HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 16-19ars Of
DICKERING
Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: PLN 16-19
Date: June 17, 2019
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 objects to the proposal for a
46.0 metre high tri -pole lattice style telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth
Concession Road, based on the design and location of the proposal.
Executive Summary: Shared Network Canada has submitted a proposal to construct a 46.0 metre
high tri -pole lattice style telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road within the
Claremont Union Cemetery (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #1).
Shared Network Canada has completed the public consultation process in accordance with the
City's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol (Cell Tower Protocol).
The key concerns expressed by one area resident were related to loss of property values
associated with the proposed cell tower, and the business model of the proponent. Two public
comments were received in support of the proposed tower.
City staff have reviewed the proposed installation against the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The
tower is to be located in a rural residential area within 500 metres of 8 residential properties.
Shared Network Canada has not considered alternative tower designs or screening measures, as
recommended under the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The proposed tower does not meet the
requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location, and will have a
significant visual impact on the immediate area. Staff recommends that Shared Network Canada
be advised that Council objects to the proposed telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth
Concession Road, based on the design and other details submitted with the application.
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed
development.
Report PLN 16-19 June 17, 2019
Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 2
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, Attachments #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 cell tower is proposed to be located is zoned Oak
Ridges Moraine Institutional Zone ("(H)ORM-I-2") by Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by
By-law 6640/06. A telecommunication tower is a permitted use under the public utilities
exemption of Zoning By-law 3037.
1.2 Applicant's Proposal
Shared Network Canada is proposing a 46.0 metre high tripole lattice -style telecommunication
tower at 2170 Ninth Concession Road. The tower is proposed to be located in the
north-west corner of the property where no burials have occurred (see Submitted Draft
Reference Plan, Attachment #2).
The proposed tower will be contained within a fenced compound area measuring 10.0 metres
by 10.0 metres in size. Also proposed within the fenced compound are three 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 Submitted Elevation and Compound
Plan, Attachment #3).
Access to the tower and ground equipment will be provided by a new north -south 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.
2. Comments Received
2.1 City Departments & Agency Comments
Engineering Services • No comments
2.2 Public Notification has been completed
Shared Network Canada has completed the public consultation in accordance with the
City's Cell Tower Protocol. As this proposal is located in 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 May 10, 2018
edition of the News Advertiser. A Public Notice sign was also posted at the front of the
subject property along Ninth Concession Road on May 10, 2018.
Report PLN 16-19
Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66
June 17, 2019
Page 3
The applicant has advised that written comments were received from three households
as a result of the circulation (see Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report,
Attachment #4). Written comments received from the adjacent property owner to the west
expressed concerns related to:
• the perceived impacts on property value associated with the proposed cell tower
• the business model of the applicant, which is to maximize revenues by erecting and
operating for profit the maximum number 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 two other households expressed support for the proposed cell
tower, citing that they experience unreliable cellular and internet services on a daily basis.
The letters indicated that they believe the proposed cell tower will improve such services
and their quality of life.
Staff also received written comments from the adjacent property owner to the east. The
owners sought clarification regarding future building permit implications to their lands as a
result of the proposed tower location. City staff confirmed that the proposed tower at the
Claremont Union Cemetery would not preclude the ability to obtain a building permit for
their lands.
3. Assessment of the Proposal against the City's CeII Tower Protocol
The City's CeII Tower Protocol was established to provide direction for proponents on the
location and design of antenna towers and provides criteria for staff, in order to assess a
proposal. City Development staff have reviewed the proposed cell tower against the
location and design criteria of the City's CeII Tower Protocol (the Protocol).
3.1 The proposal does not maintain the location criteria of the City's Protocol
The Protocol specifies "preferred" and "discouraged" locations for new antenna systems
in order 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.
Though the tower is proposed on a non-residential property, the location of the proposed
tower does not meet the City's preferred location criteria as it is located on an elevated
site that has topographical prominence within a residential area. The proposed tower is
located within approximately 100 metres of the closest residential dwelling and less than
500 metres away from 7 additional residential dwellings.
Report PLN 16-19
Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66
June 17, 2019
Page 4
The location of the proposed tower will have significant visual impacts on the immediate
property owners, due to the higher elevation of the subject lands and the close proximity
of the tower to residential properties.
3.2 The proposal does not incorporate the design considerations of the City's Protocol
The Protocol outlines specific design criteria that is required to be maintained in order to
minimize the visual impact of an antenna system on the surrounding area. The criteria
requires designs that:
• 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 proposed tower does not maintain the criteria established by the Protocol. The design
recommendations outlined have not been incorporated into the proposal. The location of
the tower does not lend itself to utilizing stealth techniques such as a flagpole or tree
design as the surrounding area is rural and does not benefit from having mature vegetation.
However, alternative design techniques or alterations, which would limit the visual impact
on the abutting residential properties, were not considered by the applicant for the
proposed tower. A monopole tower with covered antennas and an overall reduction in the
height of the proposed tower from 46.0 metres, could contribute to reducing the visual
impact of the tower on adjacent residents.
3.3 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 service
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.
Report PLN 16-19 June 17, 2019
Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 5
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.
Following the Public Consultation process, City Staff requested that the applicant examine
alternative properties for the proposed tower, which were further from residential dwellings.
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.
City Staff requested the applicant explore relocating the proposed tower in an alternative
location on the subject lands, in order to maximize the distance from residential dwellings
and provide additional screening. Shared Networked Canada advised that the tower was
unable to be relocated on the subject lands as the majority of the lands were already
occupied, and the Claremont Union Cemetery intends to expand the existing cemetery on
the balance of the lands.
4. Conclusion
The proposal has been circulated and reviewed in accordance with the City's CeII Tower
Protocol. Staff recommend that City Council endorse the recommendation in this report as
the installation does not satisfy the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with
respect to design and location requirements. 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.
Attachments
1. Air Photo Map
2. Submitted Draft Reference Plan
3. Submitted Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan
4. Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report
Report PLN 16-19 June 17, 2019
Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 6
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Cody o on
Plan er I
Nilesh S rti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
& Urban Design
CM:Id
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
,-;bc
Kyle Bentley, P.Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
312.01'
•
ATTACHMENT # 1 TO
REPORT # PIM I10 -I9
Proposed
Tower
Location
Cf,
Air Photo Map
File: Installation #66
o
PICKERING
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: May. 28, 2019
9 The Caond'on of lheCM of Ptd ng Produced On part) under ltense ban® Oueens Pnrter, Ortao Maistry of Natural ea.
ry
MI rights reserved.A Her Majesty then Canada, tlueen Right at da, De partner! of Natl./ Resources All rights reserved.;
9Terani Erearprees Ina and is suppliers al dolts reserved; 0 Mu ntlpal PropatyAuessrMrl Corporelun and b suppliers al rights reserved;
SCALE: 1:10,000
THIS IS !IOTA RAN OF SURVEY.
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPUR1 # P1- 16-19
Proposed Tower
Location
n nares-( 1.4)(nc6Pq
n >rnnv pxw (v isry n)
Pas
3{Y
z
O y
N P
RI
al
1
30
,SA*, 1 - .;:Q dw
t
Vy D^F�
. "�
Ninth Concession Road
1
city oiJ
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Submitted Draft Reference Plan
File: Installation #66
Applicant: Shared Networks Canada
Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211
(2170 Ninth Concession Road)
DATE: May 7, 2019
ATTACHMENT # 3_ "i
REPORT # 1(0-1__.
ELEVATION PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
E
to
OUTER SURFACE
=300.00
TOWER TOP
=299.5
U
AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT
=255.Om
a0
cc in
a0
J 11
0
GROUND
=253.50
PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN
SCALE 1:200
0
0
0
10.00
r
1
I
L
El
3m J L 3m J
64 4
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Submitted Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan
File: Installation #66
Applicant: Shared Networks Canada
Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211
(2170 Ninth Concession Road)
DATE: May 7, 2019
111. shared network
CANADA
May 13, 2019
Town of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # 'I_N I. —
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 8
Conclusion 9
Appendix A — AZR (Airport Zoning) Report
Appendix B — Detailed Site Profile
Appendix C — Public Consultation Comments / Responses
Appendix D — Public Consultation Proofs
Appendix E — Site Survey
1
1" shared network
CANADA
Introduction
ATTACHMENT #_ =TO
REPORT # P1.N1�—I9
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
r shared network
CANADA
Coverage Objective
ATTACHMENT # 1-1 TO
REPORT # NLN ib -19I
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
shared network
CANA
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
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
r shared network
CANADA
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # PLN 16 -19
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
Cit. shared network
CANA
ATTACHMENT # 4 TO
REPORT # PLN u, -1q
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.
• _ is an owner that was interested but his property is surrounded by many residential
properties abutting in very close proximity.
6
0 shared network
CANADA
Site Profile
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
TO
The proposed tripole tower, as depicted by the sample photos included as "Appendix B".
7
shared network
CANADA
ATTACHMENT # `f TO
REPORT # PLN Ho to -I9
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.
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".
8
shared network
CANAA
Conclusion
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
TO
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 per -tains 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.
9
shared network ATTACHMENT #__
CANADA REPORT # PL
e i°�
Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via email at
dom@shared network. ca .
Dom Claros
d om@sha red network. ca
10
shared network ATTACHMENT #
CANADA REPORT#
Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance
LN .`j0
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/regsery/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.
11
shared network REPORT # ATTACHMENT TO
C
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) 360-8197
municipaIc 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
55 St. Clair Avenue East, Room 909
Toronto ON M4T 1 M2
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
12
shared network ATTACHMENT #
CANADA REPORT# J j(c l
Appendix A
13
ATTACHMENT
REPORT # PL
December 6, 2017
Dom Clams
Shared Network Canada
275 MacPherson Ave, Unit 103
PO Box 69010
Toronto ON M4V 1A4
TO
Ib -1'
.D.BARNES
i ANtJ INre)k YiAi rrrN 5p1clAt ISIS
E-MAIL
Re: SURVEYOR'S ATTESTATION
Airport Zoning Regulations Report
SNC0120 CLAREMONT—UNION CEMETERY
Site: 5205 Regional Road 5, Pickering ON
Part of Lot 14, Concession 9 Geographic Township of Pickering
PIN 26392-0178 (LT)
JDB File 17-15-112-00
Dear Sir/Madam:
This report details the proposed tower installation with respect to Pickering Airport 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 (Part of PIN 26392-0178), in the
City of Pickering.
This location lies within the Outer Surface as defined by the Pickering Airport Zoning Regulations
SOR/2004-212.
No obstruction is permitted above an elevation of 300.0m (984.25') at the location of proposed
telecommunications tower described below (in NAD83 Coordinates):
Proposed Tower Centre:
Ground Elev. @ Proposed Tower:
Airport Reference Point Elevation:
Top of Proposed Tower Elevation:
Outer Surface:
Latitude N 43°58'44.7"
253.5m (831.69')
255.0m (836.6')
299.5m (982.61')
300.0m (984.25')
Longitude W 79°06'33.5"
This information is depicted on Plan Showing Topography and Site Layout Design 17-15-112-00
dated December 6, 2017.
140 Renfrew
Surveying I Planning 1 Mapping 1 GIS
Drive I Suite 100 ( Markham I Ontario I L3R 6B3
T: 19051477-3600 I F: 19051477-3882
www.ldbarnes.com
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
N
TO
Page 2
In summary, based on a proposed tower height of 46m, there is 0.5m (1.64') clearance from tower
top to the plane of the Outer Surface.
Yours Truly,
J.D.BARNES LIMITED
M.J.Fisher, P.Eng, OLS
MF
Surveying 1 Planning 1 Mapping 1 GIS
140 Renfrew .Drive ( Suite 100 I Markham I Ontario I L3R 6B3
T: [9051477-3600 1 F: [9051477-3882
www.jdbarnes.com
shared network
CANADA
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT # PL -s1 1 b -10
Appendix B
14
INC0120 Claremont
xrto simulation bastions
0 Tower Locatlon
ogle Earth
;, ry _a
!-,� # rte' , — _-
c- .•#'• .-" rhe _-,-..
- r .
.A } *r.
a!
•
•
•
•
-•
•
-11
jr
ir
Jet.
:r---
e••••••r
�•s
•
J
' shared network
CANAA
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # PL I6 -19
Appendix C
15
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # 'L/V
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://sharednetwork. ca
municipal @ sharednetwork,ca
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Pickles, David, Councillor" <dpickles@pickerinci.ca>
Subject: Re: Claremont Communications Tower
Date: February 21, 2019 at 11:27:26 AM EST
To: Linda Robinson
Cc: "municipal@sharednetwork.ca" <municipal@sharednetwork.ca>, "ic.spectrumenod-spectredeno.ic@canada.ca"
<ic.spectrumenod-spectredeno.ic@canada.ca>, "Butt, Shaheen, Councillor" <sbutt ickerinci.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> 11.866.683.2760<te11.866.683.2760>
dpickles@ pickerinq.ca<mailto:dpickles@ pickerinq.ca>
[cid :image003.png@01 D1 F4AD.80090790j<http://enews.pickerinci.ca/en/enews/signup.aspx>
[cid:image005.pg@01 D1 F4AD.80090790]<https://www.facebook.com/CityofPickerinq>
fcid:image011.png@01 D1 D084.35FE8C30j
On Feb 21, 2019, at 11:20 AM, Linda Robinson wrote:
To the municipal affairs manager,
ATTACHMENT #__q__TO
REPORT �/ ____ Ib _j 9
My husband and I are residents on Canso Drive, 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.
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
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:
TO
►b -lei
From: "Kathy Keats
Subject: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont
Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT
To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca
I am a resident of 5100 Sideline 12, 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 Torontp.
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
ATTACHMENT# TO
REPORT # 'LN lo -I
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
http://sharednetwork.ca
647-544-5080 (direct)
dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Kathy Keats
Subject: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont
Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT
To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca
am a resident of 5100 Sideline 12, 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.
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
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT # 'L
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
TO
_I .
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
http://sharednetwork.ca
647-544-5080 (direct)
dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca
On Jul 26, 2018, at 9:46 AM, Kathy Keats
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 Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont
Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT
To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca
am a resident of 5100 Sideline 12, Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed.
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # LN �� f
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
Al TACHM Ntfa_
REPORT -1 1
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
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 Tight 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).
Pi IV AT -
6 -I
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 Tess 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
Tess demand. Less demand means Tess 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.
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
T
P�� a-)9
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
ATTACHMENT
REPORT
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.
ATTACHiVIEN-
REPOR I # pLIV) , -I f
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
shared network ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
June 23, 2018
Aghlab Al-Joundi
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://n ati nstsciencelaw. org/
https://nati nstsci a ncel aw. org/e mf -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.sharednetwork.ca
275 Macpherson Ave #103, Toronto, ON M4V 1A4
• shared network
CANADA
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # i�►� .- '
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 ofthe 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
0 shared network
CANADA
ATTACHMENT TO
REPORT #____44•1_16-19
Schedule A
shared wo
netrk
CANADA
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT #
Schedule B
Connecting Canadians:
Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada
Des Canadiens branches
Choix des sites de bads d'antenne au Canada
I.. 1.4
ler
:'41[5
;1 'r
irjpi
:iI
Association canadlenne
des telecommunications sans III
Canadian Wireless
Telecommunications Assodation
cwta
Association canadlonne
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 KIP 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 1(1P 5G4
www.cwta.ca
IT
n
ttbm
nta
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 bad 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
['emplacement d'antennes sans fil
Autorites regionales responsables de
['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
ATIAC
REQ OR
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 bads 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 acres
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 bads 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.
5
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # lb -la
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 batis d'antenne?
4 Le praces5us de selection d'un site
--I
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.
8
A unique tree -shaped antenna tower.
Un py[one d'antenne en forme d'arbre.
Pourquoi construire de nouveaux batis d'antenne?
Les telecommunicateurs sans fil 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 fil, un
nombre qui augmente de plus de 10 pour cent chaque annee.
Les gens tiennent le service sans fil pour acquis et s'attendent
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 connaitra 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 fil 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 eta eliminer les
soi-disant - zones mortes », soit les zones oil 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
s! oportent 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.
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.
10
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.
wok
Ow—
Of the 8,000 sites in Canada, 40% are located on structures other than towers_
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 deja en place,
la disponibilite de structures existantes (immeubles, autres tours,
etc.) et la presence d'un proprietaire dispose a louer l'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, t'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
cet effet. Choisir une structure deja existante permet de
reduire les coifls et le delai necessaires a l'installation, mais la
localisation ou la hauteur pourraient ne pas convenir.
L'utilisation conjointe de pylones deja en place reduit le nombre
de nouveaux pyl&nes, 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.
Des quelque 8 000 emplacements cellulaires ou SCP au Canada,
40 pour cent se trouvent sur des structures autres que des pylones.
11
ATTACHMENT TO
REPORT # b -H
The Antenna Approval Process
In this section
• Jurisdiction
• Regulations Governing Wireless Antenna Siting
• Local Land -Use Authorities
Le processus d'approbation relatif aux antenne
Dans tette section
• Competence
• Cadre reglementaire relatif a l'emplacement d'antennes sans fil
• Autorites regionales responsables de l'utilisation du sol
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
I Cmadim Mwddpailtfes and the Resuloaon of Radio Mrerrros and their Support s W cares, mewed toe Industry Canada
by David Townsend, E400Uy of Law, Urdvelsily of New pnrawide,1987
2 re Resulaton and Controt of Rollo Communications of Cuawdo [1932] A.C. 304 (Privy Council)
3 Report on the NadoreCMtrma Tower Polity, prepared for Industry Canada by David Townsend, Faculty of Law. University of
New Brunswick, 2004
Le processus d'approbdtion 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 controle 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 ['Ontario) ont respect& 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 responsabil'zes 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 u
sujet des politiques d'Industrie Canada visant ['emplacement des
installations de radiocommunications, soft le rapport Townsend de
2004, recommandait que l'autorisation legate de reglementer
['emplacement des tours « demeure la competence exclusive du
gouvernement du Canada. 3 >>
I Les mtnkipaUtes comediennes et la reslemenration des antemes radio et des boas d'unmeref, rapport sounds
Industrie Canada par David Townsend. Fetid'& do droll UMversite du Nouveau•BrunswIck, 1987.
2 Conseil Priv&, In re. la reslennmmaon et le contrdte de to radiocommunication au Canoda, [193210..C. 304
3 Ryport asr lesmrm de lapolicaoenaranaleasr lespyleneserrant. rapportsorrnb a Irdiahle Canada par Ovid Toward,
Faculte de their. Univers-lei du Nou eroBrwMck, 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 fiE
Les procedures dictees par Industrie Canada pour la construction
et l'installation de bats d'antennes sont enoncees dans une
Circulaire des procedures concernant les clients intitulee
Processus environnemental, champs de radiofrequences et
consultation sur ('utilisation du sol. Le respect de ces procedures
est une condition de licence pour les fournisseurs de services
cellulaires ou SCR
Pour exercer ses pouvoirs, Industrie Canada peut egalement
compter sur les commentaires et l'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.
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.
16
Autorites regionales responsabies de ['utilisation du sot
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 I cence
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 requercr t_ dans les 60
joursoutre, ['ensemble du processus de consultation devrait
etre termine dans un dela' de 12C icurs.
Dans la vaste majorite des cas, les p rocedures et processus en
place ont permis de satisfaire aux besoins des collectivites, des
individus, des telecommunicateurs sans fit et de leurs P tonnes.
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 tette section
• Champs et ondes electromagnetiques
• Competence relative a la sante et la securite de bads d'antenne
• Code de securite 6
• Autres projets visant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fit
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 (Le. 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.
18
In 2002, Industry Canada conducted a study4 examining the level
of RF fields in 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.
4 Evaluation of Elertromag,,tkk Field Intensity fn the Crty of Tdrarro, Industry Canada. June zooz
# 1N3WH3V11V
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 electromagnetiques 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. ! "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 a
che:eux, les cuisinieres electriques, les lampes
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 ou l'on
retrouve la plus forte concentration de systemes radio au Canada.
Dans le cadre de tette 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 (soft 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.
evoluatfon dr 1'fntrmlet du champ etecccomaprkc(que dans to Wife dr Toronto. industrle 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 reEative a la sante et la securite des batis 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
electromagnetiques
• mene des recherches relatives a l'evaluation 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
Safety Code 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.
5 Limits of Human Fyosure to Radf*frequnrcy tlectramggrrerfc Fields fn the Frequency Range from 3 WR to 300 Gf • Safety Code 6
Code de securite 6
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 adopte 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 ;?loitees
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 clef en place dans le
milieu environnant.
Le Code de securite 6 correspond aux normes internationales et
est fonde sur de nombreux documents de recherche scientifique,
y compris un examen mene par la Societe royale du Canada a la
demande de Sante Canada.
5 Llmfte, d'eq mltfon humafere ave champs dr radfofsequeces fleanay rigors dares la panne de frfqueaces de 3 On d 300 GflZ- Code dr starlit 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.
Pius de 6 millions des appals au 9-1-1 cheque armee sont places a partir d'un cellufaire.
22
Autres projets vfsant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fiI
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.
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. hc-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.
World Health Organisation
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/indexl.html
The WHO EMF Project provides information about electro-
magnetic fields, including potential health effects of exposure.
Sources d'information sur les pylones d'antenne
Industrie Canada - Parlons pylones
http://www.strategic.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 devaluation du risque pour la
sante des pcoulations 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-sennt/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.
7rganisation mondiale de la Sant§
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF Project/fr/
index.html
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.
23
1-140
wNinamileleacriem
ans. i i..
it, shared network
CANADA
ATTACHMENT #. `i TO
REPORT # �LN 16 —I
Schedule C
From:
Subject: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible lower near Claremont
Date: June 24, 2018 at 326 PM
To: munlclpal@sharednetwork.ca
am a resident ofiNIISidelinel. 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 intemet functions hopelessly slow, if 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 intemet 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.
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
TO
b-1
From: Ag Al-Joundi
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 ://eiectrom ag netichealth.org/electromag netic-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.corn; Morrison,
Cody; kbentley@pickering.ca; crose@pickenng.ca
Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal
Gnnri AftArnnnn Mr Al-.lr irnrii
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
I hope your week is going well.
TO
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://shared network.ca
647-544-5090 (direct)
dors. claros @ sharednetwork.ca
ATTACHMENT # 14 TO
REPORT # R -N 110-I
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@pickerhiy.ca, riches, uavia, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, murnaghanc@hotmail.com, Morrison, Cody
cmorrison@pickering.ca, kbentley@pickering.ca, crose@pickering.ca
Good Afternoon Mr. AWoundt,
I hope you had a good weekend.
Thank you for following up. I have been working with our teem, 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 and of the field to greatly increase this setback, please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks for sending the Ilnk, our team will look Into this new website. During our Initial research we carne across this webstte which references the study titled 'Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas
— Do They Impact a Properys 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 11 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 III can help with anything else.
Kind regards,
Dom Claros
Shared Network Canada
hh p: flsharednetwork.ca
647-544-5080 (direct)
dom.claros@ sh arednetwork.ce
On Jul 19, 2018, at 224 PM, Ag AlJoundl
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-bloq/survey-prr perry -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 AI-Joundi
From: Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.c-
Sent: July 10, 2018 3:57 PM
To
Cc: sbutt pickering.ea; ickles, David, Councillor; murnaghanc@hotmail com; Morrison, Cody; kbentley@ ick ring.ca;
crose@ icp kering&
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!
nom !:tarns
ATTACHMENT # /Tq
REPORT # �� �b
Shared Network Canada
h :llsharednetwark.da
547.544.5080 (direct)
com.G Taros@shared f 1 elwQJk.ca
Rr PCWil Pu*..l 0:
Tuesday July 24, 2018
Mr. Dom Claros
Shared Network Canada
275 Macpherson Ave., Unit #103.
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1A4
1.
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.
QLty 16-Lq1.
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 Pickering
Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # , P I6 -I
shared network
CANADA
August 22, 2018
Aghlab Al-Joundi
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
www. sharedne Iwo rk. ca
275 Macpherson Ave #1o3, Toronto, ON M4V 1 Aq
shared network
CANADA
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
TO
b -t
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:/felectromagnetichealth.orglelectromagnetic-health-bloglsurvey-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:Ilnatinstsciencelaw.org0 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.
ATTACHMENT # 4 TO
REPORT # PLN I b-19
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
CAlie shared network
CANAA
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # N 1
Schedule A
SNC01 20 - Claremont
Coverage area of the existing antennae neer the proposed site.
Legend
:�. Existing Coverage
Rogers Towers
u. SNCO120CaveregeArea
1T SNC0120 Paposed Location
•2.xsdxnaid 101.14.1041
Rogers Towers (1) 55.5rr N44,0133 W79.1369
Google Earth
arriso, Yd
nygU 2Di6 FON a• -l.tF:nF
CI,. shared network
CANADA
ATTACHMENT # 14 TO
REPORT # PU`1 lb -/ 9
Schedule B
SNC01 20 - Claremont
Coverage area of the proposed ails.
v•
. �
v,F Rogers lowers (1) SS.i .1. N44.0371 W79.13G9 'logsr3 Iow,rs j 4f.e;rin - H4.1.ndsz }k . XA$ ':.
:.r.
Logond
u Existing Coverage
Rogers Towers
R'. SNC0120 Coverage Area
>T SNC0120 Poposed Location
enfor1
0.11
shared network
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
Appendix D
TO
-1
16
riSubject Properties
ATTACHMENT #417TO
REPORT # : —14/
CDRadius around subject
properties
•
Properties inside
radius
030002023000000 030002024000000
LORNA JEAN HALL JERRY LEWYCKY
030002051000000
WHITSHED LTD.
P.O. BOX 105/ SCOTIA PLAZA
40 KING ST W Suite 4802
TORONTO ON M5H 3X2 CAN
030007119000000
DAVID FENECH
LISA FENECH
030007121000000
JOHN RANDOLPH MITCHELL
INDIRA JAIKARAN
030007123000000
CLAREMONT UNION CEMETERY
C/O DOUGLAS CUMMINGS
4750 SIDELINE 12
CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A2
030007118000000
LINDA MARIE COMEAU
ALISTAIR GEORGE SIMPSON
030007120000000
JOHN RANDOLPH MITCHELL
030007122000000
AGHLAB AL-JOUNDI
CYNTHIA ANN MURNAGHAN
030007126000000
SHIOU-MEI LUO
030007127000000 030007128000000
JOHN GABRIEL LAIDER JOHN GABRIEL LAIDER
030007184000000
4 SEASONS INVESTMENTS INC (CLAREMONT)
RR #5
1900 EIGHTH CONCESSION RD
PICKERING ON L1Y 1A2 CAN
POETRY SLAM IN PICKERING
A TACHMENT #
REPORT #
E
Jason Llebregts/ 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.
ffJSTEVENSONWH ELTON
MAcDONALD&S\VAN LLP
PERSONAL INJURY + MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
F
Experienced Trial Lawyers 5ervinE
Oshawa, Pickering and Whitby
HfSWLawycrs.ca
13 John Street West
289.634.1680 Oshawa
TO
chotr
MU1))).1
GGD DATA
ON OUR $50/M0. PLAN'
IGK4
.flFD $60.00
-
--40,4 tot MII11It M 1414 Ilrn
LET'S GET GOING
' Ir,li;�l � l l l lel.•
Us .M.IMgr W1fm1,p1111p1uYmin
I/1ronedi 141M1.111rni0,1p07>ApI!♦twotwow..frL mote 4/ria
iIIfI41ns a11IIMt wink el I ISM St NNII.—I te... mHe
..••••oMm.
Choir
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 Yongo Street, 4° Floor,
Toronto, ON, M5C 2W7
ANY PERSON may make a written
submission to the Individuals listed below by
close of day June 11", 2018, with respect
to thls 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 / cmorrlson@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 es the Planning Act, including zoning
by - laws, does not apply to these facilities,
The City of Pickering is participating in lend
- use consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of
Industry Canada's CP C 2 - 0 - 03. In the
case of a dispute between the proponent
end the City, a final decision will be made
by Industry Canada.';
APPLICANT CONTACT:
Municipal Affairs Manager
Shared Network Canada
10 Four Seasons PI, 10°1 Floor Suite 1056
Etobicoke, ON MBB 0A6
(647) 242-9395
municipal@eh arednetwork.ce
SITE LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT # `►' TO
REPORT # R -M u0-iq
SHARED
ARED NETWORK CANADA IS PROPOSING TO LOCATE A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER FACILITY,
BEING 45 METRES IN HEIGHT, ON THIS PROPERTY,
PUBLIC COMMENT IS INV+TED
THE CLOSING DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS IS JUNE 1l'", 2018
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS MANAGER:
MUNICIPALQISHAREDNET WORK.CA
647.242.9395
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA SYSTEMS ARE REGULATED EXCLUSIVELY BY FEDERAL
LEGISLATION UNDER THE FEDERAL RADIOCOMMUNICATION ACT ANO ADMINISTERED BY
INDUSTRY CANADA. PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE PLANNING ACT, INCLUDING ZONING
BY-LAWS, DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE FACILITIES. THE CITY OF PICKERING IS PARTICIPATING IN
LAND -USE CONSULTATION PURSUANT TO ISSUE 5 OF INDUSTRY CANADA'S CPC 2-0-03. IN THE CASE
OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PROPONENT AND THE CITY, A FINAL DECISION WILL OE MADE BY
INDUSTRY CANADA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT CITY OF PICKERING- CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CODY MORRISON, PLANNER 1 AT905.420.46600R
ISEDC - TORONTO DISTRICT OFFICE: 151 YONGE STREET, 46FLOOR, TORONTO. ON M5C2W7
IC.SPECTRUMENOD-SPECTREDENO.IC@CANADA.CA
a f} ti F
," ter' , . . a.,'' ar-+ , L', .
rte• °4 'j.(', ' . iy�}}� I ;-
, •
-:-;'SSI
•
l
ATTACHMENT # L# TO
REPORT # PLN '1(c --1q
Appendix E
17
•
1'
1-
1 t ofl:t.iIM N
(i is)011d 1
tti
t
=1.1
e
fill�3 t, 11
111;1 0gill111111111111..::.3
S'0N OYOU 7YN003N
L
.4r, ilfirliNI:11.70;li7I1;6:11.41.11
_
N O
5 oYOL IYNO 3 J
_1
1 41
I
i i I
i ; I
`+i
e t II
1
1°
4'
•
•
1
1
10
4,
0
•
113
j1//
Sae
110
ikt
1
114
11
4iiCr;Eli>II
1
10
4,
0
•