Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 10, 2020City 6h PICKE RiNG Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming Due to COVID-19 and the Premier's Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, the City of Pickering continues to hold electronic Council and Committee Meetings. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by accessing the livestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City's website following the meeting. Page 1. Roll Call 2. Disclosure of Interest 3. Statutory Public Meetings Statutory Public Meetings are held to receive input and feedback on certain types of planning applications. Due to the need to hold electronic meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, members of the public who wish to address the Planning & Development Committee for any matters listed under Statutory Public Meetings may do so via an audio connection into the electronic meeting. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks(a�pickerinq.ca by 12:00 noon on the business day prior to the meeting. Please ensure that you provide the telephone number you wish to be called at so that you can be connected via audio when it is your turn to make a delegation. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City's website as part of the meeting minutes. 3.1 Information Report No. 10-20 1 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. Lots 1, 2, 43 & 46, Plan 316 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 (1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road) 3.2 Information Report No. 11-20 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/20 Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148 (631 Liverpool Road) 20 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca City 6h DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda August 10, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming 4. Delegations Due to COVID-19 and the Premier's Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning & Development Committee for any matters listed under Planning and Development Reports, may do so via an audio connection into the electronic meeting. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. Persons who wish to speak to an item that is on the agenda must register by 12:00 noon on the last business day before the meeting. All delegations for items not listed on the agenda shall register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair and invited to join the meeting via audio connection. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please ensure you provide the phone number that you wish to be contacted on. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City's website as part of the meeting minutes. 5. Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 14-20 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Shared Network Canada Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) Installation #66 Recommendation: That Shared Network Canada be advised that City Council does not object to the proposal for a 45.0 metre high tapered self -supported style telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road, based on the design and location of the revised proposal. 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment 34 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca c44 DICKERING Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 10-20 Date: August 10, 2020 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. Lots 1, 2, 43 & 46, Plan 316 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 (1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road) 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding revised applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Highmark (Pickering) Inc., to permit a high-density residential condominium development. 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. The 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 decision 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 revised proposal. 2. Property Location and Description The subject lands are located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road within the Village East Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands comprise three properties, municipally known as 1640 Kingston Road, and 1964 and 1970 Guild Road. The lands have a total area of approximately 1.88 hectares of which only the easterly half (approximately 0.99 of a hectare) are developable. The westerly half of the subject lands (approximately 0.81 of a hectare) are subject to an easement in favour of Hyrdo One and form part of the Hydro Corridor (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). The developable lands will have approximately 116 metres of frontage along Kingston Road and approximately 94 metres of frontage along Guild Road. The subject lands were previously used for commercial purposes, but are currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include: North: Immediately to the north is an established low-density residential neighbourhood consisting of detached dwellings fronting Guild Road. Information Report No. 10-20 Page 2 East: At the northeast corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road is a vehicle repair and maintenance shop (Midas). South: Across Kingston Road is a medium -density residential neighbourhood consisting of detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings. To the west of the residential neighbourhood is the Hydro Corridor and the Diana Princess of Wales Park. West: To the west is the Hydro Corridor, and further west is a medium -density residential development consisting of three-storey townhouse dwellings. 3. Background In 2018, Highmark (Pickering) Inc. submitted applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate 2 apartment buildings having heights of 12 and 8 -storeys containing 236 units and 64 back-to-back stacked townhouse units (see Original Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3). A public open house meeting was held on January 10, 2019, and a statutory public meeting was held on February 4, 2019. The following is a list of key concerns and comments that were expressed by the area residents regarding the previous proposal: • commented that the proposed density and population increase on the site will result in negative traffic impacts at the intersection of Kingston Road and Guild Road; • concerned that the heights of the proposed apartment buildings and back-to-back stacked townhouse buildings are out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood; • commented that the proposed density substantially exceeds the City's maximum density requirements and that the proposed high-density development will not be consistent with the established character and built form along Guild Road, which is characterized by detached dwellings on large lots; • questioned if the intersection of Kingston Road and Guild Road would be signalized; and • concerned that there is an insufficient number of resident and visitor parking proposed to support the development and that there will be overflow parking on Guild Road. In addition to the above -noted comments, a petition, signed by 42 area residents was also submitted, which expressed concerns related to the negative traffic implications that the proposed development would have on Kingston Road, Guild Road and Finch Avenue. 4. Applicant's Revised Proposal On May 6, 2020 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. submitted revised applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate 2 apartment buildings having heights of 18 and 14 -storeys containing 346 units, which will be connected by a 6 -storey podium (see Revised Conceptual Site Plan and Revised Conceptual Elevation Plan, Attachments #4 and #5). The applicant is also proposing a daycare facility, which will occupy approximately 566 square metres on the ground floor. The applicant is proposing two separate blocks to facilitate the development. Block 1 will contain the apartment buildings, daycare facility, and associated at grade and underground parking. Block 2, which includes the lands that are subject to an easement in favour of Hydro One and are partially occupied by the hydro towers and overhead wires, are proposed to be conveyed to the City to be used as parkland and satisfy the applicant's parkland dedication requirements. Block 2 also includes the parcel of land at 1970 Guild Road. - 2 - Information Report No. 10-20 Page 3 The applicant and City staff have had preliminary discussions with Hydro One and Infrastructure Ontario (10) regarding the opportunity to use the lands within the hydro corridor for public park purposes. Hydro One and 10 were generally supportive of leasing their lands within the hydro corridor to the City provided that the uses within the hydro corridor met their requirements. The applicant has provided a conceptual park design plan illustrating how the lands within the hydro corridor could be used for recreation purposes (see Conceptual Park Design Plan, Attachment #7). Some potential recreational uses located within the hydro corridor could include soccer fields, a basketball court, a skateboard park, community gardens, trails and vehicular parking areas with access from Kingston Road and Finch Avenue. The proposed Official Plan Amendment seeks to increase the maximum permitted residential density on Block 1. The Zoning By-law Amendment is intended to rezone Block 1 to an appropriate residential zone category and establish appropriate development standards. Block 2 is proposed to be rezoned to an appropriate open space zone category to permit passive and active recreational uses. The 14 -storey building (Building A) is proposed to be located at the corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road, with the longest section of the exterior facade running north along Guild Road. Building A steps down progressively from 14 to 6 -storeys along the east facade and at the most northerly portion of the building. The 18 -storey building (Building B) will front Kingston Road (see Revised Conceptual Rendering, Attachment #6). The 2 apartment towers will be connected by a 6 -storey podium, which will accommodate indoor amenity areas and a rooftop outdoor amenity area. The proposed daycare facility will be located on the ground floor in the most westerly section of the building. The facility will have an independent exterior access and have a drop-off area immediately adjacent to the front entrance. The facility will have a dedicated outdoor amenity area, which will be located immediately west of the building. Vehicular access to the proposed development will be provided through a private looped road, accessed from the west side of Guild Road. The internal private road will provide access to the daycare drop off area, a 2 -level underground parking garage, surface parking areas and a loading space. The table below summarizes the key details between the original and revised proposals: 3 Original Proposal Revised Proposal Total Residential Gross Floor Area Buildings A and B — 18,370 square metres (Apartments) Buildings C, D and E — 4,970 square metres (back-to-back townhouses) Buildings A and B — 25,936 square metres (Apartments) Back-to-back townhouses have been eliminated Total Commercial Gross Floor Area N/A Day Care Facility — 566 square metres 3 Information Report No. 10-20 Page 4 The applicant has indicated that the development is proposed to be constructed in two phases. The first phase will include the construction of Building A, the shared lobby, the amenity area, and the underground parking garage. The second phase will include the construction of Building B and the daycare facility. The proposal will be subject to site plan approval, and an application for a draft plan of condominium will be submitted at a later date. - 4 - Original Proposal Revised Proposal Total Number of Units 300 units (236 apartment units and 64 back-to-back stacked townhouse units) 346 apartment units Density 304 units per net hectare 349 units per net hectare Floor Space Index 2.34 2.68 Number of Storeys Building A — Maximum 12 -storeys Building B — Maximum 8 -storeys Buildings C, D, and E — Maximum 3.5 -storeys Building A — Maximum 14 -storeys Building B — Maximum 18 -storeys Unit Types One -bedroom & One -bedroom with den: 159 Two-bedroom & Two-bedroom with den: 141 One -bedroom & One -bedroom with den: 233 Two-bedroom & Two-bedroom with den: 113 Vehicular Parking Ratio Apartment Unit: 0.8 space per unit Stacked Townhouse Unit: 1.25 space per unit Visitor: 0.15 space per unit Apartment Unit: 0.8 space per unit Visitor: 0.15 space per unit Daycare: 1 space per employee plus 3 spaces and 1 space per classroom Vehicular Parking Resident — 283 spaces Visitor — 45 spaces Resident — 278 spaces Visitor — 52 spaces Day -Care — 27 spaces Bicycle Parking Internal — 140 spaces Surface — 46 spaces Internal — 131 spaces Surface — 44 spaces Amenity Area Indoor — 495 square metres Outdoor — 260 square metres (rooftop outdoor amenity) and 197 square metres as a central outdoor landscaped amenity area Total — 952 square metres Residential Indoor — 707 square metres Residential Outdoor — 472 square metres (rooftop outdoor amenity) and 173 square metres as a central outdoor landscaped amenity area Total — 1,352 square metres The applicant has indicated that the development is proposed to be constructed in two phases. The first phase will include the construction of Building A, the shared lobby, the amenity area, and the underground parking garage. The second phase will include the construction of Building B and the daycare facility. The proposal will be subject to site plan approval, and an application for a draft plan of condominium will be submitted at a later date. - 4 - Information Report No. 10-20 Page 5 5. Policy Framework 5.1 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. Also, 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-term 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. Kingston Road is designated as a Type B' Arterial Road and a Rapid Transit Spine in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Type `B' Arterial Roads are designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds, connect with freeways, other arterial roads and collector roads. Rapid Transit Spines are corridors that are planned to provide dedicated transit lanes in most arterial road sections, and intersect with local transit. Development along transit spines shall provide for complementary higher density and mixed uses at an appropriate scale and context, buildings oriented towards the street to reduce walking distances, facilities which support non -auto modes of transportation, and limited surface parking and the potential redevelopment of surface parking. The right-of-way width requirement for this section of Kingston Road is 45 metres for an ultimate 6 -lane cross-section. The proposed development appears to conform to the policies and provisions of the Regional Official Plan. 5.2 Pickering Official Plan The subject lands are located within the Village East Neighbourhood. The majority of Block 1 is designated "Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Corridors" while the lands at 1964 and 1970 Guild Road are designated "Urban Residential Areas — Medium Density". 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 140 units per net hectare and a maximum FSI up to and including 2.5 FSI. The "Urban Residential Areas — Medium Density" designation permits residential uses at densities of over 30 and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. 5 Information Report No. 10-20 Page 6 The majority of Block 2 is designated "Freeways & Major Utilities — Potential Multi -Use Areas", which permits community gardens, farmers' markets, and public or private uses that are compatible with adjacent land uses that do not affect the operation of the utility. The applicant is requesting to amend the Official Plan to re -designate all lands within Block 1 to "Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Corridors" with a site-specific exception to permit a maximum residential density of 349 units per net hectare and a maximum FSI of 2.68. 5.3 Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan and Draft Urban Design Guidelines The Village East Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan identify that the Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines apply to the subject lands. The Guidelines are intended to guide the design of Kingston Road, as well as the developments that flank or front Kingston Road. The key objectives are summarized in Attachment #8 to this Report. The Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines, which were adopted by Pickering Council in 1997, do not reflect the new vision for the Kingston Road Corridor established by the Council endorsed Draft Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Urban Design Guidelines. The 1997 Development Guidelines are intended to be superseded by the new draft Urban Design Guidelines. On December 2, 2019, the Planning & Development Committee endorsed in principle the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan (Intensification Plan) and the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Draft Urban Design Guidelines (Draft Urban Design Guidelines). The Intensification Plan and Draft Urban Design Guidelines were prepared as a result of the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study, which represented the second phase of the South Pickering Intensification Study. The Intensification Plan contains a comprehensive framework for redevelopment and intensification along the Corridor and within the Retailing Node. The Draft Urban Design Guidelines articulate the vision set by the Intensification Plan and provide specific design considerations. The subject lands are located in the Brock Precinct within the Intensification Plan. The recommended land use for the subject lands within the Intensification Plan is Residential. The policy recommendations of the Plan outline that residential areas are encouraged to achieve a broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure, and cost to meet the housing needs of existing and future residents as they evolve over time and that built form such as apartment dwellings of various heights, townhouses and live -work units are encouraged. Office and retail uses may also be permitted but should be limited to live -work units on the ground floor of residential buildings. The Plan also provides the following policy recommendations relevant to the proposed development: • residential development should support the City's affordable housing targets which encourage a minimum 25 percent of new residential construction to be of forms that would be affordable to households of low or moderate -income; • transitions between buildings and appropriate transitions in height, mass and scale must be established in response to stable residential neighbourhoods to the north and east; - 6 - Information Report No. 10-20 Page 7 • tall buildings should be located to minimize shadow impacts and wind tunnel effects on proximate parks, open spaces, primary frontage sidewalks and existing low-rise residential areas; • buildings fronting Kingston Road should be setback 5.0 metres from the front property line and should be setback a minimum of 3.0 metres from parks and open spaces; • a 2 -metre wide raised cycle track with an enhanced treed and landscaped planting area is recommended on both sides of Kingston Road; • off-street parking and cycling infrastructure are encouraged to be provided within structured or underground parking within private properties to facilitate connectivity and minimize the heat island effect created by large surface parking; and • reduced minimum parking standards are encouraged to reflect the area's compact, high-density urban form and shift towards a pedestrian and transit -oriented environment. The Draft Urban Design Guidelines support the goals, objectives, and vision for the area as set out in the Intensification Plan and establish design priorities and principles related to built form, placemaking, and connectivity. The following key priorities of the Guidelines are relevant to the proposed development: • new buildings should be massed and scaled to establish compatible heights to adjacent streets and open spaces; • entrances should be highly visible, front onto the public street, and connect to pedestrian walkways or sidewalks; • a minimum separation distance of 15 metres shall be provided between facing buildings on sites with multiple buildings; • vehicular entrances and access points should have minimal impact on walkways; • vehicular access from Kingston Road should be minimized; • surface parking is discouraged adjacent to at -grade residential areas; • landscape shall be an integral piece of the site design and be developed to unify and enhance the overall architecture of a development; • sustainable and Low Impact Development (LID) measures are encouraged for all development to reduce stormwater run-off; and • natural heritage assets should be connected and made accessible through sidewalks and trails. The City is in the process of preparing an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the Intensification Plan. The applications will be assessed against the framework and policy recommendations of the Intensification Plan and the design priorities of the Draft Urban Design Guidelines. 5.4 Zoning By-law 3036 The majority of the subject lands are currently zoned "C2" — General Commercial Zone within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 3692/69 and By-law 3920/70, which permits the use of the subject lands for a food market and complimentary retail stores. The parcels of land at 1964 and 1970 Guild Road are zoned "R3" — Residential Third Density Zone, which permits one single detached dwelling per lot. - 7 Information Report No. 10-20 Page 8 A zoning by-law amendment is required to implement the applicant's proposal. Block 1 will be rezoned to an appropriate mixed -used residential zone category with site-specific performance standards to facilitate the proposed apartment buildings and daycare facility. Block 2 will be rezoned to an open space zone category to permit the lands to be used for public recreational uses. 6. Comments Received 6.1 Public comments on the revised proposal The City has received written comments from 2 area residents in regards to the revised proposal, expressing the following concerns: • commented that the revised proposal does not address the previous concerns outlined in the submitted petition signed by 42 residents related to the proposed site access on Guild Road and negative traffic impacts on Kingston Road, Guild Road and Finch Avenue; and • commented the proposed density increase will result in negative traffic impacts at the intersections of Kingston Road and Guild Road and Guild Road and Finch Avenue. 6.2 Agency Comments 6.2.1 Region of Durham • No comments received at the time of writing. 6.2.2 Hydro One Networks Inc. (HONI) • No comments received at the time of writing. 6.2.3 Durham District School Board • no objections to the approval of the proposed development; and • students from this development will attend existing neighbourhood schools. 6.2.4 Durham Catholic School Board • No comments received at the time of writing. 6.3 City Department Comments 6.3.1 Engineering Services Department • No comments received at the time of writing. 6.3.2 Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and others identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant before a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: - 8 - Information Report No. 10-20 Page 9 • ensuring conformity with all applicable statutory policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017), and the Region of Durham Official Plan; • ensuring the proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Pickering Official Plan; • assessing the appropriateness of the proposal, including the requested increase in density, in the context of the Council Kingston Road Corridor and the Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan and Draft Urban Design Guidelines; • ensuring the proposed housing form and density is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; • evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed site layout, building setbacks, massing and landscaping to ensure the City's urban design objectives are achieved; • assessing the appropriateness and suitability of the proposed parking ratios; • evaluating the desirability of accepting the proposed park block as parkland dedication; and • continuing to work with Hydro One and Infrastructure Ontario to determine the types of recreational and community uses that could be permitted within the Hydro Corridor. Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and public. 6. Information Received Copies of the plans and studies submitted in support of the revised applications are listed below and available for viewing on the City's website at pickering.ca/devapp or in person by appointment at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Site Plan and Site Statistics, prepared by Kohn Partnership Architects Inc., dated April 24, 2020 • Conceptual Floor Plan and Elevations, prepared by Kohn Partnership Architects, dated April 24, 2020 • Traffic Impact Study, prepared by The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd., dated April 2020 • Functional Servicing Report, prepared by Valdor Engineering Inc., dated April 2020 • Preliminary Site Servicing Plan, prepared by Valdor Engineering Inc., dated March 19, 2020 • Preliminary Grading Plan, prepared by Valdor Engineering Inc., dated March 19, 2020 • Sun/Shadow Study Report, prepared by Kohn Partnership Architects, dated January 30, 2020 • Hydrogeological Assessment, prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated June 2020 • Conceptual Landscape Plan, prepared by Marton Smith Landscape Architects, dated March 13, 2020 9 Information Report No. 10-20 Page 10 7. Procedural Information 7.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Electronic Statutory Public 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 7.2 Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority • the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such application is determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest • the Region has not yet advised if the revised application for Official Plan Amendment is considered to have no significant Regional or Provincial concerns and therefore exempted from Regional approval 8. Owner/Applicant Information The owner of this property is Highmark (Pickering) Inc. and is represented by The Biglieri Group Ltd. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Original Conceptual Site Plan 4. Revised Conceptual Site Plan 5. Revised Conceptual Elevation Plan 6. Revised Conceptual Rendering 7. Conceptual Park Design Plan 8. Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines - 10 - Information Report No. 10-20 Page 11 Prepared By: Original Signed By: Cody Morrison Planner II Original Signed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CM:NS:Id Date of Report: July 21, 2020 Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Attachment #1 to Information Report 10-20 L\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\OPA\2018\OPA 18-00550011-18 Hlgh mark Home 0PA 18-005P_A11-18_L-atIonMap.mxd � V Brockridge Community Park i \ .— Finch Avenue D 1970 Guild Road Q ;uild Road ....I co o 1:� 1964 Guild Road a Subject :,:,:,:�41P .:.:,..... a ct u_ >, 1640 Lands Kingston ........... .. ... .., a Road `` 6 �\�gsvooa •I llr ��0110'I'f1 Denmar Park v JayW`rC\cG\e 11111I IIIIIIIII IIIAQ/�►���ll101111 ��►I►IIIIII Diana Princess IID 0111111 111111 I, Of Wales Park IIVN1oi tosto PickeringParkwar initx 00 !?'iiT IIII Location Map Cd# 4 File: OPA 18-005/P A 11/18 and PICKERI NG Applicant: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. City Development Property Description: Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 Department (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) Date: Jul. 20, 2020 au�gh� p ted:©tn Mti trymaeo�Pdagm�ntct�d�olvaammotnm�aiRaP t autgh�M tv�Nt alReseu�ea. ©Te net Ente,pnseslnc.and'is suppl'ers all rghts resaed.;O N4ip�pa ty As�smentCorporaton and itssupplersallrghtsreserved.; SCALE: 1:5,000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY L\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\OPA\2018\OPA 18-00550011-18 Hlgh mark Home 0PA 18-005P_A11-18_L-atIonMap.mxd Attachment #2 to Information Report 10-20 Cd# 4 Air Photo Map File: OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 PICKERI NG City Development Department Applicant: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. Property Description: Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) Date: Jul. 20, 2020 ©The Corporaom of the City ofPmkenng Produced On part)under Iicen se from:© Queens Pnnter, Ontano Minstry of Natural Resources. All rights reseryed;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmenta of Nval Resources. Allri,ts reserved; ©Teener Ehterpnses Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved;©MyaIpflperty Assessment Corporatlon and its srppfers all rightsreserved; F1 GL�: �:GJ r00o SCALE: I THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018\OPA 18-005P &A11-18 Highmark Hare \OPA 18-005P A11-18_AirPtcto.mxd Attachment #3 to Information Report 10-20 COLOURED CONCEPT SITE PLAN: ROADWAYS LANDSCAPED AREA PARKLAND DEDICATION PRIVATE / SUNKEN TERRACES PLANTERS SIDEWALKS BACK TO BACK STACKED TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE BALCONIES / PORCHES ®APARTMENT BUILDING APARTMENT BUILDING BALCONIES EXIT STAIR ENCLOSURE 1970 Guild Road is owned by applicant but not subject to the applications. To be developed in accordance with existing by-law permissio ns BLDG B ;;s` R -- — KINGSTON ROAD city PICKERING City Development Department Original Conceptual Site Plan File No: OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 Applicant: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. Property Description: Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Jul 20, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 - 14 - Attachment #4 to Information Report 10-20 Lands proposed to be conveyed to the City for Parkland Dedication LUV5£ RiSIC�NIIFL 55..021 4 gliko XrtFil 1.11, INFRC PaLiNG RCM -MN • K. ECHO- CF KINGSTON ROAD -sem +y�-i�irt Vl 'M 0 0 nuroMC Y L .12VPAIII SHOP PICKERING City Development Department Revised Conceptual Site Plan File No: OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 Applicant: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. Property Description: Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Jul 20, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 - 15 - Attachment #5 to Information Report 10-20 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 - ■ t1 - .O0. ©IJ ` i - 1'°T-YL1 "i �t T X9;1 II { I I - ; I� �,1 -`° i Y ' i ? � I I I t I 1 I I 1 I■;nl■ 1 _i ��, 1 1 1 nnnamn■u■■uo.I •• un pill I{ _ Lam=�« 1 Ii i Y1' .- ------1 NIP- 1,■r _ I - I _ I Wiese -�I 1 I I 1 I Ile m .-. ... .. lei ��l1-1 }� L 1 �..,.- i l�tlI ■ounnln�■u_t CCI I..1 Cf\fiIE::CI X11111 l 1�. NI, I I■C --.I 1 ii£• B-[LuiTtrull�L — =="=1 I i EH — ■■� !HINE 1 I r i 1 nn __ ui u____ ____ I� CC________ ii -i! 11 ii --'. _ — - _ _ ---=1=-- - - ., 'I - I: ,---,...,_-_11 .,._ 1 - Ie ®- !HI.. '•el I n_Yrlmminu_uur_m1Y■nnlrr -- _ -1 n�„ --, — 1 - i _ ... ..— +-1 1 oiii :i::: I EL Mi. l_■ I ii!%�ri lila ii� 1 .I_ _ — _• ill I Wk •1 ,,.�, y -1 c,_-1 MB EU !NIT o .� I Obi --- ■ti 1iiifil I ! 1 1 1 p i ". �-- ,.■■Y •.1--- � nil ---. _ I 1i00:1..L..1..1.Y1..IfY1.aYa[.1e..a.- ---"-I a ■rel I .,.. it 1 •�� _.-, - - piGuyer. WIrY .■ T'- iTh—__1_ -1'�i--li"``" I' iHtl l-'-1.- iiii ,-, ® '-_ Mini 1p i :r 11 I1[VIM(I'VIl�:`11 t- -'. p tissL 1 - — � 1 [kin I'il ,rf'1 w I 1: T iii! '1 _.$ILii111i;1 I I 1 ➢I-Frt' Li 1.1 I �u $ PJ` _ ii!! _1 1 1�1ii\ 1 jai itig IIa- 7.-= -7 -----_ - _ _. 31,. e_ , I iii,.,, ,1..,- - rl— 1 yl i11Lin- if 1fTl_iirgillr� C C■i■Iri IICCIC C IN rC Ci'r:I BIIIDI NG A&8 -FAST ELEVATION e BUILDING Abu- N_OIR_II ELEV_AT,ON 00A©00©CO dP0 Il (OQQQ�QQQiRQQQQ. QQ I , I I 1 1 1 I I P .CEDo 0 Ih _._..� '■ _ I 1 1 c - � I . I I .. , _. I 171 _it an ■i ' iSiiiil( }iil it l l � �I IE 1. Ii4 L IJl1111 }111 1111 i} iiii /ti...a. E! I 1..-,r_ 1 ■■ 1.1 _II_IC II ■ iry 1 Li t rtt E I HC ... -1 — _ �-"-i 1 !! E 2;I 1 - IfMIr11FT11-�...... ■r1E■1 1 I� iii .I � [ I �' 1 1 1®1° I 1 1 a- . 'e■'—i,®.®IW■I®__ _-,- �:1_._I■I.{ I MEM AM 1 _� �_c �l • i r. 1 ' 1 ilrrl --- - - _ --- .. _ - •■ _ .k..... i 1i 1 :.IT:.k..,..i.1 �■Iill.w _F -• -- ---�- -I i1 ::' RP , , 11: I:: L y F I ] Ir 11 Ili 11tl (''1.114 } IA .1111 tl Y11119�RTTITfTfTdTTnTff Y�A1.1-1-� I y' Q L tY II —•� _ _ 11111:I :::::: 1 I�f I1II!VIIk -di" lMLittalltitrilt'�rrilttttr}1 1 Birttl _ -.r /1. tirilrl 1 ■■■■■ I,11�..1.■u■n ■■■ ■n ■_ III ■■1 n. I 1 11111•, 1' til f11lpII I1III Hai ,I!➢ I 11lJ ir'li-`Y' I� E 1 ' RT]lTA 1'"%Ffi -�j�"- -�.- -}•�•— d,lll11 19f[IJITJr1 'I1 1' 7 - - Cl9i.A — ,.:� I 'i S IL.P - `1111ffLI-fi�'k1rl:!i!'F-F 1-1� IB I l L: c,�, OS iiia mi ... r DL➢.1 -M e � BVILDNGA&B- WESTELEVATION BO LDING AU - SOUTH ELEVATION Q Io.t. Bove (3 Revised Conceptual Elevation Plan C4 4 File No: OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 PICKERING Applicant: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. Property Description: Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 City Development Department (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. w DATE: Jul 20, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 - ■ t1 - Attachment #6 to Information Report 10-20 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 ■ - _--' . r ,,,e' : Ililm le r 0_, j ..1. al ik' • 0 PPP amok owl :ii rM .www �+ r , 4 kk A: "`k4 Nt r wr ■r 1 ■ 1_ ii 1 . 111111% _all &if. 6 It % / i C4 4 Revised Conceptual Rendering File No: OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 PICKERING City Development Department Applicant: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. Property Description: Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Jul 20, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 ■ - Attachment #7 to Information Report 10-20 PROPOSED - SKATEPARK REST AREA PRIMARY TRAIL PROPOSED — SOCCER FEILD PROPOSED BASKETBALL COURT PROPOSED r STORAGE SHED / PROPOSED — COMMUNITY 1 GARDEN / Ir / SECONDARY TRAIL REST AREA PROPOSED 1– SOCCERFEILD/ HYIRCA TOYW.E'-'TO REMAI TYP PROPOSED YGROLIND POSED EX,HYDRO TOWERS T REMAIN T D o o p 0 -to a r; Y KINGSTON ROAD ' -r'• Enna 1014091121 KINGSTON ROAD. Legend a 50 _.J Property L.ne Prop. Sodded Area Typ Prop Unit Paving Type 1 Prop. UM Paving Type 2 Prop (PHI P aving Type 3 Proposed Plantlng Area Proposed Sand Proposed S occer Fend Proposed Playground !Illness Area Proposed Basketball court Proposed Comnunly Garden 111 Proposed Skatepark PICKERING City Development Department Conceptual Park Design Plan File No: OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 Applicant: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. Property Description: Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Jul 20, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 - 18 - Attachment #8 to Information Report 10-20 Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines The Village East Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan identify that the Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines apply to the subject lands. The Guidelines are intended to guide the design of Kingston Road, as well as the developments that flank or front Kingston Road. The following objectives were identified to define the long-term role for Kingston Road: i) reverting to its earlier, historic function of linking neighbourhoods and acting as the mainstreet, while maintaining traffic flow through Pickering; ii) reflecting the character of the neighbourhoods through which it passes; iii) supporting streetscape elements that form a common distinctive design theme, while signalling these neighbourhoods as being identifiable parts of Pickering; and iv) maintaining acceptable traffic capacities while reducing the dominance of the automobile, and encouraging increased pedestrian and cycling activity, and increased public transit usage. The guidelines state that over time, the lands within the corridor should accommodate cars, bicycles and transit, and cater to pedestrians. In areas that are adjacent to residential neighbourhoods, Kingston Road is intended to become a pedestrian friendly "Mainstreet". The guidelines specify six distinct precincts, which provide standards for six separate geographic areas within the corridor. The subject lands are located within the Brock Road Corridor Precinct, which is bound by the Hydro Corridor to the west and Notion Road to the east. An objective of the guidelines is to establish the Brock Road precinct as the eastern entrance to Pickering from Kingston Road and Highway 401. The following urban form, streetscape, transportation and economic development priorities have been established in order to achieve the objectives of the Development Guidelines: • buildings should be located closer to the street; • a mix of land uses should be allowed on either side of Kingston Road; • low to mid -rise buildings should be allowed on the north side and mid -rise buildings on the south side; • on both sides of the road, the minimum building height should be 2 -storeys; • an enhanced pedestrian streetscape treatment shall be encouraged at all intersections and north -south links; • the appearance of parking lots may be improved through building infill at the street edge and at intersections; • pedestrian scale street lighting shall be encouraged at all intersections and north -south links; and • the option for a future transit/HOV lane should be protected. The Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines, which were adopted by Pickering Council in 1997 do not reflect the new vision for the Kingston Road Corridor established by the Council endorsed Draft Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Urban Design Guidelines. The 1997 Development Guidelines are intended to superseded by the new draft Urban Design Guidelines. - 19 - 64 4 DICKERING Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 11-20 Date: August 10, 2020 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/20 Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148 (631 Liverpool Road) 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Ann Harbour Estates Ltd., to permit a permanent private school use and four apartment dwelling units. 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. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning matters. This report is for information and no decision 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 located on the east side of Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The property has an area of approximately 0.11 of a hectare with approximately 18 metres of frontage along Liverpool Road. The property currently contains a 3 -storey mixed-use building with a total gross floor area (GFA) of approximately 950 square metres. The existing uses within the building include a temporary private school occupying the basement and ground floor; a dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit occupying the second and third floors. Twenty parking spaces are located at the rear of the property, and vehicular access is provided from Liverpool Road. Surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North: To the north are detached dwellings fronting Liverpool Road and Wharf Street. West & To the west and south is the Nautical Village development consisting of live -work South: units fronting Liverpool Road. East: To the east is the Provincially Significant Frenchman's Bay Coastal Wetland Complex (also referred to as Hydro Marsh). -20- Information Report No. 11-20 Page 2 3. Previous Minor Variance Approval to permit a private school on a temporary basis On August 22, 2018, the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application P/CA 29/18 to permit a private school on a temporary basis for a period of 2 years, subject to the following conditions: a. That the variance for a private school shall only be approved for a temporary period of 2 years (expiring on August 22, 2020). b. That the variance for the private school shall only be permitted to operate within the ground floor and basement of the existing mixed-use building as illustrated on the approved site plan, dated February 9, 2018. c. That the private school shall be limited to a maximum gross leasable floor area of 335 square metres. d. That the private school shall not exceed a maximum of 50 students. e. That the private school shall be permitted to operate from September 1St to July 1St between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm. f. That no other non-residential uses be permitted to operate on the subject property concurrent to the hours of operation of the private school as noted in Condition e) above. g. That failure to comply with and maintain the conditions of the Committee will render the approved variance null and void. h. That the operator of the proposed private school shall make arrangements to use passenger vans for transportation of students whenever possible, to minimize the amount of vehicular movement required for access and egress. 4. Applicant's Requested Amendments The applicant has submitted a rezoning application to permit a permanent private school use with a maximum of 50 students and 4 rental apartment dwelling units. No additional floor area is proposed through this application (see Approved Site Plan, Attachment #3). The private school is presently operated by the Montessori Learning Centre with 6 staff members and a current enrollment of 43 students. The school operates from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and services grades 4 to 8. The private school will have 2 classrooms, 1 in the basement with a maximum occupancy of 20 students and the second classroom on the ground floor with a maximum occupancy of 30 students (see Submitted Floor Plans, Attachments #4 and #5). The proposal includes the conversion of the existing dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling unit into 4 apartment dwelling units. Pedestrian access to the units is provided from 2 common corridors/stairwells and an elevator. The second and third floors will each have 2 apartment dwelling units ranging in size between 111 square metres and 187 square metres (1,105 square feet to 2,016 square feet). A total of 282.5 square metres (3,041 square feet) of shared outdoor amenity area is provided on the roof of the building for both the private school and the occupants of the dwelling units (see Submitted Floor Plans, Attachments #6, #7 and #8). - 21 - Information Report No. 11-20 Page 3 The operator of the private school currently provides a shuttle option from remote locations to pick-up and drop-off students at the school property. This shuttle contributes to limiting additional traffic during drop-off and pick-up times along Liverpool Road. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing number of parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum required spaces. The parking requirements within Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, for the proposed uses are as follows: 5. Policy Framework 5.1 Durham Region Official Plan The Region of Durham Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as "Living Areas". The "Living Areas" designation shall be used predominately for housing purposes. The plan also states that lands within the Living Areas designation shall be developed in compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas. In the consideration of development applications in "Living Areas", regard shall be had for the intent of the ROP to achieve a compact urban form, including intensive residential, office, retail and service and mixed uses along arterial roads. The applicant's proposal conforms to the policies and provisions of the ROP. 5.2 Pickering Official Plan The subject property is designated as "Urban Residential Areas — Low Density" within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The property is further identified as being within the Liverpool Road Corridor within the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node. Lands within the Liverpool Road Corridor are restricted to uses including retailing of goods and services, restaurants, offices, and community, cultural and recreational uses, to serve the tourist, recreational, boating and other community needs. Lands within the Liverpool Road Corridor are permitted the establishment of residential uses up to a maximum of 55 units per net hectare, subject to the condition that the design and construction of the ground floors facing the street are to be easily converted to accommodate a range of uses, including the retailing of goods and services, and offices, by incorporating the Ontario Building Code construction requirements applicable to commercial uses. The proposal will result in a residential density of approximately 36.4 units per hectare. Details of the rezoning application will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan during the further processing of the application. -22- Parking Ratio Required Parking Spaces Multiple Family Vertical (apartment dwelling unit) 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit for occupants and visitors 7 parking spaces Private School 1.0 space per 10 students, plus 1.0 space for each staff 11 parking spaces Total Required parking to be provided on-site 18 spaces Existing Parking on-site 20 spaces (including one accessible parking space) 5. Policy Framework 5.1 Durham Region Official Plan The Region of Durham Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as "Living Areas". The "Living Areas" designation shall be used predominately for housing purposes. The plan also states that lands within the Living Areas designation shall be developed in compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas. In the consideration of development applications in "Living Areas", regard shall be had for the intent of the ROP to achieve a compact urban form, including intensive residential, office, retail and service and mixed uses along arterial roads. The applicant's proposal conforms to the policies and provisions of the ROP. 5.2 Pickering Official Plan The subject property is designated as "Urban Residential Areas — Low Density" within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The property is further identified as being within the Liverpool Road Corridor within the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node. Lands within the Liverpool Road Corridor are restricted to uses including retailing of goods and services, restaurants, offices, and community, cultural and recreational uses, to serve the tourist, recreational, boating and other community needs. Lands within the Liverpool Road Corridor are permitted the establishment of residential uses up to a maximum of 55 units per net hectare, subject to the condition that the design and construction of the ground floors facing the street are to be easily converted to accommodate a range of uses, including the retailing of goods and services, and offices, by incorporating the Ontario Building Code construction requirements applicable to commercial uses. The proposal will result in a residential density of approximately 36.4 units per hectare. Details of the rezoning application will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan during the further processing of the application. -22- Information Report No. 11-20 Page 4 5.3 Zoning By-law 2520, amended by By-law 5938/02 The subject lands are currently zoned "MU -13" within Zoning By-law 2520, amended by By-law 5938/02, which permits a mix of uses including bed and breakfast; business and professional offices; club; day nursery; personal service shop; retail store; restaurant — type A, and a detached dwelling along with an accessory dwelling unit. In addition to the list of permitted uses, in 2015 the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application P/CA 94/14 to permit a commercial school on the subject property. As noted in Section 3 of this report, on August 22, 2018, the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application P/CA 29/18 to permit the existing private school on a temporary basis for a period of 2 years. The applicant is seeking a site-specific exception to permit a permanent private school and a maximum of 4 apartment dwelling units. 6. Comments Received 6.1 Residents Comments As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from the public. 6.2 Agency Comments 6.2.1 Region of Durham — Planning Department As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from the Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department. 6.3 City Departments Comments 6.3.1 Engineering Services As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from Engineering Services. 7. Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and others identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant prior to a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: • ensuring conformity with the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood policies, and the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; • reviewing the appropriateness of locating the outdoor amenity area on the roof of the building to ensure surrounding properties are not adversely impacted by noise, privacy and overlook; • ensuring the conditions imposed by the Committee of Adjustment are included in the site-specific zoning by-law amendment or an amending site plan agreement; • ensuring sufficient on-site parking is provided for the proposed mix of uses; and • ensuring the traffic generated by the proposed mix of uses will not impact the operation of Liverpool Road and the intersection of Wharf Street and Liverpool Road. -23- Information Report No. 11-20 Page 5 Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 8. Information Received Full-scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for online viewing at pickering.ca/devapp or in-person by appointment at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Planning Rationale Report, prepared by RAI Architect Inc., dated March 16, 2020 • Site Plan, prepared by RAI Architect Inc., dated March 18, 2020 • Site Screening Questionnaire • Traffic Review, prepared by GHD, dated March 16, 2020 9. Procedural Information 9.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department; • oral comments may be made at the Electronic Statutory Public 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; and • 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. 10. Owner/Applicant Information The owner of the property is Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. and is represented by RAI Architects Inc. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Approved Site Plan 4. Submitted Floor Plan: Basement 5. Submitted Floor Plan: First Floor 6. Submitted Floor Plan: Second Floor 7. Submitted Floor Plan: Third Floor 8. Submitted Floor Plan: Roof -24- Information Report No. 11-20 Page 6 Prepared By: Original Signed By: Felix Chau Planner I Original Signed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design FC:NS:Id Date of Report: July 22, 2020 -25- Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Attachment #1 to Information Report 11-20 Commerce Street Wharf Street i -o f0 0 0 0 0 Broadview Street Annland Street Alderwood Park Beachfront Park Subject Lands N C4 4 Location Map File: A 04/20 PICKERING City Development Department Applicant: Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. Property Description: Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148 (631 Liverpool Road) Date: Apr. 17, 2020 O The Corporation of the City of Plckenng Produced (n part) under license from. O Queens Printer. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Arlipdripperly Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; SCALE. 1.3, 000 THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles A\202MA 04-20 Ann Harbour Estates Ltd \A04_20 LocationMap. mxd AO _ Attachment #2 to Information Report 11-20 iuuiim® iir MEMO IT1Plita1giilircl Commerce Street .. +re. - r Broadview Street Iffillillit ;NOM Air Photo Map Ibimailiniti Annland Street 1 Wharf Street N 0 73 rlifiaL EL ;tel EUM =IN UMW >E. Cd# 4 Air Photo Map File: A 04/20 PICKERI NG City Development Department Applicant: Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. Property Description: Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148 (631 Liverpool Road) Date: Jul. 09, 2020 © e Corporator of the Cdy oPmkenng Produced On part)under lmense horn. © Queens Footer, Ontano%net, of Natural Resources. All rg hts reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen In Rof ight Canada, Department of Natural Resources. Al rights reserved., ©Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppl'ers all rights reserved .;©t perty Assessment Corporation and Its suppliers all rg h.reserved .; SCALE: 1.3,000 SJ THIS is NOT A PLAN O F SURVEY. • LPLANNINGt01-MapFllestAt2020tA. 04-20 Ann Harbour Estates Ltd W04_20_AlrPhoto.roxd Attachment #3 to Information Report 11-20 IOC BOAND FENCE TO BE MAINTAINEDODDER OF— 6110 R09 DURING G OONSIFUOTON4 .5. SON A^F1D ED Lw10� EXp 510N NCE FEN( .xoaF 0 71' 15' "NC ARNG GN CONC. CURB , STOPS (TVP.) o.,5a ie E 3E48 0 5 0 N]13750E 356 oBOPG9 % % L..—I 1-4, ,LO.S ENTRANCE '9NGLE LANE 1 ,--mff OF ASPHALT _ k�O 1 STOP CWC oaEHYRE 2.80 FT CWC _9 an \ "'1 TRAFFIC $ PROCEED NTH ri ASPHALT DRIVER., GAS xETEP _ 0.C. > CURB "4' „. TePICN OMB • CAUTION" SIGN DEPT_ RE T . GUARDS Fl / m CENTRE Pro. UNE \ 0 /L° �/ >haEPrzrr¢ ° -. -rte STEL .Y • ED sa• . . 3265 tr.: M ' 11 4.59 \ \ NI \ Ou; \ STUN, --� ! 387 808186 RECYCLE \ o LINE DF BLDG ASPHALT PARMNO AREA BOYil— — EDGE OF ASPHALT — �� • \ IO EXIO I �N 3 EIILLOSIIREIllak 0 j\ STOREY Ni d 15,26 SETBACK 1., $ ;' MIMING / -' i I% 1.65 4.00 BARRIER MEE 20.78 OPI - rc& AREA Z .13. 2,74 70 00 F.F.L. = 79.55 R.F.L. = ]8.55 *cm X 5 \ ._ ( �. 1.99 DIKE P05T5. _ — m COVERED PORCH LAN OC. Z Cr (4 TOTAL) _ F� \ s m B.F. SIGN. SFE DErAII Pe,z1.p a \\\\ UJ 9111 -- Ildlillita====1111. DE, . nn... a.m) L CWC. BARRER N 72'40 20 E CURD PHASE 1 K iv 60.03 0 APPROVED FOR SPA PHASE 2 REZONING PHASE 29 - IS • - rH\ L. r' I GNI , � 421D AND 3RD FLOd19 AWE PARKING 2ND AND 3RD FLOORS ABOVE PARKING 0 NEW 2ND AND V 5 3RD STOREY -i ADa110N {ABOVE 1.90. PARKING) SITE STATISTIC. ZONING CATEGORY: 11013 631 LIVERPOOL ROAD, PICKERING, ONTARIO GROSS FLOOR AREA (m2): CJl0380 FLOOR SECOND FI OCR I111110 FLOOR TOTAL ADDRESS: LOT AREA: = 1107.5 m2 (11,921.1 aq./N.} 0 PHASE 1 E%ISTNG BUILDING 238.94 262.89 223.67 725.5 () PHASE 2P NEW ADDITION 0 134.48 90 224.48 LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE: _ &89% OF LCT AREA (2nd & 3rd) �y7� PLAN TOTAL 238.94 397.37 313.67 948.98 .�I IG r"W� BUILDING COVERAGE: = 21.6E OF LOT AREA GFA: - 907.14 m2 (INCLUDES 1sT, 2nd AND 3rd FLOORS) I SCALEsTE 1'175 ® ter. PROPOSED OCCUPANCIES - 2 STOREY ASSEMBLY (PRIVATE SCHOOL) BASEMENT/GROUND FLR. CEA : - 334.87 m2 (INCLUDES 111 FLOOR AND BASEMENT) 2. 1 STOREY SINGE APARTMENT (RESIDENTAL) SECOND FLOOR PARKING REQUIRED: PARKING PRO055: 2A 1 STOREY SINGE APARTMENT (RESIDENTAL) THIRD FLOOR 50 STUDENTS O 1 SPACE PER 10 STUDENTS - 5 SPACES 13 SPACES PROVIDED FOR COMMERCIAL 6 STAFF 19 1 SPACE PER STAFF = B SPACES 7 SPACE PROVIDED FOR RFSIOFNTIAI (TOTAL NUMBER OF THE APARTMENT - 4) 4 DWELLING UNITS O 1 75 PER UNIT = 7 SPACES 20 SPACES PROVIDED INCLUO. 1 B.F. SPACE - 111% OF RED'D TOTAL REQUIRED - 18 SPACES Approved Site Plan City 4 File No: A 04/20 P I C K E R I N G Applicant: Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. Property Description: Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148 City Development (631 Liverpool Road) Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. w w DATE: July 21, 2020 L:\Planning\01-Map F i les\A\2020 i-' Attachment #4 to Information Report 11-20 L:\Planning\01-Map F i les\A\2020 - M114 • SPRINKLER/_ IELHANICAL - IMI_. LOVER U. 4 - ;.• _ " {"9"d I 'N'' 7— \ L.-',1_,_ mar _ _.- 0110 0.NITR OSEr .. RDNI C�P — .. - _ --- _ .11 CORRIDOR III • 1 MIOe 1 CORRIDOR No 2 Mir "TA* Not SLY tt LOCKER ROOM IO .• OVERAll AREA -21281 SIT 411 PANTRY (2.291158 S. r.) L WWI PRIVATE SCHOOL No.2 Top of DATUM o -11'11. -0" t RG CR CDR�I . ,,= -' "i tllull1 ELEVATOR- • IIECEP1I 1 (mini_ :9105 €I CLOSET . ELEVATOR ✓ I M101J O O d :.1 Submitted Floor Plan: Basement C`t2 4 File No: A 04/20 P I C K E R I N G Applicant: Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. Property Description: Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148 City Development (631 Liverpool Road) Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. woe. DATE: July 21, 2020 L:\Planning\01-Map F i les\A\2020 - Attachment #5 to Information Report 11-20 L:\Planning\01-Map F i les\A\2020 I=1 CORR .2 REMENIMMEtti v mu V I _ \ .A OOL SSOm OARS - O[MEOep el Sbs7 ® ..9... - I ®_ — MP. IMI: • 2M94 SM .9 r ATP _, I' l_P ® BCYB ane Submitted Floor Plan: First Floor CelY 4 File No: A 04/20 P I C K E R I N G Applicant: Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. Property Description: Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148 City Development (631 Liverpool Road) Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. w w DATE: July 21, 2020 L:\Planning\01-Map F i les\A\2020 Attachment #6 to Information Report 11-20 L:\Planning\01-Map F i les\A\2020 _- ■ _ o VANC li ROW 11 NCLOSET MOORED O F.P.R.ON II Mil' ' W _Ix i ____ PAN1RY C EtlIPMGA__ STAR 0.0511 III II . Ih L_____------ �lui1ll�_ � I — — _ �--------- luurur ��:,4'''L _ OD BCH (TO, or SLAB) AREA=2016 S.F. , c,R® \ J 1=1 I \'-..-.-J al . L.,...,,, 11 1 LAUNDRY c ) OATH xo1 r..� .� i von l \ B41H No,3 \ IIf-1II LI .C. 4-4 1 I o - o i I T.74 xaT JUL��1ll�1t� —VI �v �, lt LOVER CElli - 1 1 i li OMI� -- r u . No.1 BEDROOM UNIT #2 Noni�- I AREA=1195 S.F.Il O xa, 9 Om¢EUN - 1 I " �� ��i mwOm No., i 20.If OECNOON Hos ® REM RI® . [, -I %COIIO FLOOR RAU Al21 evxe ;: _ .. Submitted Floor Plan: Second Floor C`t2 4 File No: A 04/20 P I C K E R I N G Applicant: Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. Property Description: Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148 City Development (631 Liverpool Road) Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A DATE: July 21, 2020 L:\Planning\01-Map F i les\A\2020 _- ■ Attachment #7 to Information Report 11-20 L:\Planning\01-Map F i les\A\2020 D DM& NONINI� G Em - —— _- — iM.h -_ I - --_ -- ----------- •MR■-1 .--------- ---------- i•iii Mo -- ,----- — _ rmen ,aIsm, JlI MryE ;IG1 1.1� Hn oM(Top - n1' -,o' UNIT 3 °') i AREA=1786 S.F. 0 OP" AIMED I COMM aemoaM rel sHod 6 -- ift H-- F li 'er 0 uM11g1T �� IeaN I =�I_ E - ELM No.3 auRORr7,- . _ 4._ DPI ® � Mal aI I= , Ra, oo m al � _ MI6 RM.Kr' -1 up 1Bi WnIY = aS-S' ELL -VFW l ''II i 1 < BALCCOIr / !WHEN UNIT #4 R z-AREA=1252 S.F. 1311 oz 1 MD RENON1' I WM1 13810101 - BEDROOM NO2 1- 1 �nROOM Mo.1 0 EIEYRTOR 1 I No.4 -]d,-I BEIFOW Nay Ye� I e 1H o -LO PI1 0, A7.1 ante 3Ii6' = i -a' Submitted Floor Plan: Third Floor Cell 4 File No: A 04/20 P I C K E R I N G Applicant: Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. Property Description: Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148 City Development (631 Liverpool Road) Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. IP w DATE: July 21, 2020 L:\Planning\01-Map F i les\A\2020 Attachment #8 to Information Report 11-20 g mar _11ii ii whim in iia1111 7mmmmmmlr, • iiiiiiiiIi liiiiiii 511;110.2 DARN = V -r PRIVATE SCHOOL ALIENITY AREA = 1665 SF Inmlmmm Iml�hi mnmlmmmmmmm TOTAL AMENITY AREA = 3041 SF RMA, DARN = 3(_1. LU AlO ROOF RAN B:IIE 3(16'.1'4 flfVAf/A 1112 A111121111111111111111211111ll 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111117 mmmmmmmmmmmmmm RESIDENTS AMENITY AREA = 1176 SF 0 11WWWVIIVWI-mDWLLWWIJWWWWll1ll 1IllUWW, Lr _.11111111111111111 1121111E111111111111 PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Floor Plan: Roof File No: A 04/20 Applicant: Ann Harbour Estates Ltd. Property Description: Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148 (631 Liverpool Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: July 21, 2020 L:\Planning\01-Map F i les\A\2020 Cfy �t DICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 14-20 Date: August 10, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Shared Network Canada Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) Installation #66 Recommendation: 1. That Shared Network Canada be advised that City Council does not object to the proposal for a 45.0 metre high tapered self -supported style telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road, based on the design and location of the revised proposal. Executive Summary: Shared Network Canada has submitted a revised proposal to construct a 45.0 metre high tapered self -supported style telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road within the Claremont Union Cemetery (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #1). The applicant initially proposed to construct a 46.0 metre high tri -pole lattice style telecommunication tower located in the northwest corner of the Claremont Union Cemetery property. At the June 17, 2019 Planning & Development Committee meeting, staff recommended that Council object to the location of the telecommunication tower based on its location and design. Planning & Development Committee recommended that the matter be referred back to staff for further review and discussions with the applicant regarding the City's protocols pertaining to the telecommunication tower. Based on further discussions with Shared Network Canada regarding the location and design of the tower, the applicant has relocated the tower to the northeast corner of the property and revised the design of the tower to maximize the distance from the nearest residential dwellings and reduce any negative visual impact. Shared Network Canada has completed the public consultation process for the revised tower location in accordance with the City's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol (Cell Tower Protocol). The key concerns expressed by two area residents were the perceived impacts on health and property values associated with the proposed cell tower, the business model of the proponent and the visual impact of the tower. Three comments were received in support of the revised tower location. -34- Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 2 City staff have reviewed the revised installation proposal against the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The proposed tower is located within a rural area and has minimal impact on the existing operation of the cemetery and minimal visual impact on the immediate area. 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 residential properties. Staff recommends that Shared Network Canada be advised that Council does not object to the proposed telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road, based on the revised 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. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject property is located on the north side of Ninth Concession Road, east of Sideline 14 and west of Sideline 12. The property currently supports the Claremont Union Cemetery (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #1). The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as "Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Area" and "Prime Agricultural Areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine". The portion of the subject site where the revised cell tower is proposed to be located is zoned Oak Ridges Moraine Institutional Zone ("(H)ORM-I-2") within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06. A telecommunication tower is a permitted use under the public utilities exemption of Zoning By-law 3037. 1.2 Applicant's Original and Revised Proposal Shared Network Canada initially proposed a 46.0 metre high tri -pole lattice -style telecommunication tower. The tower was proposed to be located in the northwest corner of the subject lands where it would be contained within a fenced compound area (see Original Submitted Plan, Attachment #2 and Original Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan Attachment #3). At the June 17, 2019 Planning & Development Committee meeting, staff recommended that the Committee object to the initial proposal, as the proposed tower did not satisfy the location and design criteria of the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The Committee referred the matter back to staff, for further review and discussion with the applicant. In November 2019, Shared Network Canada submitted a revised proposal for a 45.0 metre high tapered self-supporting style telecommunication tower to be located in the northeast corner of the subject property where no burials have occurred (see Revised Submitted Plan, Attachment #4). The tower will be painted and illuminated in accordance with the requirements of Transport Canada and NAV Canada. -35- Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 3 The proposed tower will be contained within a fenced compound area measuring 13.0 metres by 13.0 metres in size. Also proposed within the fenced compound are 3 ground -related cabinets that will contain supporting infrastructure for the tower. The security fence will be 1.8 metres in height and topped with barb wire (see Revised Elevation and Compound Plan, Attachment #5). Access to the tower and ground equipment will be provided by a new gravel driveway located along the west side of the property. The new driveway will connect to the existing gravel driveway, which provides access to the cemetery from the Ninth Concession Road. As a result of the revised location and design of the tower, Shared Network Canada was required to initiate a new Public Consultation process for the revised proposal. 2. Comments Received 2.1 City Departments & Agency Comments Engineering Services • no comments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • the subject property is partially located within TRCA's Regulated Area • no objection to the proposal 2.2 Public Notification has been completed for the revised proposal Shared Network Canada has completed the public consultation in accordance with the City's Cell Tower Protocol for the revised proposal. As this proposal is located in a rural area, the minimum circulation radius of 500 metres from the tower location was applied. A total of 11 property owners were notified by mail, and a newspaper notification was placed in the November 21, 2019 edition of the News Advertiser. A Public Notice sign was also posted at the front of the subject property along Ninth Concession Road on November 21, 2019. The applicant has advised that a total of 5 written comments were received as a result of the circulation (see Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report, Attachment #6). Written comments received from 2 adjacent property owners to the east and west expressing concerns related to: • the perceived impacts on property value associated with the proposed cell tower; • the perceived negative health implications associated with a telecommunications tower; • the business model of the applicant, which is to maximize revenues by erecting and operating for profit the maximum number of cell towers; • inconsistency with the design and location criteria of the City's Cell Tower Protocol; and • inaccurate representations in the supporting materials submitted. Written comments from 2 other households and the representatives from the Claremont Union Cemetery expressed support for the proposed cell tower, indicating that they experience unreliable cellular and internet services on a daily basis. The letters also indicated that the proposed cell tower will improve such services and their quality of life. -36- Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 4 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 Assessment of the Proposal against the City's Cell Tower Protocol The City's Cell Tower Protocol was established to provide direction for proponents on the location and design of antenna towers and provide criteria for staff to assess a proposal. City Development staff have reviewed the proposed cell tower against the location and design criteria of the City's Cell Tower Protocol (the Protocol). 3.1.1 The revised proposal maintains the location criteria of the City's Protocol The Protocol specifies "preferred" and "discouraged" locations for new antenna systems to minimize the number of towers and facilities required to service the City and limit the visual impacts of towers on the surrounding area. The Protocol outlines that sites within industrial, commercial, and non-residential, or that maximize the distance from residential areas are preferred locations for antenna system installations. Additionally, the use of City -owned lands or facilities where technically feasible is strongly encouraged. The City discourages the installation of new antenna systems in residential areas, on sites of topographical prominence that would obscure public views, and within environmentally sensitive lands or immediately adjacent to Heritage Properties. The subject lands are a non-residential property located within the rural area. However, the tower was initially proposed to be sited in the northwest portion of the subject lands, located approximately 100 metres from the nearest residential dwelling. Following the initial Public Consultation process, City staff requested that the applicant examine alternative properties for the proposed tower within the surrounding area, which were further from residential dwellings. At that time, Shared Network Canada advised that following an extensive review of the surrounding area, no viable alternative sites were available for their desired service area. The applicant cited airport zoning regulations limiting height, unwilling property owners and topography as limiting factors for an alternative site. Subsequently, City staff requested the applicant explore relocating the proposed tower in an alternative location on the subject lands, to maximize the distance from existing residential dwellings. As a result, the applicant re -located the proposed tower to the northeast corner of the subject lands. The revised tower location is approximately 180 metres from the nearest residential dwelling. The location of the proposed tower maximizes the distance from the 3 closest residential dwellings immediately to the east and west, which will contribute to minimizing the visual impacts on the adjacent property owners. Existing vegetation along the north, east and west property boundaries will further reduce the visual impact of the proposed tower and will screen ground -related supporting infrastructure. 3.1.2 The revised proposal incorporates the design considerations of the City's Protocol The Protocol outlines specific design criteria that are required to be maintained to minimize the visual impact of an antenna system on the surrounding area. The criteria require designs that: -37- Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 5 • accommodate for future co -location of additional carriers; • utilize stealth techniques such as flagpoles, clock towers, trees and light poles, where appropriate and in harmony with the context of the surrounding area; • utilize monopole towers with antennas shrouded or flush -mounted, particularly when the tower is proposed near a residential area; • are not illuminated, unless required by Transport Canada; and • screen equipment shelters by landscaping in a matter that is compatible and sensitive to the surrounding area. The initial proposal was for a 46.0 metre high tri -pole lattice style tower, which was an equal width from the base to the top (see Original Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan, Attachment #3). Following the Public Consultation process for the initial proposal, City staff recommended that the applicant explore alternative tower designs that would minimize the visual impact of the tower on the adjacent residents and the broader landscape. Through consultation with the applicant, it was determined that the proposed location of the tower does not lend itself to utilizing a monopole tower or stealth techniques such as a flagpole or tree design as the surrounding area is rural and does not benefit from having mature vegetation. The applicant revised the design to propose a 45.0 metre high tapered self-supporting style tower (see Revised Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan, Attachment #5). This tower design benefits from having a lattice style, which is more characteristic of the rural area and will appear more open and transparent than a monopole tower, minimizing any potential shadowing. The tower will also narrow significantly as it reaches its maximum height. The revised tower design will contribute to reducing the visual impact of the tower on adjacent residents and is appropriate for the proposed location in the rural area. The proposed tower maintains the criteria established by the Protocol. 3.2 Co -location and Alternative Locations have been examined The applicant provided a justification report to the City Development Department in support of the tower. The applicant investigated the opportunity to co -locate their equipment in the immediate area. Shared Network Canada advised that the closest existing tower was located approximately 1.8 kilometres away in Claremont and is operated by Bell. The applicant outlined the Bell tower is located within a building and does not exceed 4.0 metres in height. This tower would not be available for co -location and does not serve the capacity issues in the proposed area. Three towers were also identified, which are located approximately 6.8 kilometres to the west, approximately 4.7 kilometres to the north and approximately 7.4 kilometres to the east. Shared Network Canada indicated that these towers would not accommodate their network coverage requirements or desired service area, and were therefore not viable for co -location. Shared Network Canada has confirmed that the proposed tower has been engineered to accommodate co -location by multiple service providers, including Rogers, Bell, and Freedom Mobile. -38- Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 6 3.3 Comments received regarding health and safety concerns Two adjacent property owners expressed concerns 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 Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISEDC). ISEDC requires all operators to meet the requirements of Safety Code 6: Health Canada's Radiofrequency Exposure Guidelines. 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 it has established and maintained a general public exposure limit that incorporates a wide safety margin and is therefore far below the threshold for potentially adverse health effects. The adjacent property owner immediately to the east also expressed they are concerned the tower poses a safety hazard and that in the event it falls, it would cause significant damage to their property. Shared Network Canada has attested that the proposed tower will be constructed in compliance with the Canadian Standard Association and comply with good engineering practices including structural adequacy. As a part of the applicant's submission to ISEDC, they will be required to submit engineering drawings for all aspects of the tower's construction, including structural components. 3.4 Additional concerns were related to the applicants business model and impacts on property value Residents also expressed concerns regarding the business model of the applicant and the impact on property values of the existing homes in the area as a result of the proposed cell tower. The purpose of the City's Cell Tower Protocol is to establish an enhanced public consultation process and provide the City's specific location and design guidelines for antenna systems located in the City. Concerns about the business model of the applicant or the possible impact of the proposal on property values is not a consideration under the City's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol. 3.5 Comments received in support of the proposal A total of three written comments were received in support of the revised telecommunication tower proposal. Comments from two households expressed that the proposed cell tower would contribute to more reliable cellular coverage in the Claremont area, allowing residents to have better connectivity to family, friends and emergency services. Comments were also received from representatives from the Claremont Union Cemetery on behalf of the Board of Directors, expressing support for the proposed tower. The comments outlined that cellular network coverage within the rural area is undependable, particularly for farmers working on large properties and that the proposed tower will provide for improved cellular connection and dependability. -39- Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 7 4. Conclusion The revised proposal has been circulated and reviewed in accordance with the City's Cell Tower Protocol. Staff recommend that Council endorse the recommendation in this report as the installation satisfies the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location requirements. The tower is located on a rural property and appropriately set back from the existing residential dwellings to the east and west. Furthermore, the visual appearance of the tower will be minimized due to the revised tower design. The proposed tower will contribute to improving the availability and reliability of the cellular network in the rural area of the City, in particular the Claremont area. Attachments 1. Air Photo Map 2. Original Submitted Plan 3. Original Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan 4. Revised Submitted Plan 5. Revised Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan 6. Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report Prepared By: Original Signed By: Cody Morrison Planner II Original Signed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CM:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By: Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer -40- Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 14-20 Cd# 4 Air Photo Map File: Installation #66 PICKER] NG City Development Department Applicant: Shared Network Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road Date: Jul. 07, 2020 n ©The Cerporanon of the City of Pickenng Produced (n part) under Ilcense from; © Queens Pnnter, Ontano Minstry of Natural aces. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natrral Resources. All ruts reserved.; ©Teranet Ernerpnses Inc. andits suppliers all rights reserved.;© Myapaoperty Assessment Corporatlon and its slppfersall rights reserved.; SCALE: 1:10, 000 I THIS is NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. 1 • Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 14-20 Proposed Tower Location Nm +'„r,.-+��rn.`--,..-.,.r..--- "�-'s..'�•.[-�i..o`.-,r .r..r...-+.r...r..r.- -..: r..: .-rv.r,...-:.� �-....fir 4 Z D 0 Ii T v z v —i \a ▪ 3s./ / 'q. �,,1 z ▪ � 4. • ,S —=l / % et.'" s � $o N N sa 4 a 2-a W il l lI lad eo 9m --------I-' j-44.-r-k:::H______;,---,,.... 8147 51.61S1.+) A111NYi EOOE Ninth Concession Road PICKERING City Development Department Original Submitted Plan File No: Installation #66 Applicant: Shared Network Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: July 7, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\S\CommunicationTowers -42- Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 14-20 ELEVATION PLAN NOT TO SCALE OUTER SURFACE =300.00 V TOWER TOP =299.5 V AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT = 255.Om GROUND =253.50 W < 0 ce a0 ta 11 0 PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN SCALE 1:200 0 0 10.00 PICKERING City Development Department Original Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan File No: Installation #66 Applicant: Shared Network Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: July 7, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\S\CommunicationTowers -43- Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 14-20 $49:5 i,;sin! 141, N 7'57]74 (P1) N1P36N0' E Orem I aI 1 ff pari 5 0 0 a 9u T mAr¢ uWxEWAW ,--4— Cuov NAL fA BIS 0 WO OWE �� N Toye'ea• ���� Px `1v a /�gPxkT ECO: �1 �•;� V 4 REGIONAL ROAD No.5 (NOAC ALLOWANCE IrrYIE. CONCESNONS 8 AND % PN ;6392-0002 (LT) 4; 4b 1 Proposed Tower Location (17) 99w-t5C9t Md PICKERING City Development Department Revised Submitted Plan File No: Installation #66 Applicant: Shared Network Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: July 7, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\S\CommunicationTowers -44- Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 14-20 ELEVATION PLAN NOT TO SCALE OUTER SURFACE = 300.00 TOWER TOP =293.6 E AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT =255.Om V w U z wco 11 U GROUND =248.6 PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN SCALE 1:200 a 13.00 fI 12.00 r i •r, - --il I • : Lt �m_J r' '-1 • I I, Er a • •L 3m j • VY SEE ELEVATION PLAN .50 0.50 8 wi city PICKERING City Development Department Revised Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan File No: Installation #66 Applicant: Shared Network Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: July 7, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\S\CommunicationTowers -45- Attachment #6 to Report #PLN 14-20 e.""4 shared netwNorAD Ak C A May 28, 2020 Town of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Re: Proposed New Telecommunication Tower Installation Claremont Cemetery, Concession 9, Claremont, ON File No. SNC0120 Contents Introduction 2 Coverage Objective 3 Site Profile 7 Public Consultation 12 Tower Change / 2nd Public Consultation 13 Conclusion 14 Appendix A - AZR (Airport Zoning) Report Appendix B - Detailed Site Profile Appendix C - Public Consultation Comments / Responses Appendix D - Public Consultation Proofs Appendix E - 2nd Public Consultation Comments / Responses Appendix F - 2nd Public Consultation Proofs Appendix E - Site Survey 1 -46- shared network C A N A 4/4-46 A Introduction Shared Network Canada is proposing a new wireless telecommunications facility at the Claremont Cemetery in Claremont - Pickering. The subject property is a parcel located in Claremont, northwest of the intersection of Concession Road 9 and Sideline Road 12. The proposed location is indicated by the blue star on the following aerial photograph: The proposed structure is a 45 -metre tower. The telecommunications tower location has been situated based on the anticipated current network improvement needs of wireless telecommunication companies. Approval of the tower would allow carriers to locate upon the tower instead of constructing their own, single carrier installations. The tower height and compound size will accommodate multiple wireless service providers, including licensed cellular carriers. As of the date of this application, an incumbent national carrier has expressed interest in collocating on the proposed pole. The tower is being designed to accommodate multiple antenna equipment from Rogers, Bell and Freedom Mobile, including space for their radio equipment cabinets within the fenced area located on the north end of the field. Space on the tower will also be made available for any fixed wireless Internet tenants, as well as for municipal/public communication equipment purposes. 2 -47- 0"1 r shared network C A N A 4/4-46 A Coverage Objective The proposed installation is designed to improve wireless services in the Town of Claremont due to high capacity of users in the surrounding farm areas as well as the high traffic demand of this busy intersection. Significant suburban development in this location has increased demand for wireless services in the area, and the increase in demand will continue as additional properties are developed, and people discard their fixed lines. As residents continue to rely solely on their mobile devices and mobile device coverage, safety issues arise as residents require the ability to call for help in the case of an emergency. As fixed household lines are no longer seen as necessities, having access to good signal for mobile devices in houses, stores and in vehicles in order to have the ability to contact emergency services has become a necessity. Gaps in cellular coverage are evident in Claremont, both in residences or while outside driving. Wireless internet connectivity and speeds to local residents, especially rural, is lacking due to its proximity to the nearest wireless connection point. — _• The nearest existing installation to the proposed SNC0120 facility (blue star on the map photograph below) is an in -building Bell Mobile installation at small building owned by Bell on Joseph St. & Wixson St. approximately 1.76km from the proposed site. This system is not meant to service the entirety of the region as the maximum height of the building is 4m, and there is no opportunity for co -location. 3 -48- shared network A N A D A Image of the Bell installation location surrounded by residential properties in the heart of Claremont where co -location is not an option as a tower or pole would not be a suitable option for the surrounding community. The next nearest tower installations are found 6.82km to the west, 4.66km to the north, and 7.36km to the east from the Town of Claremont. These grand setbacks are the main contributor to a lack of cellular coverage, and co -location opportunities in Claremont. 4 -49- shared network A N A D A Above is our proposed location, we chose to set the proposed tower back as far as possible from the Town of Claremont while continuing to allow the installation to provide great coverage to the entire Town, surrounding communities and commuting traffic. 5 -50- shared network C A N A D A Shared Network Canada has been searching for a proposed site in this area to adequately cover the Town of Claremont since 2017. Following each meeting with the Planning Department of the City of Pickering and in order to address one comment received during the public consultation process we exhausted every possible alternate location. Due to airport zoning restrictions in the area, Claremont and the surrounding area is considered to be in the Outer Surface and no obstruction is permitted above an elevation of 300.0m above sea level. Attached in "Appendix A" is such report for the proposed location, but this depicts our necessity to find a property with a low elevation (as seen in Site Profile) in order to comply with the federal regulations. Moving to the north of Claremont is not an option since the elevation rises the further we moved away from the Town. We explored any alternative location possible, but due to many constraints, the airport constraint mentioned along with the other constraints below, the location we are proposing is the only adequate location to propose a tower to service the Town. We've attached the above map for reference: • depicts Landlords we've approached who either weren't interested or weren't open to discussing. • Yellow Cross Hatching is Federally owned land for the purposes of the prospective airport. • were areas that are restricted by the conservation authorities as well as the height restriction issue. • al is an owner that was interested but his property is surrounded by many residential properties abutting in very close proximity. 6 - 51 - rirshared`CANADA 46 Site Profile 7 -52- 0.A shared network t-46 A 8 - 53 - shared network C A 9 -54- 0.A shared network t-.16 A 10 - 55 - • shared network CANADA The proposed tripole tower, as depicted by the sample photos included as "Appendix B". The tower design has been selected to provide maximum collocation potential with a relatively small footprint and limited visual impact on the immediate surrounding. The proposed tripole tower blends in with the rural community, minimizing its profile against the surrounding area and is also a compatible design with the character of its immediate area. 11 -56- oak. shared network CANADA Public Consultation On Sept. 2, 2014, City of Pickering adopted a protocol (City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol) — File A-1110-004 The City's Protocol can be viewed at www.pickering.ca. In consideration of the community and at the City's request, Shared Network Canada conducted a public consultation on the proposed site at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont in order to provide the community with the information on the proposal. This process allowed the City, Shared Network Canada and the public to exchange information pertaining to our installation. The City of Pickering has developed a protocol for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. In accordance with the City's Protocol, Shared Network Canada is required to provide a notice to all property owners located within 500m of the furthest point of the tower compound. In fulfillment of the City's request for public notification, Shared Network Canada provided an information package to all those property owners located within a radius of up to 500 metres from the base of the installation. Concurrent to the mailing of this invitation Shared Network Canada placed a notice in the local community newspaper, News Advertiser, and erected 1 sign on the property notifying the public of the consultation period. Copy of this information package was also provided to the City of Pickering's Planning Department and Industry Canada as part of the municipal consultation process. In agreement with the municipality, 13 notices were mailed to neighbouring property owners, located within the radius from the subject property, up to 500m. Of the 13 notices mailed during the consultation, Shared Network Canada received a total of 3 comments. 1 comment received was in opposition of the site 2 comments received were in support of the site Both comments in support come from residences outside of the information package notification radius (500m from installation). All comments and responses have been attached into "Appendix C". 12 - 57 - shared network CANADA Tower Change The Shared Network Canada proposal for this tower was brought to the Pickering City Council Meeting on June 17, 2019, in which Council deferred their decision on the approval of the proposed tower to allow Shared Network Canada further work with the City Planning Team and local residents to enhance their proposal. Shared Network Canada proposed many options to the City Planning Team, in terms of new location on the other side of the property along with different tower styles to be used. Through working with the planning team, Shared Network Canada changed the location of the proposed tower to be placed on the most northeast corner of the Cemetery Property, the furthest possible setback from all local residents possible. Shared Network Canada also changed the tower type from a large lattice tower to a slim -line self-support tower, which will further and greatly reduce the visual impact to the immediate area. 2nd Public Consultation In consideration of the community and the City's request, Shared Network Canada conducted a second public consultation on the proposed site at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont in order to provide the community with the information on the proposal. This process allowed the City, Shared Network Canada and the public to exchange information pertaining to our installation. The City of Pickering has developed a protocol for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. In accordance with the City's Protocol, Shared Network Canada is required to provide a notice to all property owners located within 500m of the furthest point of the tower compound. In fulfillment of the City's request for public notification, Shared Network Canada provided an information package to all those property owners located within a radius of up to 500 metres from the base of the installation. Concurrent to the mailing of this invitation Shared Network Canada placed a notice in the local community newspaper, Pickering News Advertiser, and erected 1 sign on the property notifying the public of the consultation period. Copy of this information package was also provided to the City of Pickering's Planning Department and Industry Canada as part of the municipal consultation process. Of the 19 notices mailed during the consultation, Shared Network Canada received a total of 3 new comments (residents which did not comment during the first public consultation period). 2 new comment received was in opposition of the site 3 new comments received were in support of the site All 3 comments in support come from residences outside of the information package notification radius (500m from installation). The total number of comments received from both Consultation Periods were as follows: 3 comments received were in opposition of the site 5 comments received were in support of the site All comments and responses have been attached into "Appendix E". 13 -58- ow, shared network CANADA 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, Claremont is experiencing a growing demand for wireless services. As people rely more on wireless devices such as smartphones, tablets and laptops for business and personal use, network improvements are required to ensure high quality voice and data services are available. In response to this growing demand for wireless services, Shared Network Canada has worked to find the most suitable location for a new telecommunications tower in efforts to provide improved coverage within the surrounding area of the Town of Claremont. In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are also critical to ensuring the accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Wireless communications products and services, used daily by police, EMS, firefighters and other first responders, are an integral part of Canada's safety infrastructure. Shared Network Canada has undertaken and now completed a comprehensive public consultation process as it pertains to the wireless communications site located at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont in fulfillment of all the requirements under City of Pickering Protocol and Industry Canada guidelines. While we appreciate there remains one concern with the location due to public's health concern or proximity to their property, unfortunately due to a lack of alternative sites in the area, the only workable solution continues to be the current location at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont. In addition, Shared Network Canada assures and attests that our site and all wireless carriers on the tower will be fully compliant with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. Shared Network Canada has at all times been transparent and fully compliant with both municipal protocol and federal regulations pertaining to this proposal. Furthermore, Shared Network Canada has demonstrated our strict adherence obligations pertaining to health and have provided the parties that had submitted comments with numerous resources for the Federal and Provincial government bodies, as Shared Network Canada has no input into review or setting of standards and regulations. Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via email at dom@sharednetwork.ca. Dom Claros -59- 14 ow, shared network CANADA Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance Health Canada's role is to protect the health of Canadians, so it is the Department's responsibility to research and investigate any possible health effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic energy, such as that coming from cell phones and base stations. Health Canada has developed guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, which are commonly known as Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 has been adopted by Industry Canada and is included in their regulatory documents on radiocommunication licensing and operational requirements. Industry Canada requires all proponents and operators to ensure that their installations and apparatus comply with the Safety Code 6 at all times. Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits, as may be amended from time to time, for the protection of the general public including any combined effects of additional carrier co -locations and nearby installations within the local radio environment. For more information on Safety Code 6, please visit the following Health Canada site: www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system as proposed for this site will comply with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as the facility is exempt from review. The proposed location creates no impact on area environmental features. It is located on an already disturbed area of an existing industrial operation. No trees or vegetation is being removed to accommodate the installation. Transport Canada's Aeronautical Obstruction Marking Requirements Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will comply with Transport Canada / NAV CANADA aeronautical safety requirements. When Transport Canada / NAV Canada have determined if any aeronautical safety features are required for the installation, such information will be provided to the Town. For additional detailed information, please consult Transport Canada at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part6-standards-standard621-512.htm Engineering Practices Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system as proposed for this site will be constructed in compliance with the Canadian Standard Association and comply with good engineering practices including structural adequacy. 15 -60- 0P-. shared network CANADA Contact Information As a representative of Shared Network Canada, you can contact us at the following: Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 (647) 241-2788 municipal@sharednetwork.ca Municipal Consultation Process Shared Network Canada builds and operates shared wireless telecommunications infrastructure, designed to ensure that service providers can address their customers' needs in the most efficient manner. As a federal undertaking, Shared Network Canada is required by Industry Canada to consult with land -use authorities in siting telecommunication infrastructure locations. The consultation process established under Industry Canada's authority is intended to allow the local land - use authorities the opportunity to address land -use concerns while respecting the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over the siting and operation of wireless and data systems. Shared Network Canada welcomes comments from the municipality and its agencies to address any expressed comments that are deemed relevant by Industry Canada's CPC -2-0-03 Issue 5. Industry Canada's Spectrum Management Please be advised that the approval of this site and its design is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of Canada through Industry Canada. Shared Network Canada is participating in this consultation in accordance with Industry Canada's guidelines CPC -2-0-03 Issue 5. For more information on Industry Canada's public consultation guidelines including CPC -2-0-03 contact http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/sf08777e.html or the local Industry Canada office: Industry Canada, Spectrum Management Toronto District Office 151 Yonge Street, 4th floor Toronto ON M5C 2W7 Telephone: 1-855-465-6307 Email: ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic@canada.ca General information relating to antenna systems is available on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/home 16 - 61 - shared network A N A D A Appendix A -62- 55 J.D.BARNES L 1 M 1 T E D l ND INFORMATION SI'EC1 ALISTS Rogers Wireless Network Implementation 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Attention: Leticia Avanse Dear Sir/Madam: Re: SURVEYOR'S ATTESTATION SNC0120 Claremont - Union Cemetery Part of Lot 14, Concession 9 (Geographic Township of Pickering) City of Pickering 22 August 2019 File: 17-15-112-00 E-MAIL This report details the proposed telecommunication tower placement with respect to Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulations under the Federal Aeronautics Act, at a location more particularly described as being Part of Lot 14, Concession 9 (Geographic Township of Pickering), City of Pickering. This location lies within the Outer Surface as defined by the Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulations SOR/2004-212. No obstruction is permitted above an elevation of 300.0 m (984.3') at the location of proposed telecommunication tower described below (in NAD83 Coordinates): Proposed Antenna Centre Ground Elevation at Proposed Tower Airport Reference Point Elevation Top of Proposed Tower Elevation Outer Surface at Proposed Tower Latitude N43°58'45.7" Longitude W79°06'28.6" 248.6 m (815.6') 255.0 m (836.6') 293.6 m (963.3') 300.0 m (984.3') This information is depicted on attached Plan Showing Proposed Telecom Tower Installations, Ref. No. 17- 15-112-00 dated August 22, 2019. In summary, based on the proposed telecommunication tower placement, there is 6.4 m (21.0') clearance from the Top of Proposed Tower to the plane of Outer Surface. Yours truly; J.D.BARNES LIMITED M. Fisher, P. Eng., OLS 140 Renfrew Drive Suite 100 Markham Ontario Canada L3R 6B3 T: [9051 477-3600 F: [9051 477-0892 www.jdbarnes.com -63- 1 shared network C A N A A Appendix B -64- h' h' r_ r_ shared network A N A D A Appendix C -74- From: SNC Municipal Relations municipal@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Fwd: Claremont Communications Tower Date: February 21, 2019 at 11:29 AM To: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Regards, Leticia Avanse Shared Network Canada http://shared network. ca municipal@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Pickles, David, Councillor" <dpickles@pickerinq.ca> Subject: Re: Claremont Communications Tower Date: February 21, 2019 at 11:27:26 AM EST To: Linda Robinson Cc: "municipal@share networ c.ca" <municipa @sharednetwork.ca>, "ic.spectrumenod-spectredeno.ic@canada.ca" <ic.spectrumenod-spectredeno.ic@canada.ca>, "Butt, Shaheen, Councillor" <sbutt@pickering.ca>, "Bentley, Kyle" <kbentley_@pickering.ca> Hi Linda I am sharing your email with our planning staff. They review and comment on these applications. To be clear the towers are by owned and constructed by private sector companies not the city. The city reviews and provides comments to the federal government who is the approval agency for communications towers. Signals will also depend on what cell services are using which towers. By copy of this email I will ask staff to update both of us on this application. Thanks David Pickles Regional Councillor — Ward 3 905.420.4605<te1:905.420.4605> 1 1.866.683.2760<tel:1.866.683.2760> dpickles@pickering.ca<mailto:dpickles@pickering.ca> [cid:image003.png@01 D1 F4AD.80090790]<http://enews.pickering.ca/en/enews/signup.aspx> [cid:image005.png@01 D1 F4AD.80090790]<https://www.facebook.com/CityofPickering> [cid:image011.png@01 D1 D084.35FE8C30] On Feb 21, 2019, at 11:20 AM, Linda Robinson To the municipal affairs manager, - 75 - My husband and I are residents on , and I am writing to give my support for the proposed tower in Claremont. My family and I moved to Claremont in 1996, and have enjoyed living in this quiet area of Pickering. However, over the years, we have noticed the cell -service and wireless coverage is less than adequate in this area. Calls will drop when travelling north on Brock road, and there are areas in our house where calls will also drop, or the Wifi signal is low or non-existent. The cell coverage in the general area is spotty and unreliable at best. Sometimes we have to move to a particular area of our house just to make a call, or be able to pick up Wifi. It frustrates us but we have accepted it as a part of living out of the city, but we would appreciate better service in the area. It has come to our attention that a cell phone tower in closer proximity to Claremont will help this problem, and we are in full support of this proposal, and trust that it can be built soon and that it will not get tied up in the bureaucratic process. Thank you for your time and please take our support into consideration. George and Linda Robinson This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. -76- From: Leticia Avanse leticia@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Fwd: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: July 5, 2018 at 12:25 PM To: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Kathy Keats Subject: SNC File Num er: N 1 Possi a tower near aremont Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca I am a resident of , Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard. At my location, we have no access whatsoever to internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. - We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. - We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL. - Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable. Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use, too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which... - ... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest internet functions hopelessly slow, if not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modern world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast Internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available—literally 40 minutes from downtown Toronto. This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure. I highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont. Thank you for your efforts in this regard. Kathy Keats -77- From: Kathy Keats Subject: Re: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: July 26, 2018 at 9:46 AM To: dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Hey! • I was just wondering if you had any news re: this tower. Both Bell towers in the area (Claremont and Dagmar) are malfunctioning and so the other towers in the area is overwhelmed. Kathy Keats On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:28 PM Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> wrote: Hi Kathy, Hope your week is going well. Sorry I'm just getting back into the office from vacation. Thank you very much for sending this email, really appreciate it. Kind regards, Dom Claros Shared Network Canada 1 http://sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Kathy Keats iniim Subject: SNC FileNumber: ossi a tower near aremont Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca I am a resident o , Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard. At my location, we have no access whatsoever to internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. - We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. - We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL. - Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable. Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use, too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which... - ... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest internet functions hopelessly slow, if not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modern world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available—literally 40 minutes from downtown Toronto. This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure. I highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont. Thank you for your efforts in this regard. Kathy Keats -78- From: Kathy Keats Subject: Re: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: September 6, 2018 at 9:26 AM To: dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Hi Dom, I know I'm being a bit of a stalker, but any news on the tower (SNC0120) in Claremont? Thanks so much for your efforts! Kathy Keats On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:23 PM Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> wrote: Hi Kathy! • Thanks for letting us know, we are working hard to get everything approved by the City of Pickering and should hopefully have an update for you shortly. Thanks! Dom Claros Shared Network Canada 1 http://sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca On Jul 26, 2018, at 9:46 AM, Kathy Keats wrote: Hey! I was just wondering if you had any news re: this tower. Both Bell towers in the area (Claremont and Dagmar) are malfunctioning and so the other towers in the area is overwhelmed. Kathy Keats On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:28 PM Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> wrote: Hi Kathy, Hope your week is going well. Sorry I'm just getting back into the office from vacation. Thank you very much for sending this email, really appreciate it. Kind regards, Dom Claros Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Kathy Keats Subject: SNC File Num • er: SNC012 Possi • e tower near aremont Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca I am a resident of Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. -79- Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard. At my location, we have no access whatsoever to internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. - We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. - We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL. - Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable. Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use, too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which... - ... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest internet functions hopelessly slow, if not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modern world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available—literally 40 minutes from downtown Toronto. This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure. I highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont. Thank you for your efforts in this regard. Kathy Keats 80 - From: A & L Wilder Subject: SNC0120 Date: December 5, 2019 at 2:34 PM To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca Dear sirs: We have received the information package regarding the Claremont antenna. As referenced, the coverage in this area is incredibly poor. With the lack of service and apparent withdrawal of service from Bell Canada we are becoming more and more reliant on cellular service. We live on a rural property and therefore don't have the luxury of accessing service provided in a more densely populated area. Ironically, several of the photo views were taken from nearby our property which tells us that if the tower goes ahead as proposed we should finally get reliable cell service. We are 100% in favour of this project and proposal, the sooner the better. Andy & Lori Wilder - 81 - From: Karen Bisson Subject: Shared Network Tower - Claremont Union Cemetery - Support of Construction Date: December 23, 2019 at 1:20 PM To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca Good day, How many times a day do you reach for your cell phone? You pick it up and check it without giving it another thought. If you need to make a phone call because of an emergency, you are able to do so without any service issue. That is a luxury that the rural inhabitants of north Pickering are not permitted. I have been a resident of Claremont for my entire life. My family has deep ties to the community going back generations and has witnessed the progress that has come along to our lovely rural community as well as the discrimination against this community for being less urban. Claremont has had a strong agricultural community for generations, and with the advance in technology in agricultural equipment, accidents still happen, people still have medical emergencies and when that call for help is unable to be placed because we do not have service in this area, it provide a stark and frightening reality that is often faced in a rural community as the folks in the more urban areas don't take their rural neighbours into consideration. How would you feel if your brother, sister, spouse, parent or child were unable to call you because they were in an area that does not provide reliable and stable cellular reception. How much worry would run through your mind especially if there was emergency circumstances? With the installation of this proposed tower, it allows for the community which is often forgotten in Claremont (North Pickering) to have access to emergency contacts and stable reliable cellular service. Anyone who opposes the installation of this tower, is selfish, unreasonable and neglecting the basic needs of the health and safety of the community. Anyone who opposes this tower who lives south of Highway 7 should lose all credibility as they do not understand or appreciate the challenges this rural community often faces. This tower is only logical and services the needs of the northern Pickering community. Be the change that fuels a safer community with more reliable cellular service. Allow the community of Claremont to enjoy the services that the more urban part of Pickering takes for granted. I welcome any constructive dialogue you may wish to have, and can be reached at (Providing I am in an area that has service). Sincerely, Karen and Martin Bisson -82- The Claremont Union Cemetary Co. Ltd Murray Jones President Date: June 5, 2019 Subject: Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Reference SNC0120 To: Susan Cassell D. Ryan — Mayor, City of Pickering D. Pickles — Regional Councillor, Ward 3 S. Butt — City Councillor, Ward 3 D. Claros — Shared Network Canada Doug Cummings Secretary/Treasurer My wife Kathy and I have been on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Union Cemetery for several years and we currently function as its Secretary/Treasurer. We reside on 170 acres on Sideline 12 in Pickering where Kathy's ancestors are the original settlers of the land we live on. We are both retired, Kathy was a Professor teaching Nursing at what is now Ontario Tech in Oshawa and I was an HR Manager - Labour Relations at General Motors in Oshawa. In June of this year we attended the Planning Committee meeting where Shared Network and others, including myself, made presentations regarding the tower being proposed. At that time, discussion of this proposal ended with a decision on the matter being deferred for further investigation and amendment between Shared Network and Pickering's Engineering Dept. Since that time we have had discussions with several community members and farmers regarding Cellular and Internet performance in the Claremont area. Where we live we do not have access to high speed internet through cable or fibreoptic and in our discussions with Bell Canada we are not likely to have these available in the near future. We have been using a Rogers Rocket Hub device for internet, however cellular service remains poor with many "dead zones" in the area. These dead zones are of particular concern for our area farmers who may run into trouble while performing their regular agricultural activities. Since breakdowns do not frequently happen in convenient locations in the fields, cellular service is now as much a tool as a wrench or a hammer. It might simply be a mechanical breakdown requiring the help of another family member or the closest neighbor or perhaps more seriously it -83- could be a medical issue requiring immediate attention. Without the ability to call for help using 911 or calling home, the farmer may not be found until its too late. When we last met on this proposal in June 2019 I told of the situation we face at our own home where when standing on our deck and using my cell phone to call the landline in our house, less than 15 feet away, it is sometimes a long distance call. Suppose Kathy or I were outside alone, felt and recognized the symptoms of a heart attack or stroke being imminent and tried to phone the other for help. The additional precious seconds it takes to redial if it turned out that it was of those times when the call was "long distance" might mean the difference between life with prognosis for full recovery or a less desireable out come. It is our hope that with more towers such as the one being proposed by Shared Network, our ability to access reliable and secure Internet and Cellular services will be available. It will help provide for the safety of all residents in the Claremont area and the area farmers whether owners or tenant farmers using our lands. This tower is needed now! Thank you for giving this your sincere consideration. On behalf of the Claremont Union Cemetary Board, Dou las Doug) J. Cummings cc: file Pagc 2 -84- Wednesday May 16, 2018 Mr. Kyle Bentley City of Pickering — City Development Department Pickering, ON Aghlab Al-Joundi Re: Proposed Shared Network Canada ("SNC") Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering, ON, SNC File Number: SNC0120 Dear Mr. Bentley, As a follow up to my email sent May 14, 2018, I have additional material concerns about the above noted cell tower proposal. I will outline them below. 1. SNC business model emphasizes erection of towers, not provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services Are you aware that the proponent, SNC, is not in the business of providing cellular communications and internet services to residential and commercial clients, but rather their business model is specifically about generating maximum revenues from the erection of as many cell towers as possible? This is very clear from statements on their website including, "We build towers and rent space on them for radio equipment, such as cellular antennas". They add, "...we think it makes more sense than ever before for wireless carriers to recognize that towers are not their core business, and that these assets can be more efficiently built, owned and managed elsewhere." Given their undisputed business mandate is to maximize revenues by erecting the maximum number of new towers (there is nothing in their attestations about cell based services to end users/communities as a primary business objective), there is a fundamental conflict with the Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, "before building a new antenna -supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first -85- explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards". Not surprisingly, both Industry Canada and the CPCTP prioritize any cell services provider to utilize existing infrastructure to support installation of their electronics, and even the wording of such prioritization is almost identical between the two authoritative bodies. Fundamental to Industry Canada's position about the erection of such towers is also found in their website which states about their rules, "rules are designed to make sure companies are looking at ways to reduce the number of new towers they are building". Mr. Bentley, given SNC's business model, please provide evidence that they seriously made efforts to reduce the erection of additional towers by utilizing existing infrastructure. Given their business model, it is obvious that SNC would not have seriously considered existing infrastructure. Fundamentally, both the Industry Canada and CPCTP requirements are based on a carrier type of business model, where the carrier's business model is about maximizing revenues through the maximizing of cellular telecommunications and Internet residential and commercial subscriptions to such services. Within that model, the erection of cell towers are necessary to deliver such end user services, but the erection of the towers themselves is not a primary business objective, though the rental of space on such towers becomes perhaps a secondary source of revenue. In this traditional carrier business model, such service providers have a primary motivation in maximizing revenues through cell tower based services to the community, hence not only would they be interested in erecting towers to facilitate the delivery of such services, but also in installing their electronics on existing infrastructure for the provision of services. The risk with the SNC model is that they have absolutely no interest in utilizing existing infrastructure, but rather erecting as many new towers as possible, and as quickly as possible. I use the word "risk" deliberately because there is no doubt that given the existing Industry Canada and associated municipal guidelines (including those of the City of Pickering), SNC sees a loop hole for their business model that they want to exploit as quickly as possible. In this sense they create "facts on the ground" that a municipality would very likely end up having to grandfather even when more current, relevant guidelines are developed. The SNC business model which in effect is, "get as many towers up, as quickly as possible", is completely incompatible with the rules and protocols relating to the provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services as espoused by the Industry Canada and related City of Pickering municipal guidelines and protocols (i.e. CPCTP). -86- 2. Negative impact on my property value, and unfair Risk/Benefit model Based on research publicly available, there is no doubt that residential property within the immediate vicinity (i.e. distance, view) of wireless telecommunications towers that is for sale, realizes less demand from potential buyers than other similar properties where everything else is the same. The phenomena of lower demand for such properties where everything else is equal, is a fact. According to the research, the lower demand for such properties is driven primarily by two concerns as expressed by potential buyers, a) aesthetics — such towers are aesthetically unpleasing, they are not compatible with the nature of the neighborhood or natural features. They create a visual blight, and change the character of the area, especially when constructed in rural settings, and b) health concerns — notwithstanding Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance which every proponent of cell towers is quick to reference, the fact is that there remains widespread media attention about scientific studies regarding the potential long term effects of proximity to such towers, and persistent health concerns that the public continues to express. In fact, a US study by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy published in June 2014, titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found: • 94% of home buyers and renters are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna; • 79% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas; and • 90% said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in residential neighborhoods The above public perception is very disconcerting to any property owner within the vicinity of an existing or proposed cell tower. The salient point here, the incontrovertible point, is that perception is what influences a potential buyer. With widespread concerns (as acknowledged in part by every cell tower proponent feeling they have to quickly make reference to the Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance), comes widespread negative perception. Negative perception means less demand. Less demand means less competition. Less competition means a lower price/value. It is that simple and categoric. As well, consider how unfair this proposed cell tower site is for my family and I. Under this site, SNC generates rental revenue for itself. Under this site, Claremont - Union Cemetery enjoys a monthly annuity from SNC, while none of the owners have to live with the tower looming over them. Under this site, notwithstanding that my home will be close to, and the closest to the site, my family receives absolutely zero income though as outlined above, yet we assume all of the risks. -87- I cannot count on SNC to protect my property value, and mitigate my risks when they propose to erect a cell tower. However as a longtime resident and tax payer within the community of Claremont, my family needs to know, that the City of Pickering is not encumbering my family with major risks and zero benefits associated with the proposed cell tower site, and is doing everything it can to ensure that my family's wealth and economic prosperity is protected from opportunistic, for profit business interests ? 3. Attempt to avoid Environmental considerations Within the Public Notice Package ("PNP"), SNC suggests that the proposed cell tower "is excluded from environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012)". However, it is common knowledge that the Trudeau government is replacing this Harper era Act of 2012, with the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) under Bill C-69 which is being finalized at this time. According to prominent Law firm Tory LLP, the IAA "is intended to enable more comprehensive impact assessments" and represents a "shift to broader assessment of project impacts, including environmental, health, social and economic effects", including "more public consultation". Therefore it is not legitimate for SNC to claim that the proposed cell tower falls outside any necessary environmental considerations when a new, more comprehensive environmental assessment regime under the IAA is in the process of being implemented. 4. PNP is misleading - The single photo in the PNP with an alleged (so small, i.e. one quarter of an 8.5" X 11" page) rendering of the proposed tower is misleading, understated and promotes an inaccurate impression of size and actual location of the tower. Selective, south facing view point is misleading. It does not reflect the alarming reality of how close the proposed tower would be to my family's house, and it avoids the key topographical prominence of the actual Oak Ridges Moraine rolling hills and vistas that a more common, north facing view (i.e. associated with the vehicular traffic traversing Concession 9/Regional Road 5), provides of the proposed site . 5. Proposed site service road is an issue The proposed site service road runs the length of the cemetery and immediately alongside my property. Under the SNP proposed business model, it would be reasonably expected that multiple services providers would install their equipment on the proposed tower, resulting in regular service vehicular traffic through the cemetery on this service 88 - road. This would add further noise and disruption to enjoyment of my residential property, especially worrisome given that my outdoor patio and deck face, and are in proximity to this part of the cemetery. My home is situated in a mixed residential/agricultural area. It is not in an industrial or commercial zone where nobody resides, and where the regularity of such service vehicles is more expected/accepted. 6. Lack of Public Information Session as per Industry Canada guideline CPC 2-0-03, article 4.2 Within the PNP, why is there no requirement by the City of Pickering for a "Public Information Session" as had been provided by SNC in their other PNP's, such as for example to those residing within the vicinity of 459 South River Road, Centre Wellington, Ontario, under SNC file number, SNC0133? Why would the City of Pickering not require SNC to hold a "Public Information Session" as it appears other municipalities have done? Industry Canada requires the proponent to "...(engage) the public and the land -use authority in order to address relevant questions, comments and concerns regarding the proposal. This was never done. Why not? 7. SNC PNP was understated and mistaken for "junk mail" As per Industry Canada's requirement article 4.2, "Public notification of an upcoming notification must be clearly marked, making reference to the proposed antenna system, so that it is not misinterpreted as junk mail. The notice must be sent by mail or be hand delivered. The face of the package must clearly reference that the recipient is within the prescribed notification radius of the proposed antenna system. The SNC notice was delivered in a regular, plain white envelope with no special markings, which we initially threw out because it resembled the many items of junk mail that we have stuffed into our mail box. Equally, there was NO notification or reference that we are within the prescribed notification radius. It was only upon sorting our recycling material for our blue bin that we opened the SNC envelope to discover the PNP. How was this allowed to happen? Aside from the content of the PNP for such a matter of public concern, have you actually investigated/confirmed how SNC delivers such content to ensure that people are not inadvertently throwing out such content without first being made aware that what they are receiving is specific to them, and not "junk mail"? For example, why would the 89 - CPCTP not also include that such content be delivered through priority post, or other hand delivered service? 8. Preferred Location under City of Pickering Cell Tower protocol Under 6.2 "...where co -location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible, proponents are encouraged to: "Select sites for new towers that are within industrial, commercial or non-residential areas, and/or that maximize the distance from residential areas." "Consider the use of City owned lands and/or facilities" Neither of these articles of the CPCTP have been satisfied with the proponent's proposal. Under 6.3 — Discouraged Locations "The City discourages the installation of new antenna systems in the following locations: Residential areas...On sites of topographical prominence that would obscure public views and vistas." AND, "Within Environmentally sensitive lands." Given that the selected site is on the Oak Ridges Moraine and is of topographical prominence, the City of Pickering needs to disqualify this proponent's site selection. Mr. Bentley, as the above suggests, there are serious flaws and concerns with respect to the proposed SNC cell tower scheme. Everything about the SNC proposal suggests an opportunistic, for profit, private business entity that is highly motivated to erect as many cell towers as possible, create the "facts on the ground" before any new Industry Canada and associated City of Pickering municipal protocols are developed to consider their type of business model, which is all about erecting towers, and not services, and before the full weight of the IAA comes into effect. The SNC proposal is not fair to my family by having us assume significant risks with zero benefits, is incompatible with the fundamental Industry Canada and CPCTP rules, is incomplete, and is misleading. These facts, and all the likely changes associated with the IAA, and my family's absolute rejection of a proposal to erect such a cell tower so close to our home, not to mention such a tower's blight on our vista and landscape, logically conclude that this proposal must be rejected by the City of Pickering, or at the very least delayed indefinitely until new protocols are developed to consider SNC types of business models and the IAA comes into full effect. -90- Mr. Bentley, given the serious nature of this proposed engagement, I request a meeting with you, and my Councilor's Mr. David Pickles and Mr. Shaheen Butt to ensure that you all also have my family's interests at heart. I will be reaching out accordingly shortly. Thank you, Aghlab Al-Joundi Cc. Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell — MPP Pickering -Uxbridge Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan - 91 - shared network CANADA June 23, 2018 Aghlab Al-Joundi By email to: RE: Letter addressed to Mr. Kyle Bentley, dated May 16, 2018. Dear Mr. Al-Joundi, Thank you for your letter dated May 16, 2018. We appreciate you sharing your comments and concerns in regards to the proposal for a tower near Claremont, Ontario. Shared Network Canada values the input of all participants in this process, whether in support or opposition. While Shared Network Canada does not currently provide cellular or Internet service, the process of determining potential tower locations does not differ from companies which provide such services. As you mentioned, Shared Network Canada is a third -party infrastructure provider, in which much of the capital cost of building and operating a tower is born by Shared Network and space on the tower is rented to customers who provide cellular and Internet services. As such, the tower would not be constructed if the space on the tower were not needed by customers providing either cellular or Internet services. We understand your concern regarding the proximity to your residence and are willing to work with you and your family in order to potentially relocate the tower. As illustrated in Schedule A of the attached, we can look into relocating the tower to the opposing corner of the property, over 100m further setback from your residence surrounded by the mature tree line. In regards to the safety concerns, our team attempted to locate the study from the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" published in June of 2014 titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" and could not locate the article. We attempted both web pages below to locate any information regarding this article or the Institute but were unable to locate anything, we may be making a mistake in our research, would you mind pointing us in the direction of the correct article mentioned above. https://natinstsciencelaw.org/ https://natinstsciencelaw.org/emf-safety-%26-health Please also see attached in Schedule B the "Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Associations" published handbook with more detailed information in regards to the process and safety of Telecommunications sites. www.sharedne twork.ca 275 Macpherson Ave #103, 'Toronto, ON M4V iA4 _92_ It" shared networADAk • CAN Shared Network Canada does and will continue to abide by and follow all environmental and safety requirements for all proposed tower locations. As with the proposed Claremont site, Shared Network Canada has been working with and will continue to work with all necessary health, safety and environmental approval processes in place for the construction of the tower. When proposing the access road, it was placed along the mature tree line in order to mask the majority of the viewshed of any potential vehicles passing through. Once the equipment is installed on the tower, only quarterly maintenance inspections would be done on the tower save for times of emergency (i.e. Power Outage). When looking to relocate the tower to the opposing end of the property, we can also look into relocating part of the access road as well. The proposed location was determined as there is a need to service and coverage to the residents of Claremont, please see one letter we receive in Schedule C, outlining the residents' concerns and comments supporting the towns need for a tower. As the town needs a tower, Shared Network is proposing to locate the tower away from the town of Claremont on the rural portion of the not for profit cemetery land. We will continue to work with your family to receive your input regarding the potential relocation of the proposed tower on other portions of the cemetery land. Again, thank you for your valued input. Yours sincerely, Dom Claros CC: Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan -93- rail shared network a�vaa Schedule A -94- rail shared network a�vaa Schedule B -95- Connecting Canadians: Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada Des Canadiens branches: Choix des sites de bads d'antenne au Canada Association canadlenne des telecommunications sans 111 Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association cwta Association canadienne des telecommunications sans fil Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association acts Contact us at 613 233 4888 or info@cwta.ca Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association 130 Albert Street, Suite 1110 Ottawa, ON K1 P 5G4 www.cwta.ca Pour nous joindre : 613 233 4888 ou info@cwta.ca Association canadienne des telecommunications sans fil 130, rue Albert, bureau 1110 Ottawa, ON K1 P 5G4 www.cwta.ca table of contents table des matieres 5 Connecting Canadians: 5 Des Canadiens branches : Choix des sites Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada de batis d'antenne au Canada 7 Building a New Wireless Tower Reasons for building Antenna Towers The Site Selection Process 13 The Antenna Approval Process Jurisdiction Regulations Governing Wireless Antenna Siting Local Land -Use Authorities 17 Health and Safety Issues Electromagnetic Waves and Fields Jurisdiction over Health and Safety of Antenna Installations Safety Code 6 Other Projects On Health and Safety of Wireless Devices 7 Construction d'un nouveau bati d'antenne Pourquoi construire de nouveaux batis d'antenne? Le processus de selection d'un site 13 Le processus d'approbation relatif aux antennes Competence Cadre reglementaire relatif a l'emplacement d'antennes sans fil Autorites regionales responsables de l'utilisation du sol 17 Questions de sante et de securite Champs et ondes electromagnetiques Competence relative a la sante et la securite de batis d'antenne Code de securite 6 Autres projets visant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fil 23 Antenna Tower Information Resources 23 Sources d'information sur les pylones d'antenne -99- Connecting Canadians: Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada There are about 8,000 cell sites in all of Canada. As communities demand new or improved wireless service, local carriers respond to this need by building a wireless antenna structure, commonly called a "tower." In addition to meeting the needs of individual Canadian consumers, improved cellular coverage means better access to emergency services such as fire, police, or ambulance, and business development opportunities as business services are enhanced. An antenna structure build may raise concerns in the community about aesthetics, or about the health and safety of towers. This brochure provides basic information about the many rigorous factors that go into site selection and tower build, and answer some key questions about health and safety issues. For more thorough information, parliamentarians and staff are encouraged to contact the association, or consult the resources section at the end of this guide. Des Canadiens branches : Choix des sites de batis d'antenne au Canada On retrouve environ 8 000 sites cellulaires au Canada. A mesure que les communautes exigent de nouveaux services sans fil ou encore des services ameliores, les telecommunicateurs regionaux repondent a cette demande en construisant un bad d'antenne, qu'on appelle couramment une « tour ». En plus de satisfaire aux besoins individuels des consommateurs canadiens, une meilleure couverture permet un meilleur acces aux services d'urgence fournis par les pompiers, policiers et ambulanciers, et de meilleures occasions d'affaires, puisque les services commerciaux s'en trouvent ameliores. La construction d'un bati d'antenne peut susciter certains questionnements au sein de la communaute, notamment en ce qui concerne leur aspect esthetique, ou la sante et la securite des tours. La presente brochure fournit des renseignements de base sur les rigoureux criteres de selection du site et de la construction de batis d'antenne. Elle repond egalement a des questions primordiales sur la sante et la securite. Pour obtenir davantage de renseignements, les parlementaires et leur personnel peuvent communiquer avec l'association ou consulter la section sur les ressources qui figure a la fin de ce guide. - 100 - 5 1 9i - ki .` + • 1 ••. .I 2•?-- ;',.., 101 - t ▪ 4 r .. ▪ --4• 1 ti '-. ": r ■1 • r .1 7r ...r�+ 4.14 til Building a New Wireless Tower In this section • Reasons for Building Antenna Towers • The Site Selection Process Construction d'un nouveau bati d'antenne Dans cette section • Pourquoi construire de nouveaux bads d'antenne? sus de selection d'un site - 102 - Why a new tower? Wireless carriers continue to build out their networks in response to the tremendous consumer demand for their services. Today, more than 18 million Canadians have a cellphone or wireless device, a number that is growing by more than 10% annually. People take the availability of wireless service for granted and expect that their service provider will provide coverage anywhere and everywhere they live, work or play. Indications are that this demand will only increase dramatically as Canadians' reliance on wireless communications at home and in the workplace, increases. Indeed, as wireless communications provide the communications services, and products, used daily by police, EMS, firefighters, and other first responders, wireless is also an integral part of Canada's safety infrastructure. Every year, Canada's wireless carriers spend over $1 billion in capital improvements to their networks and have cumulatively invested over $20 billion to date in building Canada's world-class wireless infrastructure. Across Canada there are approximately 8,000 cellular/PCS antenna sites. For comparison purposes, the United Kingdom, with its much smaller land mass, has approximately 35,000 sites. A considerable portion of this is spent improving network availability, both in terms of coverage and capacity. Network coverage consists of extending the reach of the network to new areas as well as eliminating the so-called "dead zones," areas where cellular coverage breaks off. Increasing capacity allows more users within the existing footprint of the network and provides for faster transmission speeds for wireless data services. Radio antennas, associated equipment and supporting structures are fundamental components of a radiocommunication system. Without them, none of the services on which Canadian individuals, businesses and governments have come to depend would exist.," 03 A unique tree -shaped antenna tower. Un pyl"one d'antenne en forme d'arbre. 8 Pourquoi construire de nouveaux bads d'antenne? Les telecommunicateurs sans fit poursuivent l'expansion de leurs reseaux en reaction a la tres forte demande de services de la part des consommateurs. Aujourd'hui, plus de 18 millions de Canadiens ont un telephone cellulaire ou un appareil sans fit, un nombre qui augmente de plus de 10 pour cent chaque annee. Les gens tiennent le service sans fil pour acquis et s'attendent a ce que leur fournisseur offre une couverture partout ou ils se rendent pour des raisons personnelles ou professionnelles. Tout porte a croire que cette demande conna?tra une augmentation marquee et continue, puisque les Canadiens comptent de plus en plus sur les communications sans fila la maison et au travail. En effet, puisque les policiers, ambulanciers, pompiers et autres premiers repondants utilisent des produits et services de communications sans fil, les telecommunications sans fil sont une composante primordiale de l'infrastructure de securite au Canada. Chaque annee, les telecommunicateurs sans fit canadiens consacrent plus d'un milliard de dollars a l'amelioration de leurs immobilisations de reseau et ont investi jusqu'a maintenant plus de 20 milliards de dollars pour doter le Canada d'une infrastructure sans fil de classe mondiale. On compte environ 8 000 emplacements de pylones cellulaires ou SCP au pays. Par comparaison, au Royaume-Uni, qui occupe une aire geographique beaucoup plus petite, on en retrouve environ 35 000. Une part considerable de ce milliard de dollars investis chaque annee est consacree a l'amelioration de la disponibilite du reseau, tant sur le plan de la couverture que sur le plan de la capacite. L'amelioration du reseau consiste a agrandir la portee de celui-ci sur de nouvelles zones et a eliminer les soi-disant « zones mortes » soit les zones ou it y a bris de couverture. Ameliorer la capacite signifie un plus grand nombre d'utilisateurs potentiels parmi la zone de couverture existante du reseau et une transmission de donnees plus rapide. Les antennes radio, l'equipement connexe et les structures qui les supportent sont des composantes fondamentales d'un systeme de telecommunications. Sans elles, aucun des services sur lesquels peuvent compter la population, les entreprises et les instances gouvernementales du Canada n'existeraient. - 104 - 9 The Site Selection Process When a requirement for a new site has been identified, the wireless carrier begins evaluating the options in an area based on radio frequency characteristics. These frequency characteristics are influenced by: the local terrain, existing structures, the number of subscribers, distance from existing sites, the availability of existing structures (buildings, other towers, etc.), and the availability of a willing landlord. Because they are considerably more cost effective and time to service is reduced, the first consideration is typically to look for existing structures such as building rooftops, water towers, hydro corridors, or towers belonging to other carriers or other utilities. The use of existing structures generally results in a smaller impact on local surroundings. Of the roughly 8,000 cellular/PCS sites in Canada, 40% are located on structures other than purpose-built towers. Choosing an existing structure can reduce costs and the time to complete an installation, but the location or height may be unsuitable. Co -locating on existing towers may reduce the number of new towers but can result in the need for taller, more visible towers. Some municipalities actually prefer smaller, individual towers, to one massive, but collocated, tower. Bell and TELUS have employed an infrastructure sharing agreement to reduce the need for additional sites. When all of these strategies are considered, approximately 60% of all cell sites in Canada are shared in one way or another. Sites are only selected after thorough analysis of expected coverage outcomes based on field measurements and predictions com- bined with customer requirements. Upon selecting a preferred site, a carrier will begin the approval process. Of the 8,000 sites in Canada, 40% are located on structures other than towers. - 105 - 10 Le processus de selection d'un site Une fois que le besoin d'etablir un nouveau site se manifeste, le telecommunicateur sans fil commence a evaluer les options presentes dans la zone en question, selon les caracteristiques des radiofrequences. Plusieurs facteurs influent sur ces caracteristiques: le terrain, les structures existantes, le nombre d'abonnes, la distance relative aux emplacements dela en place, la disponibilite de structures existantes (immeubles, autres tours, etc.) et la presence d'un proprietaire dispose a louer ['usage d'une structure. Parce qu'elle est considerablement plus economique et qu'elle permet une mise en service plus rapide, la premiere option est habituellement de chercher des structures deja en place, comme des toits d'immeubles, des chateaux d'eau, des corridors hydroelectriques, ou des tours appartenant a d'autres telecommunicateurs ou d'autres services publics. En regle generale, ['utilisation de structures deja en place a un impact restreint sur l'environnement immediat. Des quelque 8 000 emplacements cellulaires ou SCP au Canada, 40 pour cent se trouvent sur des structures autres que des pylones construits a cet effet. Choisir une structure deja existante permet de reduire les couts et le delai necessaires a ['installation, mais la localisation ou la hauteur pourraient ne pas convenir. L'utilisation conjointe de pylones dela en place reduit le nombre de nouveaux pyl"ones, mais elle peut faire en sorte que les tours doivent etre plus hautes et plus visibles.. l'heure actuelle, certaines municipalites preferent des tours a usage unique plus petites mais plus nombreuses plutot qu'une seule tour a usage multiple plus imposante. Bell et TELUS ont conclu une entente de partage d'infrastructure qui reduit le besoin d'etablir de nouveaux sites. Toutes ces strategies font en sorte que 60 pour cent de tous les sites cellulaires au Canada sont partages, d'une maniere ou d'une autre. Les sites ne sont choisis qu'a la suite d'une analyse exhaustive de tous les resultats potentiels sur le plan de la couverture, fondee sur les previsions et les mesures sur le terrain, mise en parallele avec les besoins de la clientele. Une fois qu'un site specifique est choisi, le telecommunicateur entreprendra le processus d'approbation. 1 0 6quelque 8 000 emplacements cellulaires ou SCP au Canada, our int se trouvent sur des structures autres que des pylones. 11 - 107 - The Antenna Approval Process In this section • Jurisdiction • Regulations Governing Wireless Antenna Siting • Local Land -Use Authorities Le processus d'approbation relatif aux antennes Dans cette section • Competence • Cadre reglementaire relatif a l'emplacement d'antennes sans fil • Autorites regionales responsables de l'utilisation du sol - 108 13 14 The Antenna Approval Process Jurisdiction Any discussion of tower approval procedures requires an understanding of the jurisdictional issues and the facts upon which jurisdiction is based. Canada's federal government has exclusive and comprehensive jurisdiction over the area of radiocommunication and telecommunications .1 The Privy Council determined in its decision re Regulation and Control of Radio -Communications in Canada2 that the Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and control ra- diocommunication. Provincial Courts of Appeal (such as British Columbia and Ontario) have followed the Privy Council's decision without reservation. National jurisdiction over telecommunications, including the authorization of radio- communication facilities, is a common characteristic of the regulatory structures of all countries having advanced radiocommunication networks. Industry Canada is responsible for regulating radiocommunica- tion in Canada including authorizing the installation of radio- communication towers and sites. This authority is derived from the Department of Industry Act, which describes the powers and duties of the department and the minister, and the Radiocommunication Act, which specifically provides the authority to approve antenna supporting structures. Indeed, the most recent authoritative review of Industry Canada's policies governing the siting of radiocommunications facilities, i.e. the 2004 Townsend Report, recommended that the legislative authority to regulate the siting of towers "should remain exclusively with the Government of Canada." 3 1 Canadian Municipalities and the Regulation of Radio Antennas and their Support Structures, prepared for Industry Canada 1 by David Townsend, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick, 1987 2 re Regulation and Control of Radio Communications of Canada [1932] A.C. 304 (Privy Council) 3 Report on the National Antenna Tower Policy, prepared for Industry Canada by David Townsend, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick, 2004 Le processus d'approbation relatif aux antennes Competence Toute discussion sur le processus d'approbation d'un pylone necessite une bonne comprehension des questions de competence et des faits sur lesquels reposent les champs de competence. Au Canada, les radiocommunications et les telecommunications sont un champ de competence relevant exclusivement et entierement du federal 1. Dans In re, la reglementation et le contra' le de la radiocommunication au Canada 2, le Conseil prive a determine que le Parlement du Canada a la competence exclusive de reglementer et d'exercer un controle sur les radiocommunications. Des cours d'appel provinciales (telles que celles de la Colombie-Britannique et de l'Ontario) ont respecte la decision du Conseil prive sans reserve. Les telecommunications, et l'autorite des installations de radiocommunications, sont communement de competence nationale dans tous les pays dotes de reseaux de radiocommunications avances. Industrie Canada est responsable de la reglementation des radiocommunications au Canada, ce qui comprend l'autorisation d'installer des pylones et des sites de radiocommunication. Cette autorite est conferee par la Loi sur le ministere de ('Industrie, qui precise les pouvoirs et les responsabilites du ministere et du ministre,et par la Loi sur la radiocommunication, qui confere explicitement le pouvoir d'autoriser les structures qui supportent les antennes. En effet, la plus recente etude faisant autorite au sujet des politiques d'Industrie Canada visant l'emplacement des installations de radiocommunications, soit le rapport Townsend de 2004, recommandait que l'autorisation legate de reglementer l'emplacement des tours aa demeure la competence exclusive du gouvernement du Canada. 3 >> Les municipalites canodiennes et to reglementation des antennes radio et des basis d'antennes, rapport soumis a ustrie Canada par David Townsend, Faculte de droit, Universite du Nouveau -Brunswick, 1987. sell Pr,, In re, 0 reglementation et le controle de 0 radiocommunication au Canada, [1932] A.G. 304 3 Rapport sur l'examen de 0 politique nationale sur les pyldnes d'antenne, rapport soumis a Industrie Canada par David Townsend, Faculte de droit, Universite du Nouveau -Brunswick, 2004. Regulations Governing Wireless Antenna Siting Industry Canada's procedures for constructing and installing antenna structures are covered in a Client Procedure Circular entitled Environmental Process, Radiofrequency Fields and Land -Use Consultation. For cellular/PCS service providers, com- pliance with these procedures is required as a condition of licence. In exercising its authority, Industry Canada also makes use of the input and expertise of federal departments and agencies. To ensure the environment is not harmed, antenna structures must conform to the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. To ensure the safety of air navi- gation, antenna proponents must comply with Transport Canada's antenna structure clearance procedures. Similarly, Health Canada's Safety Code 6, which wireless carriers rigidly ahere to, ensures that radio frequency emissions are more than well within safe levels. Cadre reglementaire relatif a !'emplacement d'antennes sans fil Les procedures dictees par Industrie Canada pour la construction et ['installation de batis d'antennes sont enoncees dans une Circulaire des procedures concernant les clients intitulee Processus environnemental, champs de radiofrequences et consultation sur l'utilisation du sol. Le respect de ces procedures est une condition de licence pour les fournisseurs de services cellulaires ou SCP. Pour exercer ses pouvoirs, Industrie Canada peut egalement compter sur les commentaires et ['expertise d'autres ministeres et organismes federaux. Afin de s'assurer que l'environnement est protege, les bads d'antenne doivent etre conformes aux exigences prescrites par la Loi canadienne sur !'evaluation environnementale. Afin de s'assurer que la navigation aerienne est securitaire, les antennes doivent etre conformes aux procedures d'autorisation de ['emplacement et des bads d'antenne par Transports Canada. De plus, le Code de securite 6 de Sante Canada, auquel les telecommunicateurs sans fil adherent rigoureusement, fait en sorte que les emissions en radiofrequence sont de beaucoup inferieures aux limites permises. - 110 - 15 Local Land -Use Authorities As a result of the federal jurisdiction of telecommunications operations, traditional municipal land -use planning controls such as zoning by-laws, development approvals, and Building Code requirements are rendered inoperative to the extent that they affect or interfere with the siting, physical location, design, construction and operation of federal undertakings such as cellular/PCs carriers. In other words, the prohibition, restriction or regulation of land for its use as a wireless telecommunication facility would be the authority of the Land -Use Authority. Nevertheless, as a condition of their wireless licences, Industry Canada requires carriers to consult with the municipal/land-use authority when proposing the installation of significant antenna structures in order to gain the land -use authority's concurrence. Industry Canada generally considers that once a participating land -use authority is contacted, it should make its views known to the applicant within 60 days. Further, the entire consultation process should be completed within 120 days. For the vast majority of cases, the procedures and processes in place have worked well in meeting the needs of communities, individuals, wireless carriers and their subscribers. Autorites regionales responsables de ['utilisation du sol Parce que ['exploitation des telecommunications est de competence federate, les mesures de controle traditionnelles de l'amenagement du territoire, telles que les reglements de zonage, ['approbation de lotissements et les normes et reglements de construction, sont sans effet pour ce qui est de la localisation, ['emplacement materiel, la conception, la construction et ['exploitation d'immobilisations relatives a des secteurs regis par le federal, comme le sont les telecommunications cellulaires ou SCP. En d'autres mots, ['interdiction, la restriction ou la reglementation de ['utilisation du sol relativement a des installations de telecommunications sans fit releve du responsable de ['utilisation du sol. Toutefois, Industrie Canada exige comme condition de licence que les telecommunicateurs consultent les responsables de ['utilisation du sol municipaux ou regionaux lorsqu'ils prevoient installer une structure d'antenne d'importance, afin d'obtenir leur assentiment. Industrie Canada croit qu'a partir du moment ou le responsable de ['utilisation du sol concerne a ete avise, celui-ci doit faire connaitre sa decision au requerant dans les 60 jours. En outre, ['ensemble du processus de consultation devrait etre termine dans un dela' de 120 jours. Dans la vaste majorite des cas, les procedures et processus en place ont permis de satisfaire aux besoins des collectivites, des individus, des telecommunicateurs sans fit et de leurs abonnes. 16 Health and Safety Issues In this section • Electromagnetic Waves and Fields • Jurisdiction over Health and Safety of Antenna Installations • Safety Code 6 • Other Projects on Health and Safety of Wireless Devices Questions de sante et de securite Dans cette section • Champs et ondes electromagnetiques • Competence relative a la sante et la securite de batis d'antenne • Code de securite 6 • Autres projets visant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fil - 112 17 Health and Safety Issues Electromagnetic Waves and Fields One of the most volatile issues related to antenna sites anywhere in the world is the potential effects they may have on human health because they emit electromagnetic energy. Wireless devices use radio frequencies (RF) that are non -ionizing waves below the visible light part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Waves above visible light are of the ionizing type such as gamma and X-rays, which are know to be harmful to humans. Electromagnetic waves are a form of energy that consist of vibrating electric and magnetic fields. Electric fields are produced by forces of electric charges, and magnetic fields are produced when electric charges are in motion. When an appliance is plugged in, an electric field is produced around the appliance; when the appliance is turned on and the electrical current is flowing, a magnetic field is produced. The main natural source of electromagnetic radiation is the sun. Natural electromagnetic energy (i.e. sunlight) is necessary for photosynthesis in plants. Man-made sources, however, account for most of the electromagnetic radiation in our environment. With the proliferation of new technological devices in our home and workplace we are all exposed to electromagnetic radiation daily. Everyday household electrical devices such as hair dryers, electrical ovens, fluorescent lights, microwave ovens, stereos and computers all emit electrical and magnetic fields of varying intensities. Mobile phones and the transmitters that support these items, just like all radio systems, function because they are able to send, receive and manipulate these fields. Studies have shown that cellular/PCS emissions represent less that 25% of the ambient RF emissions in an urban area. - 11 18 In 2002, Industry Canada conducted a study4 examining the level of RF fieldsin the City of Toronto, where the highest concentration of radio systems exists in Canada. The study took measurements at 61 locations around the city and found that on average, ambient RF field levels are 0.14% of Safety Code 6 allowable levels (705 times less). The study also found that cellular/PCS transmissions represented only 9% to 24% of measured RF energy. 'Evaluation of Electromagnetic Field Intensity in the City of Toronto, Industry Canada, June 2002 Questions de sante et de securite Champs et ondes electromagnetiques Une des questions les plus tumultueuses associees aux antennes partout au monde est leurs repercussions eventuelles sur la sante humaine, puisqu'elles emettent de l'energie electromagnetique. Les appareils sans fil utilisent des radiofrequences qui sont des longueurs d'ondes non ionisantes inferieures au rayonnement visible du spectre electromagnetique. Les longueurs d'ondes superieures au rayonnement visible sont de type ionisant, comme les rayons gamma et les rayons X, qui sont reconnus comme etant nocives pour les humains. Les ondes el ectromagnetiques sont une forme d'energie qui consiste en des champs electriques et magnetiques vibrants. Les champs electriques sont produits par la force de particules electriquement chargees, alors que les champs magnetiques sont engendres par le deplacement de charges electriques. Quand un appareil est branche, un champ electrique se forme autour de l'appareil; quand un appareil est mis sous tension et que le courant electrique y passe, un champ magnetique se forme. Le soleil est la principale source naturelle de rayonnement electromagnetique. L'energie electromagnetique naturelle (c'est-a-dire la lumiere du soleil) est necessaire a la photosynthese des vegetaux. Toutefois, l'essentiel du rayonnement electromagnetique present dans notre environnement provient de sources artificielles. Compte tenu de l'abondance de nouveaux appareils technologiques dans nos foyers et nos lieux de travail, nous sommes tous exposes quotidiennement au rayonnement electromagnetique. Des appareils electriques de tous les jours comme les sechoirs cheveux, les cuisinieres electriques, les lampes - 11 fluorescentes, les fours a micro-ondes, les chaines stereo et les ordinateurs emettent tous des champs electriques et magnetiques d'une intensite variable. Comme tout systeme de radiocommunication, les telephones mobiles et les emetteurs qui les soutiennent fonctionnent parce qu'ils ont le potentiel d'emettre, de recevoir et de manipuler ces champs. Des etudes ont demontre que moins de 25 pour cent des emissions de radiofrequences ambiantes en milieu urbain proviennent du cellulaire ou SCP. En 2002, Industrie Canada a mene une etude4 sur l'intensite des champs de radiofrequences dans la ville de Toronto, la o6 l'on retrouve la plus forte concentration de systemes radio au Canada. Dans le cadre de cette etude, on a pris des mesures a 61 endroits un peu partout dans la ville pour conclure qu'en moyenne, l'intensite des champs de radiofrequences ambiants representaient 0,14 pour cent des limites prescrites par le Code de securite 6 (soit 705 fois moins). L'etude a egalement demontre que les transmissions cellulaires ou SCP ne representaient que 9 pour cent a 24 pour cent de l'energie en radiofrequences mesuree. luation de 1'intensite du champ electromognelique dons to vine de Toronto, Industrie Canada, juin 2002 19 Jurisdiction over Health and Safety of Antenna Installations The Electromagnetics Division of Health Canada has primary responsibility for ensuring that devices that emit electromagnetic fields are not harmful to Canadians. In order to meet this man- date, the Division: • develops guidelines for the protection of the general public and workers from exposure to EMFs • conducts research in the assessment of EMF exposure levels in residential and workplace environments • conducts laboratory studies and monitors external research on the biological effects of EMFs • sets regulations for the safe use of microwave ovens and enforces their compliance • advises government departments and agencies, industry, and the general public on exposure to EMFs 20 Competence relative a la sante et la securite des bads d'antenne La responsabilite de s'assurer que les appareils qui emettent La responsabilite de s'assurer que les appareils qui emettent des champs electromagnetiques ne sont pas nocifs pour la sante des Canadiens repose principalement sur la Division d'electromagnetisme de Sante Canada. Afin de remplir ce mandat, la division: • developpe les lignes directrices pour la protection du grand public et des travailleurs contre l'exposition aux champs el ectromagnetiques • mene des recherches relatives a revaluation des niveaux d'exposition des champs electromagnetiques dans le secteur residentiel et en milieu de travail • mene des recherches en laboratoire et surveille les recher- ches effectuees ailleurs, portant sur les effets biologiques des champs electromagnetiques • etablit des reglements pour une utilisation securitaire des fours a micro-ondes et veille a leur observation • conseille les ministeres et les organismes publics, l'industrie ainsi que le grand public au sujet de questions relatives a l'exposition aux champs electromagnetiques - 115 - Safety Code 6 Code de securite 6 The guideline that applies to mobile phones, base stations and all other RF transmitters is Safety Code 6.5 This safety code is one of a series of guidelines Health Canada has produced on the safe use of devices that emit radiation. Safety Code 6 has been adopted by many organizations across Canada and referred to in a number of regulations, including the Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations. The limits given in Safety Code 6 were arrived at after looking at many scientific studies on the health effects of RF energy exposure and considering international exposure standards. At ground level, the level of exposure to RF emissions is typically a small fraction of Health Canada's Safety Code 6 levels. Health Canada does not directly regulate mobile phone manufacturers or network operators. Industry Canada does directly regulate the industry, and requires, as a condition of licence, that: radio stations are installed and operated in a manner that complies with Health Canada's limits of human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields for the general public including the consideration of existing radiocommunication installations within the local environment. Safety Code 6 is consistent with standards from around the world and is based on a large body of scientific research including a review performed by the Royal Society of Canada prepared at the request of Health Canada. Le Code de securite 6 est la directive qui s'applique aux telephones mobiles, stations de base et tout autre emetteur de radiofrequences 5. Ce code de securite fait partie d'une serie de directives au sujet de l'utilisation securitaire d'appareils emetteurs de rayonnement produite par Sante Canada. Le Code de securite 6 a ete adopt& par de nombreuses organisations partout au Canada; on y fait reference dans nombre de reglementations, y compris dans le Reglement canadien sur la sante et la securite au travail. Les limites prescrites par le Code de securite 6 ont ete etablies suite a une revue de nombreuses etudes scientifiques sur les consequences sur la sante de l'exposition a l'energie des radiofrequences et en tenant compte des normes internationales d'exposition. Au niveau du sol, le degre d'exposition aux emissions de radiofrequences represente habituellement une fraction minime des limites prevues au Code de securite 6. Sante Canada ne regit pas directement les fabricants de telephones mobiles ou les exploitants de reseaux. Industrie Canada a le pouvoir de reglementer directement l'industrie et exige comme condition de licence que : les stations radio soient installees et exploitees conformement aux limites d'exposition humaine aux champs de radiofrequences electromagnetiques etablies par Sante Canada qui visent le grand public, en tenant compte des installations de radiocommunications deja en place dans le milieu environnant. Le Code de securite 6 correspond aux normes internationales et est fond& sur de nombreux documents de recherche scientifique, y compris un examen men& par la Societe royale du Canada a la ande de Sante Canada. Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Runge from 3 RHZ to 300 GHZ - Saf▪ ety Cod ' rotes d'expo▪ sition humaine aux champs de radiofrequences (lectromagn6tiques dans la gamme de fr€quences de 3 <HZ d 300 GHZ - Code de securite 6 21 Other Projects on Health and Safety of Wireless Devices Health Canada has also been taking part in the International EMF Project, coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO). The goals of this project are to verify reported biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields and to characterize any associated health risks to humans. A valuable source of information on the state of the science around the health effects of EMF is RFcom.ca based at the Uni- versity of Ottawa McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment. RFcom.ca is an internet-based information resource managed by a Science Panel that reviews and reports on the most recent research studies about wireless technology and health from around the world. More than 6 million calls to 9-1-1 are made per year from cellular phones. Plus de 6 millions des appels au 9-1-1 chaque armee sont places a partir d'un cellulaire. Autres projets visant Ia sante et Ia securite des appareils sans fil Sante Canada participe egalement au Projet international sur les CEM coordonne par l'Organisation mondiale de la Sante (OMS). Le but de ce projet est de verifier les effets biologiques reportes resultant de l'exposition aux champs electromagnetiques et de caracteriser n'importe quel risque associe au detriment de la sante humaine. RFcom.ca, au Centre R. Samuel McLaughlin d'evaluation du risque pour la sante des populations a l'Universite d'Ottawa, est une source precieuse de renseignements sur l'etat des recherches scientifiques au sujet des effets de forces electromotrices sur la sante. RFcom.ca est une ressource documentaire sur Internet dirigee par un groupe d'experts scientifiques qui passe en revue et commente les recherches les plus recentes menees dans le monde entier sur les technologies sans fil et leurs effets sur la sante. - 117 - 22 Antenna Tower Information Resources Industry Canada - Let's Talk Towers http: //www.strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst. nes/en/ sf01637e.html An overview of the process for radiocommunications antenna siting. Includes a video presentation. University of Ottawa McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment www. rfcom. ca A comprehensive source of information about electromagnetic frequencies and their health effects. Includes a primer on electromagnetic frequencies, wireless phones and an up-to-date bibliography of scientific journal articles on the health effects of EMF. Health Canada Safety Code 6 http: / /www. he-sc. gc. ca /ewh-semt / pubs/ radiation / 99ehd-dhm237/preface-preambule_e. html A link to Safety Code 6, the Government of Canada developed safety standard that governs antenna siting. Sources d'information sur les pylones d'antenne Industrie Canada - Parlons pyl"ones http: / /www.strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst. nsf/fr/ sf01637f.html Un apercu du processus de localisation d'antennes de radiocommunications. Comprend une presentation video. Centre R. Samuel McLaughlin d'evaluation du risque pour la sante des populations a l'Universite d'Ottawa www. rfcom. ca Une source complete de renseignements sur les frequences electromagnetiques et leur effet sur la sante. Comprend une introduction sur les frequences electromagnetiques, les telephones sans fil et une bibliographie a jour sur des articles de revues scientifiques sur les effets des champs electromagnetiques sur la sante. Code de securite 6 de Sante Canada http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/ 99ehd-dhm237/preface-preambule_f.html Un lien vers le Code de securite 6, la norme de securite etablie par le gouvernement du Canada qui regit l'emplacement d'antennes. World Health Organisation Organisation mondiale de la Sante http://www.who. int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/indexl.html http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF_Project/fr/ index. html The WHO EMF Project provides information about electro- magnetic fields, including potential health effects of exposure. Le Projet CEM de l'OMS fournit des renseignements sur les champs electromagnetiques, y compris les consequences eventuelles sur la sante de l'exposition a ceux-ci. - 118 - 23 16 4 Irn klr , +17 -14 're.4,7,11 -1....4A , 41 ,.r..!li .• ,. .., ,. r.•..1 , , • ..„... . ,_. : if !.A. I 1 . -I, • ' ----1--- . ,i 1 - '!' • ' r 1,11 , 'I ,, '', , ? : '-- . , ' , 1.-' : .,.;', , 1,K; -.. / • -'1 . rt-----'4tt • * 's ': :. --ti -- !'A shared network CANA Schedule C From: Subject SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possat Ie tower new Claremont Date. June 24, 2018 at 326 PM To: niunlcipai0stlareonerwork.ca I am a resident ofiMSidelineal Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard_ At my location, we have no access whatsoever to Internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. - We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. - We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL_ - Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable_ Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use, too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which... - ... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest Internet functions hopelessly slow, it not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modem world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available—literally 40 minutes from downtown Toronto_ This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure_ highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont_ Thank you for your efforts in this regard. - 120 - From: Ag Al-Jound Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal Date: July 19, 2018 at 2:24 PM To: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca, Pickles, David, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, murnaghanc@hotmail.com, Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, kbentley@pickering.ca, crose@pickering.ca Good afternoon Mr. Claros, Thank you for your email below dated July 10, 2018. However it does not address the relevant issues presented in my letter to the Council of Pickering at all, which mostly have to do with your sales proposal not respecting/adhering to the Industry Canada and City of Pickering rules about the erection of cell towers. I will respond to your letter more specifically and completely in a separate letter to be sent to you and the City of Pickering within the next week. However, at this time, I would like to know why your report to teh City of Pickering about the proposed site suggests that my home is no less than 212 meters from the proposed cell site, when in fact a quick Google Maps view clearly shows my home is approximately 98 meters from the proposed site. Does this inaccuracy represent the same extent of due diligence behind your report Mr. Claros? As for the study from the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" published in June of 2014 titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?", please copy and past the following URL to review a summary of the report findings; http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property- desirability/ Notwithstanding the above study, on the matter of the impact of cell towers on residential real estate values, with everything else being equal, would you really argue that there would exist the same demand for properties within or without proximity to cell towers? If you reasonably conclude that yes, everything else being equal, of course there would be less people interested in properties close to cell towers, i.e. less demand, then how could you not logically also conclude that the price for such properties would also be lower. Is this not the most basic economics principle? Lower demand...lower price. Will SNC protect my family against any such depreciation in property value? Thank you, Aghlab Al-Joundi From: Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> Sent: July 10, 2018 3:57 PM To: Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca; Pickles, David, Councillor; murnaghanc@hotmail.com; Morrison, Cody; kbentley@pickering.ca; crose@pickering.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal nnnri Affarnnnn Mr AI-_Iniinrii - 121 - I hope your week is going well. Please find the attached response to your comments and concerns attached. Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached letter, or anything else regarding this project. Thanks! Dom Claros Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca - 122 - From: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal Date: July 23, 2018 at 1:33 PM To: Ag Al-Joundi Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca, Pickles, David, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, murnaghanc@hotmail.cc , Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, kbentley@pickering.ca, crose@pickering.ca Good Afternoon Mr. Al-Joundi, I hope you had a good weekend. Thank you for following up. I have been working with our team, and I believe when they were on site they made a mistake in reporting the street address and our engineer calculated a different address as the closest. You are absolutely right, after following up with the team and looking over the plans, your property is approximately 100 metres from the proposed location. As mentioned in our letter, we would be willing to work with your family to relocate the tower to the opposite end of the field to greatly increase this setback, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks for sending the link, our team will look into this new website. During our initial research we came across this website which references the study titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" conducted by the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy", but our team has not been able to locate the actual study or published documents with this title or by this organization. Please let us know if you could help our team locate this study for our review. We will look forward to receiving your response this week. Please let me know if I can help with anything else. Kind regards, Dom Claros Shared Network Canada http://shared network. ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom. cla ros@sh ared n etwork. ca On Jul 19, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Ag Al-Joundi wrote: Good afternoon Mr. Claros, Thank you for your email below dated July 10, 2018. However it does not address the relevant issues presented in my letter to the Council of Pickering at all, which mostly have to do with your sales proposal not respecting/adhering to the Industry Canada and City of Pickering rules about the erection of cell towers. I will respond to your letter more specifically and completely in a separate letter to be sent to you and the City of Pickering within the next week. However, at this time, I would like to know why your report to teh City of Pickering about the proposed site suggests that my home is no less than 212 meters from the proposed cell site, when in fact a quick Google Maps view clearly shows my home is approximately 98 meters from the proposed site. Does this inaccuracy represent the same extent of due diligence behind your report Mr. Claros? As for the study from the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" published in June of 2014 titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?", please copy and past the following URL to review a summary of the report findings; http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-desirability/ Notwithstanding the above study, on the matter of the impact of cell towers on residential real estate values, with everything else being equal, would you really argue that there would exist the same demand for properties within or without proximity to cell towers? If you reasonably conclude that yes, everything else being equal, of course there would be less people interested in properties close to cell towers, i.e. less demand, then how could you not logically also conclude that the price for such properties would also be lower. Is this not the most basic economics principle? Lower demand...lower price. Will SNC protect my family against any such depreciation in property value? Thank you, Aghlab Al-Joundi From: Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> Sent: July 10, 2018 3:57 PM To: Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca; Pickles, David, Councillor; murnaghanc@hotmail.com Morrison, Cody; kbentleypickering.ca: crosena pickering.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal Good Afternoon Mr. Al-Joundi, I hope your week is going well. Please find the attached response to your comments and concerns attached. Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached letter, or anything else regarding this project. Thanks! Onrn ('larnc - 123 - Shared Network Canada http://s hared network.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) d om. claros@shared network. ca - 124 - Tuesday July 24, 2018 Mr. Dom Claros Shared Network Canada 275 Macpherson Ave., Unit #103 Toronto, Ontario M4V 1A4 Re: Proposed Shared Network Canada ("SNC") Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering, ON, SNC File Number: SNC0120, and response to your letter to me dated June 23, 2018, and email to me dated July 23, 2018 Dear Mr. Claros, Thank you for your letter to me dated June 23, 2018, as well as your email to me more recently on July 23, 2018. As I mentioned to you in my initial, email, response to your June 23, 2018 letter, said letter does not address the relevant issues I presented in my May 16, 2018 letter to the City of Pickering, addressed to Mr. Kyle Bentley. A primary issue presented in this May 16, 2018 letter is that SNC ignores the most basic Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, "before building a new antenna -supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards" Mr. Claros, in the two communications you have extended to me (as noted above), you have not addressed this point about making use of existing infrastructure. Instead, you quickly offer to move the tower about 100 metres to the east. Such a proposal does not address the critical issue of making use of existing infrastructure. Please demonstrate to Industry Canada, The City of Pickering, and my family, that you have conducted an independent engineering study that proves you have explored available, alternative, antenna -supporting infrastructure, and that such alternatives are not viable thereby confirming that a cell tower is required, and is required only in the specific location you propose. You mention specifically in your June 23, 2018 letter to me that, "while Shared Network Canada does not currently provide cellular or internet service (a point which I asserted in my letter dated May 16, 2018 to emphasize that SNC's business model is not directly linked to improving community cellular and internet services, but rather is directly linked to the erection of cell towers), the process of determining potential tower locations does not differ from companies which provide such services". Hence clearly you acknowledge that the requirements (as noted above) for the erection of such towers is the same for SNC, however you do not address this requirement other than to acknowledge it, and continue to avoid providing any evidence that you have adhered to such requirements in determining that the proposed site is exactly the site required to erect a new cell tower. - 125 - Mr. Claros, I have also made it very clear to my City of Pickering Council members that I will not accept any negative impact on my property value in association with the erection of a cell tower within the vicinity of my property. I find it curious that notwithstanding the research that is abundantly available suggesting a deprecation in residential property values within the proximity of a cell tower (an example of which has been referenced in my May 16, 2018 letter, and my July 19, 2018 email to you), you appear to not accept what is also obvious to most home owners, and residential property agents. That is, residential property within the immediate vicinity (i.e. distance, view) of wireless telecommunications towers that is for sale, realizes less demand from potential buyers than other similar properties where everything else is the same. If you are so confident that this is not the case, let us explore an arrangement whereby SNC guarantees to reimburse my family for any depreciation in the market value of my residential property in the event your proposed tower is erected. I would be happy to consider a model proposed by an independent third party professional market valuation service provider for such. If however you are not so confident, then, is it fair, or reasonable even, to consider your proposed model, whereby SNC generates rental revenue for itself, the Claremont -Union Cemetery enjoys a monthly annuity from SNC, while neither of the associated principals of either SNC, nor the Claremont -Union Cemetery have to live with the tower looming over them, while my family receives absolutely zero income or benefit (notwithstanding Schedule C in your June 23, 2018 letter about an alleged, single, Claremont community resident suggesting they are in need of improved cellular and internet services because they live in a valley, my family has great mobile cell and internet service...we don't suffer in this regard, and based on discussions I have had with community members, they don't suffer in this regard either), and my family assumes all of the risks? Finally, Mr. Claros, in the event you do provide independent evidence that, as per section 6.2 of the CPCTP, "...where co -location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible", please do follow the rules as set out in the same section which stipulates that under such circumstances, proponents are encouraged to: "Select sites for new towers that are within industrial, commercial or non-residential areas, and/or that maximize the distance from residential areas." "Consider the use of City owned lands and/or facilities". Thank you, Aghlab Al-Joundi CC: Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell — MPP Pickering -Uxbridge Mr. Kyle Bentley — Director, City of Pikcering Development Ms. Catherine Rose — Chief Planner, City of Pickering Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickerin Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan — - 126 - flit shared network August 22, 2018 Aghlab Al-Joundi By email to: RE: Letter addressed, dated July 24, 2018. Dear Mr. Al-Joundi, Thank you for very much for taking the time to respond in your letter dated July 24, 2018. Thank you for your comments which state: "SNC ignores the most basic Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, 'before building a new antenna -supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards". To the contrary, SNC follows Industry Canada Protocol and prioritizes the sharing of existing equipment. While SNC does not directly distribute a telecommunication network, the process by which SNC determines a new location for a telecommunications tower matches the process used by telecommunications carriers. SNC and its team determine locations in great need of telecommunication or internet services, in which there is no current infrastructure upon which carriers or providers could go. In turn, SNC provides the infrastructure for all carriers and providers to co -locate upon the tower to provide service to the area. If the telecommunication service was not needed, or if there was currently existing infrastructure providing such service, the need for an SNC built tower would not exist. The need for a tower near Claremont can be seen below. As illustrated in "Schedule A" attached, the two nearest towers to the proposed site (SNC0120) are located over 4.3 kilometres northwest (1) and over 5.5 kilometres northeast (2). The surrounding rings (red circles) demonstrate the approximate radius of good coverage attained by each tower. The need for a tower to service Claremont, Brock Road and the surrounding community can be seen in a gap of good coverage to the south of the two towers. Please also see attached in "Schedule B" the proposed area of coverage SNC aims to deliver, by providing infrastructure with the ability for co -location of any and all wireless carriers or internet wwtiv. sh aredne lwo rk. ca 275 Macpherson Ave. #103, 'Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 - 127 - shared network CANAA providers as per Industry Canada Protocol. The tower is proposed in an optimal location in order to serve as the only infrastructure needed in the Claremont area to deliver the services needed, providing co -location to all service providers while eliminating the need for the proliferation of any other tower nearby. SNC understands your concern regarding the initial proximity of the proposed tower to your property, and we are willing to relocate the tower on the Claremont -Union Cemetery property, fully masked by mature trees on all sides in order to greatly reduce its visual impact. Moving the tower over 100 metres further from the proposed location will have a great impact on viewshed from your property and eliminate potential noise from any technicians driving to the site. In regards to your comment `1 find it curious that notwithstanding the research that is abundantly available suggesting a deprecation in residential property values within the proximity of a cell tower (an example of which has been referenced in my May 16, 2018 letter, and my July 19, 2018 email to you)" referencing the research you presented titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found here (http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-desirability/), this potential study and survey cannot be located anywhere, more specifically in a scientific journal. The data and facts presented are not reinforced by any scientific journal or governmental agency. Upon research of the "National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy (NISLAPP)" found here (https://natinstsciencelaw.org/) which is mentioned as the agency which performed the survey, the data nor the survey itself could be found. We could not determine if the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" has any published anecdotal studies or if it is an agency with any government association. SNC has followed and will continue to follow all rules stipulated in the Industry Canada Protocol. As previously mentioned, the co -location of equipment is not possible to service the Claremont area as there is currently no infrastructure available. Due to airport zoning restrictions surrounding Claremont, the topography of the proposed location had to be considered, as there is a maximum height of 300 metres above sea level for any structure constructed in the area. With much of the property surrounding Claremont owned by the Provincial Government for use of the potential future airport, and in complying with Industry Canada's Protocol to maximize its distance from residential areas, SNC has proposed this location. This location maximizes the distance of the tower from the densest residential areas of Claremont, is currently found on non-residential land, on non-profit owned property – which is most favourable after eliminating the option to locate the tower on City -Owned land or facilities. We are here to work with you and your family if you would like to discuss determining an alternate location on the Claremont -Union Cemetery Property. Our next step will be to work with you, if interested, in order to determine an alternate location. We will look to propose a new location 100 metres away from your property if no other proposed tower location is provided in order to move the proposal forward in our application with the City of Pickering and in order to bring the proposed application forward to Council. I hope the above helps to clarify the need for a tower in the area, please feel free to reach out to discuss alternate locations. - 128 - shared network CANAA Thank you, Dom Claros 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca CC: Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell — MPP Pickering -Uxbridge Mr. Kyle Bentley — Director, City of Pikcering Development Ms. Catherine Rose — Chief Planner, City of Pickering Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan — - 129 - rail shared network Schedule A SNC0121:1 - Claremont Coverage area of the existing antennas near the proposed site. gp• mew, _ • •-•-x=r"e. 7, • . • ' i-e.nociwoo,d 7111111 ••""" • Rogers Torverillt SSSri . N44.0131 W79.1369 -.* "1 01' Legend sto Existing Coverage Pagers Towers st• SNG0120 Coverage Area SNG0120 Poposed Location • \ :Rogers i• Doors U.) N44.(.10911V74! iS4-2 fer - 130 - r% shared network 0, cANa Schedule B SNC0120 - Claremont Coverage arae of the proposed site. Legend : Thursday December 5, 2019 Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 10 Four Seasons PI, Suite 1056 Etobicoke, ON M9B 0A6 Re: "Revised" Proposed Shared Network Canada ("SNC") Wireless Telecommunications Antenna (45m) Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering, ON, SNC File Number: SNC0120 Dear Madame/Sir, I recently received by Canada Post mail your "Public Notice Package" (PNP) regarding the above. Notwithstanding the concerns I expressed about your original proposal (as per the public consultation process of May/June 2018), and the multiple violations this proposal had presented to both the Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP"), as detailed in my letter to Mr. Kyle Bentley of the City of Pickering, dated May 16, 2018, a copy of which SNC also has, and the fact that in their report (PLN 16-19) dated June 17, 2019, the City of Pickering had also rejected your proposal saying, "the installation does not satisfy the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location", your so-called "revised" proposal is very disappointing in that it is identical to the original except that you now suggest moving the tower 96 m further east, still within the Claremont -Union Cemetery. Whereas your original proposal had placed the tower within 96m of a corner of my home, your "revised" proposal now places the tower 202 m from the same corner of my home. Given that your "revised " proposal does nothing other than move the tower 96 m further east, the same concerns and violations remain, as follows; 1. SNC business model emphasizes erection of towers, not provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services SNC acknowledges that it is not in the business of providing cellular communications and Internet services to residential and commercial clients, but rather their business model is specifically about generating maximum revenues from the erection of as many cell towers as possible? Given your undisputed business mandate is to maximize revenues by erecting the maximum number of new towers there is a fundamental conflict with the Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, "before building a new antenna -supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards". Not surprisingly, both Industry Canada and the CPCTP prioritize any cell services provider to utilize existing infrastructure to support installation of their electronics, and even the wording of such prioritization is almost identical between the two authoritative bodies. Fundamental to Industry Canada's position about the erection of such towers is also found in their website which states about their rules, "rules are designed to make sure companies are looking at ways to reduce the number of new towers they are building". Given your business model, you have no incentive to reduce the erection of additional towers by utilizing existing infrastructure. It is obvious that SNC would not have seriously considered existing infrastructure. - 132 - Your SNC business model which in effect is, "get as many towers up, as quickly as possible", is completely incompatible with the rules and protocols relating to the provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services as espoused by the Industry Canada and related City of Pickering municipal guidelines and protocols (i.e. CPCTP). 2. Negative impact on my property value, and unfair Risk/Benefit model In their report, PLN 16-19 mentioned above, the City of Pickering cites another reason for rejecting the SNC proposal because, "the tower is located within a rural area that has a number of residential dwellings and based on the design of the tower, will have a negative visual impact for the residents residing in the immediate area" Given the above acknowledgement and based on research publicly available, there is no doubt that residential property within the immediate vicinity (i.e. distance, view) of wireless telecommunications towers that is for sale, realizes less demand from potential buyers than other similar properties where everything else is the same. The phenomena of lower demand for such properties where everything else is equal, is a fact. According to the research, the lower demand for such properties is driven primarily by two concerns as expressed by potential buyers, a) aesthetics — such towers are aesthetically unpleasing, they are not compatible with the nature of the neighborhood or natural features. They create a visual blight, and change the character of the area, especially when constructed in rural settings, and b) health concerns — notwithstanding Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance which every proponent of cell towers is quick to reference, the fact is that there remains widespread media attention about scientific studies regarding the potential long term effects of proximity to such towers, and persistent health concerns that the public continues to express. In fact, a US study by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy published in June 2014, titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found: • 94% of home buyers and renters are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna; • 79% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas; and • 90% said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in residential neighborhoods The above public perception is very disconcerting to any property owner within the vicinity of an existing or proposed cell tower. The salient point here, the incontrovertible point, is that perception is what influences a potential buyer. Negative perception means less demand. Less demand means less competition. Less competition means a lower price/value. It is that simple and categoric. As well, consider how unfair this proposed cell tower site is for my family and I. Under this site, SNC generates rental revenue for itself. Under this site, Claremont -Union Cemetery enjoys a monthly annuity from SNC, while none of the owners have to live with the tower looming over them. Under this site, notwithstanding that my home will be close to, and the closest to the site, my family receives absolutely zero income though as outlined above, yet we assume all of the risks. 3. Photos of proposed tower in your PNP are misleading - The photo's in the PNP with alleged renderings of the proposed tower are misleading, understated and promote an inaccurate impression of the size and intrusiveness of the proposed tower. The PNP renderings do not reflect the alarming reality of how close the proposed tower would be to my family's house, and it avoids the key topographical prominence of the - 133 - actual Oak Ridges Moraine rolling hills and vistas that a more common, north facing view (i.e. associated with the vehicular traffic traversing Concession 9/Regional Road 5), provides of the proposed site. A more realistic impression of the proposed tower visual impact on my home is found in the attachment to this letter, which is a photo of an existing cell tower on the east side of Brock Road, just north of Concession 7. This tower is the same 45m height as the SNC proposed tower, and the picture taken was from the same 202m away from the tower that is being proposed under the "revised" proposal. Please look at the photo again. Would you support such a tower being erected in such proximity to your home, and obstructing the view from your home like this? 4. Preferred Location under City of Pickering Cell Tower protocol Under 6.2 "...where co -location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible, proponents are encouraged to: "Select sites for new towers that are within industrial, commercial or non-residential areas, and/or that maximize the distance from residential areas." "Consider the use of City owned lands and/or facilities" Neither of these articles of the CPCTP have been satisfied with the proponent's proposal. Under 6.3 — Discouraged Locations "The City discourages the installation of new antenna systems in the following locations: Residential areas...On sites of topographical prominence that would obscure public views and vistas." AND, "Within Environmentally sensitive lands." Given that the selected site is on the Oak Ridges Moraine and is of topographical prominence, the City of Pickering needs to disqualify this proponent's site selection. Summary As the above suggests, your "revised" proposal addresses none of the concerns and violations I outlined initially, nor does it resolve any of the reasons the City of Pickering rejected your original plan as per their report PLN 16- 19. There remain the same serious flaws and concerns with respect to the "revised" proposed SNC cell tower scheme. The SNC "revised" proposal continues to be unfair to my family by having us assume significant risks with zero benefits, and continues to be incompatible with the fundamental Industry Canada and CPCTP rules. To be frank, SNC does not appear to be sincere about revisions that address my family's concerns, about it's violations of the Industry Canada and CPCTP rules, nor about the reasons why the City of Pickering rejected your original proposal. For these reasons, you cannot be permitted to proceed with your "revised" proposal. Thank you, - 134 - Aghlab Al-Joundi Cc. Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell — MPP Pickering -Uxbridge Ms. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner City of Pickering Mr. Kyle Bentley— Director City of Pickering Development & CBO Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering Mr. Nilesh Surti, Manager Development Review & Urban Design, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan — In response to your correspondence re .File # SNCO12O Nov. 23.2019 The proposed Radio Tower Site as indicated on the map on the east side at the back of the Claremont -union Cemetery located on Concession 9 just next to our property which is a 11 acre lot located on the east side of the Claremont -union cemetery. There is currently 2 sheds on our property, this land is a building lot not a hay field. We purchased the lot over 5 years ago to build a home. This is prime Land in Claremont which we bought at a very high price, we currently pay over four thousand dollars a year in property taxes for this lot. We also own the property next to the land as mentioned above at 'which we pay over ten thousand dollars a year in property tax. Our objections to this proposed site of the radio tower is as follows: 1. It will definitely reduce the current value of our properties. Who will compensate us for our loss in equity? (lawsuit to follow) 2. This tower will be too close to where we propose to build our home, it will pose safety and health risks. 3. Health risk includes, cancer, headaches, memory loss, cardio vascular diseases etc. 4. The radio frequency emitted by this tower will penetrate metal and brick walls 5. The wild life in the area will also be threatened; a large number of birds are killed each year by these towers. 6. Safety hazard because of the location of the tower so close to our fence line if this tower was to collapse it would fail on our property destroying whatever is in its path. 7. We don't want to have a radio tower in our backyard, it will be a blemish on the landscape. This tower is a threat to people's health as well as the health and well being of all wild fife and farm animals. My family and I moved from the city over 13 years ago to live in the country for better health and longevity however 1 feel if we allow this tower to be built beside us it will jeopardized our health and well being. John Mitchell Indira Jaik an Wendy Mi hell (daughter) cc. Cody Morrison Planner rl , Mr. David Pickles Regional Councillor, Mr. Mitch Wiesberg (lawyer) and Jennifer O'Connell MP - 136 - shared network CANADA March 3, 2020 SNC0120 - Claremont Shared Network - Telecommunications Slimline Proposal Attention: John Mitchell, Indira Jaikaran, Wendy Mitchell Subject: Shared Network Canada - Communications Slimline Proposal Dear John, Indira, Wendy, Thank you very much for reaching out to Shared Network Canada with your comments related to the wireless telecommunication proposal to be located at The Claremont Union Cemetery in the Township of Claremont. We sincerely appreciate you taking the time to mention your concerns regarding health and safety, property value and tower location. When proposing a wireless telecommunications site, Shared Network Canada identifies an area in which they can help enhance cellular coverage, in this case the Township of Claremont due to the great need for improved cellular coverage. Alternative locations were explored during the initial study of the area, all other areas both surrounding Claremont and inside of the Town of Claremont were considered. Due to airport zoning restrictions surrounding the Township, this location was the only viable proposed property in order to comply with all airport zoning regulations as well as expand setbacks from as many nearby residents as possible while servicing Claremont. This currently proposed location maximizes setbacks from the vast majority of residents nearby, and will allow Shared Network Canada to greatly improve the cellular coverage in the immediate area. Once this location had been determined, Shared Network Canada wanted to go a step further with its proposal and is proposing to construct a telecommunications structure which will be a slim line self-support tower which will greatly reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. In regards to your concerns about health and safety, may I begin by stating that Shared Network Canada takes their obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where they construct a wireless facility, Shared Network Canada is obligated to demonstrate to Industry Canada (ISED) that they meet all health and safety standards before we are allowed to move forward. To allay your health concerns, please note that the site at the Claremont Union Cemetery will be fully compliant with the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada (ISED) and Health Canada. The following background information is provided by scientific and expert research a1 i37 relates to the issue of health and the effects of radio signals associated with wireless communication installations. Industry Canada through ISED strictly regulates all telecommunication equipment and safety standards through Safety Code 6, to which standards Shared Network Canada will always abide. ISED continues to state that so long as the Safety Code 6 standards are met and maintained, Canadians can rest assured the telecommunications towers are safe to live nearby, including residents of the Claremont Community. The Canadian wireless industry as a whole, through the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association ("CWTA"), continually monitors the study of health issues related to wireless communications technology. The consensus among Canadian government health organizations and the scientific community is that there is no evidence that the radio signals produced by wireless communication structures have adverse effects on human health. Health Canada's 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 determining Safety Code 6 guidelines. Scientists at Health Canada continuously update their research 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 has also been the subject of several independent reviews, including a study by the Royal Society of Canada in 1999, which was updated in 2003, and again in 2009. 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 three studies took issue with Safety Code 6's standards. The Medical Officers of Health for York Region, Hamilton and Vancouver 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 recently conclude that there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects associated with low-level RF fields, like those from cell sites. For further information on Health Canada and Industry Canada requirements, please find the attached information pamphlet on Wireless Communication and Health from Industry Canada (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09591.html), Frequently Asked Questions developed by Health Canada & Industry Canada in relation to questions on protection of the public, as well as some other useful resources and links related to health and wireless communication. As stated previously, Industry Canada (ISED) requires that all proponents and operators ensure that their installations and apparatus comply with Safety Code 6 at all times. Shared Network Canada attests that the telecommunication installation proposed for the Claremont Union Cemetery will at all times comply"witl asth Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. As for your concern with property values, ISED has concluded that there have been no studies to support any evidence that would show any decreases in property value associated with new telecommunication towers or antennas installed nearby. In addition to this, Shared Network Canada has worked very hard to ensure that the telecommunication tower would be as least visually intrusive as possible, and given the proposed location is surrounded by trees Shared Network Canada has proposed to disguise their telecommunications tower as best as possible from the surrounding area. Shared Network Canada is proposing the slim line self support style of tower in order to allow it to blend in to its surroundings and remain as unnoticeable as possible to passerby's and residents. We trust the information provided on the requirements and efforts made by Shared Network Canada in demonstrating our compliance obligations will resolve the safety concerns that have been expressed. We also hope this response will help illustrate all of the due diligence taken into the site selection process to compile this proposal including the location, height, and style of the structure, in order to best service area residents while also blending the pole into its surrounding community. Again, thank you very much for taking the time to express your comments. Please let me know if we can help answer any other questions or concerns you may have, we would be happy to reach out over the telephone to help further explain any portion of this proposal. Sincere regards, Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) - 139 - shared network A N A D A Appendix D - 140 - LSu bject Properties CDRadius around subject properties ■ Properties inside radius - 141 - 030002023000000 RR #4 CLAREMONT 2020 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030002051000000 P.O. BOX 105/ SCOTIA PLAZA 40 KING ST W Suite 4802 TORONTO ON M5H 3X2 CAN 030007119000000 RR# 4 CLAREMONT 5020 SIDELINE 12 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007121000000 RR#4 CLAREMONT 2230 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007123000000 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A2 030007127000000 5105 SIDELINE 14 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007184000000 RR #5 1900 EIGHTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A2 CAN 030002024000000 RR#4 2090 NINTH CONCESSION RD CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007118000000 R.R. #4 5100 SIDELINE 12 RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007120000000 RR#4 CLAREMONT 2230 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007122000000 5205 SIDELINE 14 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007126000000 5175 SIDELINE 14 PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007128000000 5105 SIDELINE 14 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 - 142 - 8 COMMUNITY 0 0 (5 2 co 1- c7 - a) d .4 N 3 z c 0( U durhamreg ion.com POETRY SLAM IN PICKERING V-� I S �{j ti77 Jason Liebregts/ Metroland Cheyene Jones from Dunbarton High School competed in the annual Poetry SLAM at Dunbarton High School on May 3. Once again this year, Durham schools brought their best spoken -word poets to compete. Six schools vied to claim the trophy and the title of best SLAM school in Durham this year. PERSONAL INJURY + MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Experienced Trial Lawyers Serving .] Oshawa, Pickering and Whitby UfsWLawyers.ca 289.634.1680 13 John Street West Oshawa choir FM: itl-t ON OUR $50/MlJ. PLAN' 111111lam IN1 IBA. Till *TnT .11 11111 III.IlO • �1'IFII IR 11;111111, 1it'1 1h. LET'S GET GOING VISIT SUR ill OMAN TURN 1f1I+R �M Hl1LIM Et kptil HiliI P1 PRIP Fa1hrmgmkpow Loran Ltfl . gfw.dYui,mamaILrawWIosororp Eifiasiit loal/11l1I >•It01.1 1ISM IM llM!L.l I I+." hi 161.1.1.01-411 chctr �.._�., � Ti I ., PUBLIC NOTICE PROPOSED SHARED NETWORK CANADA 45m TRIPOLE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER INSTALLATION SUBJECT: • Type: Wireless 45m tall tripole tower. • Location: 2170 Ninth Concession Road, Pickering - Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering. • Legal Description: PART OF LOT 14, CONCESSION 9, NOW PART 2 TO PART 4, 40R-20211 • Facility: The facility will include a proposed 10m x 10m fenced compound. • Site: The site space for improved wireless voice and data services in the surrounding area. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISEDC) is the governing body for installations of this type or telecommunication antenna installation and can be contacted at: ISEDC – Toronto District Office – 151 Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5C 2W7 ANY PERSON may make a written submission to the individuals listed below by close of day June 11th, 2018, with respect to this matter. Please reference site SNC0120 in your correspondence. Further information may also be obtained through the following contact: Municipal Contact Information Cody Morrison, Planner I City of Pickering – City Development Department (905) 420-4660 / cmorrison@pickering.ca "Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are regulated exclusively by Federal Legislation under the Federal Radiocommunication Act and administered by Industry Canada. Provincial legislation such as the Planning Act, including zoning by - laws, does not apply to these facilities. The City of Pickering is participating in land - use consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of Industry Canada's CP C 2 - 0 - 03. In the case of a dispute between the proponent and the City, a final decision will be made by Industry Canada."; APPLICANT CONTACT: Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 10 Four Seasons PI, 10'" Floor Suite 1056 Etobicoke, ON M9B 0A6 (647) 242-9395 municipal@sharednetwork.ca SITE LOCATION MAP y r�ru rr • w 711. Mai - 143 - fa SMARM NETWORK CANADA 15 PROPOSING TO LOCATE A TELECOMMUNlCATFON TOWER FACT: ; : r BEING 45 METRES IN HEIGHT, ON THIS PROPERTY, PUBLIC COMMENT 15 INV{TED THE CLOSING DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS IS JUNE 11"',aoas FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS MANAGER: NIU NICIPAL@SHARE DNETWOR K, CA 647.242.9345 TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA SYSTEMS ARE REGULATED EXCLUSIVELY BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION UNDER THE FEDERAL RAF}IOCLJMMUIVICRTIf]AIACFAND ADMINISTERED BY INDUSTRY CANADA. PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE PLANNNGACT, INCLUDING ZONING BY- LAWS, DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE FACILITIES. THE CITY OF PICKERING IS PARTICIPATING IN LAND -USE CONSULTATION PURSUANT TO ISSUE 5 OF INDUSTRY CANADA'S CPC 2-0-03 IN THE CASE OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PROPONENT AND THE CITY,A FINAL DECISION WILL BE MADF Hv pp INDUSTRY CANADA, T 7 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT CITY OF PICKERING - CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM E N CODY MORRISON, PLANNER I AT 905.420-4660 OR ISE DC - TORONTO DISTRICT OFFICE. 751 YCNGESTREFT 4 "FLOOR, TORONTO, ON MSC 2W) ICSPECTTiUMFINOO-SP£CTTLEDENQ,7Cg C4NAOR C4 shared network A N A D A Appendix E - 145 - From: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Tower - Claremont Union Cemetery - Support of Construction Date: March 26, 2020 at 3:02 PM To: SNC Municipal Relations municipal@sharednetwork.ca, Karen Bisson Cc: Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca Hi Karen, Thank you very much for following up. We're just getting used to this new work environment but will be submitting our final comments in the next couple days and then we will be seeking to move our proposal forward to Council for their approval. Thank you so much your support! Hopefully the tower will be up in no time! Kind regards, Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca On Mar 14, 2020, 10:09 AM -0400, Karen Bisson , wrote: Good day, I am following up on this issue and hope to you have made the wise and logical decision to support this tower project for the health and safety of those in our lovely little forgotten community. If you can please confirm you are proceeding with this project, it would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Karen Bisson On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:48 AM SNC Municipal Relations <municipal(asharednetwork.ca> wrote: Good morning Karen and Martin, Thank you for taking the time to write a review about our SNC0120 proposal in Claremont, the public input during the commenting period is very important. Happy New Year! Regards, Leticia Avanse Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca municipal@sharednetwork.ca On Dec 23, 2019, at 1:20 PM, Karen Bisson wrote: Good day, How many times a day do you reach for your cell phone? You pick it up and check it without giving it another thought. If you need to make a phone call because of an emergency, you are able to do so without any service issue. That is a luxury that the rural inhabitants of north Pickering are not permitted. I have been a resident of Claremont for my entire life. My family has deep ties to the community going back generations and has witnessed the progress that has come along to our lovely rural community as well as the discrimination against this community for being less urban. Claremont has had a strong agricultural community for generations, and with the advance in technology in agricultural equipment, accidents still happen, people still have medical emergencies and when that call for help is unable to be placed because we do not have service in this area, it provide a stark and frightening reality that is often faced in a rural community as the folks in the more urban areas don't take their rural neighbours into consideration. How - 146 - VV 1-1 u yvu ivvi le yvu .puu.Ov, pc. vl IL u IIIc VVGI uIIauIG .� 0I� y..0 IJ l.,Qu.Ov 11 VVGIG II I 011 area that does not provide reliable and stable cellular reception. How much worry would run through your mind especially if there was emergency circumstances? With the installation of this proposed tower, it allows for the community which is often forgotten in Claremont (North Pickering) to have access to emergency contacts and stable reliable cellular service. Anyone who opposes the installation of this tower, is selfish, unreasonable and neglecting the basic needs of the health and safety of the community. Anyone who opposes this tower who lives south of Highway 7 should lose all credibility as they do not understand or appreciate the challenges this rural community often faces. This tower is only logical and services the needs of the northern Pickering community. Be the change that fuels a safer community with more reliable cellular service. Allow the community of Claremont to enjoy the services that the more urban part of Pickering takes for granted. I welcome any constructive dialogue you may wish to have, and can be reached at (Providing I am in an area that has service). Sincerely, Karen and Martin Bisson - 147 - From: SNC Municipal Relations municipal@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Re: Reference SNC0120 Date: January 2, 2020 at 9:38 AM To: Good morning Douglas, Happy New Year! Thank you for forwarding this letter to our attention. We will include it in the package to send to the council to get the approval from the City. Regards, Leticia Avanse Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca municipal@sharednetwork.ca On Dec 23, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Sorry sent to Dom earlier . Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad wrote: Begin forwarded message: On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 5:00 PM, R.E. Hoboth wrote: Please find attached my letter of endorsement of Shared Network Canada's proposed Wireless Telecommunications Antenna which is being considered for installation on the property of Claremont Union Cemetery. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Doua Cummings <City of Pickeiring Planning Committee meeting letter. Dec 18 19.doc> - 148 - The Claremont Union Cemetary Co. Ltd Murray Jones President Date: June 5, 2019 Subject: Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Reference SNC0120 To: Susan Cassell D. Ryan — Mayor, City of Pickering D. Pickles — Regional Councillor, Ward 3 S. Butt — City Councillor, Ward 3 D. Claros — Shared Network Canada Doug Cummings Secretary/Treasurer My wife Kathy and I have been on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Union Cemetery for several years and we currently function as its Secretary/Treasurer. We reside on 170 acres on Sideline 12 in Pickering where Kathy's ancestors are the original settlers of the land we live on. We are both retired, Kathy was a Professor teaching Nursing at what is now Ontario Tech in Oshawa and I was an HR Manager - Labour Relations at General Motors in Oshawa. In June of this year we attended the Planning Committee meeting where Shared Network and others, including myself, made presentations regarding the tower being proposed. At that time, discussion of this proposal ended with a decision on the matter being deferred for further investigation and amendment between Shared Network and Pickering's Engineering Dept. Since that time we have had discussions with several community members and farmers regarding Cellular and Internet performance in the Claremont area. Where we live we do not have access to high speed internet through cable or fibreoptic and in our discussions with Bell Canada we are not likely to have these available in the near future. We have been using a Rogers Rocket Hub device for internet, however cellular service remains poor with many "dead zones" in the area. These dead zones are of particular concern for our area farmers who may run into trouble while performing their regular agricultural activities. Since breakdowns do not frequently happen in convenient locations in the fields, cellular service is now as much a tool as a wrench or a hammer It might simply be a mechanical breakdown requiring the help of another family member or the closest neighbor or perhaps more seriously it - 149 - could be a medical issue requiring immediate attention. Without the ability to call for help using 911 or calling home, the farmer may not be found until its too late. When we last met on this proposal in June 2019 I told of the situation we face at our own home where when standing on our deck and using my cell phone to call the landline in our house, less than 15 feet away, it is sometimes a long distance call. Suppose Kathy or I were outside alone, felt and recognized the symptoms of a heart attack or stroke being imminent and tried to phone the other for help. The additional precious seconds it takes to redial if it turned out that it was of those times when the call was "long distance" might mean the difference between life with prognosis for full recovery or a less desireable out come. It is our hope that with more towers such as the one being proposed by Shared Network, our ability to access reliable and secure Internet and Cellular services will be available. It will help provide for the safety of all residents in the Claremont area and the area farmers whether owners or tenant farmers using our lands. This tower is needed now! Thank you for giving this your sincere consideration. On behalf of the Claremont Union Cemetary Board, Douglas (Doug) J. Cummings cc: file Page 2 - 150 - From: Indira Jaikaran knocky007@gmail.com B Subject: File # SNC0120 Date: November 24, 2019 at 7:36 PM To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca Attached is our response to the public notice with regards to the above mentioned file. Owners John Mitchell Indira Jaikaran in res nye to your carrrvsperidene,e re . File # SNCCx 2i) rlJov, 112019 The proposed Radio Fowur site as ia1 dFtated n the map on the east aide at the back of the Claremont-umbn Cemetery 'Mated err Cancesskon 41ust next to aur property Ihrhich is a 11 aizre 10! 1acat od en the cost srdh it the' C larerno tt•IJr» IV! cemetery, There is cwrten1NV 2 5hedl an our property, this /arid IS a building hot nota hay Field_ We purchased the lot cover 5 years ago e build a -horn r. This Js prir�1e Land in Clermont which wt hauight ata very hig41 price, we curr,fntlyr pay aver tour thousand dollars a y+earTn property t xes far this Iot. We also h'dn the property next to the land AS mentioned above at irlrloh we ow? over tin thousen d dollars. a yQar In property tax. Orr 4bIrtclltrrl5-to the proem Bite Of the radlv tower is A4 fCJIf?W3: 1. rt wIll definitely reduce the Current Value Of our prQpertle5.4 Who wllM compensate us kir our loss in eoulty'r {lawsuit to follow} 2. This tower wilt be too erose ti where we propose to build our home, it ON pose softy and health risks. 3- Health Nak li cJ-Ides, canter. headaches. memory foss. candle vastUlar dkei.5e5 etc, 4. The radia fregirenryr erntrted by this fewer will penetrate mewl. and brick walls 5. The wild We in the area will a iso be threatened; a Targe nurm*er of birds ate killed each year by these towers. 5. Safety bawd because of the location of the tower so close to our fence Roe If thi; tower was to collapse it would Fall ori. out property destroying whatever is In its path. 1 We don't wvant to have a radio tower in our Jaarckvard, it will be # blemish on the landscape. Thi tiwer is a threat to people's health as -well as the health and well being of all vAld Itfe ono farm anImals_ Jw1y family and 1 moved from the tlty over 13 years mita to live in the coo miry for better health and lorwpOry however 1 '00 if we allow this fewer to be boil( 15415141! 1.0 it Wali teapardhzed our health and well belch, Iahn Mitrthull sl kin Wendy h iiLong) €L Cody, fllortison Planner ll , Mr. Cwidid P+ekle% Regional Councillor, Mr_ WW1. Wiesbe rg jlawyerj and Jennifer O'tonne111 NIP PDF scan0002.pdf - 152 - From: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca B Subject: Re: File # SNC0120 Date: March 4, 2020 at 11:10 AM To: Indira Jaikaran Cc: Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, Pickles, David, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, Jennifer.Oconnell.C1@parl.gc.ca, Leticia Avanse leticia@sharednetwork.ca Good Morning Indira, John, I hope this email finds you both well! Please see attached our response to your comments as per Industry Canada's guidleines, please feel free to reach out with any other questions you may have. Thanks! Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca On Dec 6, 2019, 11:39 AM -0500, Indira Jaikaran wrote: Thank you for your response. On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:51 AM SNC Municipal Relations <municipal@sharednetwork.ca> wrote: Good morning John and Indira, I am writing this email to confirm our receipt of your comment below. Our team will review and prepare a response within the next couple of days, please feel free to reach out with any other questions or concerns in the meantime. Regards, Leticia Avanse Shared Network Canada http://shared network.ca municipal@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: Indira Jaikaran Subject: File # SNC0120 Date: November 24, 2019 at 7:41:20 PM EST To: municipal sharednetwork.ca Attached is our response to the public notice with regards to the above mentioned file. Owners John Mitchell Indira Jaikaran Shared Network Canad...se.pdf - 153 - shared network CANADA March 3, 2020 SNC0120 - Claremont Shared Network - Telecommunications Slimline Proposal Attention: John Mitchell, Indira Jaikaran, Wendy Mitchell Subject: Shared Network Canada - Communications Slimline Proposal Dear John, Indira, Wendy, Thank you very much for reaching out to Shared Network Canada with your comments related to the wireless telecommunication proposal to be located at The Claremont Union Cemetery in the Township of Claremont. We sincerely appreciate you taking the time to mention your concerns regarding health and safety, property value and tower location. When proposing a wireless telecommunications site, Shared Network Canada identifies an area in which they can help enhance cellular coverage, in this case the Township of Claremont due to the great need for improved cellular coverage. Alternative locations were explored during the initial study of the area, all other areas both surrounding Claremont and inside of the Town of Claremont were considered. Due to airport zoning restrictions surrounding the Township, this location was the only viable proposed property in order to comply with all airport zoning regulations as well as expand setbacks from as many nearby residents as possible while servicing Claremont. This currently proposed location maximizes setbacks from the vast majority of residents nearby, and will allow Shared Network Canada to greatly improve the cellular coverage in the immediate area. Once this location had been determined, Shared Network Canada wanted to go a step further with its proposal and is proposing to construct a telecommunications structure which will be a slim line self-support tower which will greatly reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. In regards to your concerns about health and safety, may I begin by stating that Shared Network Canada takes their obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where they construct a wireless facility, Shared Network Canada is obligated to demonstrate to Industry Canada (ISED) that they meet all health and safety standards before we are allowed to move forward. To allay your health concerns, please note that the site at the Claremont Union Cemetery will be fully compliant with the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada (ISED) and Health Canada. The following background information is provided by scientific and expert research 154 relates to the issue of health and the effects of radio signals associated with wireless communication installations. Industry Canada through ISED strictly regulates all telecommunication equipment and safety standards through Safety Code 6, to which standards Shared Network Canada will always abide. ISED continues to state that so long as the Safety Code 6 standards are met and maintained, Canadians can rest assured the telecommunications towers are safe to live nearby, including residents of the Claremont Community. The Canadian wireless industry as a whole, through the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association ("CWTA"), continually monitors the study of health issues related to wireless communications technology. The consensus among Canadian government health organizations and the scientific community is that there is no evidence that the radio signals produced by wireless communication structures have adverse effects on human health. Health Canada's 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 determining Safety Code 6 guidelines. Scientists at Health Canada continuously update their research 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 has also been the subject of several independent reviews, including a study by the Royal Society of Canada in 1999, which was updated in 2003, and again in 2009. 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 three studies took issue with Safety Code 6's standards. The Medical Officers of Health for York Region, Hamilton and Vancouver 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 recently conclude that there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects associated with low-level RF fields, like those from cell sites. For further information on Health Canada and Industry Canada requirements, please find the attached information pamphlet on Wireless Communication and Health from Industry Canada (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09591.html), Frequently Asked Questions developed by Health Canada & Industry Canada in relation to questions on protection of the public, as well as some other useful resources and links related to health and wireless communication. As stated previously, Industry Canada (ISED) requires that all proponents and operators ensure that their installations and apparatus comply with Safety Code 6 at all times. Shared Network Canada attests that the telecommunication installation proposed for the Claremont Union Cemetery will at all times comply"witl th Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. As for your concern with property values, ISED has concluded that there have been no studies to support any evidence that would show any decreases in property value associated with new telecommunication towers or antennas installed nearby. In addition to this, Shared Network Canada has worked very hard to ensure that the telecommunication tower would be as least visually intrusive as possible, and given the proposed location is surrounded by trees Shared Network Canada has proposed to disguise their telecommunications tower as best as possible from the surrounding area. Shared Network Canada is proposing the slim line self support style of tower in order to allow it to blend in to its surroundings and remain as unnoticeable as possible to passerby's and residents. We trust the information provided on the requirements and efforts made by Shared Network Canada in demonstrating our compliance obligations will resolve the safety concerns that have been expressed. We also hope this response will help illustrate all of the due diligence taken into the site selection process to compile this proposal including the location, height, and style of the structure, in order to best service area residents while also blending the pole into its surrounding community. Again, thank you very much for taking the time to express your comments. Please let me know if we can help answer any other questions or concerns you may have, we would be happy to reach out over the telephone to help further explain any portion of this proposal. Sincere regards, Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) - 156 - From: SNC Municipal Relations municipal@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Re: SNC0120 Date: December 6, 2019 at 9:46 AM To: A & L Wilder Cc: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca, Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, Pickles, David, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, Bentley, Kyle kbentley@pickering.ca, Jennifer.Oconnell.C1@parl.gc.ca Jennifer.Oconnell.C1@Parl.gc.ca, crose@pickering.ca, Surti, Nilesh nsurti@pickering.ca Good morning Andy & Lori, Thank you for taking the time to write about our telecom proposal at 2170 Ninth Concession Road in Claremont. The public input during the commenting period is very important. Regards, Leticia Avanse Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca municipal@sharednetwork.ca On Dec 5, 2019, at 2:34 PM, A & L Wilder wrote: Dear sirs: We have received the information package regarding the Claremont antenna. As referenced, the coverage in this area is incredibly poor. With the lack of service and apparent withdrawal of service from Bell Canada we are becoming more and more reliant on cellular service. We live on a rural property and therefore don't have the luxury of accessing service provided in a more densely populated area. Ironically, several of the photo views were taken from nearby our property which tells us that if the tower goes ahead as proposed we should finally get reliable cell service. We are 100% in favour of this project and proposal, the sooner the better. Andy & Lori Wilder - 157 - From: Ag Al-Joundi Subject: Shared Network Canada "revised" Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Proposal Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering SNC File Number:SNC0120 Date: December 5, 2019 at 10:56 AM To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca, Pickles, David, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, Jennifer.Oconnell.C1@Parl.gc.ca, Rose, Catherine crose@pickering.ca, kbentley@pickering.ca, cmorrison@pickering.ca, Surti, Nilesh nsurti@pickering.ca, Cynthia Murnaghan murnaghanc@hotmail.com Dear Madame/Sir at Shared Network Services, Please find attached the rationale underlying why your proposed plan as per the above must be rejected. - 158 - SNC Cell Tower letter C...9.docx Thursday December 5, 2019 Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 10 Four Seasons PI, Suite 1056 Etobicoke, ON M9B 0A6 Re: "Revised" Proposed Shared Network Canada ("SNC") Wireless Telecommunications Antenna (45m) Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering, ON, SNC File Number: SNC0120 Dear Madame/Sir, I recently received by Canada Post mail your "Public Notice Package" (PNP) regarding the above. Notwithstanding the concerns I expressed about your original proposal (as per the public consultation process of May/June 2018), and the multiple violations this proposal had presented to both the Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP"), as detailed in my letter to Mr. Kyle Bentley of the City of Pickering, dated May 16, 2018, a copy of which SNC also has, and the fact that in their report (PLN 16-19) dated June 17, 2019, the City of Pickering had also rejected your proposal saying, "the installation does not satisfy the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location", your so-called "revised" proposal is very disappointing in that it is identical to the original except that you now suggest moving the tower 96 m further east, still within the Claremont -Union Cemetery. Whereas your original proposal had placed the tower within 96m of a corner of my home, your "revised" proposal now places the tower 202 m from the same corner of my home. Given that your "revised " proposal does nothing other than move the tower 96 m further east, the same concerns and violations remain, as follows; 1. SNC business model emphasizes erection of towers, not provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services SNC acknowledges that it is not in the business of providing cellular communications and internet services to residential and commercial clients, but rather their business model is specifically about generating maximum revenues from the erection of as many cell towers as possible? Given your undisputed business mandate is to maximize revenues by erecting the maximum number of new towers there is a fundamental conflict with the Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, "before building a new antenna -supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards". Not surprisingly, both Industry Canada and the CPCTP prioritize any cell services provider to utilize existing infrastructure to support installation of their electronics, and even the wording of such prioritization is almost identical between the two authoritative bodies. Fundamental to Industry Canada's position about the erection of such towers is also found in their website which states about their rules, "rules are designed to make sure companies are looking at ways to reduce the number of new towers they are building". Given your business model, you have no incentive to reduce the erection of additional towers by utilizing existing infrastructure. It is obvious that SNC would not have seriously considered existing infrastructure. - 159 - Your SNC business model which in effect is, "get as many towers up, as quickly as possible", is completely incompatible with the rules and protocols relating to the provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services as espoused by the Industry Canada and related City of Pickering municipal guidelines and protocols (i.e. CPCTP). 2. Negative impact on my property value, and unfair Risk/Benefit model In their report, PLN 16-19 mentioned above, the City of Pickering cites another reason for rejecting the SNC proposal because, "the tower is located within a rural area that has a number of residential dwellings and based on the design of the tower, will have a negative visual impact for the residents residing in the immediate area" Given the above acknowledgement and based on research publicly available, there is no doubt that residential property within the immediate vicinity (i.e. distance, view) of wireless telecommunications towers that is for sale, realizes less demand from potential buyers than other similar properties where everything else is the same. The phenomena of lower demand for such properties where everything else is equal, is a fact. According to the research, the lower demand for such properties is driven primarily by two concerns as expressed by potential buyers, a) aesthetics — such towers are aesthetically unpleasing, they are not compatible with the nature of the neighborhood or natural features. They create a visual blight, and change the character of the area, especially when constructed in rural settings, and b) health concerns — notwithstanding Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance which every proponent of cell towers is quick to reference, the fact is that there remains widespread media attention about scientific studies regarding the potential long term effects of proximity to such towers, and persistent health concerns that the public continues to express. In fact, a US study by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy published in June 2014, titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found: • 94% of home buyers and renters are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna; • 79% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas; and • 90% said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in residential neighborhoods The above public perception is very disconcerting to any property owner within the vicinity of an existing or proposed cell tower. The salient point here, the incontrovertible point, is that perception is what influences a potential buyer. Negative perception means less demand. Less demand means less competition. Less competition means a lower price/value. It is that simple and categoric. As well, consider how unfair this proposed cell tower site is for my family and I. Under this site, SNC generates rental revenue for itself. Under this site, Claremont -Union Cemetery enjoys a monthly annuity from SNC, while none of the owners have to live with the tower looming over them. Under this site, notwithstanding that my home will be close to, and the closest to the site, my family receives absolutely zero income though as outlined above, yet we assume all of the risks. 3. Photos of proposed tower in your PNP are misleading - The photo's in the PNP with alleged renderings of the proposed tower are misleading, understated and promote an inaccurate impression of the size and intrusiveness of the proposed tower. The PNP renderings do not reflect the alarming reality of how close the proposed tower would be to my family's house, and it avoids the key topographical prominence of the - 160 - actual Oak Ridges Moraine rolling hills and vistas that a more common, north facing view (i.e. associated with the vehicular traffic traversing Concession 9/Regional Road 5), provides of the proposed site. A more realistic impression of the proposed tower visual impact on my home is found in the attachment to this letter, which is a photo of an existing cell tower on the east side of Brock Road, just north of Concession 7. This tower is the same 45m height as the SNC proposed tower, and the picture taken was from the same 202m away from the tower that is being proposed under the "revised" proposal. Please look at the photo again. Would you support such a tower being erected in such proximity to your home, and obstructing the view from your home like this? 4. Preferred Location under City of Pickering Cell Tower protocol Under 6.2 "...where co -location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible, proponents are encouraged to: "Select sites for new towers that are within industrial, commercial or non-residential areas, and/or that maximize the distance from residential areas." "Consider the use of City owned lands and/or facilities" Neither of these articles of the CPCTP have been satisfied with the proponent's proposal. Under 6.3 — Discouraged Locations "The City discourages the installation of new antenna systems in the following locations: Residential areas...On sites of topographical prominence that would obscure public views and vistas." AND, "Within Environmentally sensitive lands." Given that the selected site is on the Oak Ridges Moraine and is of topographical prominence, the City of Pickering needs to disqualify this proponent's site selection. Summary As the above suggests, your "revised" proposal addresses none of the concerns and violations I outlined initially, nor does it resolve any of the reasons the City of Pickering rejected your original plan as per their report PLN 16- 19. There remain the same serious flaws and concerns with respect to the "revised" proposed SNC cell tower scheme. The SNC "revised" proposal continues to be unfair to my family by having us assume significant risks with zero benefits, and continues to be incompatible with the fundamental Industry Canada and CPCTP rules. To be frank, SNC does not appear to be sincere about revisions that address my family's concerns, about it's violations of the Industry Canada and CPCTP rules, nor about the reasons why the City of Pickering rejected your original proposal. For these reasons, you cannot be permitted to proceed with your "revised" proposal. Thank you, - 161 - Aghlab Al-Joundi Cc. Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell — MPP Pickering -Uxbridge Ms. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner City of Pickering Mr. Kyle Bentley — Director City of Pickering Development & CBO Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering Mr. Nilesh Surti, Manager Development Review & Urban Design, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan — From: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca & Subject: Re: Fwd: Shared Network Canada "revised" Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Proposal Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering SNC File Number:SNC0120 Date: May 29, 2020 at 11:21 AM To: Ag Al Cc: Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, Leticia Avanse leticia@sharednetwork.ca Dear Mr. Al-Joundi, I hope you have been keeping well during these different times! Please see attached SNC's final response in regards to our application for the slim line self support tower near Claremont (SNC0120). Thanks! Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) dom.claros©sharednetwork.ca On Dec 5, 2019, 10:56 AM -0500, Ag Al , wrote: Dear Madame/Sir at Shared Network Services, Please find attached the rationale underlying why your proposed plan as per the above must be rejected. Thank you, PDF SNC0120.pdf - 163 - '"',) shared network C A N A D A May 29, 2020 SNC0120 — Claremont Shared Network — Telecommunications Slim line Proposal Attentions: Aghlab Al-Joundi Subject: Shared Network Canada — Communications Slim line Proposal Dear Mr. Al-Joundi, Thank you very much for reaching out to Shared Network Canada with your comments related to the wireless telecommunication proposal to be located at The Claremont Union Cemetery in the Township of Claremont. We sincerely appreciate you taking the time to mention your concerns regarding health and safety, property value and tower location. As stated previously, when proposing a wireless telecommunication site, Shared Network Canada identifies an area in which they help enhance cellular coverage, in this case The Township of Claremont due to the great need for improved cellular coverage. Alternatives were explored once again after the public consultation period in May/June 2019. All other areas both surrounding Claremont and inside of the Town of Claremont were considered. Due to airport zoning restrictions surrounding the Township, this location was the only viable proposed property in order to comply with all airport zoning regulations as well as expand setbacks from as many nearby residents as possible while servicing Claremont. This currently proposed location maximizes setbacks from the vast majority of residents nearby, and will allow Shared Network Canada to greatly improve the cellular coverage in the immediate area. Looking back to your previous letter, Shared Network has decided to move the tower further to the east corner of the property and change the tower type to a slim line self-support tower which will greatly reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. In regards to your concerns about health and safety, may I begin by stating that Shared Network Canada takes their obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where they construct a wireless facility, Shared Network Canada is obligated to demonstrate to Industry Canada (ISED) that they meet all health and safety standards before we are allowed to move forward. To allay your health concerns, please note that the site at The Claremont Union Cemetery will be fully compliant with the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada (ISED) and Health Canada. The following background information is provided by scientific and expert research as it relates to the issue of health and effects of radio signals associated with wireless communication installations. - 164 - o shared network CANADA Industry Canada through ISED strictly regulated all telecommunication equipment and safety standards through Safety Code 6, to which standards Shared Network Canada will always abide. ISED continues to state that as long as the Safety Code 6 standards are met and maintained, Canadians can rest assured the telecommunications towers are safe to love nearby, including residents of the Claremont Community. The Canadian wireless industry as a whole, through the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association ("CWTA"), continually monitors the study of health issues related to wireless communication technology. The consensus among Canadian government health organizations and the scientific community is that there is no evidence that the radio signals produced by wireless communication structures have adverse effects on human health. Health Canada's 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 determining Safety Code 6 guidelines. Scientists at Health Canada continuously update their research 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 has also been the subject of several independent reviews, including a study by the Royal Society of Canada in 1999, which was updated in 2003, and again in 2009. 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 three studies took issue with Safety Code 6's standards. The Medical Officers of Health for York Region, Hamilton and Vancouver 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 recently conclude that there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects associated with low-level RF fields, like those from cell sites. For further information on Health Canada and Industry Canada requirements, please find the attached information pamphlet on Wireless Communication and Health from Industry Canada (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09591.html), Frequently Asked Questions developed by Health Canada & Industry Canada in relation to questions on protection of the public, as well as some other useful resources and links related to health and wireless communication. As stated previously, Industry Canada (ISED) requires that all proponents and operators ensure that their installations and apparatus comply with Safety Code 6 at all times. Shred Network Canada attests that the telecommunication installation proposed for the Claremont Union Cemetery will at all times comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. - 165 - o shared network CANADA As for your concern with property values, ISED has concluded that there have been no studies to support any evidence that would show any decreases in property value associated with new telecommunication towers or antennas installed nearby. In addition to this, Shared Network Canada has worked very hard to ensure that the telecommunication tower would be as least visually intrusive as possible, and given the proposed location is surrounded by trees Shared Network Canada has proposed to disguise their telecommunications tower as best as possible from the surrounding area. Shared Network Canada is proposing the slim line self-support style of the tower in order to allow it to blend in to its surrounds and remain as unnoticeable as possible to passerby's and residents. We trust the information provided on the requirements and efforts made by Shared Network Canada in demonstrating our compliance obligations will resolve the safety concerns that have been expressed. We also hope this response will help illustrate all of the due diligence taken into the site selection process to compile this proposal including the location, height and style of the structure, in order to best service area residents while also blending the pole into its surrounding community. Again, thank you very much for taking the time to express your comments. Please let me know if we can help answer any other questions or concerns you may have, we would be happy to reach out over the telephone to help further explain any portion of this proposal. Sincere regards, Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) - 166 - From: Celia Subject: Re: Confusing site location for proposed Rogers tower Date: October 8, 2019 at 3:35 PM To: Leticia Avanse Thank you Leticia. Much appreciated. Celia On Oct 8, 2019, at 13:09, Leticia Avanse wrote: Good afternoon Celia, Thank you very much for your patience, I hope your week is going well. First of all, my apologies for the confusion on a keymap included in the newspaper ad. We have replaced the notice which you saw with the correct map - please find attached the amended notice. The file C6752 is specifically being proposed in the back of the plaza property on 1900 Dixie Road in Pickering, and it was mixed in with a map of a different tower proposal in Claremont which goes by the code SNC0120 with another company. Thanks for letting us know, there is a great need for a tower in Claremont and there is a telecommunication tower being proposed at the Claremont Union Cemetery on Sideline 14 and Regional Road 5 that will soon begin with public consultation period of its own. A new ad in the newspaper will be issued for this other tower shortly with the correct information for that location. I hope this helps, If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best, Leticia Avanse <LandSquared Sept. 19 2019 Pickering News Advertiser Qrtr. Page ad_DNMR0015090783_Ir (1).pdf> On Oct 1, 2019, at 11:51 AM, Celia wrote: Good morning Felix, I have not heard anything regarding the confusing site location proposed for the 25m Rogers monopole. It has been almost a month since my inquiry. Will it be located at 1900 Dixie Road or as the map shows at Sideline 14 and Regional Road 5? We need a tower in the Claremont area. Looking forward to your response. Celia Klemenz On Sep 6, 2019, at 10:57, Leticia Avanse Good Morning Celia, I hope your Friday is going well. wrote: I am writing this email to confirm our receipt of your comment below. Our team will review and prepare a response within the next couple of days, please feel free to reach out with any other questions or concerns in the meantime. Have a great weekend! Kind regards, - 167 - Leticia Avanse On Sep 6, 2019, at 8:39 AM, Chau, Felix <fchau a(�pickering.ca> wrote: Good Morning Celia, By way of this email, I am forwarding your comments to the applicant who will be able to prepare a response to your inquiry. Regards, Felix Chau Planner 1 1 City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2220 1 1.866.683.2760 fchau@pickering.ca <image001.png> Your City. Right Now. pickering.ca <im e0:07ginghnage008.png marnarnam > ge ge ge ag 01 01 01 e0 2.p L121:112 09 ng ng ng .p From: Celia > ng Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 5:52 PM To: Chau, Felix <fchau@pickering.ca> Subject: Fwd: Confusing site location for proposed Rogers tower Good afternoon Felix, I attempted to send this email to the applicant Leticia at Landsquared with my question but the email address does not exist so I am forwarding this to you and perhaps you can clear up the confusion. Celia Klemenz Begin forwarded message: From: Celia Date: September 5, 2019 at 17:47:11 EDT To: Subject: Confusing site location for proposed Rogers tower Good after Leticia, I read with interest about the site proposed for the Rogers - 168 - communications l5 m monopole wireless telecommunications tower installation in the Sept. 5, 2019 Pickering News Advertiser. The map shows the site to be on the north/east corner of Sideline 14 and Concession 9/Regional Road 5 just east of Claremont. Good news! Yet when I read the info listed in Subject the Location states 1900 Dixie Road, Pickering. Which is it, Claremont or south Pickering? Celia Klemenz - 169 - shared network A N A D A Appendix F - 170 - r Su bject Properties CDRadius around subject properties ■ Properties inside radius J�-0D��-0DJ�-0G��-0D-0�-0D��-0D J�-0D��-0D J�-.. �-0DJ�-0G��-0DJd D��1D JAd D��-0DJ�-0D�-0DJ�-0D��-0D J�-0D��-0D J�-0D��-0;12:16:1D.c.:4::. 4 4R�y 4 RR R RR 44R 4R�R RR fy4 4R 44R44R�y 44' 44 R�y RRP-0Dv D-0 DD-0DvD-0DP-0DvD-0D -0DvD� DvD� D'�DvD� DD� D�DvU-0P-0DvD-0D-0 Dv-0D-0Dv.1 P-0 Dv , DR-0DDvAD 8 RQD Dv� DQDv-0DDv-0 DvD Dv -0D Dv -0D DvA Dv� D DDhc. RRp D4 8R4 -0D484R8-0R 848-0 D4 8R48-0 D 4 R 4 8-0D48R 4 8-0 D48R4 -0 D RRR cDdRvA-0 D4 8R.,4� Q ▪ � 4,6 A 8� 48%..3D.� 1t2DQ -Q1� 4thp 48QBE 4. Q°�D Q� 4� D,c. 7. QD°D o-° D o-°Do-°Do-°DDDSDDSDo-D o-° Do -°Do -°Da° Do-°Do-DD°Do-° D D°Do-°'D.'Do-°o-°Do-°Do-� 61D1,%1 4 D R ' �� �, R• D R h ' D :Dal h 4 D R h 4 D R 1 D 4 1 D R -0 D 4 1 D R 1 D 4 8 1 D R 8 1 D 4 1 D R 4 -0 D R -0 U '' -0 D R h 1 D RF a� D��Q o-a�a {'vD��a ��� o-a� ��� aa� �� aa� D�Q aa� D�crikga.n.til:::D aD��Q o-a� D��Q o-a� ��o-a� ��Ya� -0 Rc.-0R -0DR -0 R8-0 DR.1 R1D' R' 1DR DR DR8R-0R DR -0 R R DR-0DR R8v� °=.o� D D6 v�Dd 1DD Dd A'D Dv� D DDDd v�D Dd c�DDc v� D Dc o: D D D D D1 D R R4 R4 ▪ 4 8 RR 4 4 4 R44 ▪ R 8 ;11 R4 R 4 R dR 44R48� 48�48� 48�484GpG� 48� 4�4AIQCT 4848� 8� 8� 4 48� 48� • 48� 4 � � � D � D � D � D � D � D � D � D � D 11'7 � D � � � 3.1r D � D D D D D D D D D D D D .7.1: E 1 D';'1:41 D 4� 1 DR P Q M 1 DR D ' -0� R ▪ D 7 l DR D 4� IDR D 4� 1 DR D 4� 1 '';''''1D R D 4� 1 DR -0 D 4� 1 DR P Q 4F 9� 9 DDS -09� 9 D7 -0 i., ,i D�� -0-0� 9 D� -0p9� 9 Dll 1;16.1 Doh -0p9� D DEa 4p9� 9 D77 -0 2.A 9 D�� -0p9� 9 DDS -0p9 .� 8 R 8 v 4 8 .71D 8 v 4 8 R 8 v 8 R 8 v 4 R v R R v 4 R v 4 R 8 v 8 R R R 8 R 8 v 4 8 �� �v D11E1'D D� �v D� - 41 DVD D 46vt D D� DV D� D D� DVD Tpv � pv � D� . D� v-0 D d D W•16.7:.;1 Q D d D RQ D d D RQ D 6 RQ D D RQ D RQ D d D C RQ D'L 1 W D D RQ D D R :3,[:•17(:.6:..!.3.. D R 8 R v c� D v a R v c� D v� R v�� D v� R v c� D v� R v c� D v� R v c� D v� R v c� D v'n:77.1 R v�� D v� R c� D a d 4 v 8 Q �D Rk D .10'14E32 � -0D R�r D -08 : R�7 D CI D Dv�A ;, J� -0DRV � D A4 -0D Rhe D * �aRhD . �h �Dv f D 'J 4 1 .%'7 D * 1D t2 D p 4 R R R R R v R 8 v R 8 v R 8 4 R 4 R R R R R R R R R 4 R 4 R 4 R A 4 R 4 R 4 R 4 R R R �� D� D� D D� D� D D: D� D4 D' D D� D D� D D� D D� D� D� D� D �� D D7 D �� DI D1 8 1 DR 4 1 DR '' 1 DR 4 A 1 DR 8 1 4 DR 8 4 8 D --1;%14:37; R 8 4 DR 8 4 DR 4 i DR 8 4 i DR 1 -0 Dip -0D-0� -0 D7 -0D-0. ID t IDI 1 Dl 1D1 1 D1 -0DA� -0 Dip -0D�� D Dp'7-:::(7:. -0p�''1"1'. A ��� -0D-0� ( Dip -0D-0� Dip -0D-0� R R ▪ R R R R R R R R R R R R R A R R R R R R :D:3 R R R R R R R R (:-., D V D D � D V D D D� D V - D� D Q p-0 D � 1 D V t': D D� D V D D � 4 D'4 D� D �� DVD D �� DVD 3 D �� D ''t2 D D D� D 1 D d:71::' 1 v� D d D v� D d D v� D A D 1 v� D D v� D D v� D d D A v� d D v� D d D v� D v DDRB v� 11>1 v a R v d R v� 9 D v� R v� 9 D v R v� 9 D v R v� 9 D v R v� 9 D v R v� D v ▪ R v a 12;46: D v6 R R A �, 4 ▪ D-0 7t E, 7. -0,: ,. v1.V 4 � a 1 4 �Q � 6 2�Q � � � � � D :4C1: � D �� Dc' D �� D �� D�' .� D D� D D� D D� D D� D D� E1 D D� D �i D D1 D �? D D� v 1 D v 1 Dia Dv1 v -0 D�� Dv� FR �F �- ry -0 v D�� Dv -0 v D�� DvA v D�� Dv� v D�� ��� v D�� -0 - '1 READ v '1 Al( v �J ��D v l AlD -0 ��D v 1 ��D v 1 �1D v 1 -0D v �tr D�� -0D-0� -0 �� -0D-0� 1 D1. lDl Dip -0D �� D -0D' D-0� AD2.=.1"7r, A D-0� -0D '� D-0 -0. . .. `,. 4 4 R 4 . v R 8 R v d 4 4 R R R6r1;''' 7.V7 4 R D� Dv D� D D� Dv D� D D' Dv D� D U-0 Dv D-0 D Dv DA D DDv D� D' . . v1� a DI v A D a D v D D v D D D v °�'��a• ,�,ti,y__� _ -. -0DR� v�v��Dvd v�v��Dv� v�v��Dv � v Qv v, �Q pB�R pB�Q 42v pB�Q pB�R D D8 � D D� D � DD. D� D D� D D� -0D v° 1 READ v� -0 '' 1 �� D�� -0D�: D� -0D �� D DDS 4 4 4 R R R �� Dv D� DR D� Dv D� DR D� Dv D� D E fL v� D a D v1 D d D 1. D D. ic';vdvv��Dv d v R��DR avRR � R �R▪ :�RteR 6R D� �1 D D1 �1 D 1 D D i� 6,14.1'7:2 "lc': R U64 � Dv p "I:: R U� DD • DV U-0 .t c-0 D d D � ad D 6 � v� D d D � v� 1 D v c R v D v d R v D v c R v A D �� D D� ▪ D D� ▪ D D1 D D� D D1 D D1 D R.7 D D 1 R 1'D D 1 v 1 D D 1 LAC; v� 1 va�D v� 1 v��D R� 1 v� 61.1241:t1Av DlAv DlAa ▪ a Dl�a D1 16 D� Dv� Dv�� Dvt-1 DL 6' ▪ Dvn= Dv a D � D D D2 D 9 0 D D� D DR Q D D �Dv�v vc �Dvdv vc �Dvdv vt�Dv� ���Dv i c D���Dv�� D� T ;DAA D-0�1Dvt v vt'7,2": v v� v v� v v� v v� v v� v v� : D D� D� D D� D D� D D� D D� D DA / I R � Dia Dv -0 v � Dia Dv -0 v � D�� Dv -0 v � D�� �qD v 1 a1D v 1 �1D q 1 �qD v 1 dq, .. p°R°R Rn°R ▪ �2 R��R t�1, Qn�R �4.D71 Rp°R ti � Dq Dv D9 D D9 Dv D9 D D9 Dv D9 D D-0 Dv D-0 D D9 Dq Dv D a D 1 vq D a D 1 vq D D 1 vq D A D v. v vA1Dvd v vA1Dv� v vA1Dvd v v' ,4.7::D 488 7'' 1 4888 48�Q 4t2r LI 4868 4 y 88Q 48°� Z IL D•1 D D1 D D1 D D1 D D1 D D1 D D� D D1 D ' D•� D D•� v Dia E- v Dia Dv1 v D�� Dv� v D�A Dv1 •�� Dv� v D� 1":7; D v 1 SAD v 1 ��D v -0 � 1D v 1 �. -04 Det t-'1 -0 Df6 -0D-0� -0 D�� -0D-0a -0 Dip 3 4 4 R R v R 8 R v R 1 R 4 R D� Dv D� D � Dv D� D D� Dv D� D D-0 Dv D-0 D DA v-0 D D � v� D d D � v� D d D � v� D S D � v. D v. R p R d :ii. R 1 D R A :::.D. R 8 1 D 4 6 ▪ � D•- �111 f'''' D .=,. D� D Di D D� D D1 D D� D DI 1 D i:37: l� l D1� -0Dl� l D1� 1 -0Dl� l D�� 1 1l Dia -0%� D R v R R v R R :D.,1 8 R 8 v R D� pv D.1 D D� pv D� D D� pv D: D D� pv D� D D� v-0 D a D � v467 D d D � v� D S D 1 v� D S D ;14°7 v v v G:3. R d v v p D R v v A 1 D 7.D° o _ 5 �� � v���� 4DR�-0�.1Dv�DD-0y G� b G� v�-0 Dv�-0 Dv�-0 Dv�-0 DVG Dv P'" D� D v D D6 D 1-0 D D� D 4 -0D v� Q va�D v�1v��D v� �.", f �y 1111 1 ▪ D/6Q D1 ,.V D,6. D DS DV DQE' 1.EY 1D'p1 DV U1• R114' D D R jai D 1 73'::17 � D A D R1 �Dvc R R -1D7G R ;7111 ��D48 4 v8 �D ��v..� D �� �DvA� D �6 �Dv1c D-0� i. � � v� v v� v v� ,..1 v� c.: v� ▪ v v� v v D'b D D� D D� D1 D2D D� D �1 o� JDv p vA JDv 1p v' 1Dv 1 ID:: oA 8 R 8 R 8 R 8 R 8 D.8 R 8 1 R-` � v� D Dc D � �� D D� D .:3E:1,1 1> 2�1 v1FR Dd D f}f �gDva v�v��Dv� v�v�gD - , 1c.'7%7•1 1DvA v�' -� v� DR� DRQ DDT• 4 � DR�v a D11�A.D A T. ▪ a 4 - 171 - 030002023000000 030002024000000 RR #4 CLAREMONT RR#4 2020 NINTH CONCESSION RD 2090 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030002051000000 030002052000000 P.O. BOX 105/ SCOTIA PLAZA 40 KING ST W Suite 4802 TORONTO ON M5H 3X2 CAN 2015 NINTH CONCESSION RD CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A2 030007118000000 030007119000000 R.R. #4 5100 SIDELINE 12 RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 RR# 4 CLAREMONT 5020 SIDELINE 12 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007120000000 030007121000000 RR#4 CLAREMONT 2230 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 RR#4 CLAREMONT 2230 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007122000000 030007123000000 5205 SIDELINE 14 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A2 030007125000000 030007126000000 5205 SIDELINE 14 5175 SIDELINE 14 PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 CAN PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007127000000 030007128000000 5105 SIDELINE 14 5105 SIDELINE 14 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007184000000 RR #5 1900 EIGHTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A2 CAN - 173 - David Ryan Mayor City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 David Pickles Regional Councillor, Ward 3 City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 - 174 - Shaheen Butt City Councillor, Ward 3 City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Cody Morrison Planner I City of Pickering- City Development Department One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 11 OPINION PICKERING-UXBRIDGE MPP PETER BETHLENFALVY CALLS ALLOWING DIGS =IN PATIOS 'A GREAT DECISION' !PROVINCE IS CUTTING DIG GINE RED TAPE a 0 m f ETER ETHLENFALW olumn r mornings snowfall ar- riving, it's clear: Winter is coming. The start of November saw our government an- nounce the removal of un- necessary and burden- some red tape to allow businesses the choice to al- low dogs on their patios. This issue was first brought to my attention by The Second Wedge Brew- ing Company, a fantastic business right here in Ux- bridge. As Second Wedge told me, after receiving a complaint about their clog - friendly environment, the rules weren't clear about whether or not pets could be allowed in restaurants and breweries where food was not being prepared. After that meeting, I reached out to my col- leagues, Minister of Red Tape Reduction Prabmeet Sarkaria and Minister of Health Christine lliott, to see what we could do. I am pleased to say that, if passed, businesses will be free to choose to allow pets on their patios and inside - where food is not being prepared - come Jan. 1, 2020. This is a great decision. The provincial govern- ment should be responsi- ble for ensuring business- es provide safe and healthy environments for their customers. But when businesses are running safely and responsibly - and when their customers want to enjoy that space with their canine compan- ion - they should be free to do so. I want to thank Sarka- ria, lliott, their teams and mine for the hard work they put in to see this change realized. Like many of you, Fm looking forward to taking my dog Tokyo out to a patio to celebrate. Supporting small busi- ness is in our nature here in Pickering -Uxbridge. Oct. 26 was Small Business Saturday - a chance for our community to come to- gether and support our lo- cal businesses across Pick- ering -Uxbridge. I had the pleasure of meeting our lo- cal entrepreneurs and job creators, including the Wizards Festival on the Hallows ,xpress at the York -Durham Heritage Railway, to Second Wedge Brewing Company, Take Root Creative, Tin Mil Restaurant, The Bridge Social, Blue Heron Books, Kathryn's Bar and Grill, and The Curl Ambassa- dors. It was great to see the wealth of talent and entre- preneurial spirit our com- munity shares on display. It's because of business- es like this that I can say, with confidence, that it's Durham's time. Peter Bethlenfalvy is the president of the trea- sury board and MPP for Pickering -Uxbridge P NEWS WATER MAIN BREAK CLOSES SECTION IF BAYLY IN PICKERING PICK •RING -A section of Bayly Street in Picker- ing is closed due to a water main break. Bayly between Begley Street and the West Short Community Centre will be closed until the water main is repaired. Unfavourable weather conditions could affect the work schedule. Durham Region's works department wants residents and businesses in the immediate area to know they may experi- ence a temporary water service interruption or decrease in water pres- sure during the repair. When the water service returns to normal, cus- tomers should turn on a cold water tap only and let it run for five to 10 minutes to clean out any sediment that may have accumulat- ed in your water. This will avoid any sediment enter- ing the hot water system. The region realizes that the work is disruptive and will make every effort to complete the work as quickly and efficiently as possible. Drivers are asked to ex- ercise caution for the safe- ty of pedestrians, cyclists and the work crews. SIGN UP FOR OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER AT DURHAMREGION.COM PUBLIC NOTICE REVISED SHARED NETWORK CANADA PROPOSAL FOR A 45m TAPERED SELF-SUPPORT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER INSTALLATION SUBJECT: • Type: Wireless 45m tall tapered self-support telecommunications structure. • Location: 2170 Ninth Concession Road, Pickering — (Claremont -Union Cemetery) • Legal Description: PART OF LOT 14, CONCESSION 9, NOW PART 2 TO PART 4, 40R-20211 • Facility: The facility will include a proposed 13m x 13m fenced compound. • Site: The site space for improved wireless voice and data services in the surrounding area. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISEDC) is the governing body for installations of this type or telecommunication antenna installation and can be contacted at: ISEDC — Toronto District Office — 151 Yonge Street, 4'" Floor, Toronto, ON, M5C 2W7 ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto. is@canada.ca ANY PERSON may make a written submission to the individuals listed below by close of day December 21, 2019, with respect to this matter. Please reference site SNC0120 in your correspondence. Further information may also be obtained through the following contact: Municipal Contact Information Cody Morrison, Planner II City of Pickering — City Development Department (905) 420-4660 ext. 2913 / cmorrison@pickering.ca "Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are regulated exclusively by Federal Legislation under the Federal Radiocommunication Act and administered by ISEDC. Provincial legislation such as the Planning Act, including zoning by - laws, does not apply to these facilities. The City of Pickering is participating in land - use consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of ISEDC CP C 2 - 0 - 03. In the case of a dispute between the proponent and the City, a final decision will be made by Industry Canada." APPLICANT CONTACT: Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 10 Four Seasons PI, Suite 1056 Etobicoke, ON M9B 0A6 (647) 241-2788 mu nici pal@shared network.ca SITE LOCATION MAP N COMMUNITY WHAT'S GIING IN HERE? WHITES RIAD RESIDENTIAL CIMPLEX xcavation on a lot on Whites Road has begun to make way for a new devel- opment adjacent to the Bol- locks Pub & Kitchen and across from Dunfair Street in Pickering. THE FACTS: • Pine Ridge Tower Lim- ited is constructing a 12 - storey apartment with 227 residential units. - 175 - • ...- _.-.•�.,,rr Vis„='��"r • The site received plan approval in 2017 and is cur- rently in the midst of con- struction. • The fmished tower will be directly adjacent to Dunbarton High School on the east side of Whites Road and north of an exist- ing apartment complex. Jason Uebregts/Torstar R WHAT' GOING 'WONDERING WHAT'S GOING ON SOMEWHERE IN YOUR COMMUNITY? VISIT DURHAMREGION.COM PUBUC NOTICE i CELL TOWER FORM spirr movie, W1 dry +1-^y.4Lir!cm.11. 0111,1111.1.1 ICL xF,AN9r L it TON 1LIVfrti 4 . 4 i .r,,.� 4 M Lb.11.1411 XP r" li++ii. i ''i Cdli'a‘s J a aprb1 £.1.4.1 O i 111edi N. Pot L I 4 !'7T8dr Ma M YID' r. .. VC =4001F: GT51 IJrVYnl rm.dgr - 176 - shared network A N A D A Appendix G - 177 - SUUBJECTDPROPERTY PLAN SCALE 1,250 PROPOS EFFIC \\P1N 2 6 392-016 PIN 26392-0166 I TPR' E - I PIN 26392-0179 / I U-) O � Z 0 0 O2 PIN 26392-0177 I J 0 ,,0 AlDETAIL" �I h^�$ IB(rv) PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN SCALE 1,200 SCALE 1,250 h,!` SITE DATA EXISTING PROPOSED PROPERTY AREA BUILDING AREA LOT COVERAGE 2.736axa. 25.3 0.09 % a a 0.11 % AREA REQUIREMENTS COM ND (EXCLUSIVE) ACCESS (NON-EXCLUSIVE) HYDRO TOTAL I69.o 9016. w TBD UNITS 1 TOWER 3 CABINETS FTOWER as m SETBACKS (PROPOSED TOWER) FRONT SIDE REAR 204.6 m 4.6 m 5.8 m SETBACKS (PROPOSED CABINETS) FRONT SIDE REAR 198.3 m 2.7 rn 4.4 rn KEY PLAN WESTHEY RD SIDELINE 12 RD 13.00 12.00 // ® n' SEE. ELEVATION PLAN SEE 'DETAIL' -PART 1 (comm., ry rsr3�o• w S031(11) 5.2sae.n NOTES =ram PA NT COLOUR SUBJECT TO NAV CANADA REOU REMENTS ANTENNA NUMBER AND LOCATONS TO BE DETERM NED FOUNDAT ON DESIGN PENDING SOIL REPORT 6900Dl7Mel`4. 048661 o�cA0 w 7 0.50 CONCRETE SLAB (3.0m . aom). '000) 6E ° PSCSso°JI"I61 i010NWs0.An8x6091l)I001) 42TMC#ITT. 0.50 ®4 6E#OE EASING TOPSOIL PROOF ROLLog8B82EXDA. v FR nUC 60P08ED SIRUCNRES LAIN. 2A Ox ALL AGES TO v6oW0E WA2 ORuxAGE. O igmO'ITN BARBED RWE SURRWNsEO COMVWxo. PART 1 PLAN 40R-19425 PIN 26392-0166 (LT) N ELEVATION PLAN DT TO SCALE 159 21014.015914(M) CLAREMONT - UNION CEMETERY PIN 26392-0163 (LT) N 25.3800. 4, PLAN 40R-20211 PIN vACANT LAND1 26392 - 0178 6 try r� / z \ 1yAs' (L r)1 ` Es 4/ I 2 '� e5 Jh saPART 3 M1tiy°h PLAN 40R-20211 heR ,. PART 22 PLAN 409-3423 Of•KIM`D4 at/ I& GRAVEL DRIVEWAY -�-- 09 1 UWEss) PART 21 - x 2 zroBoaO' w HEADSTONES 8, / PART 23 PLAN 40R-3423 1n IETusi`DNuzA ES � x 175150 w(vl49.I.®) 0 67 G 0 HEADSTONE 0 4480 HEADSTONE w .., `. \ Ch tiS`"-_.ys---2 rya=caAil DalcwA+• °' 4. W 46.835"' ry hth Y5=22(M. hy2a_K(P1)79� h� 911.06(Pl9Neo.) PART 1 PLAN 404-20211 PIN 26392-0177 (LT) - 178 - 5 PART 4 PLAN 40R-20211 PART 24 PLAN 409 3423 n7°-eo Tsssa. ono249 I IZ II II I I I HP AN SCHEDULE PART LOT CONCESSION PIN AREA PART OF PART OF 26392-0178 (LT) 2016.4 a9 M. PIN 26392-0178 (LT) - SUBJECT TO PICKERING AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS AS IN DR429021. PLAN SHOWING TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE LAYOUT DESIGN OF PROPOSED TELECOM TOWER INSTALLATION PART OF LOT 14 CONCESSION 9 (GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF PICKERING) CITY OF PICKERING REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM SCALE 1 500 J.D. BARNES LIMITED ONTARIO LAND SURVEYORS METRIC MIOTTREEEAD CAN0601006770»646106144046. NOTES E001 (d BT REAL TME INEiwORKNOBSERVAIIONi EURA ZONENl57 (ORP.) NAD83 (COTS) (2010). i0 CRID BT MULTPLYMC grE COMBMED SCAIEEACTOR Of 0.999849 WAS ung TO NB 2,Ts'ONPLOATN8PIN TOF COL% TO U1M GRID BEARINGS. AND S00ENR PROXIM1TDY (F UNOERCROUND ULI110S 14 2 CC OROANC6 697I�I RBURDEN SAE � n (a) aF O.NEc. szs/91. ELEVATIONS SHORN HEREON ARE RELATED TO GEODETIC DATUM AND ARE SERVICE ANCMREFERGTO MEENHi2_OA VUERTICALHSYS MRNET NENAIRK LEGEND O DENOTES MONUMENT PLANTED • DENOTES MONUMENT FOUND voT DENOTES WITNESS SIB DENOTES STANDARD IRON BARON BEA SSIB DENOTES SHORT STANDARD IB DENOTES IRON N 006 DENOTES H. FUN, O.L.S. 1095 DENOTES JOHN DOUG. CARTER LTD, 0.L.S. NI DENOTES NO IDENTIFIER PI DENOTES PLAN 40R-20211 HP DENOTES HYDRO POLE AN DENOTES ANCHOR -0C- DENOTES OVERHEAD CABLE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 1. THE FIELD WORK WAS COMPLETED ON THE AUGUST e. 2019. • NOVEMBER 5 2019 P CAUTION HOF ANY UNDERGROUND SERVICES ARE APPROXIMATE. OTHER BURIED U,LITIES MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION. CONTACT ALL POTENTIAL OWNERS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION REVISION 5. SHEET 3 2019. REVISION 4. TOWER PELF 22ND o LARGER D. AUGUST 19, 2019. REVISION 3, COMPOUND RELOCAND, AUGUST 13, 2019. REVISION 2' APPROXIMATE LOCAPON OF PUFFIN CREEK TRIBUTARY AND ESC DETAILS ADDED AS SHEET 2. MAY 24. 2019 REVISION 1: TOWER HEIGHT CHANGED. APRIL 17. 2015 SHARED NETWORK CANADA LATITUDE N 43 58 45.7 LONGITUDE W 791/628.8. ELEVATION 248 6rn SITE: SNC0120 CLAREMONT - UNION CEMETERY J.D.BARNES LIMITED o, LAND o�6HDR)49RPINFORMATION 11SPECIALISTS (905)417,600 F;(90.51 411.3882 4ww.yldram.m.m DRAM 13, ,«6 CHECKED 8, IAJF REFERENCE -12-00 (60ET1 OFA mr, G\9 \I DATED. DECEMBER fi, 2017 PLOTTED; 11/05/69 KEY PLAN (NOT TO SCALE) WESTNET RD SIDEUNE PIN 26392-0163 (LT) 0 0 6 SCALE 1:250.,o, 125 AD D ,. PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN ^'00 I I Res M105 LEASE°r• �1. AREA T H• 1 -1 J 10• I. \'.'\ :, rP \ TT,,� yj1 h1 Bo M11 EES PART 2 PLAN 40R-20211 P I N VACANT LAND EES 0 03 03 0 0 G 900 SCALE 1:200 13.00 2 o 12 00 // PART 1 PLAN 40R-19425 PIN 26392-0166 (LT) 6392 M,EYIAY E'12-1 TREES 0178 r- Doxma PENCE .- 0.50 0.50 50 NOTES cP OEourvOA S 0 sTEE� 00EW302201 0 00 00 01 &Von PLACE REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB (3.00 000901 0041 006L w0c400 41 n0N90 0010900 nuTlr..—.. RUSHED GRAVEL SURFACE TO BEMINma, ABOVE SEzAONEAuSI O MDN.AOEOUATEDRAINmAUGEC.NRES i0PPR0oBmT11i e42 xciaENsuPaaux oR1Tr rtNCE DED coMPOurvo. TREES ,°a e /l ,n,. 95 a 0 D° PART 3 \�-- ro PLAN 40R-20211 \_ M1y. $. PART 1 PLAN 40R-20211 PIN 26392-0177 (16) ELEVATION PLAN O u GRaOEErDPI AY Y 6 M1f 4, N�R0 09 PART 23 PLAN 406 3423 °f>a-eo TtFixosroi 3`oeg `M1,+'' HEADSTONE HEADSTONE M 5 •1 ��\ L— it_ o%�90r -- PART 22 PLAN 40R-3423 440 PART 4 PLAN 40R-20211 6 3 /g - 179 - 40 PART 24 PLAN 40R-3423 EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PART OF LOT 14 CONCESSION 9 (GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF PICKERING) CITY OF PICKERING REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM SCALE 1 : 500 J.D. BARNES LIMITED c0PralcxTONTARIO LAND SURbEY0R5 © zm9 METRIC cTREs As CAN BE C00`ON82R111E0 io 473001 DINOINC BTRO302o. CAUTION lirrEY INFORMATION HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND HAS Oi BEEN V£RIFlED BY FlELD SURVEY. BENCHMARK EERIVERRO NT CREOBSERVATON USBNG MEOPOWERNET NEIWJRKRE SERNCE AND REFER TO THE HT2_0A VERTICAL SYSTEM. PERSPECTIVE VIEW u� SECTION VIEW A >m ... �. ..w re. V• AL, PLAN OF SILT FENCE BARRIER ONTARIO PROVINCIAL STANDARD DRARI NG HEAVY DUTY SILT FENCE BARRIER OPSD — 219 30 LEGEND DENOTESHP DENOTES HYDRO POLE AN DENOTES ANCHOR OVERHEAD CABLE —0— DENOTESPROPOSED SILT FENCE REVISION 6: SHEET 2 SILT FENCE UPDATED, DECEMBER 5, 2019. REASION 5: SHEET NOVEMBER 2019. REVISION 3 PELEv 000DLLA D. AUGUST 19. 2019 REVISION 3, COMPOUND RELOCATED, AUGUST 13, 2019. IMATE LOCATION OF DUFFIN'S CREEK TRIBUTARY AND S REVISION 1: TOWER HEIGHT CHANGED, APRIL 171 r 24, 2018 20 9 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION 1 GEID 1. WORK was COMPLETED ON THE AUGUST 8, 2019. DA, DECEMBER 6. 2019 CAUTION LOCATIONS OF ANY UNDERGROUND SERVICES ARE APPROXIMATE, OTHER BURIED UTILRIES MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION. CONTACT ALL POTENTIAL OWNERS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION SHARED NETWORK CANADA LATITUDE 8 45,7 LONGITUDE W 79.06.25.5, ELEVATION 240 Sm SITE: SNC0120 CLAREMONT — UNION CEMETERY J.D.BARNESL AND INFORMATION SPEC A LISTS RB004WDRNGR1>1E100.MAR«9AM ON 13018 :1003)477-390 .(000)417.3002 3310wwwAdbarnes.com 11/00 MJR \ Sur ww\n-Isle\ro\uorne\I]-33.31D F IJ15-l HTE --00 (SHEET s DP 31 PLOTTED 31/00/19 ELEVATION PLAN NOT TO SCALE OUTER SURFACE =300.00 TOWER TOP =293.6 E 1 - AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT =255.Om V GROUND =248.6 REVISION 5: SHEET 3 (ELEVATION PLAN) ADDED, NOVEMBER 5, 2019. TL DRAWN GM CHECKED . J.D]� T N ^ SURVP.VING L LKi L/�, j`` FLJ n LAPPING DATED: LIMITED C S S NOV. 5, 2019 LAND INFORMATION SPECIALISTS Ref. No. 140 RENFREW DRIVE, SUITE 100, MARKHAM, ON L3R 6B3 9-15-112-00 T: (905) 477-3600 F: (905) 477-3882 www.jdbarnes.com SHHET 3 OF 3 180 \Surveys\17-15-112\00\Drawing\17-15-112-00D.dgn 01 0 w H 0 J a