HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 10, 2020Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
Present:
Deputy Mayor Kevin Ashe
Councillors:
M. Brenner
S. Butt
I. Cumming
B. McLean
D. Pickles
Absent:
Mayor David Ryan
Also Present:
M. Carpino
K. Bentley
J. Yoshida
S. Cassel
C. Rose
N. Surti
C. Morrison
F. Chau
L. Harker
1. Roll Call
- Interim Chief Administrative Officer
- Director, City Development & CBO
- (Acting) Fire Chief
- City Clerk
- Chief Planner
- Manager, Development Review & Urban Design
- Planner II
- Planner I
- Deputy Clerk
The City Clerk certified that all Members of the Committee were present and participating
electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20, with the exception of Mayor Ryan who
was absent due to illness.
2. Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
3. Statutory Public Meetings
Councillor Cumming, Chair, gave an outline of the requirements for a Statutory Public
Meeting under the Planning Act. He outlined the notification process procedures and also
noted that if a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City
before the By-law is passed, that person or public body are not entitled to appeal the
decision of City Council to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), and may not be
1
Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
entitled to be added as a party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of LPAT, there are
reasonable grounds to do so.
Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, appeared before the Committee to act as facilitator for
the Statutory Public Meeting portion of the meeting, explaining the process for discussion
purposes as well as the order of speakers.
3.1 Information Report No. 10-20
Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18
Highmark (Pickering) Inc.
Lots 1, 2, 43 & 46, Plan 316 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1
(1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road)
A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of
informing the public with respect to the above -noted application.
Cody Morrison, Planner II, provided the Committee with an overview of Official
Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P and Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 11/18. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Morrison
outlined the location plan, and noted that the initial application had been submitted
in 2018 with a revised proposal submitted by the applicant on May 6, 2020. He
provided an overview of the revised proposal, and noted that the Official Plan
amendment seeks to increase the maximum permitted residential density on Block
1, and Block 2 is proposed to be rezoned to an appropriate open space category
to permit passive and active recreational uses. Mr. Morrison outlined the potential
recreational uses for Block 2, and outlined public comments and matters identified
by Staff for further review and consideration.
Mike Pettigrew, The Biglieri Group Ltd., on behalf of Highmark (Pickering) Inc.,
joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Pettigrew noted that the
2018 proposal was for a mix of stacked townhomes and apartments, and that the
revised submission is for a 14 and 18 storey building, and a daycare facility. Mr.
Pettigrew noted that the stacked townhouses had been removed from the
application due to the height impacts in relation to the surrounding neighbourhood,
as well as a major change to the proposed connection to the hydro corridor via the
single lot on Guild Road which was identified as the most appropriate location to
provide public access for the proposed parkland. Mr. Pettigrew stated that in
redesigning the site, they looked at relocating units within the apartment buildings,
transition massing and urban design along the Kingston Road corridor, especially
where adjacent to existing residential. He noted that the factors used in
determining the appropriateness of the height in the new application were
ensuring compliance with the angular plane, and consideration of the shadow
2
Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
impacts, noting that the taller building is proposed for the west side, resulting in
the shadows being absorbed by the 14 storey building. Mr. Pettigrew noted that
this stretch of Kingston road is slated to be a rapid bus transit line, and that transit
oriented and supported development are intended within this corridor. Mr.
Pettigrew further noted that the height and densities proposed in the application
are in line with the Official Plan, and that the lands are appropriate for new infill
and intensification. Mr. Pettigrew stated that concerns had been raised regarding
traffic, and that in the previous application, a traffic impact study had been drafted
and at that time, the Region and the City noted no significant concerns, but that
they are still awaiting official comments at this time. Mr. Pettigrew noted that the
proposed parking in the revised application would generate the same number of
residential parking spaces, as the apartments would generate less vehicular
demand and would be more transit supported.
Rob Rollings, 1974 Guild Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection. Mr. Rollings noted strong support for the development of this site, as
the site is currently an eyesore, but stated that this development is not the answer.
He expressed concerns regarding the negative traffic impacts on Guild Road, and
that the proposed density of the development is much higher than what is
currently in the area. He noted that both of these issues were identified at the
previous meeting and in the petition that had been submitted to the City, and that
the revised application does not address these issues. Mr. Rollings stated that a
second petition had been submitted to the City requesting that the application be
denied, and that these signatures reflect the overwhelming support for the refusal
of this application. Mr. Rollings noted that there are currently 29 homes on Guild
Road, and that the application includes 346 proposed new units, to be accessed
via Guild Road, resulting in a 1200% increase in traffic. He added that with the
addition of the new daycare, and the units being proposed, there would be a
negative impact on this quiet street. Mr. Rollings further noted that at the end of
Guild Road there are two residential care homes for children and youth with
disabilities, and that these homes require numerous pick-ups and drop offs with
specialized vehicles, resulting in greater traffic congestion, longer delays, and
potential issues with emergency vehicles on the street. Mr. Rollings noted that the
proposed parking space of less than 1 spot per unit is not realistic, and noted that
overflow parking would end up on Guild Road. He stated that the traffic impact
studies conducted took place on Finch Road and Kingston Road, and that the
traffic impacts to Guild Road have been ignored. Mr. Rollings noted the new
development at 1555 Kingston Road and that it had a new entrance onto Kingston
Road, and requested that this development also have an entrance onto Kingston
Road to reduce the traffic impacts on Guild Road.
Alan Jeffs, 1995 Royal Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection.
Mr. Jeffs made reference to documents he had submitted to the City prior to the
3
Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
meeting, noting that he is a 7 year resident of Royal Road and supports the
redevelopment of this site in a responsible way with minimal or no adverse
impacts on residents and the surrounding area. He noted that there had been very
little reliance on the City's plans and guidelines in this application, and that
developers have an obligation to prepare a design that complements existing
neighbourhoods without causing adverse impacts on existing neighbourhoods.
He stated that there should be low to mid rise development in this area, and that
the proposed density is 2.5 times higher than what is provided for on these lands.
Mr. Jeffs commented that these issues were identified in the original submission,
and were not only ignored in the revised submission, but in some cases, have
been exacerbated. Mr. Jeffs noted that this is both a Guild Road and Kingston
Road development, and that since the public meeting, the highest priority
concerns, including traffic volume, onsite and surface level parking, density,
height, and matters relating to the interface of the development and the
neighbourhood and character of the neighbourhood, have not been addressed. He
stated that he is looking for responsible re -development of these properties, and
asked that the applicant align their application with the City's requirements and
move the site access from Guild Road to Kingston Road.
Rick Gallant, 1961 Guild Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection.
Mr. Gallant noted that he shared the concerns outlined by the previous
delegations. He expressed further concerns regarding car headlights shining into
his house, and questioned where individuals visiting the park area would park their
cars. Mr. Gallant expressed further concerns regarding the potential impact on
property values, the shadow effects on his property, and increased traffic.
Elizabeth Snowden, 1991 Guild Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection. Ms. Snowden noted that Guild Road is a lovely, quiet street in the
middle of a busy area, and is one of Pickering's best kept secrets. Ms. Snowden
expressed concerns with traffic, the increase in density, and incompatibility with
the character of the existing community. She further noted that there are two
residential care homes for children and youth with disabilities on Guild Road, and
that most of these children are in wheelchairs and require specialized transit,
which can take considerable time to load, and leaves little room for other cars to
get by when the transit vehicles are stopped. Ms. Snowden noted that she has
witnessed many near misses with cars attempting to go around these vehicles,
and noted that this safety issue would only increase if traffic volumes increase,
and it would become increasingly difficult for residents to exit their driveways. Ms.
Snowden stated that this development would completely change the character of
the community, and that this corner does need to be developed. She requested
that the city and developer develop the space in a way that honors the community
and ensures that the character of the neighbourhood remains intact.
4
Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
Steve Gilchrist, 1995 Royal Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection. Mr. Gilchrist noted that he is a 16 year resident of Royal Road, and
that the application is completely at odds with the peaceful, low density nature of
the neighbourhood and the long term interests of the City. Mr. Gilchrist noted that
he is aware that City Staff must present all received planning applications to the
Committee, but questioned why this process occurs following the applicant hiring
consultants for studies, and that the onus should be on the applicant to prove the
merits of the application prior to submission. Mr. Gilchrist further questioned why
the City was considering an application that is in opposition to its Intensification
By-law. Mr. Gilchrist noted that for 50 years this lot has held a variety of retail
uses, and that homeowners were aware there would be a limited amount of traffic
when purchasing their properties, and that all of the traffic from this development
would exit onto Kingston Road. Mr. Gilchrist noted that the City recently approved
an intensification project by Marshall Homes at 1555 Kingston Road that had
lower densities than those being proposed in this application, and questioned if
Council and Planning Staff were being thoughtful, respectful of the needs of the
neighbourhood, and consistent in applying the Intensification By-law, and if so,
why they were considering an application with increased densities. He expressed
concerns regarding an increase in traffic, couriers, food delivery, on street parking
safety and access issues for existing residents, and suggested that the people
that would buy these apartments would buy at least one car and are not likely to
use local transit. Mr. Gilchrist requested that the City reject the application, and
consider an application similar to the Marshall Homes application in density and
height, and that there be an exit exclusively onto Kington Road.
There were no further delegations from the public.
Mike Pettigrew, The Biglieri Group Ltd., returned to respond to questions raised by
the delegations, noting that he has heard the comments and would bring these
forward to Highmark (Pickering) Inc., for consideration, and that they were also
waiting for comments from other agencies on a number of issues. Mr. Pettigrew
responded to comments regarding the access onto Kingston Road, noting that the
current access is not within the applicant's property, and that there is no
opportunity to use that access road for this development. Mr. Pettigrew made
reference to the Marshall Homes Development, noting that the Region of Durham
does not allow access to a Regional road when access is available from a local
street, and that the Marshall Homes Development had a joint access onto
Kingston Road, and it was not a similar situation. He noted that they are awaiting
comments from City Staff regarding the conformity of the application, that the
development is in line with the City's requirements to support future transit goals,
and that the daycare is an opportunity to provide a service for the local
community. He noted that methods to curb on street parking would be considered,
and that although this may be the first application that provides increased density
5
Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
and urban form development on Kingston Road, that it won't be the last. Mr.
Pettigrew concluded, stating that the shadow study uses the Fall and Spring
equinox, which ensures that the orientation and height of the buildings do not
create significant lasting shadows on the properties on the north and east side,
and would not impede on the ability for people to use their yards or amenity
spaces.
A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, Mike
Pettigrew, and City Staff regarding:
• whether the City could enter into a lease with Hydro One to use the access
onto Kingston Road for this development;
• whether the intersection of Kingston Road and Guild Road would be
signalized;
• the lands within the hydro corridor that were being proposed for public park
purposes and what would occur with these lands if the lease with Hydro
One was not renewed for a further 5 years;
• what potential recreational uses would be located within the hydro corridor;
• the size of the proposed daycare;
• whether the development would include the requirement that 25% of the
homes were affordable housing;
• parking ratios and how this would be determined for the daycare centre;
• whether the City would be reviewing this application in light of the Kingston
Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study -
Intensification Plan and Draft Urban Design Guidelines;
• whether the Region of Durham would be reviewing issues such as traffic
lights and Kingston Road transit issues, how these comments are provided
back to the City for review, and whether the comments would have a
significant impact on the final approval;
• discussions with the Region of Durham regarding access to the
development being required from Guild Road and the possibility of it being
from Kingston Road; and,
• whether the parking allotment for the daycare centre would be included
within the final number of residential parking spots.
3.2 Information Report No. 11-20
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/20
Ann Harbour Estates Ltd.
Part Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C.; Now Part 1, 40R-20148
(631 Liverpool Road)
6
Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of
informing the public with respect to the above -noted application.
Felix Chau, Planner I, provided the Committee with an overview of Zoning By-law
Amendment Application A 04/20. Through the aid of a PowerPoint application, Mr.
Chau provided an overview of the property location and surrounding land uses,
noting that the property currently contains a 3 -storey mixed-use building with a
total gross floor area of approximately 950 square metres. Mr. Chau noted that on
August 22, 2018, the Committee of Adjustment approved a Minor Variance
Application to permit a private school on a temporary basis, subject to a number of
conditions, and that the applicant had submitted a rezoning application to permit a
permanent private school use with a maximum of 50 students and 4 rental
apartment dwelling units. Mr. Chau provided an overview of key matters that Staff
have identified for further review.
Morry Edelstein, RAI Architect Inc., representing the applicant, joined the
electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Edelstein noted that he was joined by
Nick Spingos, property owner, and Nicola Phillips, Head of Montessori Learning
Centre, for questions if required. Mr. Edelstein noted that the application was to
permit the existing private school which was temporarily permitted by a minor
variance in 2018, to remain as a permanent use. He noted that the school had
been successfully operating for the last two years, and that they would like to
continue to occupy the ground floor and basement. Mr. Edelstein stated that the
proposal includes the conversion of the existing dwelling unit and the accessory
dwelling unit into 4 apartment dwelling units and noted that the school is in
operation from September to June, and would not conflict with the increased
summer activities that occur in the area. He stated that many residents in the area
have commented favorably on the school remaining in operation and that the 2
proposed apartment units facing Liverpool Road are spacious units with balconies
facing Liverpool Road, however, through consultation with the neighbours, it was
determined that the units facing east would not have balconies, but rather sliding
glass doors, as the neighbours felt that balconies would encroach on their privacy.
Mr. Edelstein further noted that the traffic review indicated that the proposed
parking spaces exceed the required number of spaces, and that the school won't
have any negative traffic impacts in the area.
There were no delegations from the public.
A question and answer period ensued regarding whether there was an outdoor
play area, with Nicola Phillips, Head of Montessori Learning Centre, noting that
there was no mandated requirement for a permanent onsite playground, but that
the school uses area parks, the waterfront, and the rooftop amenity space. Further
questions ensued regarding the building rendering, with Nick Spingos, property
7
Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
owner, advising Members of the Committee that there are pictures on their
website which depict how the building looks. Ms. Phillips responded to questions
regarding the school calendar, noting that the school operates from September to
June, with no summer classes.
4. Delegations
4.1 Doug Cummings
Claremont Union Cemetery
Re: Report PLN 14-20
Proposed Telecommunication Tower
Shared Network Canada
Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211
(2170 Ninth Concession Road)
Installation #66
Doug Cummings, Claremont Union Cemetery, joined the electronic meeting via
audio connection. Mr. Cummings noted that he and his wife are the Directors of
the Claremont Union Cemetery that they are in support of this application and that
in Report PLN 14-20, Attachment #6, the number of those in support of the
application exceed those against it. Mr. Cummings noted that at the June 2019
Planning & Development Committee meeting, this Report was referred back to
Staff for further review, and since then, there have been a number of discussions
with neighbours and local farmers regarding the lack of cellular and internet
access, and that in discussions with Bell Canada, there is not likely to be
increased service in the near future. He further noted that there are multiple dead
zones, noting that the Hamlet of Claremont borders on the Oak Ridges Moraine,
which has multiple dips and valleys. Mr. Cummings noted that adequate cell
service is as much of a tool as a wrench for farmers, and that there could be
emergency situations that leave them without the ability to call for help. Mr.
Cummings noted that this issue is of prime importance to the safety of the
community, and that with more telecommunications towers, access to reliable and
secure internet and cellular service would be available to all residents.
4.2 Aghlab Al-Joundi
Re: Report PLN 14-20
Proposed Telecommunication Tower
Shared Network Canada
Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211
(2170 Ninth Concession Road)
Installation #66
8
Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
Aghlab Al-Joundi, a Pickering resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection. Mr. Al-Joundi, stated that he has never experienced issues with
Internet or cellular connections in Pickering, nor did he know anyone in the area
that has experienced such issues, and that 11 people have noted their opposition
to the installation of this tower. Mr. Al-Joundi noted that the City's Report from
2019 stated that the tower does not meet the requirements with respect to design
and location and would have a significant negative visual impact on the area. He
further noted that nothing from the 2019 Report has changed and that the tower
was only moved 100 metres and the profile has been narrowed at the top. He
stated that principally the objection is about the height, and that the proposed
tower is still as tall as a 15 storey building. He referenced the distances of the
tower in relation to the existing residences and a future residence, on a lot
adjacent to the cemetery, noting it was too close and would negatively impact the
area. Mr. Al-Joundi questioned why the City was approving this tower now, when
the original proposal had been to reject the application in 2019. Mr. Al-Joundi
requested more time to understand the criteria for approving the tower installation.
A question and answer period ensued with Members of the Committee asking Mr.
Al-Joundi what type of device and service he was using to be connected into the
virtual Planning & Development Committee Meeting, and whether he had
experienced any issues with his Internet connection. Mr. Al-Joundi responded to
further questions from Members of the Committee regarding the visibility of the
proposed telecommunications tower, noting that it would be very visible. Mr. Al-
Joundi further noted that he is unaware of any local residents complaining about
issues with their Internet or cellular service.
4.3 Dom Claros
Shared Network Canada
Re: Report PLN 14-20
Proposed Telecommunication Tower
Shared Network Canada
Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211
(2170 Ninth Concession Road)
Installation #66
Dom Claros, Shared Network Canada, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection. Mr. Claros stated that Shared Network Canada has been working with
the City for 3 years on this application, and that the process began by identifying a
location based on the needs of national carriers, noting that some carriers do have
adequate service in the area. Mr. Claros noted that Shared Network Canada was
looking to bring increased service to Claremont and the surrounding community.
In determining a location, Mr. Claros stated that they looked primarily at City
owned properties, and that following this, they looked at non-profit properties or
9
Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
properties that would benefit the community as a whole, and that is how the
Claremont Union Cemetery was selected. Mr. Claros noted that they have worked
with many stakeholders, and that the criteria established by Transport Canada
and NAV Canada specifies that the maximum height for structures is 300 metres
above sea level, it is difficult to find areas that can support a tower. He
commented that most of the land surrounding the Hamlet of Claremont is owned
by the Government of Ontario, and is designated for future use and not to be used
for immediate transfer of the property, and there is contention regarding what the
land would be used for in the future. Mr. Claros stated that due to these
constrictions, the Cemetery is one of the only properties that they could use to
provide adequate cellular and internet coverage without infringing on government
land and maintaining the setback requirements from Transport Canada and NAV
Canada. Mr. Claros noted that when the original proposal was deferred in June
2019, Shared Network Canada worked with the City to review other lands for a
tower to provide service to the area, and that during this time they heard from
many residents enquiring about the status of the tower as it would provide a
benefit of increased service. Mr. Claros noted that they did not find another
adequate location, but that they did move the proposed tower as far away from
current residents to the most easterly part of cemetery property line. He further
noted that over the last 6 months, they had held public consultations, and had
received unsolicited feedback from many residents that want a tower in this area,
demonstrating the strength of proposal. Mr. Claros requested that the application
not be deferred again.
A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and
Dom Claros, Shared Network Canada, regarding:
• whether tower spots would be rented or sold to national carriers;
• whether 5G technology would be supported on the tower now or in future;
• whether a smaller tower could address the coverage needs for residents;
• which carriers would be on the tower, and whether all national carriers
would be invited to join the tower to extend their coverage;
• whether roaming charges would apply if residents used a different carrier
than their own;
• whether Bell or Rogers had identified a gap in cellular coverage in
Claremont;
• the area that the tower would cover and whether it would cover all of
Claremont; and,
• whether Shared Network Canada was seeking any Federal funding
opportunities for towers in rural areas.
4.4 David Donnelly
Donnelly Law
Re: Report PLN 14-20
10
Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
Proposed Telecommunication Tower
Shared Network Canada
Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211
(2170 Ninth Concession Road)
Installation #66
David Donnelly, Donnelly Law, representing the owners of 2220 Ninth Concession
Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection. Mr. Donnelly stated that
he had been retained to provide an opinion, and in consultation with Allan
Ramsay, Senior Land Use Planner, they were of the opinion that this proposal
should be deferred for at least 30 days to allow residents to thoroughly review the
proposal and make submissions. Mr. Donnelly noted that this Report was only
released 6 business days prior to the meeting and did not give residents sufficient
time to review and address the issues raised. Mr. Donnelly further noted that a
letter had been sent to the City Clerk on August 7th, but that due to the limited time
prior to the meeting, a supplemental submission was also provided to the City
Clerk today, along with Mr. Ramsay's report. Mr. Donnelly noted that if Members
of Committee did not see fit to defer this item, that the alternative would be that
they recommend the City send a strong message to Industry Canada that
Pickering does not support a tower in this area for the following reasons:
1. The City of Pickering Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna
Systems Protocol (Cell Tower Protocol) discourages the installation of
towers in areas of high visual or topographic prominence and the tower
proposed is in a high prominence area.
2. The tower is adjacent to 3 existing dwellings and would be located 40
metres or less of a future dwelling, which is in violation of the City's Cell
Tower Protocol.
3. The location of the proposed cell tower is on a cemetery which is
considered an institutional use. The City of Pickering Radiocommunication
and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Protocol notes that there should be
maximum separation of institutional and cell tower land use and that there
are numerous preferred alternative sites noted by Mr. Ramsay, and that he
should be given the opportunity to share these alternative sites with the
proponent and the City.
4. No visual impact assessment was provided to the proponent or Staff.
Residents should be given the opportunity to peer review the visual impact
assessment report.
5. The City of Pickering Fill and Topsoil Disturbance By-law 6060/02 applies in
this case. Residents should be provided with geotechnical and site
alteration information prior to a decision being made by the Committee.
11
Cty oh
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
6. Health impacts relating to the cell tower, including the impacts of 5G
technology. The matter should be deferred until the applicant confirms that
the 5G proposal would be put through a proper assessment in which the
public can participate.
7. The City's Cell Tower Protocol speaks to encouraged and discouraged
locations, and in both cases public lands are preferable to private lands but
this is not demonstrated to be an effective mitigation technique. The
preference should be that towers are located on lands that create the least
impact to residents and the public.
Mr. Donnelly expressed concern that residents have not been included in the
application submission. He noted that the City of Pickering's Sustainable
Placemaking Policy outlines questions that should be asked when reviewing a cell
tower application such as "Is it beautiful?", "Do people want to use the space?",
and that this proposal does not pose questions as outlined in the Policy and does
not address them. Mr. Donnelly noted that the Sustainable Placemaking Policy
also suggests that Council draw on the expertise of the community, and that this
has not been leveraged by Staff. Mr. Donnelly noted that the release of the Report
did not provide adequate time for residents to respond. He recommended that this
proposal not proceed and that a deferral should be granted to afford an
opportunity for Mr. Ramsay's opinion to be circulated to allow for community
engagement. Mr. Donnelly noted that the proposed location is an area of prime
agriculture, just metres from Duffins Creek, and that future public services should
be located in areas that avoid the most sensitive areas, such as Duffins Creek and
the Oak Ridges Moraine. In closing, Mr. Donnelly noted that more work is
necessary to determine the appropriate location for the cell tower, and requested
a deferral of the item this evening.
5. Planning & Development Reports
5.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 14-20
Proposed Telecommunication Tower
Shared Network Canada
Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211
(2170 Ninth Concession Road)
Installation #66
Recommendation:
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor Butt
12
Cfl h
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
That Report PLN 14-20, be deferred to the September 14, 2020 Planning &
Development Committee meeting, to give time for those involved to submit
information and rationale regarding the decision making process.
6. Other Business
There was no other business.
7. Adjournment
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor Butt
That the meeting be adjourned.
The meeting adjourned at 9:49 pm.
13
Carried
Carried