers' Wireless communications installation Name: Address: Telephone: E-mail: c r..e4-f, Comments To be considered part of this consultation, comments must be received by close of business day on May 15, 2015. Please forward your comments to: Rogers Communications inc. c/o Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist 8200 Dixie Rd., Brampton, ON E_6T OC -1 Fax: 647-747-4600 Phone: .647-747-235'l E- rraii:Tatyana_Moro e.rci.rccters.corn cam- Zb t06-� cde,,et,40-sitA6 rkfivv-a j4-k,eof & .4-#1-647 lug"a" he�,kemi4o,64_€. C I Q2 Continue on reverse if required... t /(2, - rv.Jct' a (14 -'`14i' of n orma ion receive • s a orm pa o n•us ry ana•as -u. is •nsu a ion rocess unser a pec m Management and Telecommunications Client Procedures Circular CPC -2-0-03, Issue 5, and will be collected in- compliance with the Persona! Information 'Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The information • collected will be used solelyy for the purpose of documenting Rogers' consultation, communicating the results of this consultation, including your comments, to the City of Pickering and/or Industry Canada and communicating with you concerning this site, should that be required* 13 58 ROG E RS' ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT U ` ,P4A 1:41-t5 Tatyana Moro 4to 7 From: Tatyana Marc Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 3:10 PM To: Cc: tbarnett@pickering.ca . Subject: Rogers site at 1822 Whites Rd. - Site C3751 Attachments: Safety Code 6 Resources - April 2015.pdf Good day Thank you for your comments submitted by mail pertaining to Rogers site in the City of Pickering - Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge receipt of your comments. Your comments will be included in the report to Council and Industry Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to also attach for your reference a package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and carriers' strict adherence requirements. I would like to note that items in your correspondence are points of opinion and statements which do not specifically pertain to our proposal; therefore Rogers will not be providing responses. Thank you once again for taking the time to submit your comments. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro(c�i rci.roners.com o 647-747-2351 0 ROGERS` 1 59 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # -- PGN C -R5 May 8, 2015 638 Strouds Lane Pickering ON Liv 4T3 Tyler Barnett, Senior Planner City of Pickering Dear Mr. Barnett Re: Erection of a Rogers Cell Tower on Strouds Lane, by the Metro Store My husband and I are.strongly opposed to putting a cell phone tower on Strouds Lane by the Metro Store. Cell phone towers emit microwave radiation or electromagnetic fields which are known to be harmful. Studies are being done,worldwide to determine how much- microwave.radi`o signalsedamage immune systems, brain function, cell structure and the relationship to disease. The closer you live to a cell tower the higher the risk for potential disease and other health issues. Studies done on rats have shown that microwave radio waves do cause depression by damaging the cerebral cortex. A German study conducted over ten years has shown there is a higher rate of malignant tumors for people who live within 1312.34 feet of cell phone towers. The findings show that after five years the incidents increased by three times and the people in the study were getting cancer at a younger age than the general 60 ATTACHMENT f TO k,, REPORT # population. Studies have also shown a significant increase in cases of childhood and adult leukemia cases ranging from 2.2 to 9 times higher rates for those living near transmission towers. Some of the most powerful cell tower installations are on mountains and hilltops outside of urban areas. These EM fields have impacted humans, animals as well as the ecological balance. Studies of people and farm animals living around high voltage wires point to extreme hazards of living up -close to a powerful electromagnetic field (EMP) — exhibiting everything from stress and sleep , disorders to birth defects, cancer and Alzheimer's. We are now exposed to 100 million times more Electromagnetic Radiation than our grandparents were, and cell towers are making that number grow exponentially. if you can make a call on your cellphone then you're in an area that's saturated with cell sife microwaVe-radiatiorr:- Cell towers (or cell sites) that hold antennas and other communications equipment flood the area for miles around with powerful high frequency radio waves to support the use of cellphones, as well as Wi-Fi, WiMax, Wireless LANS, Bluetooth supported devices and more. Decades of studies have demonstrated that artificial frequencies higher than 10 hertz can create stress and serious health problems. The proposed site of this tower is in a highly populated residential area and we have four schools in the neighborhood so children of all ages will be passing by where this tower is proposed to be installed as well as living in the vicinity of it. We have lived on Strouds Lane for over 31 years and have seen many homes added to our neighborhood and many families joining the community. 61 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT N C 9-/5 Installationof this tower at the proposed site on Strouds Lane would pose an extremely serious health risk to the community and would be totally irresponsible of the Planning Departmentto allow it. Yours truly 62 , ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # , &M Oct —16 Tatyana- Moro From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Tuesday. Mav 12.2015 3:20 PM To: Cc: 'Barnett, Tyler' Subject: RE: Cell Tower Attachments: Response Lettter- , May 12, 2015.pdf; C3751 Public Consultation Package.pdf; Safety Code 6 Resources - April 2015.pdf Good afternoon',. Thank you for your comments submitted to the City of Pickering on May 10th pertaining to Rogers' site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. Rogers would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your comments received. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza — Site 03751. Please also see attached an official response to your correspondence. Thank you. Best regards, Regards, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatvana.Moro(u�rci.rocgers.com o 647=747-2351 0 ROGERS" From: Barnett, Tyler [mailto:tbarnettOpickering.ca] Sent; Monday, May 11, 2015 2:38 PM To: Cc: Tatyana Moro Subject: FW: Cell Tower • I want to confirm that your comments have been received and will be. noted in our Report to City Council. At this time we do not have a defiriitive.date for that Council meeting, however by submitting your comments with your contact details we will send written notification to you of the date that City Council will consider this proposal. ' 63 1 ATTACHMENT # - TO REPORT I have copied Tatyana Moro of Rogers Communications on this response as the public consultation process requires the proponent to respond to concernslquestions raised by the public. Regards, Tyler Barnett Senior Planner - Site Planning 1 City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2042 1 1.866.683.2760 1 TTY 905.420.1739 tbarnettPpickering.ca .n.•fitec1j� . -E Your City, Right Now. pickering.ca CitvApp eNews tEt 'twitter gifacebook From: Sent: May -10-15 2:21 PM To: Barnett, Tyler Subject: Cell Tower 64 2 ATTACHMENT REPORT O.ROGERS"' May 12, 2015 638 Strouds Lane Pickering, ON L1 V 4T3 Dear Mr. &Mrs. Burke, L Re: Rogers wireless communications site Site: C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N., Pickering, ON Iedffe Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Rd. Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Thank you for contacting Rogers regarding the wireless communications site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your comments received and provide a response. A copy of your comments and this response letter will be made part of a report issued to the Town of Aurora and industry Canada. Access to reliable wireless communication services is of great importance to residents' and travelers' safety and well-being in today's society. Wireless technology has fast become the preferred method of conducting business and personal communication among a large part of the population. In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are critical to ensuring the accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Wireless communications products and services, used daily by police, EMS, firefighters and other first responders, are an' integral part of Canada's safety infrastructure. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and.Health Canada.. The following provides some background information and legitimate sources of scientific evidence as it relates to the Issue of health and the effects of radio signals associated with wireless communication installations. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid -1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link (peer-reviewed studies) between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. 1 65 • ATTACHMENT9 S TO REPORT # tA 9—�S ROGERS" Furthermore, information published in non -peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evacuate. Safety Code 6 (SC6) has been the subject of several independent reviews, including a study by the Royal Society of Canada in 1999 which was updated in 2003, again in 2009 and 2014. The Royal Society of Canada is an independent national body composed of scholars and scientists selected by their peers for outstanding contributions to the sciences. None of these studies took issue with Safety Code 6's standards. The Medical Officers of Health for York Region, Hamilton and •Vancouver and other regions also do not take Issue with Safety Code 6..A number of independent expert groups have conducted detailed reviews of the potential health risks associated with RF•field exposure. These groups also include expert panels convened by the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and the British Medical Association. All of the credible scientific reviews completed conclude that there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects associated with Io'w-level RF fields, like those from cell sites. ' There are some important points on the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves, such as the ones emitted by wireless_ antenna systems. The level of the waves is relatively low, especially when compared with othertypes of radiation,-such-as-gamma.rays,.;x-rays,. and.ulttraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone sites is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecuies. A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch'ortwo in size. This makes'it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body. Third, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low, well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone sites are not significantly different than the background levels of RF in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations. Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government's regulatory bodies en the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, however in our view, such standards are designed to protect the 'Canadian public through extensive reviews of international 'studies and recommendations. Industry Canada.requires that all proponents and operators ensure that their installations and apparatus comply with the Safety Code 6 at all times. As stated previously,'Rogers attests that our radio antenna systems at all times comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. Furthermore, we have taken an extra step by undertaking a.further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact; the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC6 limit. As you can see, the site not just meets, but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Questions pertaining to this subject can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario — Service Ontario local office .@416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrob-perpccahc-Sc.gc.ca or 613-954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at htto://www.he-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semtlradiation/cons/stations/index-enq.php. 66 2 ATTACHMENT # £ TO REPORT #GN ©a-6 OROGERS " Rogers takes concerns or suggestions expressed by the public and the land -use authority as important elements to our site selection. The concessions made by Rogers on our site location at the Amberlea Plaza maximizes the distance to the community, provide an appropriate design in consideration of the area context and afford an opportunity for improved wireless services. Your property is located approximately 300m away from the site; therefore it fell outside of the extended circulation requirements: Iwanted to forward you a copy of the package that was circulated to the community. The package will provide you with some additional information as it pertains to our compliance obligations for consultation, siting and original site assessment criteria, as well as information relevant to health concerns raised in your correspondence and our strict adherence requirements. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I hope that the information provided on our requirements and our compliance obligations will help you to better understand our position and addresses your concerns raised. Again, thank you for taking the time tosubmit your comments. Yours truly, Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist Rogers Communications Inc. Network Implementation 3 67 68 TatY anVMoro ATTACHMENT 0 5 TO REPORT 0 P4N C 1— Imo_._ From: Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:58 PM To: tbarnett@pickering.ca; Tatyana Moro Cc: jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Attachments: 10 out of 14 peer-reviewed studies on base stations.pdf; Brazil_New study direct link_to 4924_cancer_deaths_jrow cellular antennas_radiation_ 28_07_2011.pdf Public Comment about the Whites Road Communications tower to: The City of Pickering and Rogers Communications I have been contacted by a citizen living near the proposed communications mast who suffers serious biological effects from wireless radiation. I have the following questions about how you will help and compensate this person, if radiation from the new mast causes her (and others living and working in the area) further health problems. 1. What insurance does the City and Rogers have in place to compensate victims of wireless radiation? 2. Would the mast be removed if serious harm to this person and others was identified? and would this be done quickly? 3. Do Rogers and the City of Pickering realize that the radiation from the mast has been classed as a '2b Possible Carcinogen' by the World Health Organization? 4. Does the City of Pickering think that it is a good idea to allow Rogers to subject their citizens to a 'possible carcinogen' 24 hours a day? 5. Are Rogers and the City of Pickering aware of the ten peer reviewed base station studies, and the Brazil study that I have attached, which show very significant biological effects caused by radiation from the towers, including cancers and increased deaths? Recently, several scientific and medical groups that have raised very serious concerns about the great dangers that• wireless radiation poses, they ihclude: An appeal to the United Nations by nearly two hundred scientists - http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/phone-radiation-scientlsts- appeal-un-protect-aga Inst-danger-wi reless-devices-video-1500842 . Expets ask the Canadian Government to use caution - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and- fitriess/health/experts-urge-cautious-use-of-wireless-devices-as-health-effects-reassessed/article24374381 / The Canadian Medical Association Journal today published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada's safety guidelines for cell phones and Wifi - http://www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/7may15_scientists-decry-canadas- outdated-wi-fi-safety-rules.xhtml The California Medical Association Wireless Resolution - http://ehtrust.orq/california-medical-association-wireless- resolution/ The Biolnitiative Report provides scientific information and links between several illnesses and wireless radiation www.bioinitiative.orq 1 . A1`TA1if' •,�-' �: TO REPORT # rf4,1V CYC . . . • Why does the City of Pickering feel that it is worth risking the health and welfare of its citizens with another communications mast located close to shops and houses? . Sincerely 125 Vanevery Way Stratford Ontario N5A 8C1• Co Director WEEP www.weepinitiative.orq • 2 69 70 ATTACHMENT f 5 • • TO REPORT P&N Tatyana Moro art 1,6 From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 3:23 PM To: tbarnett@pickering.ca Cc: jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: RE: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Attachments: Safety Code 6 Resources - April 2015.pdf Good day Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments pertaining to Rogers' site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd. N. — Site C3751, as well as additional resources pertaining to health. Rogers would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your comments and provide a response. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza — Site C3751, Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry, therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore, we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact, the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio . Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC 6 limit. As you. can See, the site not just meets; but exceedsthe applicable-Sdfety"Code 6 -.guide-a-61"lue by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid -1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link (peer-reviewed studies) between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non -peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario — Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc@hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc- sc.gc. ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. 1 ATTACHMENT # REPORT # r) I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. • I would like to note that items in your correspondence are points of opinion and statements which refer to health standards, which are the obligation of Government of Canada and not Rogers; therefore Rogers will not be providing further response on this particular subject. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. - Regards, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 .Tatyana.Moro@rci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 ROGER.5`. From: Sent: Thursday, May 14, 201511:58 PM To: tbarnett@pickering.ca; Tatyana More-- • - Cc: jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Public Comment about the Whites Road Communications tower to: The City of Pickering and Rogers Communications I have been contacted by a citizen living near the proposed communications mast who suffers serious biological effects from wireless radiation. I have the following questions about how you will help and compensate this person, if radiation from the new mast causes her (and others living and working in the area) further health problems. 1. What insurance does the City and Rogers have in place to compensate victims of wireless radiation? 2. Would the mast be removed if serious harm to this person and others was identified? and would this be done quickly? 3. Do Rogers,and the City of Pickering realize that.the radiation from the mast has been classed as a '2b Possible Carcinogen' by the World Health Organization?. 4. Does the City of Pickering think that it is a good idea to allow Rogers to subject their citizens to a 'possible carcinogen' 24 hours a day? 5. Are Rogers and the City of Pickering aware of the ten peer reviewed base station studies, and the.Brazil study that I have attached, which show very significant biological effects caused by radiation from the towers, including cancers and Increased deaths? Recently, several scientific and medical groups that have raised very serious concerns about the great dangers that wireless radiation poses, they include: 2 71 ATTACHMENT # J5 TO REPORT 0 PIN Oct.— An GC— An appeal to the United Nations by neariy two hundred scientists - http://www.ibtimes.co,uk/phone-radiation-scientists- appeal-un-protect-against-danger-wireless-devices-video-1500842 Expets ask the Canadian Government to use caution - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/heaith-and- fitness/heaith/experts-urge-cautious-use-of-wireless-devices-as-health-effects-reassessed/articie24374381 / The Canadian Medical Association Journal today published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada's safety guidelines for cell phones and Wifi - http://www.cmaj.calsite/earlyreleases/7rnay15_scientists-decry-canadas- outdated-wi-fi-safety-rules.xhtml The California Medical Association Wireless Resolution - http://ehtrust.orq/california-rnedical-association-wireless- resolution/ The Biolnitiative Report provides scientific information and links between several illnesses and wireless radiation www.bioin itiative.orq Why does the City of Pickering feel that it is worth risking the health and welfare of its citizens with another communications mast located close to shops and houses? Sincerely 125 Vanevery Way Strafford Ontario N5A 8C1 Co Director WEEP www.weepinitiative.orq 72 3 ATTACHMENT 9T0 REPORT it . `-t cY —t5 Tatyana Moro • A Li- 1,6 (2) From: _ Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 12:01 AM To: tbarnett@pickering.ca; Tatyana Moro Cc: Jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: Re: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Dear It appears that Rogers is willing to completely ignore the peer reviewed base station scientific reports that I submitted, which show very serious health threats, cancer and early deaths. This means that the statement 'At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously' appears to be not true. - Lets try another test of your concern for safety. Does Rogers understand that the frequencies that they use for cell phones, cell masts and WiFi communications are classed as microwave radiation? Prior to 1972 Lt. Zory Glaser US Navy http://www.zorvglaser.com/ had collected more than two thousand scientific studies which showed the microwave radiation caused significant biological effects. That document can be accessed here - http://www.magdahavas.com/pick-of-the-week 1-more-than-2000-documents-prior-to-1972-on-bioeffects-of-radio- frequency-radiation/ . Since 1972 there have been many more scientific studies which have shown serious biological effects caused by exposure to microwave radiation. Are you aware of all these studies? Are you not concerned that people including your own families, friends, neighbours, customers animals and the environment are being hurt by wireless radiation? How can the City of Pickering or any other municipality in Canada take you seriously when you appear to be ignoring all the dangers and the harm that you may be doing throughout Canada? Health Canada has been very wrong on previous health issues including tobacco, asbestos, thalidomide etc. You cannot continue to hide behind a few stupid or possibly corrupt civil servants. You have a corporate responsibility to ensure your wireless emissions are safe for Canadians. You should be considering your liability, as the truth and the dangers of wireless radiation are now being understood by Canadians? Sincerely ----- Original. Message From: Tatyana Moroy `• To: tbarnett(a,gickerinq.ca Cc: Jennifer ienniferoconnell.ca Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 3:23 PM Subject: RE: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Good day Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments pertaining to Rogers' site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd. N. — Site C3751, as well as additional resources pertaining to health. Rogers would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your comments and provide a response. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza— Site C3751. ATTACHMaT REPORT 1 Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry, therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health. Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore, we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact, the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC6 limit. As you can see, the site not just meets, but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid-I980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link (peer-reviewed studies) between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for . exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer . reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non -peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. . Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province. of Ontario — Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perocc@hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699.' Furthermore, 'additional information on the subject can also he obtained at http://www.hc- sc. gc. ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. I.'m also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I would like to note that items in your correspondence are points of opinion and statements which refer to health standards, which are the obligation of Government of Canada and not Rogers; therefore Rogers will not be providing further response on this particular subject. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Regards, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro@rci.rogers.com 74 2 ATTACHMENT REPORT 9N1—I. o 647-747-2351 0 ROGERS' From: Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:58 PM To: tbarnett@pickering,ca; Tatyana Moro Cc: jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Public Comment about the Whites Road Communications tower to: The City of Pickering and Rogers Communications I have been contacted by a citizen living near the proposed communications mast who suffers serious biological effects from wireless radiation. I have the following questions about how you will help and compensate this person, if radiation from the new mast causes her (and others living and working in the area) further health problems. 1. What insurance does the City and Rogers have in place to compensate victims of wireless radiation? 2. Would the mast be removed if serious harm to this person and others was identified? and would this be done quickly? 3. Do Rogers and the City of Pickering realize that the radiation from the mast has been classed as a `2b Possible Carcinogen' by the World Health Organization? 4. Does the City of Pickering think that it is a good idea to allow Rogers to subject their citizens to a 'possible carcinogen' 24 hours a day? 5. Are Rogers and the City of Pickering aware of the ten peer reviewed base station studies, and the Brazil study that t have attached, which show very significant biological effects caused by radiation from the towers, including cancers and increased deaths? Recently, several scientific and medical groups that have raised very serious concerns about the great clangers that wireless radiation poses, they include: An appeal to the United Nations by nearly two hundred scientists - http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/phone-radiation-scientists- anpeal-u n-protect-against-danger-wireiess-devices-video-1500842 Expets ask the Canadian Government to use caution - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and- fitness/health/experts-urge-cautious-use-of-wireless-d evices-as-health-effects-reassessed/article24374381 / The Canadian Medical Association Journal today published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada's safety guidelines for cell phones and Wifi - http://www.cmaj.ca/sitefearlyreleases/7may15 scientists-decry-canadas- outdated-wi-fi-safety-rules.xhtml The California Medical Association Wireless Resolution - http://ehtrust.orq/california-medical-association-wireless- resolution/ The Biolnitiative Report provides scientific information and links between several illnesses and wireless radiation www.bioinitiative.orq Why does the City of Pickering feel that it is worth risking the health and welfare of its citizens with another I communications mast located close to shops and houses? 7 5 3 76 _ .—__-7iTTACHMENT# REPORT # Sincerely 125 Vanevery Way Stratford Ontario N5A 8C1 Co Director WEEP www.weer initiative.oro TO This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.rogers. coni/web/content/emailnotice Ce message est confidentiel. Notre transmission et reception de courriels se fait strictenient suivant les modalites enoncees dans 1' avis publie a www.rogers.com/aviscourriel a ATTACHMENT # REPORT # Tatyana Moro TO Lr' From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:32 PM To: tbarnett@pickering.ca Cc: jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: RE: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Good day Thank you for your e-mail and additional comments received on May 15th. As stated in previous correspondence, Rogers does not undertake new site development lightly. We are obligated to ensure that all of our installations are in compliance with Health Canada safety standards and Industry Canada requirements. In response to your concerns about how our decision to proceed with this site aligns with our Corporate Responsibility (CSR) Policy, it should be noted that as per our policy Rogers complies with all applicable laws and regulations wherever we operate, and we also abide by industry standards applicable to our products, services and operations. Rogers does• not have any input into the standards set out by the Government of Canada. As mentioned in previous correspondence, questions and concerns on the subject of regulations and standards relevant to safery can be directed to the Province of Ontario offices. In past correspondence with you, 1 provided you with Internet links to legitimate sources of information about the issue of health and RF signals, and demonstrated our compliance with these obligations. Your correspondence will be included in the report to Council, as part of the consultation requirement of the City of Pickering as well as Industry Canada. Thank you again for taking the time to provide your comments. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro@rci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 1 77 ATTACHMENT # _TO REPORT # N ccl�/5 0ROGERS` • From: Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 12:01 AM To: tbarnett@pickering.ca; Tatyana Moro Cc: Jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: Re: Public Comment re: Whites Road CeII tower Dear Ms Moro It appears that Rogers is willing to completely ignore the peer reviewed base station scientific reports that I submitted, which show very serious health threats, cancer and early deaths. This means that the statement `At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously' appears to be not true. Lets try another test of your concern for safety. Does Rogers understand that the frequencies that they use for cell phones, cell masts and WiFi communications are classed as microwave radiation? Prior to 1972 Lt. Zory Glaser US Navy http://www.zorvolaser.com/ had collected more than two thousand scientific Studies which showed the microwave radiation caused significant biological effects. That document can be accessed here - http://www.macidahavas.com/pick-of-the-week-1-more-than-2000-docum ents-prior-to-1972-on-bioeffects-of-radio- frequencv-radiation/ . Since 1972 there have been many more scientific studies which have shown serious biological effects caused by exposure to microwave radiation. Are you aware of ail these studies? Are you not concerned that people including your own families, friends, neighbours, custonieis animals and the environment are-beingliuit by wifeless ea-df6tion? How can the City of Pickering or any other municipality. in Canada take you seriously when you appear to be ignoring all the dangers and the harm that you may be doing throughout Canada? Health Canada has been very wrong on previous health issues including tobacco, asbestos, thalidomide etc. You cannot continue td hide behind a few stupid or possibly corrupt civil servants. You have a corporate responsibility to ensure your wireless emissions are safe for Canadians. You should be considering your liability, as the truth and the dangers of wireless radiation are now being understood by Canadians? Sincerely — Original Message ;From^Tatvana:Mor ; ... ..: ATTACHivMENT TO REPORT # 5__;_..,. Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry, therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, .in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore, we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact, the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC6 limit. As you can see, the site not just meets, but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid -1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link (peer-reviewed studies) between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non -peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario — Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb perpcc a,hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/conslstations/index-eng.php. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I would like to note that items in your correspondence are points of opinion and statements which refer to health standards, which are the obligation of Government of Canada and not Rogers; therefore Rogers will not be providing further response on this particular subject. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Regards, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro@rci.rouers.com o 647-747-2351 3 79. 80 ATTACHMENT # _5 'f0 REPORT O ,} 4 09- IS 0ROGERS'. From: Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:58 PM To: tbarnettOpickerino.ca; Tatyana Moro Cc: lenniferPienniferoconnelLca Subject: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Public Comment about the Whites Road Communications tower to: The City of Pickering and Rogers Communications 1 have been contacted by a citizen living near the proposed communications mast who suffers serious biological effects from wireless radiation. 1 have the following questions about how you will help and compensate this person, if radiation from the new mast causes her (and others living and working in the area) further health problems. 1. What insurance does the City and Rogers have in place to compensate victims of wireless radiation? 2, Would the mast be removed if serious harm to this person and others was identified? and would this be done quickly? 3. Do Rogers and the City of Pickering realize that the radiation from the mast has been classed as a 2b Possible Carcinogen' by the World Health Organization? 4. Does the City of Pickering think that it is a good idea to allow Rogers to subject their citizens to a 'possible carcinogen' 24 hours a day? 5. Are Rogers and the City of Pickering aware of the ten peer reviewed base station studies, and the Brazil study that I have attached, which show very significant biological effects caused by radiation from the towers, including cancers and increased' deaths? Recently, several scientific and medical groups that have raised very serious concerns about the great dangers that wireless radiation poses, they include: An appeal to the United Nations by nearly two hundred scientists - htto://www.ibtimes.co.uklphone-radiation-scientists- appeal-un-protect-against-dander-wireless-devices-video-1500842 Expets ask the Canadian Government to use caution - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and- fitness/health/experts-u rqe-cautious-use-of-wireless-devices-as-health-effects-reassessed/article24374381 / The Canadian Medical Association Journal today published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada's safety guidelines for cell phones and Wifi - http://www.cmaj.calsite/earlyreleases/7may15 scientists-decry-canadas- outdated-wi-fx-safety-rules.xhtml The California Medical Association Wireless Resolution - htto://ehtrust.orq/california-medical-association-wireless- resolution/ The Biolnitiative Report provides scientific information and links between several illnesses and wireless radiation www.bioinitiative.orq Why does the City of Pickering feel that it is worth risking the health and welfare of its citizens with another communications mast located close to shops and houses? Sincerely 4 ATTACHMENT I,5 TO REPORT # PLA CF( .11,5 125 Vanevery Way Stratford Ontario N5A 8C1 • Co Director WEEP www.weecinitiative.orq This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the.terms set out at www.rogers.com/web/content/emailnotice Ce message est confidentiel. Notre transmission et reception de courriels se fait strictement suivant les modalites enoncees dans l'avis publie a www.rogers.com/aviscourriel 5 81 / ATTACHMENT# S TO REPORT C9-1 Tatyana Moro 061/4-vued4- 7/P From: Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 12:07 AM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: Cell Tower - Rogers Site - C3751- 1822 Whites Road N. Pickering I am totally AGAINST the installation of this Cell Tower in this location for the following reasons: My home is less than 200 meters from the site. This is a RESIDENTIAL AREA. Radio frequency fields are possibly CARCINOGENIC as per World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. Electro sensitivity and a host of other illnesses have been associated with these electromagnetic fields. Precautionary principles should be used in deciding on location of these towers. Long term health of people needs to be the main priority in determining location. 690 Chiron Crescent Pickering 82 ATTACK;ENT #�TO . . REPORT # Ooi—i.S Tatyana Moro From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 2:07 PM To: Cc: tbarnett@pickering.ca Subject: RE: Cell Tower - Rogers Site - C3751- 1822 Whites Road N. Pickering Attachments: Safety Code 6 Resources - April 2015.pdf Good day Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments pertaining to Rogers' site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd. N. —Site C3751. Rogers would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your comments and provides response. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza —Site C3751. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore, we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact, the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC6 limit. As you can see, the site not justmeets,but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid -1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link (peer-reviewed studies) between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non -peer-reviewed 'reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry, therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario —Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc@hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh- semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. •I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. >. 83 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT ft LN 09-15 Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T OC1 Tatyana.Moro@rci.rogers.com 0 647-747-2351 Original Message ----- From: Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 12:07 AM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: Cell Tower - Rogers Site - C3751- 1822 Whites Road N. Pickering I am totally AGAINST the installation of this Cell Tower in this location for the following reasons: My home is less than 200meters from the site. This is a RESIDENTIAL AREA. Radio frequency fields are possibly CARCINOGENIC as per World Health Organization's International Agency for Researcff on Cancer. ' Electro sensitivity and a host of other illnesses have been associated with these electromagnetic fields. Precautionary principles should be used in deciding on location of these towers. Long term health of people needs to be the main priority in determining location. 690 Chiron Crescent Pickering 84 2 a. ATTACHMENT# REPORT # 1tJ a�1 c� ,9 Tatyana Moro R2) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Barnett, Tyler <tbarnett@pickering.ca> Monday, May 25, 2015 4:07 PM Tatyana Moro Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you calling in regarding the proposed cell tower at 1822 Whites Road. • I have copied Tatyana Moro on this email so that she may provide you with information regarding the health regulations pertaining to cell towers and to answer any questions you may have. Regards, Tyler Barnett Senior Planner - Site Planning l City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2042 1 1.866.683.2760 1 TTY.905.420.1739 tbarnettPoickering.ca Your City, Right Now. pickering.ca CityApp eNews twitter In facebook This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy - legislation. ,If you are not the intended recipient•or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return a -mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. 85 ATTACHMENT," 'S' TO P� REPORT # X9-15 Tatyana Moro From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Monday, Mav 25, 2015 4:42 PM To: Cc: 'Barnett, Tyler' Subject: RE: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Attachments: - Safety Code 6 Resources - April 2015,pdf Good day This e-mail is in response to Mr. Barnett's correspondence pertaining to Rogers' site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd. N.—Site C3751. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza -Site C3751, I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with some information pertaining to safety of wireless sites, as well as regulatory requirements. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore, we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. in fact, the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC6 limit. As you can see, the site not just meets, but , exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid -1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link (peer-reviewed studies) between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non -peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Communication Industry is nota self-regulating industry, therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to -health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on -the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario —Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc@hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh- semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php.I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources. pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them, as well as some useful links on the subject. Sincerely, 86 ATTACHMENT 5 TO . REPORT II. CA cP—IS Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro@rci.rogers.com o 647-7472351 0 ROGERS' From: Barnett, Tyler [mailto:tbarnett@pickering.ca] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:07 PM To: Cc: Tatyana Moro Subject: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you calling in regarding the proposed cell tower at 1822 Whites Road. i have copied Tatyana Moro on this email so that she may provide you with information regarding the health regulations pertaining to cell towers and to answer any questions you may have. Regards, Tyler Barnett Senior Planner - Site Planning 1 City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2042 I 1.866.683.2760 TTY 905.420.1739 tbarnett@oickering.ca Your City, Right Now. pickering.ca CityApp eNews l .twitter lJ facebook This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. 2 87 1 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # ft 09-15 Tatyana Moro ite From: Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:57 PM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: Re: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you for the email. I am not interested in hearing from Rogers. Obviously this is a financial move for them and therefore all the information Tatyana provided is biased. She doesn't live in the community. Not to be rude, but I really don't care what she has to say. I do not want a cell tower in operation at 1822 Whites Road.. It frustrates me to hear that it is already built, and it will be in use pending city approval. I am frustrated that Roger's built it without consent from the community. Rogers posted a sign 'notifying the community about this tower (after it was already built!!) The sign was conveniently (and on purpose I'm sure) put at the BACK of the grocery store and tucked right beside a Large bush. Not too many people are going to'see it back there. Obviously Rogers wants to be able to say they are being open with this process and are 'welcoming community input', but let's be serious. Its a facade. A few years ago the same tower was proposed to be built across the street. There was a lot of community input at the time and as a result, THE TOWER WAS NOT BUILT. So why is it being built now???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Here is the link to the community feedback from a few years ago. http:I/www.thestar.com/newslgta/2011/05/17/pickering church accused of ceiling out.html Obviously there are many in the community who do not want a cell tower built in this location. It is disgusting to me that Rogers would build one anyway a few years later. THEY KNOW THE COMMUNITY DOESNT WANT IT BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY TURNED DOWN!! t! t So this time they decide to build the cell tower anyway??? Then they put up a sign at the back of the grocery store in a pathetic effort to be transparent. THERE IS A PRIMARY SCHOOL NST DOWN THE ROAD (Highbush Public School). My goodness, there is no consideration given to the children or to the community. These big corporations just seem to do whatever they want. Is this really the process that goes on in this city? A big corporation is turned down from building a cell tower one year, then they go ahead and do it anyway a few years later? I am so opposed to this cell tower. On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Tatyana Moro <Tatyana.Morofarci.rogers.com> wrote: Good clay This e-mail is in response to Mr. Barnett's correspondence pertaining to Rogers' site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd. N. — Site C3751. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza — Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with some information pertaining to safety of wireless sites, as well as regulatory requirements. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where 88 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT # }"ALN VA -15 we constrict a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada arid Health Canada. Furthermore, we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact, the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC6 limit. As you can see, the site not just meets, but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid -1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link (peer-reviewed studies) between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non -peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry, therefore carriers do not set any standards- or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario — Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb perpcc@,hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at hitp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/stationsfindex-eng.php. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them, as well as some useful links on the subject. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation 2 89 90 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT I Pi -N 001/4115 Rogers Communications Inc. .8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana. Moro(a,,rci.rogers.com 0 647-747-2351 O'ROGERS- From: Barnett, Tyler [mailto:tbarnett@pickering.cal Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:07 PM To: Cc: Tatyana Moro Subject: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you calling.in regarding the proposed cell tower at 1822 Whites Road. ..1 have copied Tatyana Moro on this email_so that_she. may provide_,you with information_ regarding the health regulations pertaining to celltowers and to answer any questions you may have. Regards, Tyler Barnett Senior Planner - Site Planning 1 City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2042 j 1.866.683.2760 1 TTY 905.420.1739 tbarnett@cickering.ca 3 ATTACHMENT O 5 TO REPORT # Dq-15 Tatyana Moro 0o-r'se ( From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:41 AM To: Cc: 'Barnett, Tyler' • Subject: RE: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Attachments: 007.jpg; 009 jpg; 008 jpg; sign locations.pdf; C3751 Public Consultation Package.pdf Good morning Thank you for your additional comments submitted pertaining to Rogers site in the City of Pickering - Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge receipt of your comments. Your comments will be included in the report to Council and Industry Canada. I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify the fact that there are 3 signs posted on the property at 1822 Whites Rd. I'm attaching a map showing the locations of the 3 signs for your reference, as well as pictures of the signs. I believe the sign you are referring to is on the attached picture #7. The placement of the 3 signs on Apr. 15th was done in consultation with the City, therefore was conducted with open communication and consent on the locations. As I am not aware of the location of your property, I am not certain if you were in receipt of the consultationpackage that was circulated. I would like to forward you a copy of the package that was circulated to the community, The package will provide you with some additional information as it pertains to our compliance obligations for consultation, siting, as well as information relevant to health concerns raised in your correspondence and our strict adherence requirements. Thank you once again for taking the time to submit your comments. As the consultation period has now closed, Rogers is preparing a report to Council. As mentioned above, your comments will be submitted as part of that report. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations. Specialist, Network Implementation . Rogers Communications Inc. 8200.bikie Road• Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro@rci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 0 ROG E RS' From: Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:57 PM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: Re: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you for the email. I am not interested in hearing from Rogers. Obviously this is a financial move for them and therefore all theinformation Tatyana provided is biased. She doesn't live in the community. Not to be rude, but I really don't care what she has to say, • 1 • 91 1 92 ATTACHiutENT i#5 TO REPORT #+ 0R `IS I do not want a cell tower in operation at 1822 Whites Road. It frustrates me to hear that it is already built, and it will be in use pending city approval. I am frustrated that Roger's built it without consent from the community. Rogers posted a sign notifying the community about this tower (after it was already built!!) The sign was conveniently (and on purpose I'm sure) put at the BACK of the grocery store and tucked right beside a large bush. Not too many people are going to see it back there. Obviously Rogers wants to be able to say they are being open with this process and are 'welcoming community input', but let's be serious. Its a facade. A few years ago the same tower was proposed to be built across the street. There was a lot of community input at the time and as a result, THE TOWER WAS NOT BUILT. So why is it being built now???????!!!!!! III!!! Here is the link to the community feedback from a few years ago. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/05/17/pickering church accused of ceiling out.html Obviously there are many in the community who do not want a cell tower built in this location. It is disgusting to me that Rogers would build one anyway a few years later. THEY KNOW THE COMMUNITY DOESNT WANT IT BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY TURNED DOWN!!!!! So this time they decide to build the cell tower anyway??? Then they put up a sign at the back of the grocery store in a pathetic effort to be transparent. THERE IS A PRIMARY SCHOOL JUST DOWN THE ROAD (Highbush Public School). My goodness, there is no consideration given to the children or to the community. These big corporations just seem to do whatever they want. Is this really the process that goes on in this city? A big corporation is turned down from building a cell tower one year, then they go ahead and do it anyway a few years later? I am so opposed to this cell tower. On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Tatyana Moro <TaTyana.Moro@rctsogers.com> wrote: Good day " This e-mail is in response to Mr. Barnett's correspondence pertaining to Rogers' site located in the'City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd. N. — Site C3751. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza — Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with some information pertaining to safety of wireless sites, as well as regulatory requirements. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start, Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore, we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in. relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact, the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC6 limit, As you can see, the site not just meets, but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid -1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link (peer-reviewed studies) between the effects of radio frequency from 2 ATTACHMENT 5 TO REPORT # j CR -15 wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non -peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry, therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be. addressed directly to the Province of Ontario — Service Ontario Local office cr 416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc�}a,hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewb-semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations • and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and bow carriers are mandated to comply with them, as well as some useful links on the subject. Sincerely, Tatyana 'Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.MoroArci.ropers.com o 647-747-2351 3 93 94 ATTACHMENT 5 REPORT # N —I5 ROGER' From: Barnett, Tyler fmailto:tbarnett@pickering.ca] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:07 PM To: Cc: Tatyana Moro Subject: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you calling in regarding the proposed cell tower at 1822 Whites Road. I have copied Tatyana Moro on this email so that she may provide you with information regarding the health regulations pertaining to cell towers and to answer any questions you may have. Regards, Tyler Barnett Senior Planner - Site Planning J City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2042 1 .1.866.683.2760 TTY 905.420.1739 tbarnett@Dickering.ca Your City, Right Now. pickerine.ca 4„„ CityApp eNews CI twitter facebook 4 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # CE%t-15 APPENDIX 2 Sign in Sheet/Open House Comments 17 0 ROGERS._ 95 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # RO G E R S e"1,�#43 4) Public Comment Record Name: Rogers' Wireless Communications installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Address: 2.4 't � Telephone: E-mail: Comments KJO YV�Gt k -e ►r 1n1�-mac �t`� tnY lt���l /1e_e.4-s S - I WW1. Lsc a")^cz ( ,r LLIAS tt dt-ti • flee. v t, e t✓• c. 6.1,1 e c . 2. n...1 d.SL P.-e_c.o ,„41„ C S I �U- Ir e4;t-t taLit Re -4Q pi -e 7. Continue on reverse if required... 96 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # yiAcaj-5 0 ROGERS' Public Comment Record Name: Address: • Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. sko Telephone: E-mail: _ Comments bucl—Q0( c2A.A.C/z i4Ves\c° • o. Continue on reverse if required... 97 ATTACHMENT # . ._TO REPORT 0 ROGERS'° Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name: Address: 6g hili 1fieM a:0C-e-hk- Telephone: E-mail: Comments a.m q /er od, am surefl �-q co-i()&e %c\A 1--ow�'C Continue on reverse if required... 98 ATTACHMENT # S _ __ TO REPORT # LN lit -I5 . ROGERSTh' Public Comment Record Name: Address: Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 ites Rd. N. Telephone: I E-mail: Comments sc y is4 61,s Continue on reverse if required..., 99 ATTACHMENT 5....... 10 REPORT # t1 15--- ROGERS" c N� do(5) Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name; Address: Telephone: kiUuveiTa r,.p E-mail: Comments ND+ Q.CI �we1 Continue on reverse if required... 100 ATTACHMENT,,0 5 TO REPORT 6 11..1A Uq-iS f`) ROG E RS' Public Comment Record Name: Address: s Telephone: Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. - E-mail: Comments 1 tall" • • /•� Continue on reverse if required... 101 7;-5 102 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # I�N COq-1-. ROGERSTh Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name:. Address: /5'44 AM Telephone: E-mail: Comments 6zemi az akii4 4/2e,ty Continue on reverse if required.,. Z/i7u7-76- /4 A /,.)41117 / J /7 .,n/' ( 0/? / ma-Ae- ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # l =i 0ROGERS" Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name: Address: 112_ 3tov\--Tc-t Telephone: E-mail: Comments \ D56 v\.cfc \A01/4,\A.QA \cccniLec12--j- s \'C'oe Continue on reverse if required:.. 103 ATTACHMENT# J f0 REPORT # LN - 15 O ROGERS TM Public Comment Record #yi e,ri,-/ 717-2( Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name: Address: Aghiprm P k rtJ Y.. Telephone: E-mail: Comments 1Xg-5e c,LcA - Aow C 41I LGrp_ h , G,. eA--e- c re_ Yet, 62- Qom" Continue on reverseif required... 104 Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 10-15 Date: September 14, 2015 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Infrastructure Ontario • Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures Located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale Recommendations: 1. That Council in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessments, object to the demolition of buildings located at 498 and 1050 Whitevale Road,. and 1740 Fifth Concession Road; 2. That Council also object to the demolition of the building located at 615 Whitevale Road but not object to the demolition of the outbuilding at this location; 3. That Council not object to the demolition of buildings located at 3490 Brock Road, 1469 Taunton Road, 170 Highway 7, 2750 Whitevale Road and 2900 Brock Road; 4. That Council also not object to the demolition of the building located at 650 Whitevale Road and requests the Province install a commemorative plaque on the property at the proposed trail head location; 5. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Adyisory Committee to designate 498, 615 and 1050 Whitevale Road, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that staff be authorized to prepare the appropriate materials and report back to Council at a future date; 6. That Council request staff to write the school boards to determine their interest in incorporating the building located at 3280 Sideline 16 into a future school board block, and if the school boards are not interested, that Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 3280 Sideline 16; 7. That Council express its strong concern with the Province for its disregard of significant heritage resources in Pickering through the lack of maintenance and occupancy of such resources, in contravention of the Provincial Policy Statement, and request the Province to restore and reuse these structures and manage them in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; 8. That Council request the Province to record, document and provide to the City in the form of photographs and/or measured drawings all buildings to be demolished, as well as make available exterior or interior heritage features for salvage to interested parties prior to any demolition; and 105 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 2 9. Further, that a copy of this Report and Council's Resolution be forwarded to: the Premier of Ontario; Infrastructure Ontario; the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure; the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and the Whitevale and District Residents' Association. Executive Summary: Infrastructure Ontario is undertaking two different Class B Environmental Assessments for the demolition of buildings located on 20 properties in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale: Infrastructure Ontario has retained environmental consultants ECOH and DST to gather background information on the properties including the heritage status of the properties. The City retained qualified heritage consultants Christopher Borgal of Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. (GBCA) and Laurie Smith of Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting to undertake heritage assessments to evaluate the properties against the criteria of the Ontario Heritage Act and determine their cultural heritage value, The Heritage. Pickering Advisory Committee was also advised of the proposed demolition of the buildings and has provided recommendations to Council. Council, at the May 19, 2015 meeting, approved the recommendations within Report PLN 04-15, which dealt with nine properties included in the first Environmental Assessment. This.second report, PLN 10-15, provides recommendations to Council respecting the demolition requests for the remaining 11 of the 20 properties. Some properties are located in the Seaton' Urban Area and are subject to the policies of the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) and the City's Official Plan Amendment for Seaton. Some of the properties are also located in the Hamlet of Whitevale within the. Whitevale Heritage Conservation District and protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The City is very concerned that the Province is allowing these buildings to fall into such a state of disrepair. A number of the buildings are valuable resources to the City and the demolition of these buildings would be a significant loss of the City heritage resources. "Demolition by neglect" is unacceptable and contrary to the Provincial Policy Statement. The City strongly recommends Infrastructure Ontario restore these buildings so that they can be used for appropriate residential, commercial or community purposes serving the City. 106 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 3 Financial Implications: The cost to undertake the heritage assessments is approximately $32,000.00 (plus HST) and was funded through the Seaton Development Application Revenue reserve. 1. Background 1.1 Infrastructure Ontario intends to demolish a number of buildings located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale Infrastructure Ontario has retained two environmental consultants ECOH and DST, to gather background information for the preparation of two different Class B Environmental Assessments for the demolition of buildings located on 20 properties in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale (see Location Maps, Attachments #1 and #2). In November 2014, the City received a request by ECOH to provide information on the heritage status of buildings located on 15 properties within 30 days of receipt of the notice. Staff requested, and received an extension to the commending deadline to the end of May 2015. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) was consulted on the proposed demolition of the buildings and provided recommendations to Council for their consideration. Council, at the May 19, 2015 meeting, approved the recommendations within Report PLN 04-15 (see Council Decision, Attachment #3). In summary, Council: • objected to the demolition of 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road and endorsed designation of these buildings under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act • objected to the demolition of 2865 Sideline 16 (Walter Percy House), which was recently designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by Council on April 22, 2014 • requested the City's Heritage consultant to expand the Preliminary Reports to Full Heritage Assessments for the buildings located 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1740 Fifth Concession and to complete the full assessments for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road, and • received an extension to thecommenting deadline of another 120 days (mid-September) to allow the City time to complete the full assessments and provide' comments to Infrastructure Ontario on these six properties In February and March 2015, the City subsequently received requests by DST to provide information on the heritage status of buildings located on an additional 6 properties within 30 days of receipt of the notices. DST has recently revised the request from 6 to 5.properties. Staff requested, and received an initial extension to the commenting deadline to the end of May 2015, and a further extension to the end of October 2015. • Accordingly, this report provides recommendations to Council respecting the demolition requests for 11 properties. 107 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale .Page 4 1.2 The City's Heritage Consultants have evaluated the 11 properties for their heritage significance The City has retained qualified heritage consultants, Christopher Borgal of Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. (GBCA) and Laurie Smith of Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting, to undertake the heritage assessments. The Consultants have completed Full Heritage Assessments for buildings located at: 498, 615, 650 and 1050 Whitevale Road; 3280 Sideline 16; 1740 Fifth Concession Road; and 3490 Brock Road. Due to the length and number of Assessments, they are not attached to this Report. However, they may be accessed through a Zink. The Heritage Assessments include an historical review of the building and property, evaluation of the heritage features of the building, an evaluation against Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, a draft statement of significance and a recommendation by the City's Heritage Consultant. Full heritage assessments were not completed for the properties that currently have no heritage status and are not listed as Heritage Lots in the Seaton Plan. The City's Heritage consultant evaluated the buildings located at: 1469 Taunton Road; 170 Highway 7; 2750 Whites Road; and 2900 Brock Road by conducting a visual examination of the buildings and prepared a Brief Evaluation. The Brief is not attached but may be accessed through a link. 1.3 The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee was consulted on the proposed demolition of the buildings and provided recommendations to Council At the June 24 and July 22, 2015 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meetings, the Committee reviewed and discussed the heritage consultants' and staff recommendations, and provided recommendations to Council (see Excerpts of June 25, 2015 and July 22, 2015 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, Attachments #4 and #5). In addition, the Committee provided further recommendations during the week of August 17, 2015 via email. 2.0 It is recommend that Council object to the demolition of four buildings Based on the analysis provided by the heritage consultant and the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC), staff recommend that Council object to the demolition of four buildings located at 498, 615 and 1050 Whitevale Road and 1740 Fifth Concession. The following tables summarize the current heritage status, recommendations of the City's heritage consultants, the HPAC and staffs analysis and recommendations for the four properties. • 108. Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 5 498 Whitevale Road Current Heritage Status GBCA Recommends Located within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District, which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act The Heritage Assessment (see Building Assessment Report for 498 Whitevale Road) establishes that the building is an interesting example of its kind and type, particularly due to the historic associations and early date, which is increasingly rare. While some of the key historical elements are missing or damaged, the building is sufficiently intact to permit being retained and restored as an historical reference. Due to the existing state of condition of the building, it would be costly to repair, but precedents do exist. The building is a significant built resource and should be photographed, recorded and preserved, and it is recommended that the building be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. HPAC Recommends to Council At the June 24, 2015 HPAC Meeting, the Committee recommended: That Council object to the demolition of the house located at, 498 Whitevale Road; That Council designate 498 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 109 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 6 Staff Staff concur with GBCA's recommendations that the building Analysis is a significant built. resource. The building is not tenanted and is in poor condition. Significant restoration in the future will be required to the building, which would be a costly undertaking. to restore the building to its original appearance. Given that the building contributes to the character of Whitevale Road and the Hamlet of Whitevale, and due to the location and prominence in the community, there is an opportunity for the re -use of this structure in the future. Staff concludes that the building at 498 Whitevale Road should not • be demolished, and that it should be designated under Part 1V of the Ontario Heritage Act Staff Council object to the demolition of the house located at Recommends 498 Whitevale Road; to Council That Council designate 498 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and That Council request that the property be managed in • compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 110 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 7 615 Whitevale Road Main Building • Henry Major House Outbuilding Current Heritage Status + Located within the Wh'tevale Heritage Conservation District, which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act • Listed on Municipal Heritage Register ■ "Heritage Lot" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan Laurie Smith Recommends The Heritage Property Evaluation Report and supplementary report for 615 Whitevale Road establishes that the Henry Major House reinforces the scenic character of the District and is important in defining and maintaining the overall character of the Whitevale Road Corridor and the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District. Although it is one of five examples of five -bay Georgian houses in Whitevale, its timber -frame construction is rare in this style in this area and provides a rare example of 1830s materials and construction methods. The heritage consultant concludes that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06. Furthermore, an evaluation of the outbuilding concludes that it does not contribute to the heritage value of the property. It is recommended that the City consider individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act when the property passes out of Crown ownership. While the property remains in Crown ownership, it is recommended that the City consider updating the property listing on the Heritage Register to include the statement of significance. •111 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 8 Laurie Smith Recommends (continued) Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the Province manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. HPAC Recommends to Council At the June 24, 2015 HPAC Meeting and during the week of August 17, 2015 via email, the Committee recommended: That Council object to the demolition of the Henry Major House located at 615 Whitevale Road; That Council not object to the demolition of the outbuilding; That Council designate 615 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. • Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and that the City should consider individual designation. The consultant recommends that individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act should be considered . by the City when the property passes out of Crown ownership. Staff recognize that Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (individual property designation by municipalities) does not apply to property that is owned by the Provincial government: However, due to the ongoing threat of demolition and an effort to try and protect significant structures, staff recommends that buildings that meet the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Regulation 9/06, be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff Recommends to Council Council object to the demolition of the Henry Major House located at 615 Whitevale Road; Council not object to the demolition of the outbuilding; That Council designate 615 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. . 112 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 9 1050 Whitevale Road \ , 11 .1.ij i f- %{ '. • Current Listed on Municipal Heritage Register Heritage Status • GBCA The Heritage Assessment (see Building Assessment Report Recommends for 1050 Whitevale Road) finds that the building is an interesting example of its kind and type particularly due to its historic associations and elaborate design and such a building is increasingly rare. While some of the key historical elements are missing or damaged, the building is sufficiently intact to permit its being retained and restored as an historical reference. However, the condition of the east wall of the building may be problematic and will require considerable efforts to allow the structure to be retained. The building is locally significant and should be photographed and further recorded and preserved. It is recommended that the building be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. HPAC At the July 22, 2015 HPAC Meeting, Committee recommended: Recommends That Council object to the demolition of the house located at to Council 1050 Whitevale Road; That Council designate 1050 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 113 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 10 Staff Analysis Staff concur with GBCA's conclusions and recommendations that the building is a significant built resource and should be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. Staff That Council object to the demolition of the house located at Recommends 1050 Whitevale Road; to Council That Council designate 1050 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 1740 Fifth Concession Road max, I ! TSaKs ] f A ] Current No Heritage Status Heritage Status GBCA The Heritage Assessment (see Building Assessment Report Recommends for 1740 Fifth Concession Road) finds that the building is a simple and basic example of its kind and type, and does not exhibit many interesting or unique features beyond their rather simple designs. Individual designation for this property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act is not warranted. The consultant indicates that while some of the historical elements are missing or damaged, the building is sufficiently intact to permit being retained and re -used. Should it be determined that the building is not sufficiently valuable to retain, it is essential to mitigate the heritage impact of its loss to the City of Pickering. 114 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 11 2.1 Staff recommend Council not object to the demolition of two buildings notwithstanding Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee's objection to demolitions Based on the analysis provided by the heritage consultant and the review of the location of the properties and building locations in the Seaton Plan, staff recommend Council not object to the demolition the buildings located at 650 Whitevale Road and 3490 Brock Road, notwithstanding HPAC's objection. The loss of heritage structures in regrettable, but there appears to be minimal opportunity for the re -use of the structures in their current locations. The following tables summarize the current heritage status, recommendations of the City's heritage consultant, the HPAC and staff's analysis and recommendations to Council for 650 Whitevale Road and 3490 Brock Road. 115 This could be done by recording the building by drawings in accordance with known documentation standards, photographs keyed to the drawings, and salvage of important structural components for display and interpretation in the community. HPAC Recommends to Council • • At the July 22, 2015 HPAC Meeting, Committee recommended: That Council object to the demolition of 1740 Fifth Concession; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Staff Analysis Staff concur with GBCA's conclusions and recommendations that the building does not warrant individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The building is well setback and screened from Whitevale Road (Fifth Concession) and is not a prominent landmark. However, there may be opportunities for the restoration of this structure in its current location. Staff Recommends to Council That Council object to the demolition of 1740 Fifth Concession; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance With the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 2.1 Staff recommend Council not object to the demolition of two buildings notwithstanding Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee's objection to demolitions Based on the analysis provided by the heritage consultant and the review of the location of the properties and building locations in the Seaton Plan, staff recommend Council not object to the demolition the buildings located at 650 Whitevale Road and 3490 Brock Road, notwithstanding HPAC's objection. The loss of heritage structures in regrettable, but there appears to be minimal opportunity for the re -use of the structures in their current locations. The following tables summarize the current heritage status, recommendations of the City's heritage consultant, the HPAC and staff's analysis and recommendations to Council for 650 Whitevale Road and 3490 Brock Road. 115 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 12 650 Whitevale Road - r • , = -7 rid .- 1 - - r� -'' -err Current Heritage Status Located within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District, which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act GBCA Recommends . The Heritage Assessment (see Building Assessment Report for 650 Whitevale Road) establishes that the building is an interesting example of its kind and type, particularly due to the historic associations and early date, which is increasingly rare. While some of the key historical elements are missing or damaged, the building is sufficiently intact to permit being retained and restored as an historical reference. Due to the existing state of condition of the building, it would be costly to repair, but precedents due exist. The building is significant built resources and should be photographed, recorded and persevered and it is recommended that the buildings be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. HPAC Recommends to Council • At the June 24, 2015 HPAC Meeting, the Committee recommended: That Council object to the demolition of the house located at 650 Whitevale Road; That Council designate 650 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and . That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 116 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 13 Staff Staff concur with GBCA's recommendations that the building Analysis , is a significant built resource. While the foss of heritage structures is regrettable, there appear to be minimal opportunity for the re -use of this structure in its current location and condition. The building is not tenanted and is in poor condition. Significant restoration in the future will be required, which would be a costly undertaking to restore the building to its original appearance. The building is located in the Natural Heritage System, well setback and screened from Whitevale Road, and is not a prominent landmark building. The building is also located adjacent to a future plan of subdivision and situated within a future trail head. For these reasons, staff recommends that Council not object to the demolition of the building. There may be opportunities for the salvage of materials and, in the future, the installation of a plaque commemorating the property at the trail head location. Staff That Council not object to the demolition of the house located Recommends at 650 Whitevale Road; . to Council That Infrastructure Ontario record the building in the form of photographs and/or drawings and provide the documentation of the building to the City; That prior to demolition, exterior or interior heritage features be salvaged and any interested heritage organizations, the City or other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of any materials; and That a commemorative plaque be located in the proposed trail head site. 117 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 14 3490 Brock Road Current Heritage Status No Heritage Status GBCA Recommends The Heritage Assessment (see Building Assessment Report for 3490 Brock Road) finds that the building is a simple and basic example of its kind and type, and does not exhibit many interesting or unique features beyond its rather simple designs. Individual designation for this property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act is not warranted. The consult indicates that while some of the historical elements are missing or damaged, the building is sufficiently intact to permit being retained and re -used. Should it be determined that the building is not sufficiently valuable to retain, it is essential to mitigate the heritage impact of its loss to the City of Pickering. This could be done by recording the building by drawings in accordance with known documentation standards, photographs keyed to the drawings, and salvage of important structural components for display and interpretation in the community. HPAC Recommends to Council At the July 22, 2015 Meeting, Committee recommended: That Council object to the demolition of 3490 Brock Road; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 118 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 15 Staff Analysis Staff concur with GBCA's conclusions and recommendations that the building does not warrant individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Given its location in a future stormwater management pond block, there is no opportunity for the re -use of this structure in its current location. Staff That Council not object to the demolition of the house located Recommends at 3490 Brock Road; to Council That infrastructure Ontario record the building in the form of photographs andfor drawings and provide the documentation of the'building to the City; and That prior to demolition, exterior or interior heritage features be salvaged and any interested heritage organizations, the City or other interested parities be able to coordinate the salvage of any materials. 2.2 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee requests the feasibility to incorporate the building at 3280 Sideline 16 into a future school board block 3280 Sideline 16 Current Heritage Status GBCA Recommends No Heritage Status The Heritage Assessment (see Building Assessment Report for 3280 Sideline 16) finds that this building is a simple and basic example of its kind and type, and does not exhibit many interesting or unique features beyond its rather simple design, and individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act is not warranted. 119 Report PLN 10-15 September. 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 16 GBCA Recommends (continued) The consult indicates that while some of the historical elements are missing or damaged, the building is sufficiently intact to permit being retained and re -used. Should it be determined that the building is not sufficiently valuable to retain, it is essential to mitigate the heritage impact of its Toss to the City of Pickering. This could be done by recording the building by drawings in accordance with known documentation standards, photographs keyed to the drawings, and salvage of important structural components for display and interpretation in the community. HPAC Recommends to Council At the July 22, 2015 HPAC Meeting, Committee recommends: That staff ask if the school boards would be interested in incorporating the building into a future school board block; That if the school boards are not interested in incorporating the building into a future school site, Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 3280 Sideline 16. Staff Analysis • Staff concur with GBCA's conclusions and recommendations that the building does not warrant individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Given its location in a future school block, there may minimal opportunity for the re -use of this building in its present location. However, staff will consult with the school boards and ask if they are interested in retaining this building as part of a future school site. Staff Recommends to Council That staff be requested to ask the school boards if they would be interested in incorporating the building into a future school board block; and That if the school boards are not interested in incorporating the building into a future school site, Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 3280 Sideline 16. 2.3 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommends Council not object to the demolition of buildings on 4 properties Based on the analysis provided by the heritage consultant and HPAC, staff recommend that Council not object to the demolition of the buildings located at 2900 Brock Road, 2750 Whites Road, 1469 Taunton Road and 170 Highway 7. 120 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 17 2900 Brock Road Two structures proposed to be demolished: 1. House 2. Shed/garage House .tr'� '.` r fy ,..,, - ., ...„.... ..,„ ,... ,.., „ :2.. . - ...-- ..-. _ . , .. _. „.., A . Shed/Garage T . . . . . Current Heritage Status No Heritage Status . GBCA Recommends As described in the Brief Evaluation that reviews several properties including 2900 Brock Road, the small bungalow was likely constructed in approximately the 1920's to 1940's period and has no significant architectural merit. The work shed/garage dates from the early to mid -twentieth century, like the house. The buildings do not have significant architectural merit and are not recommended as candidates for listing or designation as historical resources. It is recommended that photographs of the site be placed in the City's database for the benefit of future researchers. HPAC Recommends to Council During the week of August 17, 2015 via email, HPAC • recommended: That Council not object to the demolition of the house and shed located at 2900 Brock Road. - Staff Analysis Staff concur with GBCA's conclusions and recommendations that the buildings do not warrant listing or individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that photographs of the site should be placed in the City's databate. Staff Recommends to Council That Council not object to the demolition of the house and shed located at 2900 Brock Road. 121 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 18 2750 Whites Road , ; • I, o j Yt y. Current Heritage Status No Heritage Status GBCA Recommends As described in the Brief Evaluation that reviews several properties including 2750 Whites Road, the cottage appears to be constructed in approximately the 1950's to 1960's period and has no significant architectural merit. The site is not recommended as a candidate for listing or designation as an historical resource. HPAC Recommends to Council During the week of August 17, 2015 via email, HPAC recommended: That Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 2750 Whites Road. Staff Analysis Staff concur with GBCA's conclusions and recommendations that the building does not warrant listing or individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; and that photographs of the site should be placed in the City's database. Staff Recommends to Council That Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 2750 Whites Road. 122 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 19 1469 Taunton Road Three structures proposed to be demolished: 1. main building 2. silo style structure 3. Targe shed . Main Building . ' i i_ t-4 ., '''irW 3+449 �....ar..i---.-fir ._...r.,...,_._. ..�. ry• r ff. R " r Large Shed ... J 6 a Wx, • Silo Style Structure :r te Current Heritage Status All three structures have no heritage status GBCA Recommends As described in the Brief Evaluation that reviews several properties including 1469 Taunton Road, the property is a former industrial plant that is abandoned. It appears that the buildings were constructed in a series of phases from approximately the middle of the 20th century to the late 1970's. The buildings are in poor condition. The site is not recommended as a candidate for listing or designation as an historical resource. HPAC Recommends to Council During the week of August 17, 2015 via email, HPAC recommended: That Council not object to the demolition of the structures located at 1469 Taunton Road. 123 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 20 Staff Analysis Staff concur with GBCA's conclusions and recommendations that the buildings do not warrant listing or individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; and that photographs of the site be placed in the City's database. Staff Recommends to Council That Council not object to the demolition of the structures located at 1469 Taunton Road. 170 Highway 7 Five structures proposed to be demolished: 1. Shed 2. Barn 3. Small shed 4. House 5, House Shed Barn Small Shed •# 1 24 House (#4) Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 21 House (#5) . . L �• �4_• ,'; � , 14 Current Heritage Status No heritage status GBCA Recommends As described in the Brief Evaluation that reviews several properties including 170 Highway 7, the property is a horse ranch with several buildings located on the property. The shed is of modern construction and has no heritage value. The barn is not original and is only of limited heritage value. The small shed, of mid -twentieth century construction, has limited heritage value. The house (#4) is of early 1920's•to 1940's twentieth century construction and is not a significant resource. The house (#5) is 1960's building is poorly executed and designed. The buildings on the property do not have significant architectural merit and are not recommended as candidates for listing or designation as an historical resource. It is recommended that photographs of the site be placed in the City's database for the benefit of future researchers. HPAC Recommends to Council • During the week of August 17, 2015 via email, HPAC recommended: That Council not object to the demolition of the houses and structures located at 170 Highway 7; and That prior to demolition, heritage features be salvaged and any interested heritage organizations, the City or other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of materials. 125 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 22 Staff Analysis Staff. concur with GBCA's conclusions and recommendations that the buildings do not warrant listing or individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; and that photographs of the site be placed in the City's database. Further, prior to demolition, heritage features should be salvaged. Staff That Council not object to the demolition of the houses and Recommends structures located at 170 Highway 7; to Council That prior to demolition, heritage features be salvaged and any interested heritage organizations, the City or other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of materials. 2.4 Heritage Designation of Provincial Land Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to designate properties, although the designation would not be binding to the Province. Accordingly, should Council pass a Designation By-law for any or all of these properties, the Province would not be obligated to comply with the By-law. However, if a property is sold, the private property owner would be obligated to comply with the Designation By-law. 3. Comments and objections received from Whitevale and District Residents' Association and area residents As noted in Planning &Development Committee Report Number PLN 04-15, dated May 11, 2015, correspondence was received from the Whitevale and District Residents' Association (see Whitevale and District Residents' Association Comments and Area Resident Comments, Attachment #6). The following is a summary of the key comments and concerns identified by the community: • the homes are valuable pieces of Pickering and Ontario's history • demolition of built heritage assets should only ever be considered as a last resort • the CPDP and the City's Official Plan provide for the protection of significant heritage resources • concerned not only about the immediate loss of these built heritage assets, but also about the potential for future losses of other Provincially -owned homes • several of the properties being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage protection under the Ontario Heritage Act • private landowners, other than the Government of Ontario, would be obligated to maintain and protect these buildings 126 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 23 • concerned if the houses are deemed to be derelict; it has not escaped residents' notice that the Government of Ontario has been the landlord for over 40 years 4.0 Conclusions The majority of the properties are located in the Seaton Urban Area, and are subject to the policies of the CPDP and the City's Official Plan Amendment for Seaton. Key objectives of these documents are to restore, rehabilitate, protect and conserve significant cultural heritage resources and integrate them into the new neighbourhoods. The demolition of buildings in Seaton, particularly those located on significant heritage properties identified as "Heritage Lots", is not in keeping with the vision of the Province and the City to integrate these resources into the new development. Moreover, the heritage assessments undertaken by the City have concluded that a number of the properties should be preserved and re -used. Some properties are also located in the Hamlet of Whitevale and form part of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District and are protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. These buildings are considered to be valuable assets to the Whitevale Community and the City, and to demolish these buildings would be a significant loss of the City's heritage resources. It is strongly recommended that Infrastructure Ontario invest in the community by restoring the buildings so that they can be used either for a residential, commercial or community use within the City. There is a great concern that if Infrastructure Ontario fails to take proactive restoration, maintenance and • tenanting of the significant buildings, the fate of the structures will be "demolition by neglect" regardless of whether the Province officially resorts to demolition. This lack of action is unacceptable and contrary to the Province's own Policy Statement, section 2.0, Wise Use and Management of Resources, subsection 2.6, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology, which states "Significant built heritage resources ... shall be conserved." Finally, despite all efforts, if Infrastructure Ontario decides to demolish any of the buildings that are of heritage significance, it is recommended that the buildings be recorded in the form of photographs and/or measured drawings and the documentation of the buildings be provided to the City. Furthermore, prior to the demolition, exterior or interior heritage features should be made available for salvage, and that any interested heritage organizations, the City or other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of any materials. 127 128 Report PLN 10-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessments for the Demolition of Structures located in Seaton and Whitevale Page 24 Attachments 1. Location Map (Properties subject to the EA request from ECOH Environmental Consultants) 2. Location Map (Properties subject to the EA request from DST Environmental • Consultants) 3. May 19, 2015 Council Decision 4. Excerpts of June 24, 2015 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 5. Excerpts of July 22, 2015 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 6. Whitevale and District Residents' Association Comments and Area Residents' Comments • Prepared By: A a' Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner — Development Review &. Heritage Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP anager, Development Review & Urban Design CC:Id Approved/Endorsed By: • Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Thomas Melymuk, , ICIP, RPP Director, City Dev opment Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer uogj owap ion 3u 0 •o m n O z 0 N r Ei v v C O T r a d N N w 3 ir' v 9 0 EE 0 j O to ariATO NOVI UuiiiiilIIIIIII141tow--.. Jr' �Al s■� May 21, 2015 To: ATTACHMENT # REPORT # i ..! TO 10-15 Legislative Services Division Clerk's Office Directive Memorandum Tom Melymuk Director, City Development From: Debbie Shields City Clerk • Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of CityCouncil held on May, 19, 2015 • Director; City Development, •Report PLN 04-15 • Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures Located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale Council Decision Resolution #46115 1. That Report PLN 04-15 of the Director, City Development, regarding the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for the demolition of buildings located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale be received; 2. That Council, in response•to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment object to the demolition of buildings located at 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road, 3440 Brock Road, and 2865 Sideline 16 which is designated under Part IV of the .Ontario Heritage Act; 3. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to designate 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road under Part IV, of the Ontario Heritage Act;.and that Staff be authorized to prepare the appropriate materials and report back to' Council at a future date; 4. That Council not object to the demolition of buildings located at 3185 Brock Road, 3540 Country Lane, 1710 Whitevale Road and 325 Hwy 7; 131 ATTACHMENT # REPORT # Subject: Report PLN 04-15 TO 0-1S May 21, 2015 Page 2 5. That Council request an extension of another 120 days to the commenting deadline to allow the City to expand the Preliminary Reports to Full Heritage Assessments for the buildings located at 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1740 Fifth Concession, and to complete the Full • Assessments already underway for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road; ' 6. That. Council express its strong dismay at the Province for its disregard of significant heritage resources in Seaton through the lack of maintenance and occupancy of such resources, in.contravention of the Provincial Policy Statement, and request the Province to restore and reuse these structures; 7. That, if the Province continues with proposed demolition of significant heritage resources, Council request the buildings be recorded in the form of photographs and/or measured drawings, the documentation of the buildings be provided to the City, and exterior or interior heritage features be made available for salvage to interested parties prior to any demolition; and ' 8. Further, that a copy of this Report and Council's Resolution be forwarded to: the Premier of Ontario; Infrastructure Ontario; the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure; the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and the Whitevale and.District Residents' Association. Please take any action deemed necessary. Debbie Shields /Ir Copy: Chief Administrative Officer 132 ATTACHMENT #. 4 ..._TO REPORT # P/ -N 10-15 Excerpts of Minutes Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 7:00 pm Tower Room Attendees: K. Borisko J. Calder J. Dempsey W.Jamadar D. Joyce M. Sawchuck C. Sopher J. Van Huss C. Celebre, Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage L. Roberts, Recording Secretary Absent: T. Reimer Item / Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items / Status (Include deadline as appropriate) 4.0 New Business 4.2) Heritage Assessment — 498 Whitevale Road C. Celebre provided .an overview of the heritage consultant's recommendations as well as staff's analysis and recommendations. Moved by J. Calder 1. That Council object to the demolition of the house located at 498 Whtievale Road; and 2. That Council designate 498 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 3. That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Carried 4.3) Heritage Assessment — 650 Whitevale Road C. Celebre provided an overview and explanation of the location of the above property. . Moved by K. Borisko. . 1. That Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 650 Whitevale Road; Page 33 ATTACHMENT # -14 TO REPORT # `Pl-A i0—i5 Item / Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion -` (summary of discussion) Action Items / Status (include deadline as appropriate) 2. That Infrastructure Ontario record the building in the form of photographs and/or drawings and provide the documents of the building to the City; 3. That prior to demolition, exterior or interior heritage features be salvaged and any interested heritage organizations, the . City or other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of any materials; and, 4. That a commemorative plaque be located in the proposed trail head site. • Motion Lost Discussion ensued and it was noted that while both 498 and 650 Whitevale Road appear to be in poor condition, it was felt that 650 Whitevale Road should also be considered for potential community use such as the trail head. Questions were raised regarding land use once the structure is gone, as well as whether - the developers would be contributing to the cost. Moved by J. Calder 1. That Council object to the demolition of the house located at 650 Whitevale Road; and 2. That Council designate 650 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • 3. That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Carried 4.4) Heritage Assessment — 615 Whitevale Road C. Celebre provided an overview of the heritage consultant's comments and recommendations as well as staff's regarding the above property, noting this was on the list of properties for heritage evaluation. Discussion ensued with respect to the designation of properties while still under Provincial ownership. C. Celebre explained the City's position on proceeding with designations while still under Provincial ownership. Moved by J. Van Huss 1. That Council object to the demolition of the house located at 615 Whitevale Road 134 Page 2 ATTACHMENT # _ __TO REPOR1 # Item 1 Ref #(include Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items / Status deadline as appropriate) 2. That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Professional Heritage Properties; and, 3. That Council designate 615 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Carried Discussion ensued with questions raised regarding the balance of properties along the Whitevale Corridor. C. Celebre noted the remainder would be looked at, but not this year. . Page -1335 ATTACHMENT # J5 TO REPORT # (Pi -t•‘ 10 -15 Heritage Excerpts of Minutes Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting July 22, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room Attendees: K. Borisko J. Calder J. Dempsey T. Reimer J. Van Huss Absent: C. Celebre, Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage R. Michaud, Recording Secretary W. Jamadar D. Joyce M. Sawchuck C. Sopher Item / Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) • Action Items / Status (include deadline as appropriate) 4 °' ,V• .�..� .IA =� New Business � � •• ,`',, �� , ' n � h� ,r L.._+r _-rw-�. _ M _ % S 1 1. �' -:.._ b+ 'I.YL.. ��- 7 -, s --'4 '� !- .}.i��i . � 4.1) Heritage Assessments - 3280 Sideline 16 Moved by J. Van Huss 1. That staff ask if the school boards would be interested in incorporating the building located at 3280 Sideline 16 into a future school board block; and. 2. That if the school boards are not interested in incorporating the building into a future school site, Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 3280 Sideline 16. _ Carried Heritage Assessments =1740 Fifth Concession Road Moved by J. Dempsey 1. That Council object to the demolition of . . 1740 Fifth Concession; and 2. That Council request that the property be managed in • compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation - of Provincial Heritage Properties. ,. Carried 136 Page 1 ATTACHMENT # 5 REPORT # PLty� IO-i3 Item / Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items / Status (include deadline as appropriate) Heritage Assessments - 3490 Brock Road Moved by K. Borisko 1. That Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 3490 Brock Road; . 2. That Infrastructure Ontario record the buildings in the form of photographs and/or drawings and provide the documents of the building to the City; and 3. That prior to demolition, exterior or interior heritage features be salvaged and any interested heritage organizations, the City, or other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of any materials. Motion Lost Moved by J. Calder . 1. That Council object to the demolition of 3490 Brock Road; and 2. That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Amended Motion Carried Heritage Assessments -1050 Whitevale Road Moved by J. Dempsey , 1. That Council object to the demolition of the house located at 1050 Whitevale Road; 2. That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; and 3. That Council designate 1050 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. , Carried Page f3 ATTACHMENT# 4 TO REPORT # 1�L N 1 b -15 March 29, 2015 • Via E-mail to: internet.feedback.mtour@ontario.ca The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Dear Minister Coteau; Re: . Built Heritage Threatened in Seaton I am writing you as a representative of the Whitevale and District Residents` Association regarding the fact that the City of Pickering received notice in November of 20.14 that an environmental consultant has been retained by Infrastructure Ontario and is in the process of gathering background information for the preparation of a Class B Environmental Assessment for the demolition of 15 properties in the Seaton Urban Area (North Pickering). While the City of Pickering has been reviewing this initial list of properties, I understand additional properties continue to be added to the list for proposed demolition.., After having reviewed the initial list of properties in question, we write to express our deep concern that the demolition of some of these properties are being contemplate.d; not only because of the potential for the immediate loss of these examples of built heritage in Ontario butalso for 1) the implications to Heritage protections in Ontario and to 2) the respect being afforded by Infrastructure Ontario to the 2013 OMB rulings on the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 22 (PL 101016 et al) . Of the 15 properties under consideration for demolition;eight already have some form of heritage designation, be that a listing on the Municipal Heritage Register, ORC Heritage Register or designations under either Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Four of these properties were also designated as "Heritage Lots" during the aforementioned 2013 OMB hearings. During the 2013 OMB hearings, Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 22 was accepted as an amendment to the Central Pickering'Development Plan (CPDP). Among the many changes, OPA 22: • moved the eastem boundary of the Whitevale District Conservation District to . the eastern village boundary, removing the school, cemetery and several 138 • ATTACHMENT_ TO REPORT 1/ at 10-15 properties from the protection of the Ontario Heritage Act Part V Designation within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District; • reconfirmed the CPDP goal of, "Cultural Heritage: The integration of cultural heritage into the new community by drawing•on the physical legacies of original aboriginal and European occupations."; • reconfirmed City Council's requirement that the Neighbourhood plans "incorporate significant built, heritage resources into the lot pattern of the new and mixed use neighbourhood"; and • recognized Whitevale Road between Golf Course Road and Sideline•22 as a "Character Road" with significant "built heritage resources" adjacent to the road. One of the justifications provided in the 2013 OMB ruling for the restatement of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District eastern boundary is, "that cultural heritage was comprehensively considered it the development of the CPDP". While several • studies have been performed in recent years, and it does appear that consideration for protection of heritage assets have been.incorporated into the CPDP, the actions now being taken by Infrastructure Ontario suggest that when it comes to execution of the plan, cultural heritage assets are not being protected at all. • Four of the properties along the "Character Road" stretch are on this list of 15 being considered for demolition and two of these are on designated "Heritage Lots". Two more of the 15 properties being considered for demolition outside the "Character Road" area are also on "Heritage Lots". Some of the 15 properties were listed in the Part V Whitevale Heritage Conservation District registration under the Ontario Planning Act and one (incredibly) is a beautiful, rare example of stonemason craftsmanship that was recentlydesignated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act on April 22, 2014. We are shocked that given all the discussions, negotiations, rulings and official designations under Ontario Law, these properties could even be considered for demolition. The CPDP claims to be concerned with preserving heritage assets, and the OMB ruling claimed that OPA 22 would provide the tools to continue to adequately protect our cultural heritage, however the fact that the demolition of these properties is now being considered suggest these Cultural Heritage Assets actually have no protection and that in spite of the language used in the OMB ruling on the matter and the CPDP, the protection of built heritage is not a priority. 139 ATTACHMENT # 6 TO REPORT # We expect that this is largely a financial decision and understand of course that your office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario, which we respect. However, we believe there are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have•an obligation to pursue. We believe demolition of built heritage assets should properties should only ever be considered as a Last resort. During Phase Two of the hearing, the OMB heard, evidence on maintenance and ownership of built heritage from the City of Pickering's heritage and planning experts. In our closing submission, a representative of the Whitevale and District Residents' Association requested the following: 1. A Recommendation from the Chair that the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham and the Province of Ontario enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to sell the Built Heritage within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District and Seaton Urban Area to the original land owners or current tenants; and 2. A Recommendation from the Chair that the City of Pickering, Regional' Municipality of Durham and the Province of Ontario enter into an MOU to ensure all Built Heritage resources remain occupied. During Phase Two of the hearing, the planning expert for the City of Pickering, Mr. Paul Lowes, was asked a series of questions during cross examination regardingthe Built Heritage of the Seaton Urban Area Development. When asked specifically who he believed Would be the best steward of heritage properties Mr. Lowes replied: It would be appropriate for the person living in the property to own the. property, subject to Dr. Bray's recommendations that if the property is transferred it should also be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. I agree that having owners and occupiers being one and the same would be appropriate to preserve the Heritage Buildings" • Minister Coteau, selling Built Heritage properties to the original land owner or current tenant was done for the lands west of the Whitevale Hamlet. The City of Pickering was involved in this process. The Central Pickering Development Plan states on page 12: Commencing in 1999, the Ontario Realty Corporation sold the agricultural lands located west of the Duffins Creek and within the Town of Pickering to the original land owners or tenant farmers. The sale was based on a Memorandum of Understanding signed by three levels of government - the Province, the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Town of Pickering -- 140 ATTACHMENT # 6 TO REPORT that committed all parties to ensuring that the lands remained in agricultural use in perpetuity. The memorandum of Understanding was supported by conservation and agricultural easements being placed on the lands. Why is the Built Heritage east of Whitevale being treated differently than those to the west? Given these properties are currently owned, by the Province, we believe the Province should take the lead and start the process of returning these lands to their original owners or current tenants as they have in the past. During Phase Two of the hearing the City of Pickering put into evidence the state of the Built Heritage in the Seaton Urban Area Development. In fact, the City of Pickering's . own expert in cultural and heritage planning, Dr. Carl Bray, stated in his expert witness statement: Ideally the plan [updated Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Plan] would include .a memorandum of understanding between the City and the Province regarding commitments by the latter to conserve Provincially - managed significant cultural heritage resources by designating them under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and ensuring that built heritage resources remain occupied and secure until the new neighbourhoods adjacent to • them are built and occupied. [emphasis added] • A conservation and preservation strategy is clearly required. Currently the state of Pickering`s Built Heritage varies substantially. Consider the following four examples taken from the Seaton Built Heritage Assessment Prepared by Andre Scheinman, Heritage Preservation Consultant, in November 2004 for the North Pickering Land Exchange Team. The first two examples (reference A & B) are properties which are currently unoccupied and now being•considered for demolition. The second two (reference C & D) are properties which are currently occupied but for which their futures are very uncertain should the first two be destroyed.. A. Albright Farmstead - 1050 Whitevale Road The Farmstead at 1050 Whitevale Road was given to Aaron Albright from .the Crown in 1852, originally set aside as part of the Clergy Reserve. The existing brick dwelling was built sometime after 1861, but likely from the physical/stylistic evidence within a decade of that date. 141 ATTACHMENT # b TO REPORT Substantial heritage fabric remains•including window surroundings with paneled dado, door surrounds and baseboards. Unfortunately serious damage occurred due to roof leaks. The property is considered to be of Local Significance.. When .visited 10 years ago this building was tenanted and considered an 'A' category structure though the sidelights and transom of the main entrance had been 'bricked in' sometime previous to that. However, since that time the building has become derelict. The fine 6/6 wood sash and, more significantly, the pointed arch sash with bar tracery have been removed from the building 'and replaced with vinyl units which bear no resemblance to the original sash. Of greater concern is the longstanding neglect of a roof leak that has allowed the roof structure and portions of the interior to -be sorely damaged, a condition that appears to be ongoing and has not been addressed. This building is certainly, at minimum, of Local Significance, and both the decision -maker with regards to window replacement and the neglect leading to its denigration are extremely unfortunate. ❖ See Attachment 1 for Photographs of the Albright Farmstead from Mr. Scheinman's Report B. Nathaniel Hastings House- 1130 Whitevale Road This lot was originally part of the extensive lands granted by the Crown to Isabella Hill. This house was built c. 183540 and is the only one within the area studies by Mr. Scheinman that was recorded in the 1851 consensus as being of stone. The building is a fin`e example of the vernacular adaptation of Anglo -Palladian (Georgian) motifs and is one of the few five bay residents built this early in the area. . The Nathaniel Hastings House is considered to be of high Regional Significance. The loss of original windows is unfortunate but otherwise much of the heritage fabric remains, including much of the interior. However, it is under threat and gradual attrition by neglect and low quality repairs/maintenance. Of particular 142 ATTACHMENT #4., -64 TO REPORT # k0"5 concern currently is the condition of the roof which appears about ready to fail and allow moisture to penetrate the historic interior 4* See Attachment -2 for Photograph of the Nathaniel Hastings House from Mr. Scheinman's Report C. Former Schoolhouse - 3215 Sideline 28 The Former School (the "Whitevale Schoolhouse") is a Greek Revival School Building built in 1864-65. After being declared redundant, the building was saved from demolition by its being purchased, restored and renovated as a' private home by the current occupant, Mr. Charles Neville, who bought the building in 1968 only to be expropriated in 1972. This rural 'school conforms closely to the prototype developed by J. G. Hodgins in his guidelines for school buildings in Upper Canada (1859) and still has many student names and dates_incised into the relatively soft brick. While the interior has been renovated for use as a private home, it has been done so with great respect for its former use preserving and revealing such items as original plaster cornice, chalkboards and coat rails. The fine heavy timber king -post roof structure remains unchanged. This resource is considered to be of high Regional Significance for the following reasons: • It was the educational and social focus of the community over 100 years where the education of the youth or generations of Majorville (Whitevale) and region took place; ■ It is a key landmark on the eastern approach to Whitevale. The Whitevale School has been carefully preserved and maintained by Mr. Neville who purchased it just prior to expropriation. • ❖ See Attachment 3 for Photographs of the Whitevale Schoolhouse from Mr. Scheinman''s Report D. William Turner House - 3250 Sideline 28 143 - ATTACHMENT # • REPORT L TO William Turner arrived in Pickering form New Brunswick in 1841 and'settled on this land. His descendants remained on the property until just after World War Two. Mr. Chris Kahn purchased the William Turner House in September 1973, his wife Allison moved in about four years later. Mr. Khan is a carpenter and handyman and has continued to occupy the William Turner House since its purchase nearly 40 years ago. A substantial amount of original detailing remains throughout the house including front door treatment, window and door castings, base and chair rail and wide pine flooring. Most impressive however is the wood paneled window embrasure and the heavy 2nd floor joists, finely planed and with beaded edges indicating clearly that they were always intended to be exposed. The William Turner House is considered Regionally Significant. Both interior and exterior remain quite intact including the early and now rare features. The site context also retains integrity.except for the loss of barns. :• See Attachment 4 for Photographs of William Turner House from Mr. Scheinman's Report • . We agree with both City of Pickering experts and feel the best way to protect these cultural heritage resources from the same fate of neglect and denigration is•to sell them back to the original or current owners who would be the best stewards of these Significant properties. In the cases where sales to the original or current owners are not possible, sale of the properties into private hands under appropriate conditions of heritage preservation is the next best alternative. Other important heritage homes in the Whitevale area have been preserved through this method including the posting of a performance bond by purchasing party to assure proper restoration and quality of workmanship. We respectfully ask that you please intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other valuable pieces of Ontario's history are not lost in spite of the contrary actions and commitments that -have already been made by all levels of government involved in this matter. 144 ATTACHMENTTO REPORT / Please feel free to contact representatives of the Whitevale and District Residents' Association at quig.robert@gmail.com or srfinlayson@hotmail.com to discuss the matter further. We are very interested in working with you to protect these heritage assets for future generations to enjoy. . Sincerely, Scott Finlayson President, Whitevale and District Residents' Association Robert Quig Vice President, Whitevale and District Residents' Association Copy: Hon. Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario Hon. Madeleine Meilleur, Attorney General of Ontario Joe Dickson, MPP Ajax -Pickering Heritage Pickering Mayor Ryan Members of Council Members, Ontario Municipal Board Members, Ontario Heritage Trust Chief Administrative Officer Director, Community Services Director, Office of Sustainability Chief Planning Officer 145 ATTACHMENT TO • REPORT Attachment 1 Photographs of the Albright Farmstead from Mr. Scheinman's Report Yeas fronsoulhetrst 146 Fig, 2:. T remkel born . ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # PLN j0 -15 Attachment 2 Photograph of the Nathaniel Hastings House from Mr. Scheinman's Report Fig 1: Fr -o71 elevation. Fig3: ParlourfirrpThea swround jr i,i hi It • :w Figs: barn inferior ' !r Flg.2; View form southeast Yr t Fg4: Early 7mob' newel 147 ATTACHMENT #t 6 TO REPORT #/ ��t`L 10-15 Attachment 3 Photographs of the Whitevale Schoolhouse from Mr: Scheinman's Report .11gJ: kaga& Nal; dafestone & cupola. F1 .3:Tree-Ito;d c.191I palls &planiirngs • `i • 148 ..i "4 • ri •4 + r% fag 2: 70iew/rom 110Pk hst F'lgr giestlgc aiplostercornice } .3: • C7lialkboaattenyiiti•t Placa, . ATTACHMENT TO REPORT 4 L 10-1 Attachment 4 Photographs of William Turner House from Mr.'Scheinman's Report Fig. 1: Front eleyatian and peremilaibedB Fig.3:.Original 'Cellar' 1dit:1zNn rrenlar:r. • i Fig.2 'Westeletivation c4c' later entrance to cellar Fig 4: Detail of beams & floorboards, finished with edge bead Fig.5: 73ppical tnleriorfeattmes 149 Celebre, Cristina From: Sent: To: Cc: ATTACHMENT # TO RER.081A . N I ONS Marion Thompson March -30-1510:45. AM Subject: Built Heritage Threatened in Pickering The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street • . Toronto, ON MIA 2E1 Dear Minister Coteau, Re: Built Heritage Threatened in Seaton write to you as a concerned citizen of Ontario and a long-time resident of Whitevale. I have become aware that Infrastructure Ontario has begun the assessment process to demolish 15 heritage properties in the Seaton Lands in North Pickering. Having reviewed the list of properties in question, I am writing to express my deep concern that demolition of some of these properties is being contemplated. I am concerned not only about their immediate loss, but also about the potential for future losses of other provincially -owned homes. In fact, several of the, properties being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage• designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Their heritage value has already been established and any other owner other than the government *of Ontario would'be obli&ated to maintain and protect these buildings.. And, if the houses are deemed to.be derelict, it has not escaped our notice that the Ontario Government has been the landlord for over 40 years! While this is likely a financial decision and I understand, of course, that your office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario, I believe there are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have an obligation to pursue. Demolition of built heritage assets should only ever be considered as a last resort: I respectfully ask that you please intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other,valuable pieces of Ontario's history are not lost in spite of the contraryactions and commitments that have alreadybeen made by all levels of government involved in this matter. 150 ATTACHMENT ,#, 6. TO REPORT # PLN 16-6. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Marion Thompson. 437 Churphwin St. Whiteyale, ON LOH 1MO Copy: Hon. Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Onfario Hon. Madeleine Meilleur, Attorney General of Onfario Joe Dickson, MPP Ajax -Pickering Heritage Pickering Mayor Ryan . Members of Coundll Members, Onfario Municipal Board Members, Ontario Heritage Trust ' Chief Administrative Officer Director, Community Services . .Direbtor, Office of Sustainability Chief Planning Officer 151 Celebre, Cristiria From: Sent: To: Cc: ATTACHMENT TO REPURI# 1b-15 Jerry mihailoff March -30-1.51:26 PM Subject: ' Demolition Derby The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Tourism, C lture and Sport • . Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst.Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Dear Minister Coteau, Re: ' Built Heritage Threatened in Seaton • • • am writing you as a concerned citizen 'of Ontario regarding the fact that I have become aware • that infrastructure Ontario has begun the assessment process to demolish 15 heritage properties in the Seaton Lands in North Pickering. • • • After having reviewed the list of properties in'question, I am writing you to express my deep concern that the demolition of some of these properties is being contemplated. I am concerned not only about their immediate loss, but also the potential for future fosses of other provincially owned homes. Several of the properties.being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Their heritage value hds already been established and any other owner other than the government of Ontario would be obligated to maintain and protect these buildings. While this is Iikely.a financial decision and 1 understand of course thafyour office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario, i.believe there are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have an•obligation to pursue. Demolition of built heritage assets should only ever be considered as a last resort. • 1 respectrully ask that you please intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other valuable pieces of Ontario's history, are not lost in spite of the contrary actions and commitments- that ommitmentsthat• have already been made by all levels of goverriment involved in this matter. Seven years ago we. purchased 'a heritage properly in the hamlet of Whitevale. With careful renovations, *e upgraded the living spaces and preserved the heritage attributes of the buildings. It 1. 152 ATTACHMENT # t0 TO • REPOBILU , has become a more than comfortable place to live, i rle prese ion atmany of these heritage buildings should become'dvailable to others with the same desire to appreciate the historic ' significance of the structures and become stewards of our Ontario history. The accelerated mindless housing sprawl on our best farmland in the Whitevale community, . exemplifies the mercenary approach developers have adopted to destroy'the most important resources we own. Surely you can save and restore a few monuments to display to future generations that we arellnot heartless. In this. critical time of "Save our Land and Water" can you n9t make these exceptions to do our part? . Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Jerrold Mihailoff Beverly Moroz • 2 153 'Celebre, Cristina From: Sent: To: Cc: ATTAC:t T 6 6 TO REPORT # PLA 10-15 • Brigitte Sopher April -131610:34 PM Subject: Heritage Properties Threatened in Seaton Via E-mail to: internet.feedback.mtour@ontario.ca The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 • 'Dear Minister Coteau, Re: Heritage properties threatened to be demolished in Seaton • 1 am writing you as a concerned citizen of Ontario and resident of the Heritage Hamlet of Whitevale. I have recently become aware that Infrastructure Ontario has begun the assessment process to demolish 15 heritage properties in the.Seaton Lands in North Pickering. i know some of the properties in question (for instance the beautiful stone house "Nathaniel Hastings House" at 1130 'Whitevale Road) and I have reviewed the list of all the properties slated for deinolition.1 am writing,you to•express my deep concern about the impendingioss of what is part of our region's heritage. Several of the properties being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage designation under the Ontario . • Heritage Act. Some have been labelled as being of "high regional significance". Some are simply beautiful wood or stone,structures from the 19th century, which represent various periods in our region's history. Their heritage value has already been established and any owner other than the government of Ontario would be obligated to maintain and protect these buildings. Once demolished they would represent pn irreplaceable loss for our community and even for our province. • This is likely a financial decision and I understand that your office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario. However, your responsibility is not•only to accommodate today'staxpayers, it is also to consider the preservation of our cultural assets for•the benefit of future, generations. There are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have an obligation -to pursue. Demolition of built heritage assets' should only ever be.considered as a last resort. Examples in neighbouring towns such as Markham have demonstrated that such buildings can be sold and lovingly restored by dedicated owners. They contribute to the pride we have in our roots, in the culture arid history of oui- community. The fate of fhese buildings deserve careful consideration..1 respecfifully ask that you intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other valuable pieces &Ontario's history are not lost, in spite 1 .154 ATTACHMENT # TO REROA H A`‘ \O-15 Celebre, Cristina From: Sent: To; ' Cc: johnjudy duffus April -09-15 4:41 PM Subject: Heritage Buildings on Concession Road 5, Whitevale, Ontario The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Culture, Tourism and Sport I am writing to you about the proposal to demolish many heritage houses, currently owned by the province, on Concession Five in Whitevale. I understand that the demolitions are to make way for the Seaton project. I also . understand that despite a heritage designation the province may over rule the designation if it so chooses. Concession Five is 4. -part of Pickering's heritage. The area in question. runs between Brock Road in the East and the village of Whitevale in the West. It runs in a straight line and rises and falls with the landscape. Along the . road are many examples of early farmsteads. In particular there are several one storey stone houses, one larger stone house, 615 Whitevale Road, and the original schoolhouse at 3215 Sideline 28. This is a Greek revival schoolFbuilding constructed in 1864-65. It has been lovingly preserved by the current.resident. Of interest is the exterior where graduating students have • etched their names over the past one hundred years. #615 was built by a Mr Major who founded the community of Whitevale, which was at first named Maj oryille. This beautiful house is located on.the crest of a hill opposite to Sideline 26. •• This house is an important part of the.history'of settlement around the mill on Duffin Creek, over a hundred years ago. As such it should be preserved and maintained for future generations and not demolished. • Your intervention in this matter will be appreciated by all local residents and by those interested in the history of the area. • In grateful anticipation Judy Duffus 479 Churchwin Street Whitevale, Ontario LOH 1M0 j'd ail.com • • 155 ATTACHMENT #TO , • REPORT .# 'FIA 111-15 of the contrary dctions and commitments that have u ri edd"rbeerrrncde by all levels of government involved in this matter. Thank you for your attention to this imporfarit issue. Sincerely, Brigitte Sopher Copy: Hon. Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario Hon. Madeleine Meilleur, Attorney General of Ontario Joe Dickson, MPP Ajax -Pickering • Heritage'Pickering Mayor Ryan Members of Council • Members, Ontario Municipal Board Members, Ontario Heritage Trust Chief Administrative Officer Director, Comrriunity Services Director, Office of Sustainability • Chief Planning Officer 2 156 Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 11-15 Date: September 14, 2015 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Federal Lands Revised Pickering Airport Site and Revised Airport Zoning Regulations File: T-2700-003 Recommendation: 1. That Transport Canada be advised that the City of Pickering does not object to the Order that appeared in the Canada Gazette, Part 1, on July 18, 2015, proposing to declare a smaller Pickering Airport Site and the corresponding revised Airport Zoning Regulations; and 2. Further, that a copy of Report PLN 11-15 be forwarded to Transport Canada, the Region of Durham, the Region of York, the City of Markham, the Town of Whitby, the Town of Ajax, Township of Uxbridge, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, the Township of Scugog, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Executive Summary: In 2001, the Federal Government declared the entire 7,530 hectares (18,600 acres) that it had acquired (in 1972) for a potential airport as the "Pickering Lands Airport Site". In 2005, the Federal Government enacted Airport Zoning Regulations (AZRs) for the Pickering Site. AZRs put in place controls to protect the safety of aviation and aircraft from hazards including: restricting the height of buildings and objects; restricting uses that would attract wildlife (birds); and restricting uses that would create electronic interference with aircraft and airport communication. In 2013, the Federal Government transferred 2,023 hectares (5,000 acres) of the Pickering Lands to the Rouge National Urban Park, and then in 2015, committed to transferring an additional 2,104 hectares (5,200 acres) to the Park. The Federal Government advised that the remainder of the Lands will be protected for economic development including an airport (see Newly identified Land Uses for the Pickering Lands, Attachment #1). Since the Federal Government has determined that only part of the Lands originally declared as an Airport Site will need to be protected for an airport, a revised Declaration Order identifying the reduced area of 3,520 hectares (8,700 acres) has been published in the July 18, 2015 edition of the Canada Gazette. In conjunction with the intent to declare a smaller Airport Site, and a minor change in the orientation of the possible runways, the Federal Government has also determined that revised AZRs are required. The revised AZRs have also been published in the July 18, 2015 edition of the Canada Gazette. Interested parties have up to September 15, 2015 to provide written comments to Transport Canada on both proposals. 157 Report PLN 11-15. September 14, 2015 Subject: • Revised Pickering Airport Site and Revised AZRs Page 2 The Federal Government's conclusion that a significant amount of the land it acquired in 1972 is no longer required to be protected for a potential airport is supported. The intended transfer of over half of the Pickering Lands Airport Site to the Rouge National Urban Park is a significant addition that will augment the environmental and agricultural systems of the Park. The remaining amount of land is sufficient for airport purposes and related economic development opportunities. It is recommended that Council advise Transport Canada that the City of Pickering has no objection to the proposed Order to declare a smaller "Pickering Airport Site". The corresponding revisions to the AZRs result in a reduction to the number of Pickering properties subject to the height and electronic interference controls. However, all property owners in Pickering who are subject to the 2005 AZRs are subject to restrictions on land uses that attract wildlife and birds, and will remain subject to these same restrictions under the revised AZRs as the extent of the wildlife (bird) hazard zone did not change within the City. Overall, the AZRs did not change significantly for lands in Pickering, and staff recommend that Council advise Transport Canada that the City of Pickering has no objection to the proposed revisions to the AZRs. Financial Implications: There is no cost to the City in responding to Transport Canada's notice of intent to prepare new AZRs for a smaller Pickering Airport Site. 1. Background 1.1 Original declaration of the Pickering Airport Site In 1972, the Government of Canada expropriated 7,530 hectares of land located in Pickering, Markham and Uxbridge for the potential development of a new airport. The majority of the expropriated lands are located in Pickering. At the same time, three Provincial Minister's Zoning Orders (MZOs) were enacted to ensure that land use and new development proposals on lands adjacent to the Federally -owned lands would remain compatible with a future airport and its operations. The lands were declared an airport site in August 2001 by the Federal Minister of Transport, and became known as the "Pickering Lands", 1.2 The introduction of Airport Zoning Regulations Airport Zoning Regulations (AZRs) help ensure that potential and future development near an airport site remains compatible with the safe operation of aircraft and an airport site. In 2005, the Federal Government enacted AZRs to protect lands for a possible Pickering airport. A map showing the extent of land subject to the 2005 AZRs is provided as Attachment #2. The existing AZRs affect lands in the City of Pickering, the Towns of Ajax and Whitby, and the Townships of Scugog and Uxbridge in Durham Region, as well as, the City of Markham, and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville in the Region of York. 158 Report PLN 11=15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Revised Pickering Airport Site and Revised AZRs Page 3 1.3 The Federal Government has initiated the formal regulatory process to reflect a smaller airport site and revised Airport Zoning Regulations A Public Notice advising of the Federal Government's intent to declare a smaller airport site on the Pickering Lands, to propose revised AZRs, and to undertake future public consultation appeared in the Pickering News Advertiser on January 29, 2014. On July 18 and 25, 2015, a notice pursuant to the Aeronautics Act was published in the Canada Gazette, Part 1, initiating a 60 -day public consultation period as part of the formal regulatory process to establish an order declaring a smaller Pickering Airport Site and to introduce revised Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulations. Interested parties have up to September 15, 2015 to submit written comments to Transport Canada about the order and the proposed regulations. 2. Discussion 2.1 The declaration of a smaller airport site will facilitate the creation of a larger Rouge National Urban Park In June 2013, the Federal Government announced plans for the development of the Pickering Lands. The plan included the transfer of 2,023 hectares of land to the newly created Rouge National Urban Park, the identification of land for economic development, and a proposed Pickering Airport Site reduced in size to 3,520 hectares. The smaller Pickering Airport Site would be located entirely within the City of Pickering. A map showing the proposed smaller airport site is attached (see Newly Identified Land Uses for the Pickering Lands, Attachment #1). Subsequently, in July 2015, the Federal Government announced that an additional 2,104 hectares in the northwest sector of the Pickering Lands would be added to the Rouge National Urban Park. The Federal Government -is retaining the remaining lands to accommodate a Pickering Airport Site. Lands east of Brock Road and south of Highway 7 will be retained by the Federal Government of economic development purposes (see Attachment #1). 2.2 Airport Zoning Regulations ensure development will not create a hazard to aviation All landowners and lessees within the regulated area must comply with the AZRs. The AZRs are deposited on title in local Provincial Land Registry Offices by the Federal Government. A landowner or representative searching title will be advised by a notice on the abstract page that the property is affected by the airport zoning regulations. Area municipalities affected by the regulations use these regulations when considering development proposals within the vicinity of an airport. Any land use, building, structure and object that existed on the day the AZRs come into force, is grandfathered. 159 Report PLN 11-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Revised Pickering Airport Site and Revised AZRs Page 4 AZRs restrict the height of buildings, structures and objects, including natural growth, on regulated lands within the vicinity of an airport. By regulating such features, the AZRs are intended to prevent lands near the Pickering Airport Site from being used or developed in a manner that would be incompatible with the safe operation of an airport or aircraft. AZRs comprise regulatory zones that include restrictions on: • the height of structures, objects and natural growth • land uses and -activities that cause electronic interference with communications or signals to and from aircraft and other aeronautical facilities, and • land uses and activities that attract birds that could cause a hazard for aircraft 2.3 For the majority of the lands in Pickering, the revised Airport Zoning Regulations have no impact The 2005 AZRs protect for an airport consisting of three strip surfaces (runways) in east/west, and northwest/southeast configurations on 3,520 hectares (see Extent of Lands Subject to the 2005 Airport Zoning Regulations, Attachment #2). The revised AZRs protect for a smaller airport site also consisting of three strip surfaces (runways) but of reduced length, and having similar but slightly different configurations (see Extent of Land Subject to the Revised.Airport Zoning Regulations, Attachment #3). The reduction in airport site size and changes in runway configurations do not propose any changes for lands within the City of Pickering that are subject to the existing restrictions on land uses and activities that cause a bird hazard for aircraft (see the Wildlife Hazard Zone dashed lines on Attachments #2 and #3). Lands in Pickering that are subject to existing restrictions on land uses and activities that cause a bird hazard for aircraft will continue to be subject to the same restrictions under the revised AZRs. There are minimal implications on Pickering landowners who are subject to the regulatory zones that restrict the height of structures, objects and natural growth; and land uses and activities that cause -electronic interference with communications: There is a modest reduction in the size of the area subject to these restrictions in Pickering. However, because of the change in orientation of the proposed runways, some additional properties will now be subject to these restrictions (and some other properties will no longer be affected). The following summarizes the impact of the revised AZRs within the City of Pickering (see Impact of Revised Airport Zoning Regulations, Attachment #4): • all lands in Pickering that are subject under the 2005 AZRs to restrictions on land uses and activities that cause a bird hazard for aircraft continue to be subject to restrictions on land uses and activities that cause a bird hazard for aircraft under the revised AZRs, 160 Report PLN 11-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Revised Pickering Airport Site and Revised AZRs Page 5 • the majority of the lands within Pickering that are subject to height and land use restrictions under the 2005 AZRs will continue to be subject to height and land use restrictions under the revised AZRs (see areas shown in 'yellow' on Attachment #4), • three areas that are subject to height and land use restrictions under the 2005 AZRs will not be subject to restrictions on height and land uses that cause electronic interference but will continue to be subject to restrictions on land uses that cause bird hazards under the revised AZRs (see areas shown in 'green' on Attachment #4), and • two areas that not subject to height and land use restrictions under the 2005 AZRs will be subject to height and land use restrictions under the revised AZRs (see areas shown.in 'purple' on Attachment #4). 2.4 The Seaton Employment Lands will continue to be subject to the Airport Zoning Regulations The Seaton Employment lands are regulated by the 2005 AZRs, and will also be regulated by the revised AZRs. Development of these lands will continue to be subject to restrictions on building height and natural growth, and land uses and activities that cause interference with communication and attract wildlife. Subject to the site specific grade elevations, development sites in the employment corridor will be subject to a maximum building height of approximately 45 metres or 10 to 12 stories. 2.5 Changes to the Minister's Zoning Orders While there have been recent reductions in the extent of the MZO in Markham, the Province has made no changes to the MZOs in Pickering as a result of the implementation of the existing or proposed revised AZRs. Transport Canada has indicated that there will be future discussions with the Province with respect to the MZOs. 3. Conclusion 3.1 The declaration of a smaller airport site and revised Airport Zoning Regulations will have minimal impact for Pickering For the majority of lands in Pickering that are subject to the 2005 AZRs, the declaration of a smaller airport site, and revised AZRs will have minimal impacts. The addition of over half of the original Pickering Airport Site to the Rouge National Urban Park is a positive action. Staff recommend that Transport Canada be advised that the City of Pickering has no objection to the proposed declaration of a smaller Pickering Airport Site and the revised AZRs. Further, staff recommend that a copy of Report PLN 11- 15 be forwarded to municipalities subject to the 2005 AZRs, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 161 Report PLN 11-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Revised Pickering Airport Site and Revised AZRs Page 6 Attachments 1. Newly Identified Land Uses for the Pickering Lands 2. Extent of Lands Subject to the 2005 Airport Zoning Regulations 3. Extent of Lands Subject.to the Revised Airport Zoning Regulations 4. Impact of Revised Airport Zoning Regulations Prepared By: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner – Policy Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP anagen; Policy & Geomatics 162 DW:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Thomas Melymi.$k, MCIP, RPP Director, City Development Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer A6,6. 31 , 2D1.5 LEGEND Existing Airport Site Boundary Municipal Boundaries Portion Transferred to Rouge National Urban Park Within Existing Airport Site Portion to Be Transferred to Rouge National Urban Park Within Existing Airport Site New Proposed Airport sue Other Retained Federal Lands NES City Development Department Newly Identified Land Uses for the Pickering Lands FILE No: T 2700-003 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEVFOR VIEWINGATTHECITYOFPICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Aug. 17, 2015 LEGEND Existing Airport Site Boundary Munkpal Rix ndarteS Initial 7 Runway Layout Edsbng Approach Surfecn (A.S.) Existing Transitional Surface Edstlng Outer Surface Existing Wildfire/Bird Hazard Zone Boundary Alrpert Reference Point stS City Development Department Extent of Lands Subject to the 2005 Airport Zoning Regulations FILE No: T 2700-003 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING c[rY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE Aug. 17, 2015 rrrlrrr •• • rrs a rr erer�rr r ` , ',C rr. rrrI. • Errs • t\. ail • • • • z ' ``\. % p 1' I ._` Legend • "' ,\ �•" • :::::::::t::: o +� • Proposed Transitional Surface r, u Proposed de).............. :::rs::::3�m Proposed • ,„.....,.___ mew" * r— if _ 1111. ) \lir, ` ol" )-' '41koili • • ithl ill. -140,' -1'1 ..06014114491111111 000 0.61:,%,016 ,1K • Wildlife Hazard Zone m >R A Airport Reference Point n - . Extent of Lands Subject to the Revised Airport Zoning Regulations - FILE No: T 2700-003 ESN le.[ City Development Department FULL SCALE COPIES CF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEW NG AT THE CITY OF PICKERING • CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: Aug.17,2015 9' z DJ DZI X m AITAGHiIEN f # 4 TO REPORT 6 RA II -15 ori SS��,�1 1 I sitaiiniminalimtno HIY 01- UXtiHlUlat 1■iI■11.11■ 11111■ililiti1111111■ 1U1q■11■11■11■ li■11■I■11■ • 12-1:11— REGIONAL ROAD 5 • % .REGIONAL RO4.5 . •r �. 1 U far AJAX CC 0 i ro Impact of Revised Airport Zoning Regulations ■11■i City of Pickering Boundary —••—•, Municipal Boundaries " Air ort Site Boundary ® Runways Approaches r‘iZ Wildlife/Bird Hazard Zone Lands continue to be subject to height and land use restrictions on land uses that cause bird hazards and electronic interference Lands no longer subject to height and land use restrictions but continue to be subject to restrictions on land uses that cause bird hazards and electronic interference Lands now subject to height and land use restrictions on land uses that cause bird hazards and electronic interference City of Pickering