HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 17, 2019eta
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Agenda
Monday, June 17, 2019
Council Chambers — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Pickles
Page
1. Disclosure of Interest
2. Delegations
2.1 Cameron Richardson, Senior Project Manager, Duffins-Carruthers, Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
Re: Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Status Update
3. Information Reports
3.1 Information Report No. 09-19
City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Ecosystem Compensation
Proposed Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan
File: OPA 19-003/P
3.2 Information Report No. 10-19
City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Drinking Water Source
Protection — Conformity to the Credit Valley, Toronto and Region,
and Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Plan and Toronto and
Region Assessment Report
Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan
File: OPA 19-002/P
3.3 Information Report No. 11-19
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/18
Allan Kent Cameron
Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407
(715 Liverpool Road)
3.4 Information Report No. 12-19
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/19
Joshani Homes Ltd.
Part Lot 72, Plan 418; and now Part 2, 40R-30097
(southerly end of Dunn Crescent)
1
9
30
45
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Linda Roberts
905.420.4660 Extension 2928
Iroberts@pickering.ca
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Agenda
Monday, June 17, 2019
Council Chambers — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Pickles
4. Planning & Development Reports
4.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 16-19
Proposed Telecommunication Tower
Shared Network Canada
Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211
(2170 Ninth Concession Road)
Installation #66
Recommendation:
That Shared Network Canada be advised that City Council objects
to the proposal for a 46.0 metre high tri -pole lattice style
telecommunications tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road,
based on the design and location of the proposal.
4.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 17-19
Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-004/P
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18
Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1, 40R-29457
(Southeast Corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue)
Recommendation:
1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-004/P,
submitted by Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation, to re-
designate the lands located on the southeast corner of William
Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue from "Urban Residential
Areas — Medium Density Areas" to "Urban Residential Areas —
High Density Areas" to allow a maximum site density of 161
units per net hectare in order to facilitate a residential
condominium development consisting of 264 stacked units, be
approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 37 to
the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report
PLN 17-19 be forwarded to Council for enactment;
2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18, submitted
by Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation, to facilitate a
residential condominium development consisting of 264 stacked
57
150
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Linda Roberts
905.420.4660 Extension 2928
Iroberts@pickering.ca
eta o/
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Agenda
Monday, June 17, 2019
Council Chambers — 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Pickles
units on lands located on the southeast corner of William
Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue, be endorsed subject to
the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 17-19,
and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an
implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for
enactment;
3. That Informational Revision 25 to the Pickering Official Plan
Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Map 25 to delete the symbol for
a "Proposed Separate Elementary School", as set out in
Appendix III, be approved; and,
4. That the changes to the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood
Development Guideline Figure A — Tertiary Plan, as shown on
Appendix IV to Report PLN 17-19, to delete the "Future
Elementary School", be approved.
4.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 18-19 181
Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Work Program
Recommendation:
1. That Council endorse the Work Program for Pickering's
Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review and authorize staff to
proceed as outlined in Appendix I to Report PLN 18-19; and,
2. That Council authorize staff to prepare and release a Request
for Proposal to retain external planning consultants to assist
with the completion of Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning
By-law Review as outlined in Appendix II to Report PLN 18-19,
and report back to Council on the hiring recommendation.
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Linda Roberts
905.420.4660 Extension 2928
Iroberts@pickering.ca
DICKERING
city ool
Information Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: 09-19
Date: June 17, 2019
From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Ecosystem Compensation
Proposed Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan
File: OPA 19-003/P
1. Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to provide information on a City initiated official plan
amendment application. This report contains background information on the current Official
Plan and the purpose of the proposed amendment.
This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to
understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public
delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning
matters. This report is to be received, and no decision is to be made at this time. Staff will
bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development
Committee upon completion of a review of the comments received and revisions to the
amendment where appropriate.
2. Background
There is a strong policy framework in Ontario to protect and expand the natural heritage
system. The Planning Act identifies the protection of ecological systems, including natural
areas, features and functions as a matter of Provincial interest. Similarly, the Provincial
Policy Statement requires that the long term ecological function and biodiversity of natural
heritage systems should be maintained, restored or enhanced where possible.
Municipalities and other agencies protect these systems through various processes.
Regional and local official plans designate lands as natural heritage systems where
development is generally not permissible. Municipalities may also pass Tree Protection
By-laws to further regulate natural heritage system lands and/or the destruction of
individual trees, and to establish penalties for unlawful removal of trees in the areas
covered by the by-laws. Additionally, municipalities may establish compensation protocols
to calculate a value for the lost feature, function, or area, and require the value to be used
towards enhancing the natural heritage system in a nearby location.
Information Report No. 09-19 Page 2
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is one of the City's partner
agencies that plays a strong role in protecting and enhancing the natural heritage system
through its regulatory authority, land stewardship, and as a commenting agency on
development applications. The Conservation Authorities and municipalities have been
continuously working together to reduce the losses to the natural heritage system through
the promotion of best practices, strengthening environmental policies, education programs,
and compensation requirements.
In spite of the strong policy framework, and the efforts and initiatives from the City and
TRCA to protect, restore, or enhance the natural heritage system, losses to the natural
heritage system and features continue to occur due to unavoidable losses associated with
urbanization and infrastructure expansion. These losses may become even more apparent
due to impacts associated with climate change. For example, there may be more insect
and disease outbreaks, or increased tree stress may affect forest growth.
In November 2014, TRCA adopted their Living City Policies. These policies, among other
matters, introduced stronger policy direction regarding "compensation", defining it in the
context of conservation and land use planning, as "the replacement of lost/altered
ecosystem services or ecological functions". The Living Cities policies also recommended
that after all other options for protection, minimization and mitigation have been exhausted,
and where no other federal, provincial and municipal requirements exist to protect a natural
heritage feature being impacted by development or infrastructure, that compensation for
the loss of ecosystem services be provided. Ultimately, the main objective of collecting
compensation is to secure funds to replant trees and/or restore ecosystem functions, such
as wetland or meadow restoration.
Although compensation has been partially successful in restoring natural heritage systems
and ecological functions, TRCA recognized that there have been various challenges in its
application, such as the lack of consistent standards and transparency, and the lack of
direction on selecting sites for ecological restoration. Subsequently, TRCA, over a period
of approximately three years, developed a Guideline for Determining Ecosystem
Compensation, which included consultation with key stakeholders, the building industry,
and municipalities. The Guideline provides direction for compensation in a consistent and
transparent manner, after it has been decided through a planning, environmental
assessment and/or permit process, that the impact on a natural heritage feature cannot be
avoided, minimized or mitigated. In June 2018, the TRCA Board endorsed the Guideline
and directed TRCA staff to work with municipalities and public agencies to implement it,
recognizing their distinct regulatory frameworks.
In April 2019, Council received Report PLN 07-19 regarding TRCA's Guideline for Determining
Ecosystem Compensation. To ensure consistent application of the Guideline and coordination
with the City's current compensation practices, City Council, on April 23, 2019, authorized
staff to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to introduce policies that
address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts, where all options
for protection have been exhausted, on a city-wide basis.
2
Information Report No. 09-19 Page 3
Council's resolution with respect to Report PLN 07-19 also included authorization to staff to
develop a memorandum of understanding in consultation with TRCA regarding the
administration and collection of the fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation
and calculation of compensation in terms of the Guideline. Staff will be addressing the
memorandum of understanding through a separate process. This report deals with the
proposed official plan amendment.
3. Why is this amendment being proposed?
Although the principle of compensation is already embedded in the Pickering Official Plan,
the current policies regarding compensation are specific to only infrastructure expansions,
certain urban neighbourhoods and certain natural heritage features, and do not directly
address ecosystem Toss and compensation due to development impacts, on a City-wide
basis. Nonetheless, policy 2.5.a) of the Plan states that critical ecological functions and
components should be protected from inappropriate human uses and activities.
The City works with TRCA and the development industry to seek favorable outcomes
where critical ecological functions and components cannot be protected through the
unavoidable loss of key natural heritage or key hydrologic features due to development or
infrastructure impacts. Yet, the absence of City-wide policies in relation to ecosystem loss
and compensation leaves a policy void. This void can hamper the City and TRCA's efforts
to achieve shared objectives for a connected and robust natural heritage system and to
reach a satisfactory level of compensation to provide meaningful replacement or
enhancement of natural heritage features.
A more complete policy framework on ecosystem loss and compensation will create a level
playing field and a greater degree of consistency for all development proposals in the City,
irrespective of the geographic area in the City or the type of natural feature impacted.
Embedding the principle of ecosystem compensation (where all options for protection have
been exhausted) in the Pickering Official Plan will provide a stronger basis for collaboration
between parties and to achieve consistent and transparent approach to compensation
through the implementation of approved development proposals.
4. What is being proposed?
The proposed amendment will introduce revisions to Pickering's Ecological System policies
in Chapter 2 — The Planning Framework and to Chapter 16 — Development Review of the
Pickering Official Plan. Recognizing that the City has a Tree Removal Compensation Fee
policy for individual tree loss, this proposed amendment seeks to expand the local policy
framework to a more robust approach to address the loss of ecosystem functions in
addition to individual tree Toss. More specifically, the key changes proposed to the Official
Plan text will:
• expand the requirement for restoration and rehabilitation of degraded and damaged
ecosystems, to also include the option of ecosystem compensation due to development
impacts (where all options for protection have been exhausted), through the
implementation of approved development applications.
3
Information Report No. 09-19 Page 4
• require proponents of development applications to include recommendations regarding
compensation where all options for the protection of the ecosystem (e.g., mitigation or
remediation) have been exhausted, through Environmental Reports.
The proposed amendment, including the text of the proposed revised policies, is contained
in Appendix I. Appendix I also includes the purpose and basis for the amendment. The
proposed amendment applies City-wide.
5. Who has been notified of this Public Meeting to consider the proposed amendment?
The proposed amendment was prepared in consultation with the City's Engineering
Services department. The proposed amendment has been circulated to the Region of
Durham and other prescribed agencies for their comment.
In addition, the notice was posted on the City's website, and an advertisement appeared in
the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks on May 29, 2019 and June 5, 2019.
6. Procedural Information
6.1 General
• written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development
Department
• oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting
• all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared
by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a
Committee of Council
• any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision
must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal
• any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this
proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk
6.2 Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority
• the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from
Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do
not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest
• at this time, the Region has not yet determined whether this official plan amendment
application is exempt from Regional Approval
7. What are the Next Steps
Following the public meeting, all comments received either through the public meeting or
through written submissions, will be considered by Planning Staff in its review and analysis
of the proposed amendment. At such time as input from the public, agencies and
departments have been received and assessed, a recommendation report will be brought
forward to the Planning & Development Committee for consideration.
- 4 -
Information Report No. 09-19 Page 5
Appendix
Appendix I Proposed Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan
Prepared By:
Approved/Endorsed By:
RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Policy Chief Planner
EC -
Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Policy & Geomatics
DJ:JB:Id
Date of Report: May 22, 2019
5
Appendix I to
Information Report 09-19
City Initiated Official Plan Amendment
Ecosystem Compensation
Proposed Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan
6
0 allk Proposed Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan
Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to add new policies to and change
existing policies in the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem
loss and compensation.
Location: The Amendment applies City-wide.
Basis: There is a strong policy framework in Ontario to protect and expand the
natural heritage system. The Planning Act identifies the protection of
ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions as a
matter of Provincial interest. Similarly, the Provincial Policy Statement
requires that the long term ecological function and biodiversity of natural
heritage systems should be maintained, restored or enhanced where
possible.
The natural heritage system and features are still being compromised or
lost through development and the effects of climate change.
Embedding the principle of ecosystem compensation (where all options for
protection have been exhausted) in the Pickering Official Plan will provide
a stronger basis for collaboration between parties and to achieve
consistent and transparent approach to compensation through the
implementation of approved development proposals.
The compensation will enable the replanting, restoration and/or
enhancement of the natural heritage system.
Amendment: The Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by:
1. Revising Section 2.5, Ecological System, in Chapter 2 — The Planning Framework, by
adding a new subsection (d) to read as follows, and renumbering the subsequent
subsections accordingly:
"2.5 City Council will endeavour to,
(a) to (c) ...;
require compensation for the loss of ecosystem functions due to
development impacts, after all other options for protection,
minimization and mitigation have been exhausted,. in accordance
with the relevant conservation authority's guideline for determining
ecosystem compensation, with the exception of tree removal that
falls under the purview of the City's Tree Removal Compensation
Fee, where applicable;"
7
endment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2
Revising Section 16.10, Environmental Report Contents, in Chapter 16 — Development
Review, by revising subsection (h) to read as follows:
"16.10 City Council shall require that the Environmental Report submitted in
accordance with Section 16.8 include at least the following,
(a) to (g)...;
(h) where potential negative effects are unavoidable, recommendations
regarding the actions necessary to mitigate or remedy the negative
effect., which., as a last resort may include the payment of
compensation to the City for the loss of ecosystem functions., of
which the cost is to be determined in accordance with the applicable
conservation authority's guideline for determining ecosystem loss
and/or the City's Tree Removal Compensation Feel and
Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this
Amendment. In light of the numerous components of the Official Plan that
are being revised concurrently, the numbering of the policy sections in this
amendment is subject to change in accordance with the sequencing of
approvals.
Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan as amended,
regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this
Amendment, except as revised by this amendment.
Cross Reference:
OPA 19-003/P
City Initiated
8
of
PICKERING
Information Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: 10-19
Date: June 17, 2019
From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Drinking Water Source Protection -
Conformity to the Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, and Central Lake Ontario
Source Protection Plan and Toronto and Region Assessment Report
Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan
File: OPA 19-002/P
1. Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to provide information on a City initiated official plan
amendment application. This report contains background information on the current Official
Plan and the purpose of the proposed amendment.
This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to
understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public
delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning
matters. This report is to be received, and no decision is to be made at this time. Staff will
bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development
Committee upon completion of a review of the comments received and revisions to the
amendment where appropriate.
2. Background
As a result of the contamination of the drinking water supply in Walkerton, the Province
enacted the Clean Water Act, 2006. This Act enabled the establishment of Source
Protection Committees within defined regions to protect municipal drinking water sources
from activities that would pose a threat to water quality and quantity. The City of Pickering
is within the Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, and Central Lake Ontario (CTC) Source
Protection Region and is subject to the CTC Source Protection Plan (CTC SPP) and the
Toronto and Region Assessment Report both of which came into effect in 2015.
On May 17, 2018, the City received notice from the CTC Source Protection Committee
requesting Council endorsement of their proposed amendments to the CTC SPP and the
Toronto and Region Assessment Report.
On June 18, 2018, Planning and Development Committee endorsed Report PLN 18-18
which provided detail on proposed amendments to the CTC SPP and the Toronto and
Region Assessment Report. The proposed amendments:
- 9
Information Report No. 10-19 Page 2
• provide the City with greater discretion in determining when a Water Balance
Assessment may be needed
• remove the 5 -year timeline for conformity and require conformity during the next
municipal comprehensive review
• clarify the role of the Risk Management Officials
• clarify that, within the York -Durham Wellhead Protection Area for water quantity
(York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2), a Water Balance Assessment is required for major
development north of the proposed Downgradient Line and may be required for
development on land south of the Downgradient Line, subject to the planning
approval authority's discretion, and
• ensure that the policies related to Salt Management are applicable in all relevant
vulnerable areas
After receiving endorsement of the proposed amendments to the CTC SPP and the
Toronto and Region Assessment Report from all affected municipalities, the CTC Source
Protection Committee conducted broader consultation with the public between October 12
and November 15, 2018. On March 25, 2019 amendments to the CTC SPP and the
Toronto and Region Assessment Report were approved by the Minister of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks, and are now in effect.
Municipalities are required to amend their Official Plans to conform to the applicable Source
Protection Plan. The City's Official Plan must therefore be amended to conform to the
policies of the CTC SPP and mapping in the Toronto and Region Assessment Report.
City Policy 10.13, Areas of Groundwater Protection in Chapter 10 — Resource Management, of
the Pickering Official Plan (Edition 8), requires planning decisions to conform with or not be
in conflict with the policies of the approved CTC SPP. This proposed amendment ensures
the City's Official Plan is in conformity with the relevant policies of the CTC SPP and
mapping from the Toronto and Region Assessment Report.
3. Lands Affected by the Proposed Amendment
The proposed Official Plan Amendment contains policies that apply City-wide as well as
policies that affect lands within Pickering's Rural System that are predominantly located
along the City's northern municipal boundary. The lands identified as Wellhead Protection
Areas located in the northwest corner of the City are associated with municipal drinking
water wells in the Town of Whitchurch-Stoufville. Other lands identified as Wellhead
Protection Areas are located within the Oak Ridges Moraine in Concession Nine, north
of the Hamlet of Balsam. Revisions to Schedule 111 D are minor, adding approximately
105 hectares of lands to Groundwater Recharge Areas designation.
4. Proposed Amendment
Appendix I is the Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan. It
identifies Wellhead Protection Areas in a new schedule and introduces new policies in
Chapter 10 — Resource Management to provide direction on the requirements for
development within a Wellhead Protection Area. More specifically, key proposed
amendments to the Official Plan add:
- 10 -
Information Report No. 10-19 Page 3
• Definitions for Groundwater Recharge Area, Wellhead Protection Area and classes
of Wellhead Protection Areas for Water Quality (WHPA-A through E), and classes of
Wellhead Protection Areas for Water Quantity (WHPA-Q1 and Q2).
• Revisions to Schedule III D — Resource Management: High Aquifer Vulnerability,
Ground Water Recharge Areas (refer to Schedule "A" to the Draft Proposed
Amendment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan). Attachments #1 and #2 show a
close-up of the additional Groundwater Recharge Areas identified on the Proposed
Revised Schedule III D.
• New Schedule III F — Resource Management: Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA)
(refer to Schedule "B" to the Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the City of Pickering
Official Plan) to identify:
• Wellhead Protection Areas for the protection of water quality for two municipal
drinking water wells in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville; and
• Wellhead Protection Areas for the protection of water quantity.
The identification of Wellhead Protection Areas on this schedule are intended to
function as an overlay to the primary land use designations identified in Schedule I —
Land Use Structure to the Official Plan.
• Policies that require snow storage to be located where melting snow cannot carry
contaminants and salt loads directly into vulnerable areas.
• Policies that prohibit or restrict land use activities within a WHPA-B, C and/or D
which pose a significant drinking water quality threat.
• Policies that require a Salt Management Plan where the application of road salt
would be a moderate or low drinking water threat.
• A policy requiring all planning and building permit applications for lands within a
WHPA-B, C or D in the City of Pickering to be circulated to York Region for review
by their Risk Management Official.
• Policies to protect water quantity that:
• may restrict development with a significant or moderate risk level that requires a
Permit to Take Water within the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2;
• require a Water Balance Assessment for major development in certain areas
within the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2;
• require major development that does not require a Water Balance Assessment
and small-scale development, within the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, to
implement best management practices with the goal to maintain pre -
development recharge rates;
• require a Salt Management Plan where the application of road salt would be a
moderate or low drinking water threat within the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2;
and
• may restrict rural settlement area boundary expansions into the York -Durham
WHPA-Q1/Q2.
Information Report No. 10-19 Page 4
5. Informational Revision
Appendix II is the Draft Proposed Informational Revision 24 (Draft Proposed Revision) to
the Pickering Official Plan. The purpose of this Draft Proposed Revision is to update the
informational text contained within the Pickering Official Plan about the policies introduced
as part of the Official Plan Amendment to implement Source Water Protection. The Draft
Proposed Revision also updates references to the new Draft Proposed Schedules to be
added to the Pickering Official Plan.
6. Consultation
The proposed amendment was prepared in consultation with staff from the CTC Source
Protection Region. The proposed amendment has been circulated to the Region of Durham
and other prescribed agencies for their comment.
In addition, the notice was posted on the City's website, and an advertisement appeared in
the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks on May 29, 2019 and June 5, 2019.
7. Public Participation
Written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development
Department.
Oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting.
All comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by
the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of
Council.
In accordance with Section 17 (24.5) of the Planning Act, there is no appeal to Draft
Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan since it applies to vulnerable areas
as defined within the Clean Water Act, 2006.
Any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this
proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk.
8. Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority
The Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional
approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit
matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest.
As drinking water source protection is of Provincial and Regional interest, the Region will
be the approval authority for Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan.
9. Next Steps
Following the public meeting, all comments received either through the public meeting or
through written submissions, will be considered by Planning Staff in its review and analysis
of the proposed amendment. At such time as input from the public, agencies and
departments have been received and assessed, a recommendation report will be brought
forward to the Planning & Development Committee for consideration.
- 12 -
Information Report No. 10-19 Page 5
Appendices
Appendix I Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan
Appendix II Draft Proposed Informational Revision 24 to the Pickering Official Plan
Attachments
1. Additional Groundwater Recharge Areas identified on the Proposed Revised Schedule III D —
Northeast Pickering
2. Additional Groundwater Recharge Areas identified on the Proposed Revised Schedule III D —
Northwest Pickering
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
/(77',
Margaret Kish, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Policy Chief Planner
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Policy & Geomatics
MK:JB:Id
Date of Report: May 23, 2019
- 13 -
Appendix I to
Information Report 10-19
Draft Proposed Amendment 36 to the Pickering Official Plan
0 If • 0
Proposed Amendment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan
Purpose:
Location:
Basis:
The purpose of Amendment 36 is to amend the City of Pickering Official
Plan to bring it into conformity with the Credit Valley, Toronto and Region,
and Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Plan, March 25, 2019 (CTC
SPP) and the Toronto and Region Assessment Report, March 25, 2019 in
accordance with the Clean Water Act, 2006.
The Amendment contains policies that apply City-wide as well as policies
that affect lands within Pickering's Rural System that are predominantly
located along the City's northern municipal boundary. The lands identified
as Wellhead Protection Areas located in the northwest corner of the City
are associated with municipal drinking water wells in the Town of
Whitchurch-Stoufville. Other lands identified as Wellhead Protection
Areas are located within the Oak Ridges Moraine in Concession Nine,
north of the Hamlet of Balsam (refer to Schedule "B" of this Amendment).
Revisions to City of Pickering Official Plan Schedule III D are minor,
adding approximately 105 hectares of lands to the Groundwater Recharge
Areas designation (refer to. Schedule "A" of this Amendment).
The Clean Water Act, 2006 enabled the establishment of Source
Protection Regions and Areas throughout the province to address threats
to municipal groundwater supplies (drinking water wells) and municipal
surface water supplies (drinking water intakes). Each Source Protection
Committee is responsible for the development of: Assessment Reports
that, based on technical studies, identify and assess threats to municipal
drinking water systems; and Source Protection Plans that have detailed
policies on how to address those threats. The City of Pickering is within
the Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, and Central Lake Ontario (CTC)
Source Protection Area. The CTC Source Protection Plan came into effect
in 2015, and was subsequently amended in March of 2019.
The policies in each Source Protection Plan have been written to ensure
that for every area identified in an Assessment Report as an area where
an activity is, or would be, a significant drinking water threat, the activity
never becomes a significant drinking water threat or ceases to be a
significant drinking water threat.
Municipalities are required to amend their Official Plans to conform to the
applicable Source Protection Plan. The City's Official Plan must therefore
be amended to conform to the Clean Water Act, 2006 and the policies of
the CTC Source Protection Plan.
Amendment: The Pickering Official Plan, Edition 8, October 2018, is hereby amended
by:
- 15 -
Ar iendment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan
Page 2
Revising Schedule III D — Resource Management: High Aquifer Vulnerability,
Groundwater Recharge Areas to reflect additional Groundwater Recharge Areas
identified in the Toronto and Region Assessment Report, March 25, 2019 as illustrated
on Schedule "A" attached to this Amendment.
2. Adding new Schedule III F — Wellhead Protection Areas to illustrate Wellhead Protection
Areas B, C and D (WHPA-B, WHPA-C and WHPA-D) associated with municipal
drinking water wells in Whitchurch-Stouffville; York -Durham Wellhead Protection Areas
— Water Quantity (WHPA-Q1/Q2); and, the York -Durham Wellhead Protection Areas
Q1/Q2 Downgradient Line as illustrated on Schedule "B" attached to this Amendment.
3. Revising City Policy 10.2, Resource Management Objectives, in Chapter 10 — Resource
Management, by deleting "and" at the end of subsection (f); deleting the period "." and
adding "; and" at the end of subsection (g); and adding new subsection (h) as follows:
"(f) coordinate with other levels of government, public and private agencies,
and other groups to identify, research, protect, and manage the City's
natural resources, and institute regular environmental monitoring and
reporting; and
(g)
involve the public, business -people, landowners, relevant public agencies,
and other interested groups and individuals in resource management
decisions affecting the City: ; and
(h) protect water quality and water quantity for municipal drinking water
systems."
4. Revising City Policy 10.8, Stormwater Management, in Chapter 10 — Resource
Management, to add a new subsection (a) (iii) as follows:
"(iii) require that designated areas for snow storage are located where
melting snow cannot carry contaminants and salt loads directly into
vulnerable areas1"
5. Revising City Policy 10.13, Areas of Groundwater Protection, in Chapter 10 — Resource
Management, by adding "and" at the end of subsection (e); adding a period "." at the
end of subsection (f); and deleting subsections (g) and (h) as follows:
"(e) require, where appropriate, the recommendations of a Hydrogeology and
Water Budget Study, Groundwater Impact Study, Environmental Report
(see Sections 16.8 and 16.10), and any evaluation reports referenced in
Section 16.14, as applicable, to be implemented; and
(f)
despite Sections 10.13(b), (c) and (e), not require further studies
addressing groundwater recharge or areas of high aquifer vulnerability, for
proposed development that was addressed through the Master
Environmental Servicing Plan for the Seaton Community;,
- 16 -
mendment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 3
(g)—partieipate -with ether area munioipa#i#ies as members of the Lake Ontario
Collaborative Group to undertake actions or tasks -to -pretest -t=ake -Ontario
as an important source of drinking water.; -and
(h} ensure that planning decisions conform with er-are-net ineonflictwith-the
pelieies of the approved Credit Valley, Toronto and Dien and Central
Lake -Ontario -Source protection plan."
6. Revising City Policy 10.17, Lake Ontario Waterfront and Frenchman's Bay, in Chapter
10 – Resource Management, by deleting "and" at the end of subsection (f); deleting the
period "." and adding ";" at the end of subsection (g); adding new subsection (h); and
moving former subsection 10.13 (g) to become new subsection 10.17 (i) as follows:
"(f)
(g)
encourage and support actions by public agencies and others to improve
and restore the quality of Lake Ontario, including programs to address
concerns regarding nutrient loads and the proliferation of invasive species,
chemical contaminants and algae growth; and
require, where appropriate, that the recommendations of an Environmental
Report to be implemented (see Sections 16.8 and 16.10).1
fill require that designated areas for snow storage are located where melting
snow cannot carry contaminants and salt loads directly into vulnerable
areas; and
fl participate with other area municipalities as members of the Lake Ontario
Collaborative Group to undertake actions or tasks to protect Lake Ontario
as an important source of drinking water."
7 Adding new policies 10.27, 10.28 and 10.29 to the end of Chapter 10 – Resource
Management as follows:
"10.27 City Council recognizes that, in vulnerable areas around municipal
drinking water wells, certain land use activities may pose a threat to
water quality; accordingly, City Council shall:
identify Wellhead Protection Areas fWHPA) on Schedule III F –
Wellhead Protection Areas, which are intended to function as an
overlay to the primary land use designations;
J prohibit or restrict land uses within a WHPA-B, C and/or D which
pose significant drinking water quality threat activities as identified
in the Durham Regional Official Plan:,
ll where the application of road salt would be a moderate or low
drinking water threat within a WHPA-B, C and/or D, require
development to submit a Salt Management Plan as part of a
complete application to address the:
- 17 -
endment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 4
design of roads, sidewalks and parking lots in order to
minimize the need for repeat applications of road salt, while
maintaining public safety; and
fill location of snow storage so that contaminants and salt loads
from snow melt are not carried into vulnerable areas.
10.28 City Council recognizes that the Region of York, through an agreement
with the Region of Durham, has assumed enforcement related to
activities that may be a threat to water quality within any WHPA,
associated with a municipal drinking water well in the Region of York;.
accordingly, Council shall:
require all applications made under the Planning Act,
Condominium Act and Building Code Act within a WHPA-B, C and
D in the City of Pickering to be circulated to the Region of Durham
for submission to the Region of York and review by the Region of
York's Risk Management Official.
10.29 City Council recognizes that, in vulnerable areas around municipal
drinking water wells, certain land use activities that take water without
returning it to the same source, or which reduce recharge to an aquifer
in the York -Durham Wellhead Protection Area — Water Quantity {York -
Durham WHPA-Q1/Q21 may be a threat to waterquantityi accordingly,
Council shall:
j identify the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2 on Schedule III F —
Wellhead Protection Areas, which are intended to function as an
overlay to the primary land use designations;
ILll for lands within the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, deem the policies
in this section to apply and prevail in the event of a conflict with
any other policy of this Plan;
{ require a Salt Management Plan as part of a complete application
where the application of road salt within areas of groundwater
recharge and high aquifer vulnerability in the York -Durham WHPA-
Q1/Q2 would be a moderate or low drinking water threat to address
the:
.01 design of roads, sidewalks and parking lots in order to
minimize the need for repeat applications of road salt, while
maintaining public safety; and
fill location of snow storage so that contaminants and salt loads
from snow melt are not carried into vulnerable areas.
- 18 -
Propos ,• ndment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 5
only permit development within the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2
with a significant or moderate risk level, as identified in the Durham
Regional Official Plan, if it does not require a new or amended
Permit To Take Water,
jpi notwithstanding Section 10.29 fdj, permit new development within
the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2 that requires a new or amended
Permit To Take Water if the Ministry of the Environment
Conservation and Parks determines the activity would not become
a significant water quantity threat
Lf require a Water Balance Assessment for major development which
poses a significant or moderate threat to drinking water quantity,
as identified in the Durham Regional Official Plan, on lands north of
the Downgradient Line within the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q21
jgj require major development which poses a significant or moderate
threat to drinking water quantity, as identified in the Durham
Regional Official Plan, on lands north of the Downgradient Line
within the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, to maintain predevelopment
recharge to the greatest extent feasible based on a Water Balance
Assessment
fill require major development which poses a significant or moderate
threat to drinking water quantity, as identified in the Durham
Regional Official Plan, on lands north of the Downgradient Line
within the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, to implement and maximize
off-site recharge, within another site within the York -Durham
WHPA-Q1/Q2 to compensate for anypredicted loss of recharge
from the development based on a Water Balance Assessment
ff in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, determine, on a case by case basis, whether major
development on lands south of the Downgradient Line within the
York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, will require a Water Balance
Assessment)
11.1 require major development on lands south of the Downgradient
Line within the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2, to implement best
management practices with the goal to maintain pre -development
recharge rates
jk) require small-scale development and agricultural development,
with the exception of agricultural development identified in Section
10.29 j J within the York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2 to implement best
management practices with the goal to maintain pre -development
recharge rates
- 19 -
Proposed = • idment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 6
encourage agricultural uses, agriculture -related uses and on-farm
diversified uses where the total impervious surface does not
exceed 10 percent of the total lot area to implement best
management practices such as low impact development with the
goal to maintain pre -development recharge rates, and
reguire that a Water Balance Assessment as referred to in
Sections 10.29 (f), 10.29 (q), 10.29 (h), 10.29 (i) and 10.291m), at a
minimum, identifies recharge characteristics of the site, identifies
anticipated long-term and short-term impacts of the proposed
developments recommends measures to maintain pre -development
recharge on site to the greatest extent feasible through best
management practices and, where pre -development recharge
cannot be maintained on site, recommends measures to locate
compensating recharge on another site within the York -Durham
WHPA-Q1/Q2."
8. Revising City Policy 13.1, Preparation of Rural Settlement Plans, in Chapter 13 — Rural
Settlements, by deleting "and" at the end of subsection (c); deleting the period "." and
adding "; and" at the end of subsection (d); and adding new subsection (e) as follows:
"(c) indicate the location of new public road connections, where known, and
endeavour to ensure the construction of such road connections through
development proposals and government initiatives; and
(d) indicate the general location of existing and new community facilities, where
known, and endeavour to ensure the construction of such facilities through
development proposals and government initiatives71 and
jel notwithstanding subsection ib), only consider amendments to rural
settlement area boundaries that would result in an expansion into the York -
Durham WHPA Q1/Q2 as part of a municipal comprehensive review where it
has been demonstrated that recharge functions will be maintained on lands
identified as Groundwater Recharge Areas on Schedule III D — Resource
Management: High Aquifer Vulnerability, Groundwater Recharge."
9. Adding a definition for the term "Groundwater Recharge Area (GRA)" in alphabetic order
to Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 — Implementation, as follows:
"Groundwater Recharge Area jGRAI means an area where an aquifer is
replenished from natural processes, such as the infiltration of rainfall and
snowmelt and the seepage of surface water from lakes, streams and
Wetlands and from human interventions, such as the use of storm water
management systems."
-20-
Propos
endment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 7
Adding a definition for the term "Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA)" in alphabetic order
to Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 — Implementation, as follows:
"Wellhead Protection Area {WHPAI means the area surrounding a water well
or well field that supplies a municipal residential system or other designated
system that may be vulnerable to significant threats. More specifically:
al For water quality threats, the size and delineation of the wellhead
rotection areas are determined b how • uickl water travels
underground to the well, measured in years, as outlined below:
Wellhead protection area — A jWHPA-Ali The area within a
100 -metre radius of the wellheadl
{Ill Wellhead protection area — B {WHPA—B1: The area subject to a
2 year time of travel to the well,
jiii) Wellhead protection area — C (WHPA-C): The area subject to a
5 year time of travel to the well,
Wellhead protection area — D {WHPA-D1: The area subject to a
25 year time of travel to the well, and
jvl Wellhead protection area — E {WHPA-E1: The area where a
municipal well is under the direct influence of surface water, and
Ill For water quantity threats, the delineation of the wellhead protection
area is based on a tiered water budget analysis that determined
locations where there was a moderate or significant threat to water
quantity. These areas are classified as:
ill Wellhead Protection Area - Water Quantity 1 {WHPA-Q1):The area
where activities that take water without returning it to the same
source may be a threat and
ED Wellhead Protection Area - Water Quantity 2 {WHPA-Q2): The area
where activities that reduce recharge may be a threat.
11. Revising City Policy 16.5A in Chapter 16 — Development Review, by deleting the text in
subsection (xxxvi) and replacing it with new text; and adding a new subsection (xxxvii)
as follows:
(xxxvi) awater management plan verifying that there is sufficient water
supply-te support the proposed uses, and on a cumulative
sustainable basis, confirm that there is -no negative impact -on
surrounding water- users and the natural environment whish Gannet
be appropriately mitigated far developmentapplisations {excepting
wetland -restoration -projects and domestic usage and livestock
operations) -that -require a per-mit-te take wate1L unde1 the Ontario
Watef Resources Act, or -that have the potential to impact water
quantity.
- 21 -
Proposed pndment 36 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Page 8
a water balance assessment, as referred to in Sections 10.29 (f),
10.29 (g), 10.29 (h), 10.29 0) and 10.29 (m); and
(xxxvii) a salt management plan as referred to in Sections 10.8 (a)(iii),
10.17 (h), 10.27 (c) and 10.29 (c)."
12. Revising City Policy 16.5B in Chapter 16 — Development Review, by deleting "and" at
the end of subsection (xxv); deleting the period "." and adding a semicolon ";" at the end
of subsection (xxvi); and adding new subsections (xxvii) and (xxviii) as follows:
"(xxv) a construction management plan; and
(xxvi) a railway corridor safety study:
(xxvii) a water balance assessment, as referred to in Sections 10.29 fa,
10.29 (g), 10.29 (h), 10.29 and 10.29 (m); and
(xxviii) a salt management plan as referred to in Sections 10.8 (a)(iii),
10.17 (h), 10.27 (c) and 10.29 (c)."
Implementation:
Interpretation:
Cross Reference:
OPA 19.0021P
City Initiated
The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as
amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in
regard to this Amendment. In light of the numerous components of
the Official Plan that are being revised concurrently, the numbering
of the policy sections in this amendment is subject to change in
accordance with the sequencing of approvals.
The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan as
amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in
regard to this Amendment, except as revised by this amendment.
-22-
Schedule "A"
Kinsale ,
a
Lake Ontario
Proposed Revised
Schedule III D to the
Pickering
Official Plan
Edition 8
Resource Management:
High Aquifer Vulnerability,
Groundwater Recharge Areas
Groundwater Recharge Area
High Aquifer Vulnerability Areas
77
Forest
Creek- I
Estates
Schedule "B"
M1I
Kinsale
Barclay z
Estates
Forest
Creek
Estates
Lake Ontario
Proposed
Schedule III F to the
Pickering
Official Plan
Edition 8
Resource Management:
Wellhead Protection Areas
(WHPA)
Wellhead Protection Areas - Water Quality
J
WHPA-B
WHPA-C
WHPA-D
Wellhead Protection Areas - Water Quantity
FAR
York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2
York -Durham WHPA-Q1/Q2
Downgradient Line
01.1
Appendix II to
Information Report 10-19
Draft Proposed Informational Revision 24 to the Pickering Official Plan
-25-
` i 1\\\' P'i>posed Informational Revision 24 to the Pickering Official Plan
6 II
t_=
Purpose:
The purpose of this Proposed Revision is to change the
informational text contained within the Pickering Official Plan in
order to provide clarity to the policies introduced as part of the
Official Plan Amendment to implement Source Water Protection.
The Proposed Revision also updates references to new Proposed
Schedules to be added to the Pickering Official Plan.
Location: Chapter 10 — Resource Management
Basis:
Proposed
Revision:
In reviewing the informational text contained in the Official Plan,
various technical revisions have been determined to be necessary
and appropriate to assist users with understanding the changes to
the Official Plan text implemented through the associated Official
Plan Amendment.
The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby revised by:
1. On page 119, under Chapter 10 — Resource Management, revising the last sentence of
the third informational paragraph so that it reads as follows:
"The Resource Management Schedule identifies the various resource features and
areas (see Schedules IIIA to IIIEF to this Plan, found at the end of the Plan)."
2. Adding the following new Section to the end of Chapter 10 — Resource Management:
"Source Protection Plans
Source Protection Plans identify threats to the quality and quantity of municipal
drinking water sources (drinking water wells and water supply plants) and their
associated vulnerable areas. The City of Pickering is subject to the CTC Source
Protection Plan (CTC SPP), which gets its name from the first letter of each of its
three Source Protection Areas: Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, and Central
Lake Ontario.
The Lake Ontario based Ajax Water Supply Plant, which is operated by the Region
of Durham, is the City's source of municipal drinking water. Implementation of
policies within the CTC SPP addressing drinking water threats to the Ajax Water
Supply Plant is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and
Parks and the Region of Durham. However, the City of Pickering is committed to
working with other municipalities as members of the Lake Ontario Collaborative to
undertake actions that protect Lake Ontario as a source of drinking water.
The City of Pickering does not have any municipal drinking water wells; however,
there are portions of the City that are within Wellhead Protection Areas, for water
quality, for two municipal drinking water wells in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville.
The City is also within Wellhead Protection Areas for water quantity. The Wellhead
Protection Areas are identified on Schedule III F —Wellhead Protection Areas of the
Official Plan.
-26-
IP, 1;904 *n _ rmational Revision 24 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2
A Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) is a vulnerable area on the land around a
municipal drinking water well that is delineated to protect water quality or water
quantity."
3. Add "City Policy Wellhead Protection Areas for Water Quality" within the informational
sidebar adjacent to the new Section 10.27;
4. Add the following informational sidebar, which relates to the size and shape of wellhead
protection areas referred to in new Sections 10.27, 10.28 and 15.15:
The size and shape of each WHPA
(B, C, D or E) is a function of how
water travels underground. Time of
travel is important because it is an
indication of how quickly a
contaminant can move from a WHPA
into a municipal well. Time of travel
can be influenced by a number of
factors such as the slope of land, and
the type of soil (for example, water
travels faster through sand than it
does through clay). Wellhead
Protection Areas are drawn based on
scientific research that took all these
factors into consideration
5. Add "City Policy Review of Applications within a Wellhead Protection Area for Water
Quality" within the informational sidebar adjacent to the new Section 10.28; and
6. Add "City Policy Wellhead Protection Areas for Water Quantity" within the informational
sidebar adjacent to the new Section 10.29.
Cross Reference:
OPA 19-002/P
City Initiated
-27-
Attachment #oto
Infnrmnfinrz RWrtnrt ft In - I ci
Additional Groundwater Recharge Area
Groundwater Recharge Area
High Aquifer Vulnerability Area
Eighth -Concession Road
l[ 5���������
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Additional Groundwater Recharge Areas - Northeast Pickering
File: OPA 19-002/P
Applicant: City Initiated
po+a•gn.0
lIPIQHaiafervM ,OIIa.
7 Tem.! Elee.pnwalrlp
ro pa
wit,. the Owen In RIyM el Canada. Oep 11
Mrd Ip woVnia adlpHa rpleere Nwc�
Date: May. 21
up Raaola�cea.NdpMareiaeved.;a SCALE: 1:20,000
All vaMrN ;4w.rrlwland lawppltta of a U1.4W ! THIS 15 NOT T P LA H OF SUR VET.
2019
Attachment #_to
Vnfnrmatir p RP.nnrt# lO-IR
r
1
t
Trans -Canada Pi :line
�►
Additional Groundwater Recharge Area
Groundwater Recharge Area
High Aquifer Vulnerability Area
Eig thth h•C cession Road
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Additional Groundwater Recharge Areas - Northwest Pickering
File: OPA 19-002/P
I Applicant: City Initiated
T u o rporaoon of the City of Pi&enng P tad ucedOn part) uM er license 1 om'QO ueens Pmler,OrlafloM nslry Rllalurd Resources.
!I rights reserved.;m Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada. Oepalural Resources. Al rights reserved.;
Teranet Enterprises Inc. and ifs supplOrs all rights reserveli•Cr Munich Assesment Corporation and is suppliers all rights reserved;
I
Date: May. 21, 2019
SCALE: 1:20,000 I
THIS IS HOT A PLAN OF SURVEY
Gley Og
PICKERING
Information Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: 11-19
Date: June 17, 2019
From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/18
Allan Kent Cameron
Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407
(715 Liverpool Road)
1. Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application
for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Allan Kent Cameron, to permit an infill
residential development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official
Plan and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date.
This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to
understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public
delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning
issues. This report is for information and no decision is being made at this time. Staff will
bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development
Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal.
2. Property Location and Description
The subject property is located on the east side of Liverpool Road, north of Commerce
Street, within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The
property has an area of approximately 929 square metres with approximately 30.5 metres of
frontage along Liverpool Road. The property is currently occupied by a vacant, single -storey
building formerly used as an accountant's office, which is proposed to be demolished. A row of
mature trees is located along the rear property line.
Surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2):
North: A residential common element condominium development, presently under
construction, consisting of 57 townhouse units and 10 detached dwellings.
East: Immediately to the east is the Frenchman's Bay Ratepayers Memorial Park, and
further east are detached dwellings fronting onto Commerce Street.
South: Abutting the subject property to the south are two detached dwellings fronting onto
Liverpool Road.
West: Across Liverpool Road is the Fairport United Cemetery and detached dwellings
fronting Commerce Street.
-30-
Information Report No. 11-19 Page 2
3. Applicant's Proposal
The applicant has submitted an application for Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the
subject property to a residential zone category in order to create three lots for detached
dwellings fronting onto Liverpool Road (see Submitted Concept Plan, Attachment #3). The
proposed lots will have minimum lot frontages of approximately 10.1 metres and minimum
lot areas of approximately 309 square metres.
The proposed detached dwellings will be 2 -storeys with a building height of approximately
8.4 metres (calculated from established grade to the mid -point of the peaked roof). The
proposed dwellings will be approximately 225 square metres in size (see Submitted
Conceptual Elevations, Attachments #4, #5 and #6). Two parking spaces are proposed for
each unit (one within an attached garage and one on the driveway).
The applicant is proposing to utilize the Bonus Zoning policies of the City's Official Plan to
permit three dwellings, whereas the density requirements of the Official Plan permits a
maximum of two dwellings. In exchange for an additional dwelling unit, the applicant is
proposing to provide a community benefit, which is detailed in Section 4.3 of this report.
The applicant is proposing to create the new residential lots through the land severance
process with the Region of Durham Land Division Committee.
4. Policy Framework
4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan
The Region of Durham Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject property as "Living
Areas". The "Living Areas" designation shall be used predominately for housing purposes.
The plan also states that lands within the Living Areas designation shall be developed in
compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing
areas. The applicant's proposal conforms to the policies and provisions of the ROP.
4.2 Pickering Official Plan
The subject property is within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood and is designated "Urban
Residential Areas — Low Density Areas" within the Pickering Official Plan. This designation
provides for housing and related uses, and a density of up to and including 30 units per net
hectare.
The Official Plan states that in establishing performance standards, regard shall be had to
protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods by considering
matters such as building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking
provisions and traffic implications. The Official Plan also states that where new development
is proposed within an existing neighbourhood or established area, City Council shall
encourage building design that reinforces and complements existing built patterns such as
form, massing, height proportion, position relative to the street, and building area to site ratio.
Details of the application will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official
Plan during the further processing of the application.
- 31 -
Information Report No. 11-19 Page 3
4.3 Bonus Zoning Policies
Section 37 of the Planning Act authorizes municipalities with appropriate Official Plan
provisions to pass zoning by-laws for increases in height or density beyond what is
permitted by the Official Plan, in return for the provision by the applicant of community
benefits. Section 16.17 of the Official Plan permits City Council to pass by-laws that grant
an increase in density not exceeding 25 percent of the density permitted by the Official Plan
providing:
• the density bonus is given only in return for the provision of specific services, facilities
or matters as specified in the by-law, such as but not limited to: additional open space
or community facilities, assisted or special needs housing, the preservation of heritage
buildings or structures, or the preservation of natural heritage features and functions;
• when considering an increase in density, and allowing the provision of benefits off-site,
the positive impacts of the exchange should benefit the social/cultural, environmental
and economic health of surrounding areas experiencing the increased density;
• the effects of the density bonus have been reviewed and determined by Council to be
in conformity with the general intent of the Official Plan, by considering matters such as:
• the suitability of the site for the proposed increase in density in terms of parking,
landscaping, and other site-specific requirements;
• the compatibility of any increase in density with the character of the surrounding
neighbourhood; and
• as a condition of granting a density bonus, the City requires the benefiting landowner(s)
to enter into one or more agreements, registered against the title of the lands, dealing
with the provision and timing of specific facilities, services or matters to be provided in
return for the bonus.
On May 27, 2019 Council approved a Bonus Zoning Policy to ensure a consistent and
transparent approach when identifying eligible developments and community benefits,
calculating the value of the applicant's contribution towards a community benefit, and
negotiating the required Section 37 agreements. The objective of this policy is to
implement the Bonus Zoning provisions of Section 16.17 of the Pickering Official Plan, in
accordance with Section 37 of the Planning Act, as amended.
The applicant is proposing to use the Bonus Zoning provisions of the City's Official Plan to
increase the density to approximately 33 units per net hectare, which results in one
additional unit beyond the maximum permitted density by the Official Plan. In return for the
additional density, the applicant is proposing community improvements in the form of
upgrades to Balsdon Park, located at the corner of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road.
The City is currently assessing the appropriateness of the applicant's request to use the
density bonus provisions of the Official Plan to increase the permitted density.
-32-
Information Report No. 11-19 Page 4
4.4 Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies and Guidelines
The Bay Ridges Neigbourhood Policies recognize the subject property as being in the
vicinity of the "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node". The Tertiary Plan of the Liverpool Road
Waterfront Node Development Guidelines identifies the lands as Established Built Area of
the historic "Village of Fairport".
The guidelines provide direction on the built form of buildings along Liverpool Road by
directing new buildings to:
• provide high quality landscaping of front yards, large windows on the ground floor, and
signage of an appropriate character
• provide enhanced architecture to harmonize with the Great Lakes Nautical Village
theme
• be built close to the street without too much variation in setback
• be designed to allow for the easy conversion of ground floors to accommodate
landowners who may want to open commercial -type uses within the buildings
The application will be assessed against the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood policies and the
Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines during the further processing of
the application.
4.5 Zoning By-law 2511
The subject property is currently zoned "Cl" — Local Commercial Zone within Zoning
By-law 2511, as amended, which permits a retail store, restaurant — type A, bake shop,
service store, dry cleaning and laundry collecting station, business office and parking
station, and professional office.
The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to an appropriate residential
zone category with site-specific performance standards to facilitate the proposal. A Zoning
Provisions Comparison Chart and Zoning Map summarizes the existing "R4-11" zone
standards immediately to the south of the subject property and the "R4" zone standards
that comprise a large portion of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (see Zoning Provisions
Comparison Chart, Attachment #7 and Zoning Map, Attachment #8).
5. Comments Received
5.1 Resident Comments
As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received from the
public.
-33-
Information Report No. 11-19 Page 5
5.2 Agency Comments
Region of Durham — Planning &
Economic Development
Department
Canada Post
Durham Catholic District School
Board
Durham District School Board
• no comments received at the time of writing this
report
• door to door delivery will be provided
• students from this development will attend
Father Fenelon Catholic Elementary School and
St. Mary Catholic Secondary School
• no objections to the proposal
• students will attend existing neigbourhood
schools
• no objections to the proposal
Enbridge, Rogers Communications •
and Veridian Connections
5.3 Engineering Services Comments
no objections to the proposal
The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance identified by
the City's Engineering Services Department:
• a designated substance survey is to be submitted prior to any future redevelopment of
the site due to the suspected presence of regulated building materials (such as
asbestos containing materials, lead and mercury -based paints etc.) as identified within
the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
• one boulevard tree (Ivory Silk Lilac) per lot will be required
• confirmation whether the trees located in the rear yards are to be retained or removed,
and if removed appropriate compensation (financial and/or replacement planting) will
be required
6. Planning & Design Section Comments
The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date.
These matters, and other identified through the circulation and detailed review of the
proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant prior to a final recommendation
report to Planning & Development Committee:
• ensuring conformity with the City's Official Plan and the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood
policies
• ensuring that the design, height, massing, coverage, side yards, and setbacks of the
proposed dwellings are compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood and
in keeping with the requirements of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development
Guidelines
-34-
Information Report No. 11-19 Page 6
• determining if the proposed community benefit (improvements in the form of upgrades
to Balsdon Park) for one additional unit is suitable for the community
• ensuring that appropriate compensation (financial and replacement planting) is provided
for the removal of existing vegetation on the property
• ensuring that the required technical submissions and reports meet City standards
Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the
circulated departments, agencies and public. The City Development Department will
conclude its position on the applications after it has received and assessed comments from
the circulated departments, agencies and public.
7. Information Received
Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for online viewing at
pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development
Department:
• Application form to Amend Zoning By-law, completed by the applicant, dated
October 2, 2018
• Planning Justification Report prepared by Evans Planning Inc., dated September 2018
• Addendum to Planning Justification Report prepared by Evans Planning Inc., dated
May 7, 2019
• Land Appraisal Reports prepared by Janterra Real Estate Advisors, dated April 23, 2019
• Draft Zoning By-law prepared by Evans Planning Inc., dated September 2018
• Stormwater Management Brief prepared by Politis Engineering Ltd., dated June 2018
and revised September 20, 2018
• Preliminary Grading & Storm Drainage Plan prepared by Politis Engineering Ltd., dated
June 2018
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Edward Wong & Associates Inc.,
dated August 21, 2018
• Site Screening Questionnaire prepared by Edward Wong & Associates, dated
July 23, 2018
• Proposed Land Division, Concept Plan dated October 23, 2017
• Elevation and Floor Plan Package prepared by Agincourt Design 2001 Corp., dated
September 18, 2018
• Topographic Survey prepared by DFP Surveyors Ltd., dated March 28, 2018
8. Procedural Information
8.1 General
• written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development
Department
• oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting
• all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by
the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee
of Council
-35-
Information Report No. 11-19 Page 7
• any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision
must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal
• any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this
proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk
9. Owner/Applicant Information
The owner of the property is Allan Kent Cameron and is represented by Evans Planning Inc.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Air Photo Map
3. Submitted Concept Plan
4. Submitted Conceptual Elevations — Front Elevation
5. Submitted Conceptual Elevations — Side Elevations
6. Submitted Conceptual Elevation — Rear Elevation
7. Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart
8. Zoning Map
Prepared By:
Rory McNeil
Planner I
Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
& Urban Design
RM:Id
Date of Report: May 28, 2019
-36-
Approved/Endorsed By:
w/44,
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Attachment # / to
Information Report# 11:=2
Haller Avenue
o>
Naroch Boulevards m
```'
NMI w,
4 ‘,
u_
i
=BroWling Avenue
Bayview Street —
W aterpoint
Street
Nada
7 Old Orchard Avenue
0
Mon ca Cook
lPlace
!l
'\
T
Ilona Park Road
Luna Court
WiS1
triLim leg
l,o
c ,
110vs‘
lt��:voe
Oa
Gull D(0
Ilona Park Road Crossing -
Subject
Lands
11111 1
0
m
0
0
Foxglove Avenue
I I
11111111111
111 11
-Gull Crossing--
>
0
Commerce Street
I 1
MEI
Wharf Street
Broadview Street
Annland Street
_Shearer
_Lane
atop
o5
c. m
6
o
Colmar Avenue
I t I o0
m
NMI
Location Map
File: A 13/18
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron
Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407
(715 Liverpool Road)
Date: May. 23, 2019
bb.f. Corporation ohneCity o Holten. Produand(In pert) under Sten
Il rights reserved SP Omen Majesty the Cen In RightCanada, Dena
E Tunnel Enleipr ses Inc. and its suppliers all rights reeeseive�®IAunlcl
Queens Printer, Orton°Ministry ot•Natural Resources .
ural Resources_r ghts reserved.;
ty Assesment Co,prporalcin and ds suppfers all rghts reserved.;
SCALE: 1:5,005
TNIS IS NOT A PIAN OF SURVEY
Attachment #_oto
InforrnAtinn Reporti I —1 .
Nero ch
Hailer Avenue
Monica Cook
iLuna Court
Ilona Park Road
Bayview Street
Foxglove Avenue
I
'.
- .`
1Ij
sg7 I'II '"1�I aCsn.Jv _ sY
W
a Gull Grossing V 7" i
1 ] .
Subject
Lands
Commerce Street
Colmar Avenue
Broadview Street
Wharf Street".
C4oe
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Air Photo Map
File: A 13/18
Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron
Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407
(715 Liverpool Road)
The Cwporawnduk C Ay of RGenng Plonked On pail) erne Ht erase Dom OOueensAn*er.❑marc !Arm ,yorNalk al Repurces
AD rights reserved 6 Her Majesty the Queen i) Rightof Canada, De lural Resources. All righlsreselved.;
STeranet Enlerpr ses Inc and Issu)ylers al mills resenyy OMunk' AsseslQlent Corpora gen and Issrlepllers al rights rtsennd•
Date: May. 23, 2019
SCALE: 1:5,000
'1111515 NOTA PIAN OF SURVEY
2
Proposed
Single
Detached
Dwelling
.211
20
Proposed
Single
Detached
Dwelling
0,60
3Q1
Proposed
Single
Detached
Dwelling
0,60
19 1
1.10
LIVERPOOL ROAD
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Submitted Concept Plan
File No: A 13/18
Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron
Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407
(715 Liverpool Road)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
JDATE: May 15, 2019
L:\Planning\Corel\Planning\Apps\A\2018
-39-
ELEVATIONA ELEVATION B
=FL 191111111111111111111MM
1=i
-
.
_
__
lYYDifY�lE!
��_�
_r
WM
flUY11E/M/
�Yia
rY�
iYYfl
___
____
rIK. SECOND FlD00. .r�
��7
���
2.1211
��
_
����Y�
WYY'
- - �iYYI.
_
_
_
�� Ci
.
�__
•
maim
�
'
' �I_�
a
'
—,
=mo
��
W
om
i�
l
_7_�_
arm=
11•3 et
2
WI
=IN. FIRS'
am
1==== 1==.=
1
�.�
r
_____
___ ___
i _
i
'•-
A
����
I
�OM
asils a
�—
�����
..�����
I��I
ll
ma ma
--Ira
-Mt
Elms
,-,
�L�.�1.
�1� 1
l0.nDE
View
from Liverpool
Road
Submitted Conceptual Elevations - Front Elevations
C't.Y 4
File No: A 13/18
PICKERING
Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron
Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407
City Development
(715 Liverpool Road)
Department
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. -
DATE: May 15, 2019
L:\Planning\Corel\Planning W ppsW\2018
-40-
Attachment #_Zto
Information Report &di-
nrwrtawwrarnirailrar---w•
ar inrlrrrrnnmrranrnwraa-ma-
�IIMINDIMOSOMOOD2EINIMMOODSSONDMIDERMIDIMINF 3011,5
r
n �rer•'�erm rrrwar sa
wnv
wurr�wa
Cid4
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Submitted Conceptual Elevations - Side Elevations
File No: A 13/18
Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron
Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407
(715 Liverpool Road)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: May 15, 2019
L:\Pla n n ing\Corel\Planning\Apps\A\2018
- 41 -
r 1' 1' I I 1
d,'
1111,1111)1111,
111
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' 11 11 1 1 1.
1 1 1 1 1, 1,11.
''))1
1 1 1 t t,' 0.,' ' ' J1 , , 1 ' 11 1 1; 1 �1 1
11 r1111d1 [1' 'r�J'1'J'1l 1 1 ��
'1 , 11111 1 1�) 111 �111 11IJ��1 r�iI 1 11111
i
J, r � 1 ' I t J i l t' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 't 1'1 '1 ''
L1JJ 1 1 1' 1L' 1' 1' 1 '1 1'r'1 1 1'tt 1 1 1
1%1'1'1"1't� I i'1'r't'1'1 1�'1 �� 1 rl1'rr 111'111
t ,' '1' 1'1' l 1. 'J JJ 1 J%J11 r1
1 J �� 1 1� 1' l i 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1, 1' 1' 1' J 1' t 1 1 1' 1' 1 1 1 111111
' 1 L
III 1 1 1'0.1'1 t✓,.1 ' 1J/ '.1-'1'r1rJ 'J r 1J1'I`1 1_1 11rt''1'
111
11
1 11 J 1 I1 t 1 1 1 �� 1 t�1 1rt r�
I „ 1'I', 'Ilrl'I' '-'1'.1 1 1 1'
[ I I I
111111
111
1
S
S
S
S
2
1 � �
1 11
1 r 1
7-1
c4 4
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Submitted Conceptual Elevations - Rear Elevation
File No: A 13/18
Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron
Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407
(715 Liverpool Road)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: May 15, 2019
L:\Planning\Corel\Planning\Ap ps\A\2018
-42-
Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart
Provision
Proposed Zoning
Standard (A 13/18)
Existing "R4-11" Zone
Standards South of
Subject Property Along
Liverpool Road
Existing "R4" Zone
Standards in
Neighbourhood
Uses Permitted
Detached dwelling
Detached dwelling
Detached dwelling
Lot Area (min)
305 square metres
460 square metres
460 square metres
Lot Frontage (min)
10.0 metres
15.0 metres
15.0 metres
Front Yard (min)
6.0 metres
4.5 metres
7.5 metres
Interior Side Yard Width
(min)
1.2 metres one side
and 0.6 metres other
side
1.2 metres both sides, or
1.8 metres one side and
no minimum other side
1.5 metres one side and
2.4 metres other side, or
1.5 metres both sides if
dwelling is erected with
an attached garage
Flankage Side Yard
Width (min)
-
2.7 metres
4.5 metres
Rear Yard Depth
7.5 metres
7.5 metres
7.5 metres
Building Height (max)
9.0 metres
12.0 metres
9.0 metres
Lot Coverage (max)
40 percent
33 percent
33 percent
-43-
0
—a)
3 g-
3
0 m
m
0
0
Attachment #_oto
Informntinry 9E ort# 1�
'4111111'i"11.1111111111•S4=711111111111111111111111111111.
Monica Cook Place
1I
S4-7
RM1
ll
Ilona Park Road
RM1
N
ce
RM1
R4
n_
(13
0
0
II
a)
J
Luna Court
SD
c
Foxglove Avenue
R4
C1
S2-17
MD -H12
Gull Crossing
T
S2-17
Commerce Street
C1
R4
Subject
Lands
R4
Broadview Street
R4
Cf-ri
Zoning Map
File: A 13/18
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant: Allan Kent Cameron
Property Description: Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407
(715 Liverpool Road
Date: May. 28, 2019
9 Corporation of the C33o IckenngProducedOnpart)u erllcense an Queens Ponter,Ontario MhbtryofNatural Resources .
All rghs reserved ® Ha Ma)esy the Queen In Right of Canada, Depart mat Resources. Al rteamed sed.;
QTeranet Enterprises Inc. and Hs suppliara all nght. reserved.0 M Asseslnt Corporation and as suppler. alt rghts reserved;
SCALE. 1.2r��� I
THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.
Gid .i
DICKERING
Information Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: 12-19
Date: June 17, 2019
From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/19
Joshani Homes Ltd.
Part Lot 72, Plan 418; and now Part 2, 40R-30097
(southerly end of Dunn Crescent)
1. Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application for
Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Joshani Homes Ltd. to permit an infill residential
development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and
other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date.
This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to
understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public
delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning
issues. This report is for information and no decision is being made at this time. Staff will
bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development
Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal.
2. Property Location and Description
The subject lands are located at the south end of Dunn Crescent, east of Rosebank Road,
and south of Nomad Road within the Rosebank Neighbourhood (see Location Map,
Attachment #1). The subject lands have an area of approximately 2,000 square metres
with approximately 14 metres of frontage along Dunn Crescent. The property is currently
vacant with existing mature vegetation along the east property line.
Surrounding land uses to the north, south and west include low density residential
development consisting of detached dwellings. To the east, across the Canadian National
Railway (CNR) corridor, is the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area (see Air Photo Map,
Attachment #2).
In April 2018, the Region of Durham Land Division Committee approved a Land Division
Application (LD 089/17) allowing the subject lands to be severed from the abutting lands to
the west (375 Rosebank Road) being the retained parcel.
3. Applicant's Proposed Amendments
The applicant has submitted a rezoning application to permit an infill residential development
consisting of four semi-detached dwelling units fronting onto the future southerly extension
of Dunn Crescent (see submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3).
Information Report No. 12-19 Page 2
The proposed lot frontages will range between 10.9 metres and 12.4 metres, and lot
areas will range between 332 square metres and 446 square metres. The dwellings will be
2 -storeys and will have an approximate building height of 8.2 metres from established
grade to the mid -point of the peaked roof (see submitted Conceptual Building Elevations,
Attachments #4 and #5). Two parking spaces will be provided for each dwelling: one space
within a private garage; and the other on the driveway.
Dunn Crescent is proposed to be extended approximately 22.9 metres south terminating at
a turning circle at the south end of the subject property, and will have a right-of-way width
of 20.0 metres.
The arborist report has identified a total of 16 trees on the subject lands. Two trees are
proposed to be removed due to the siting of the proposed dwelling units. A third tree has
been identified to be removed due to its hazardous condition. The applicant is proposing to
plant up to 8 additional trees within the development limits as compensation for the removal
of 3 trees.
The applicant is proposing to create the new residential lots through the land severance
process with the Region of Durham Land Division Committee.
4. Policy Framework
4.1 Durham Region Official Plan
The Region of Durham Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as "Living Areas".
The "Living Areas" designation shall be used predominately for housing purposes. The
plan also states that lands within the Living Areas designation shall be developed in
compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing
areas. The applicant's proposal conforms to the policies and provisions of the ROP.
4.2 Pickering Official Plan
The lands are within the Rosebank Neighbourhood and are designated "Urban Residential
Areas — Low Density Area", which provides for housing and related uses. This designation
permits a density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. The proposal has a
density of approximately 27 units per net hectare.
The Official Plan states that in establishing performance standards, regard shall be had to
protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods by considering
matters such as building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking
provisions and traffic implications. The Official Plan also states that where new development
is proposed within an existing neighbourhood or established area, City Council shall
encourage building design that reinforces and complements existing built patterns such as
form, massing, height proportion, position relative to the street, and building area to site ratio.
Details of the application will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official
Plan during the further processing of the applications.
-46-
Information Report No. 12-19 Page 3
4.3 Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
The subject lands are situated within Design Precinct No. 3 of the Rosebank Neighbouhood
Development Guidelines. Residential development within this precinct shall be limited to
single detached and semi-detached dwellings. All new lots created within this precinct for
semi-detached dwellings shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 10.5 metres
and minimum lot depths of approximately 30 metres.
The proposed lot dimensions appear to comply with the minimum lot frontage and lot depth
requirements of the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
4.4 Zoning By-law 2511, as amended
The subject lands are zoned Fourth Density Zone — "R4" within Zoning By-law 2511, as
amended, which permits a single detached dwelling. As noted in Section 3 of this report,
the applicant is seeking a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit semi-detached
dwelling units.
The properties immediately north of the subject lands are currently zoned "SD -B", which
permits semi-detached dwelling attached below grade residential uses, and "S", which
permits detached dwellings (see Zoning Map, Attachment #6). The applicant is requesting
similar zoning performance standards as those of the SD -B zone category (see Zoning
Provisions Comparison Chart, Attachment #7).
5. Comments Received
5.1 Residents Comments
As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from the public.
5.2 Agency Comments
5.2.1 Region of Durham — Planning Department
As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from the Region of
Durham Planning and Economic Development Department.
5.2.2 Metrolinx
As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from Metrolinx.
5.3 City Departments Comments
5.3.1 Engineering Services
As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received from Engineering
Services.
-47-
Information Report No. 12-19 Page 4
6. Planning & Design Section Comments
The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date.
These matters, and others identified through the circulation and detailed review of the
proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant prior to a final recommendation
report to Planning & Development Committee:
• ensuring conformity with the City's Official Plans and the Rosebank Neighbourhood
policies, and the Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
• ensuring that the proposal satisfies Metrolinx's requirements with respect to minimum
building setback requirements from the CNR corridor, safety berm/barrier requirements
along the east property line, and additional noise and vibration analysis
• ensuring appropriate zoning performance standards are implemented to facilitate
dwelling designs that are in keeping with the character of the surrounding residential
community
• reviewing preliminary grading and drainage details to ensure adjacent properties are not
impacted
• ensuring that appropriate compensation (financial and/or replacement planting) is
provided for the removal of the existing vegetation
• further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the
circulated departments, agencies and public
The City Development Department will conclude its positon on the application after it has
received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public.
7. Information Received
Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for online viewing at
pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development
Department:
• Planning Rationale Report, prepared by R.W. Bruynson Inc., dated January 9, 2019
• Conceptual Site Plan, prepared by R.W. Bruynson, dated January 8, 2019
• Conceptual Floor Plan and Elevations, prepared by Cornerstone Drafting and Design,
dated February 26, 2018
• Construction Management Plan, prepared by Counterpoint Engineering, dated March
29, 2019
• Preliminary Grading Plan, prepared by Counterpoint Engineering, dated March 29, 2019
• Site Screening Questionnaire, received on February 20, 2019
• Arborist Report, prepared by DreamWorks Tree Services, dated March 31, 2019
• Functional Servicing Report, prepared by Counterpoint Engineering, dated January 9,
2019
• Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated March 2019
• Report on the Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by
This Land Archaeology Inc., dated October 10, 2017
• Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport Letter, dated November 16, 2017
• Noise & Vibration Feasibility Study, prepared by Aerocoustics Engineering Ltd., dated
April 17, 2018
-48-
Information Report No. 12-19 Page 5
8. Procedural Information
8.1 General
• written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development
Department
• oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting
• all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by
the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee
of Council
• any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision
must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal
or makes a decision on the Draft Plan of Subdivision
• any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this
proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk
9. Owner/Applicant Information
The owner of the property is Joshani Homes Ltd. and is represented by R. W. Bruynson Inc.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Air Photo Map
3. Submitted Conceptual Site Plan
4. Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations — Front and Rear Elevations
5. Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations — Side Elevations
6. Zoning Map
7. Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart
Prepared By:
Felix Chau
Planner
Nilesh`Sur/ti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
& Urban Design
FC: NS:Id
Date of Report: May 29, 2019
Approved/Endorsed By:
-49-
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Attachment # to
information Report #20'
i
0
a
11
Staghorn Road
El I
•
'0
L
Rougemount Drive
1
ebank Road
Moorelands
Crescentr
IIIII
Gillmoss
Road
1 .'IHouston -
! !
Cowan Circle
— Court
•l
i o
tomiloor
00111111111
GL
-4
Rodd Avenue
111
ULLLI
Nomad Road mac`
p•.•atigt.-
Subject
Lands
gena lrj
V Sfa
111
Ci
Location Map
File: A 03/19
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant: Joshani Homes Ltd.
Property Description: Pt Lot 72, Plan 418, now Part 2, 40R-30097
Dunn Crescent)
Date: Apr. 15, 2019
D he Corporation of the City ofPlckenngProduced Onpaef)underII��ppj$�� fry •�•0 Queens Printer, OnlanoUa,stryofNatural Resources .
dIrghtsreseaed.p0 Her Majesy the Queen In Right of Canada. 00 atual Resources. At rights reserved.;
OTeranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights roseri.; O Mua. I�o�dy Asssment Corporalbn and Rs suppFers all rights reserved;
SCALE: 1:5,000
THIS IS NOT ARAN OF SURVEY.
Attach ment
Information Report
AAG'.i+rl.trfx 1j .j�..., .�t• . /
Moorelands t i'giw Cour�n
Cres ent 1 `
E l
Cowan Circle
Rougemount Drive
Subject
Lands
cdri
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Air Photo Map
File: A 03/19
Applicant: Joshani Homes Ltd.
Property Description: Pt Lot 72, Plan 418, now Part 2, 40R-30097
(Dunn Crescent Date: May. 13, 2019
i}The Corporation of Inc riyol Pickennp P,oduced Vnpa,p under :cense hnm.0Ckeens Praer,aaannansW ernatursr,resnurees. SCALE; 1:5,000
1All rights reserved.0 Her I.telesty the Queen In Right of Canada. Oepedmenl of Natural Resources. Al tights reserved.:
ID Teranel Enleipcses Inc. and Its supplers all rights reserved.; 0 Mu:Iy Assessment Corporation and 0 supplers all rights reserved.: THIS IS ROTA PLAN OF SURVEY.
L:\Planning\Corel\Planning\AppMA12018
-52-
LOT 1
REGISTERED
LOT 22 t' BLOCK 24
40M-1366
PLAN i
��
Beard mon
�T� 4r ,:� Bawd fm
e.ea ate.RIIIIIIII
—
T1'-
mnci-I
vrtOP• a =Mali
Dion AREA sdl-EcTMiEn,
- Q
a
g BLOCK 2
LIVNG ANCA
EX. 2 STOREY.
RESIDENCE
i-
LI.. AREA
_
� O
i
r Ett
Beni l
vmr, Lwrca
�'/ r& / / N.
v'u.
•
yN.Z
.
',T. SD Nail),
tIVING AREA
Q
11111111
RESOlvE
s.,
ci
R aek1
e.
LOT 73
Submitted Conceptual Site Plan
c4 4
File No: A 03/19
P 1 C K E R 1 N G
Applicant: Joshani Homes Ltd.
Property Description: Pt Lot 72, Plan 418, now Part 2, 40R-30097
City Development
(Dunn Crescent)
Department
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
I DATE: May 13, 2019
L:\Planning\Corel\Planning\AppMA12018
-52-
Attachment # 14 to
Information Report# J -U
,ads y;4e >U
P-- ate'-�1...
lI1111 "'WW1
11
Wu
E_=
11111111/
1
00
IIIIr�_;1111 tal 111 11111I !-11.1 ■1111111111 ■
N-1111MIu 1pti
eAni l 1 1
Front Elevations
N
1111111111
111C (.1:1
TI
Cid 4
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations
File No: A 03/19
Applicant: Joshani Homes Ltd.
Property Description: Pt Lot 72, Plan 418, now Part 2, 40R-30097
(Dunn Crescent)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKE RING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: May 22, 2019
L:\PI a nning\Coral\Pla nning\Apps1A12019
-53-
1...? ,.:_!.=
..
mmitmmimml Imml nnu
mmmum uwu nmmmn
HH�n1
"
fl!L!_IIni1ji!uilo
-
1. Er1
` i•
iF TCC '1L
`.1111111
1111
1111111
1111
1111111
11111111111 :1111111111 ..fr.---.
Jllll 11111 Ilillilllil 11111Q 11/111111/ Illlllliull u1111111.
IIIMI
n_IMM
II
�$ra�–
...L 7
v.
,.,z;
_
rt. Tarn F.r�-
-
._
mamaa�
—,.
-
i02_2-dTR i._a
_L
Rear Elevations
Li
- 1
L J
I
t i
1
Cid 4
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations
File No: A 03/19
Applicant: Joshani Homes Ltd.
Property Description: Pt Lot 72, Plan 418, now Part 2, 40R-30097
(Dunn Crescent)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKE RING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: May 22, 2019
L:\PI a nning\Coral\Pla nning\Apps1A12019
-53-
Altschment '; J o
Information Resort #10( —
TO? Cr P -ATE
TCP
Pty GCO'J\ T 3
ART
ErergirdilliallirerenraCC
417111 .111•1111111.11.11111111r 7•••.2iMMM.
1 'CF P1111. fLY
_.T0' 0' 9.PT-
N X311` fa!
DD r'
ifs --1 FIDE E_E/A TI:IN
Left Side Elevation
Vie+ "cua� r:.l
1151111 11
TCF ;
,Attachment # (v to
Information Report #
R4
R3
R3
R3
R4
R4
R4
a
OS -HL S2_16
I�
S2-16
Staghorn Road
S2-16
-0
o U
31 I 13
as I I'a
c4 I
1 1
1 1 R4
Rougemount Drive
JhP
R3
I
G
1
R4
0
O
n.
t woo
4
turn**
•
01
0'1111u1
R3
0
0
0
i SD=B
S
/ands Cres
SD -B
SD -B
SD -B Houston
CI \t\
— R3
ISD-B�
S4-9
Cowan Circle
a
co0
0
cC
c
0
Gillmoss
Road
R
Q
r
OS
S4-14
S
Nomad Road
SD -B
ION
R4
&elle
•
ti
R(RH)
R3
R3 R3
02
Subject
Lands 02
R4
Rodd Avenue
R4-10 R4=10"
JR4 -10 I 1
]0SHL
4
R4-10
-4
City 0,1
Zoning Map
File: A 03/19
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant: Joshani Homes Ltd.
Property Description: Pt Lot 72, Plan 418, now Part 2, 40R-30097
Dunn Crescent)
Date: May. 28, 2019
C heCorporaoonoftheCity ofPickeringPoducedOnpal) underh<
All iIgMs reserved. Herldajesy the Queen In Right of Canada, Depa
"D Teranet Enlelpnses Inc. and Its supplbrs all rlghtsreserv�®Mun
OueensPnnter,OntanoMan ryofNaturalResources.
1 IuraI Resources. Al rghts reserved;
ap Asseaent Corporatbn and is suppters all right reserved:
SCALE: 1:5,000
TR LS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.
Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart
Provision
Proposed Zoning
Standard — A 03119
Existing "R4" Zone
Standards
Existing "SD -B"
Zone Standards
Existing "S" Zone
Standards
Permitted Uses
Semi-detached
dwelling
Detached dwelling
Semi-detached
dwelling attached
below grade
Detached dwelling
Lot Area (min)
320 square metres
460 square metres
320 square metres
450 square metres
Lot Frontage (min)
10.5 metres
15.0 metres
10.5 metres
15.0 metres
Front yard (min)
6.0 metres
7.5 metres
6.0 metres
6.0 metres
Interior Side Yard
(min)
1.1 metres, except
that in the case of an
interior side yard
between a pair of
attached single
dwelling the minimum
shall be 0.0 metres
1.5 metres, other side
2.4 metres except as
provided in
Section 5.19 (d)
1.5 metres, except
that in the case of an
interior side yard
between a pair of
attached single
dwellings the
minimum shall be
0.9 metres
1.5 metres one side,
1.2 metres other side
Flankage Yard (min)
4.0 metres
n/a
4.0 metres
4.0 metres
Rear Yard (min)
7.5 metres
7.5 metres
7.5 metres
7.5 metres
Lot Coverage (max)
35 percent
33 percent
35 percent
35 percent
Building Height (max)
9.0 metres
9.0 metres
12.0 metres
12.0 metres
-56-
o�
3 2-
94 3z
gt0
o
DICKERING
zy
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.
- 57 -
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.
-58-
Report PLN 16-19 June 17, 2019
Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 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 Cell Tower Protocol
The City's Cell Tower Protocol was established to provide direction for proponents on the
location and design of antenna towers and 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 Cell 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.
-59-
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.
-60-
Report PLN 16-19
Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66
June 17, 2019
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 Cell 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
- 61 -
Report PLN 16-19 June 17, 2019
Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 6
Prepared By:
Cody Morrison
Plan er
Nilesh S rti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
& Urban Design
CM:Id
Approved/Endorsed By:
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Kyle Bentley, P.Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
aP
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
w1
-62-
ATTACHMENTS
REPORT/
UtY 4
Air Photo Map
File: Installation #66
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant: Shared Network Canada
Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4,
40R-20211 2176 Ninth Concession Road
Date: Ma 28, 2019
klrbHsrc eoNerlaaJe91ure0ueenFFprlWpNda.Ckprl4mnprllN,+aJRnovwaWrynanse�W:alual can urea
J irinN eww.pSra Jrc Ird IS•,m rlteingHs rtaernd; 000111.0i 15,, Ty free eaaiml Caavalon a Mb V.401••a el 1,y05 rcsemed
n.
SCALE: 1:10,000
_Th1§ 15 HorA IlAN9FrJ. l'
-63-
ATTACI-11\11\11#
TO
REPORT # PL. j(c2--t9
Proposed Tower
Location
a
1r1tst C (PI) 127051PO
f _ xCi a-rtfts - 40 _ 7 v Ji
Z D
O y
0
3
—..„iT-'
N
,
y / .\,4
p S 4, / -4 )e\
"
= —o -- --•T',--,\
/ 1>s
:tea,
-yam4' /
i
\3 /a
g'
iI
0
0.91(00.19701(PI)
Ninth Concession Road
G
1\,
cEy
PICKERI NG
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
-64-
ATTACHMENT #_ 3 TO
REPORT # PLA 110-11._.:
ELEVATION PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
10 I
rAz
GROUND
=M*Yr4 OA,
E
OUTER SURFACE
=300.00
TOWER TOP
=299.5
AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT
=255.0m
<0
te
ao
-j II
0
253.50
PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN
SCALE 1:200
0
0
0
10.00
r
L_
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
-65-
/'� shared network
CANADA
May 13, 2019
Town of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
ATTACHMENT #_
REPUR7 PINTO
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
-66-
CI. shared network
C A N A D A
Introduction
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT # PLN
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:
Caf;ce
.000000000.40
H
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
-67-
shared network
CANADA
Coverage Objective
ATTACHMENT q
REPORT #
TO
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
-68-
lb"' • shared network
C A N A D A
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
-69-
r
+i ATTACHMENT # TO
shared netwo ok REPORT, I.
i --I/
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
-70-
ATTACHMENT # 4
TO
shared network REPORT
C A N A
Shared Network Canada has been searching for a proposed site in this area to adequately cover the Town
of Claremont since 2017. Following each meeting with the Planning Department of the City of Pickering
and in order to address one comment received during the public consultation process we exhausted every
possible alternate location. Due to airport zoning restrictions in the area, Claremont and the surrounding
area is considered to be in the Outer Surface and no obstruction is permitted above an elevation of 300.0m
above sea level. Attached in "Appendix A" is such report for the proposed location, but this depicts our
necessity to find a property with a low elevation (as seen in Site Profile) in order to comply with the federal
regulations. Moving to the north of Claremont is not an option since the elevation rises the further we
moved away from the Town. We explored any alternative location possible, but due to many constraints,
the airport constraint mentioned along with the other constraints below, the location we are proposing is
the only adequate location to propose a tower to service the Town. We've attached the above map for
reference:
• depicts Landlords we've approached who either weren't interested or
weren't open to discussing.
• Yellow Cross Hatching is Federally owned land for the purposes of the prospective airport.
• were areas that are restricted by the conservation authorities as well as the
height restriction issue.
• is an owner that was interested but his property is surrounded by many residential
properties abutting in very close proximity.
6
- 71 -
"' shared network
C A N A D A
Site Profile
ATTACHMENT #
TO
REPORT # . F .1 (0
The proposed tripole tower, as depicted by the sample photos included as "Appendix B".
7
- 72 -
`'t, shared networAD Ak
C A N
ATTACHMENT # _TO
REPORT # Pl-N 1 to J c..
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".
-73-
8
P' shared network
CAN ADA
Conclusion
ATTACHMENT
REPORT #
Reliable wireless communication services are a key element of economic development across Canada. It
facilitates the growth of local economies by providing easy access to information, and connectivity for
residents and business alike.
As identified in the City of Pickering's Economic Strategic Plan, telecommunications is a powerful
economic enabler that supports Pickering's goal to promote home occupations, teleworking,
telecommuting and improved community networking and information dissemination. Like many areas of
the province, Claremont is experiencing a growing demand for wireless services.
As people rely more on wireless devices such as smartphones, tablets and laptops for business and
personal use, network improvements are required to ensure high quality voice and data services are
available. In response to this growing demand for wireless services, Shared Network Canada has worked
to find the most suitable location for a new telecommunications tower in efforts to provide improved
coverage within the surrounding area of the Town of Claremont.
In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are also critical to ensuring the
accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Wireless communications products
and services, used daily by police, EMS, firefighters and other first responders, are an integral part of
Canada's safety infrastructure.
Shared Network Canada has undertaken and now completed a comprehensive public consultation process
as it pertains to the wireless communications site located at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in
Claremont in fulfillment of all the requirements under City of Pickering Protocol and Industry Canada
guidelines.
While we appreciate there remains one concern with the location due to public's health concern or
proximity to their property, unfortunately due to a lack of alternative sites in the area, the only workable
solution continues to be the current location at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont.
In addition, Shared Network Canada assures and attests that our site and all wireless carriers on the tower
will be fully compliant with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits.
Shared Network Canada has at all times been transparent and fully compliant with both municipal protocol
and federal regulations pertaining to this proposal. Furthermore, Shared Network Canada has
demonstrated our strict adherence obligations pertaining to health and have provided the parties that had
submitted comments with numerous resources for the Federal and Provincial government bodies, as
Shared Network Canada has no input into review or setting of standards and regulations.
-74-
9
419'
.. shared network
CANADA
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
TO
-r
Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via email at
dom@sharednetwork.ca.
Dom Claros
dom@sharednetwork.ca
-75-
10
rib `• shared network ATTACHMENT #
70
CANADA REPORT // _EN1St
Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance
Health Canada's role is to protect the health of Canadians, so it is the Department's responsibility to
research and investigate any possible health effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic energy,
such as that coming from cell phones and base stations. Health Canada has developed guidelines for safe
human exposure to RF energy, which are commonly known as Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 has been
adopted by Industry Canada and is included in their regulatory documents on radiocommunication
licensing and operational requirements. Industry Canada requires all proponents and operators to ensure
that their installations and apparatus comply with the Safety Code 6 at all times.
Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will
comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits, as may be amended from time to time, for the
protection of the general public including any combined effects of additional carrier co -locations and
nearby installations within the local radio environment. For more information on Safety Code 6, please
visit the following Health Canada site: www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system as proposed for this site will comply with
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as the facility is exempt from review.
The proposed location creates no impact on area environmental features. It is located on an already
disturbed area of an existing industrial operation. No trees or vegetation is being removed to
accommodate the installation.
Transport Canada's Aeronautical Obstruction Marking Requirements
Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will
comply with Transport Canada / NAV CANADA aeronautical safety requirements. When Transport Canada
/ NAV Canada have determined if any aeronautical safety features are required for the installation, such
information will be provided to the Town.
For additional detailed information, please consult Transport Canada at:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civi Iaviation/regserv/cars/part6-standards-standard621-512. htm
Engineering Practices
Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system as proposed for this site will be constructed
in compliance with the Canadian Standard Association and comply with good engineering practices
including structural adequacy.
-76-
11
'wk
',. shared networD Ak
C A N A
•
Contact Information
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT #LN��
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
municipal@sharednetwork.ca
Municipal Consultation Process
Shared Network Canada builds and operates shared wireless telecommunications infrastructure, designed
to ensure that service providers can address their customers' needs in the most efficient manner. As a
federal undertaking, Shared Network Canada is required by Industry Canada to consult with land -use
authorities in siting telecommunication infrastructure locations.
The consultation process established under Industry Canada's authority is intended to allow the local land -
use authorities the opportunity to address land -use concerns while respecting the federal government's
exclusive jurisdiction over the siting and operation of wireless and data systems. Shared Network Canada
welcomes comments from the municipality and its agencies to address any expressed comments that are
deemed relevant by Industry Canada's CPC -2-0-03 Issue 5.
Industry Canada's Spectrum Management
Please be advised that the approval of this site and its design is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Government of Canada through Industry Canada. Shared Network Canada is participating in this
consultation in accordance with Industry Canada's guidelines CPC -2-0-03 Issue 5.
For more information on Industry Canada's public consultation guidelines including CPC -2-0-03 contact
http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/sf08777e.html or the local Industry Canada office:
Industry Canada, Spectrum Management
Toronto District Office
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
-77-
12
shared network
•
ATTACHMENT _ TO
REPORT 1/ _PLAN �( �
Appendix A
-78-
ATTACHMENT 4 I.�
REPORT 0 �L 1(0- f R
December 6, 2017
Dom Claros
Shared Network Canada
275 MacPherson Ave, Unit 103
PO Box 69010
Toronto ON M4V 1A4
J.D.BARNES
• L 1 M I r L U
LAND INI OR4tA1ION SI'LCIAI.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 1 Planning 1 Mapping 1 GIS
Drive I S 100 I Markham Ontario L3R 6B3
:90.51477-3600 I F: 19051477-3882
www.jdbarnes.com
ATTACHMENT J/ _ TO
REPORT I/ .11:k
U -ISL
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
,z)
M.J.Fisher, P.Eng, OLS
MF
Surveying Planning Mapping GIS
140 Renfrew Drive 1 Su 100 1 Markham 1 Ontario 1 L3R 6B3
:�90.5I477-3600 1 F: [905[477-3882
www.Idbarnes.com
16.'' shared network
CANADA
•
ATTACHMENT ' p
REPORT # PLN 1 b 1 �j
Appendix B
- 81 -
14
- 83 -
-84-
-85-
F,‘, • • •',
•
• 4,..,*;t
•
.••••w'',."P..7<t-•-•.-; •
•••••
-"" •
• ... . •
Z• • ... • -
•••••
•23.
'It, ••••
• •
40' - .0'.-•=nr... •
sc-
-At 01111.--
• .•
• ••• .•• •
_ •
40.
•
• - •
' • .
- 86 -
_ -
- 87 -
- 88 -
ATTACHMENT ll__ TO
'! shared network REPORT EL U -iG
Appendix C
89 -
ATTACHMENT #...4 TO
REPORT # ��
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
htto://sharednetwork.ca
municipal@sharednetwork.ca
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Pickles, David, Councillor" <dpickles@pickerinq.ca>
Subject: Re: Claremont Communications Tower
Date: February 21, 2019 at 11:27:26 AM EST
To: Linda Robinson
Cc: "municipal@sharednetwork.ca" <municipal@sharednetwork.ca> "ic.soectrumenod-spectredeno.ic@canada.ca"
<ic.spectrumenod-spectredeno.ic@canada.ca>, "Butt, Shaheen, Councillor" <sbutt@oickerinq.ca>. "Bentley, Kyle"
<kbentlev@pickerinq.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> I 1.866.683.2760de1:1.866.683.2760>
dpickles@pickering,ca<mailto:dpickles@pickering.ca>
fold image003.png@01 D 1 F4AD.800907901<http://enews. oickerinci.ca/en/enews/signup. aspx
Icid:imaoe005.png@01 D1F4AD.800907901<httos://www.facebook.com/Citvof Pickering>
fcid:image011.pno@01 D1 D084.35FE8C301
On Feb 21, 2019, at 11:20 AM, Linda Robinson wrote:
To the municipal affairs manager,
-90-
ATTACHMENT 91_11 To
REPORT 0/ SIV 6 1.9�
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.
- 91 -
ATTACHMENI It
Eo
�7
RLPOR1 ;? PLA
From: Leticia Avanse leticia@sharednetwork.ca
Subject: Fwd: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont
Date: July 5, 2018 at 12:25 PM
To: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Kathy Keats
Subject: SNC File 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
-92-
/t i I IWHrnt, 'T
REPQR I // pit., )10 —IC(
From: Kathy Keats
Subject: Re: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possinie tower near Claremont
Date: July 26, 2018 at 9:46 AM
To: dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca
Hey!
I was just wondering if you had any news re: this tower. Both Bell towers in the area (Claremont and Dagmar) are malfunctioning and
so the other towers in the area is overwhelmed.
Kathy Keats
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:28 PM Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> wrote:
Hi Kathy,
Hope your week is going well.
Sorry I'm just getting back into the office from vacation. Thank you very much for sending this email, really appreciate it.
Kind regards,
Dom Claros
Shared Network Canada
1 http://sharednetwork.ca
647-544-5080 (direct)
dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Kathy Keats
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 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
-93-
ATTACHMENT#�-�- TQ
REPORT /1 FL+,
From: Kathy Keats
Subject: Re: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont
Date: September 6, 2018 at 9:26 AM
To: dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca
Hi Dom,
I know I'm being a bit of a stalker, but any news on the tower (SNC0120) in Claremont?
Thanks so much for your efforts!
Kathy Keats
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:23 PM Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> wrote:
Hi Kathy!
Thanks for letting us know, we are working hard to get everything approved by the City of Pickering and should hopefully have an
update for you shortly.
Thanks!
Dom Claros
Shared Network Canada
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
n 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: municioal@sharednetwork.ca
I am a resident of 5100 Sideline 12, Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed.
-94-
ATTACHiVIENT TO
REPORT LN
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
-95-
I TA,CI-f!V Ei'J`F #
REPORT '
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
-96-
' R FACHM 'i f#,...„:.t___,„ l
explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or
replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible
existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states
in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the
proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or
replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing
infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility
poles or light standards". Not surprisingly, both Industry Canada and the CPCTP
prioritize any cell services provider to utilize existing infrastructure to support
installation of their electronics, and even the wording of such prioritization is almost
identical between the two authoritative bodies. Fundamental to Industry Canada's
position about the erection of such towers is also found in their website which states
about their rules, "rules are designed to make sure companies are looking at ways to
reduce the number of new towers they are building". Mr. Bentley, given SNC's business
model, please provide evidence that they seriously made efforts to reduce the erection
of additional towers by utilizing existing infrastructure. Given their business model, it is
obvious that SNC would not have seriously considered existing infrastructure.
Fundamentally, both the Industry Canada and CPCTP requirements are based on a
carrier type of business model, where the carrier's business model is about maximizing
revenues through the maximizing of cellular telecommunications and
internet residential and commercial subscriptions to such services. Within that model,
the erection of cell towers are necessary to deliver such end user services, but the
erection of the towers themselves is not a primary business objective, though the rental
of space on such towers becomes perhaps a secondary source of revenue. In this
traditional carrier business model, such service providers have a primary motivation in
maximizing revenues through cell tower based services to the community, hence not
only would they be interested in erecting towers to facilitate the delivery of such
services, but also in installing their electronics on existing infrastructure for the
provision of services. The risk with the SNC model is that they have absolutely no
interest in utilizing existing infrastructure, but rather erecting as many new towers as
possible, and as quickly as possible. I use the word "risk" deliberately because there is
no doubt that given the existing Industry Canada and associated municipal guidelines
(including those of the City of Pickering), SNC sees a loop hole for their business model
that they want to exploit as quickly as possible. In this sense they create "facts on the
ground" that a municipality would very likely end up having to grandfather even when
more current, relevant guidelines are developed. The SNC business model which in
effect is, "get as many towers up, as quickly as possible", is completely incompatible
with the rules and protocols relating to the provision of cellular telecommunications
and Internet services as espoused by the Industry Canada and related City of Pickering
municipal guidelines and protocols (i.e. CPCTP).
-97-
11)
p� ib -r9_
2. Negative impact on my property value, and unfair Risk/Benefit model
Based on research publicly available, there is no doubt that residential property within
the immediate vicinity (i.e. distance, view) of wireless telecommunications towers that
is for sale, realizes less demand from potential buyers than other similar properties
where everything else is the same. The phenomena of lower demand for such
properties where everything else is equal, is a fact. According to the research, the lower
demand for such properties is driven primarily by two concerns as expressed by
potential buyers, a) aesthetics — such towers are aesthetically unpleasing, they are not
compatible with the nature of the neighborhood or natural features. They create a
visual blight, and change the character of the area, especially when constructed in rural
settings, and b) health concerns — notwithstanding Health Canada's Safety Code 6
Compliance which every proponent of cell towers is quick to reference, the fact is that
there remains widespread media attention about scientific studies regarding the
potential long term effects of proximity to such towers, and persistent health concerns
that the public continues to express.
In fact, a US study by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy published in
June 2014, titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's
Desirability?" found:
• 94% of home buyers and renters are less interested and would pay less for a
property located near a cell tower or antenna;
• 79% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a
property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas; and
• 90% said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and
antennas in residential neighborhoods
The above public perception is very disconcerting to any property owner within the
vicinity of an existing or proposed cell tower. The salient point here, the
incontrovertible point, is that perception is what influences a potential buyer. With
widespread concerns (as acknowledged in part by every cell tower proponent
feeling they have to quickly make reference to the Health Canada's Safety Code 6
Compliance), comes widespread negative perception. Negative perception means
less demand. Less demand means less competition. Less competition means a
lower price/value. It is that simple and categoric.
As well, consider how unfair this proposed cell tower site is for my family and I.
Under this site, SNC generates rental revenue for itself. Under this site, Claremont -
Union Cemetery enjoys a monthly annuity from SNC, while none of the owners have
to live with the tower looming over them. Under this site, notwithstanding that my
home will be close to, and the closest to the site, my family receives absolutely
zero income though as outlined above, yet we assume all of the risks.
_98-
ATTA C L-11\1 I q
REPO P �, ib-Iq
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
_99-
T
PLN ib -19
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
- 100 -
ATTAChl M ENT �r
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 considertheirtype 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.
- 101 -
d'tkTri`..
REPORT !1 PL -N
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
- 102 -
r'l'r. shared network
CANADA
•
June 23, 2018
Aghlab Al-Joundi
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
�
N 1k'--1 1
RE: Letter addressed to Mr. Kyle Bentley, dated May 16, 2018.
Dear Mr. Al-Joundi,
Thank you for your letter dated May 16, 2018. We appreciate you sharing your comments and
concerns in regards to the proposal for a tower near Claremont, Ontario. Shared Network Canada
values the input of all participants in this process, whether in support or opposition.
While Shared Network Canada does not currently provide cellular or internet service, the process
of determining potential tower locations does not differ from companies which provide such
services. As you mentioned, Shared Network Canada is a third -party infrastructure provider, in
which much of the capital cost of building and operating a tower is born by Shared Network and
space on the tower is rented to customers who provide cellular and internet services. As such,
the tower would not be constructed if the space on the tower were not needed by customers
providing either cellular or internet services.
We understand your concern regarding the proximity to your residence and are willing to work
with you and your family in order to potentially relocate the tower. As illustrated in Schedule A
of the attached, we can look into relocating the tower to the opposing corner of the property,
over 100m further setback from your residence surrounded by the mature tree line. In regards
to the safety concerns, our team attempted to locate the study from the "National Institute for
Science, Law & Public Policy" published in June of 2014 titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers &
Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" and could not locate the article. We
attempted both web pages below to locate any information regarding this article or the Institute
but were unable to locate anything, we may be making a mistake in our research, would you
mind pointing us in the direction of the correct article mentioned above.
https://natinstsciencelaw.org/
https]/natinstsciencelaw.org/emf-safety-%26-health
Please also see attached in Schedule B the "Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Associations"
published handbook with more detailed information in regards to the process and safety of
Telecommunications sites.
www.sharednelwork.ca
275 Macpherson Ave #103, Toronto, ON M4V 1A4
- 103 -
0 shared network
CANAA
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
Uo_.-► 9
Shared Network Canada does and will continue to abide by and follow all environmental and
safety requirements for all proposed tower locations. As with the proposed Claremont site,
Shared Network Canada has been working with and will continue to work with all necessary
health, safety and environmental approval processes in place for the construction of the tower.
When proposing the access road, it was placed along the mature tree line in order to mask the
majority of the viewshed of any potential vehicles passing through. Once the equipment is
installed on the tower, only quarterly maintenance inspections would be done on the tower save
for times of emergency (i.e. Power Outage). When looking to relocate the tower to the opposing
end of the property, we can also look into relocating part of the access road as well.
The proposed location was determined as there is a need to service and coverage to the residents
of Claremont, please see one letter we receive in Schedule C, outlining the residents' concerns
and comments supporting the towns need for a tower. As the town needs a tower, Shared
Network is proposing to locate the tower away from the town of Claremont on the rural portion
of the not for profit cemetery land. We will continue to work with your family to receive your
input regarding the potential relocation of the proposed tower on other portions of the cemetery
land.
Again, thank you for your valued input.
Yours sincerely,
Dom Claros
CC•
Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3
Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3
Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering
Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan
- 104 -
flik-StADAChIMEN7 # TO
shared netCANAworDAk p€prlr
Schedule A
- 105 -
ATTACHMENT #.�y,� . TO
shared network DA REPORT # C�! t -t5,_
CANA
Schedule B
- 106 -
Connecting Canadians:
Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada
m
m
—a S
m
Des Canadiens branches :
Choix des sites de bads d'antenne au Canada
Assocleaon canadlenno
dos t416communIcatlons sans fll
- 107 -
cwta
Association canadienne
des telecommunications sans fil
Canadian Wireless
Telecommunications Association
acts
Contact us at 613 233 4888
or info@cwta.ca
Canadian Wireless
Telecommunications Association
130 Albert Street, Suite 1110
Ottawa, ON K1P 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 K1P 5G4
www.cwta.ca
- 108 -
table of contents
table des matieres
5 Connecting Canadians: 5 Des Canadiens branches : Choix des sites
Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada de batis d'antenne au Canada
7 Building a New Wireless Tower
Reasons for building Antenna Towers
The Site Selection Process
13 The Antenna Approval Process
Jurisdiction
Regulations Governing Wireless
Antenna Siting
Local Land -Use Authorities
17 Health and Safety Issues
Electromagnetic Waves and Fields
Jurisdiction over Health and Safety
of Antenna Installations
Safety Code 6
Other Projects On Health and Safety
of Wireless Devices
7 Construction d'un nouveau bati d'antenne
Pourquoi contraire de
nouveaux batis d'antenne?
Le processus de selection d'un site
13 Le processus d'approbation
relatif aux antennes
Competence
Cadre reglementaire relatif
t'emplacement d'antennes sans fil
Autorites regionales responsables de
l'utilisation du sol
17 Questions de sante et de securite
Champs et ondes electromagnetiques
Competence relative a la sante et la
securite de batis d'antenne
Code de securite 6
Autres projets visant la sante et la
securite des appareils sans fil
23 Antenna Tower Information Resources 23 Sources d'information sur les pylones
d'antenne
- 109 -
- 110 -
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 communautis exigent de nouveaux services sans fit ou
encore des services ameliores, les telecommunicateurs regionaux
repondent a cette demande en construisant un bad d'antenne,
qu'on appelle couramment une « tour ».
En plus de satisfaire aux besoins individuels des consommateurs
canadiens, une meilleure couverture permet un meilleur acces
aux services d'urgence fournis par les pompiers, policiers et
ambulanciers, et de meilleures occasions d'affaires, puisque les
services commerciaux s'en trouvent ameliores.
La construction d'un bad 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 ['association ou consulter la section
sur les ressources qui figure a la fin de ce guide.
- 112 -
Building a New Wireless Tower
In this section
• Reasons for Building Antenna Towers
• The Site Selection Process
Construction d'u nouveau bati d'antenne
Dans cette section
• Pourquoi construire de nouveaux bads d'antenne?
• Le processus de selection d'un site
7
- 113 -
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 pylone d'antenne en forme d'arbre.
Pourquoi construire de nouveaux batis d'antenne?
Les telecommunicateurs sans fit poursuivent ['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 armee.
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 conna?tra une augmentation
marquee et continue, puisque les Canadiens comptent de plus en
plus sur les communications sans fila la maison et au travail.
En effet, puisque les policiers, ambulanciers, pompiers et autres
premiers repondants utilisent des produits et services de
communications sans fit, les telecommunications sans fil sont une
composante primordiale de ['infrastructure de securite
au Canada.
Chaque armee, les telecommunicateurs sans fil canadiens
consacrent plus d'un milliard de dollars a ['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
armee est consacree a ['amelioration de la disponibilite du
reseau, tant sur le plan de la couverture que sur le plan de
la capacite. L'amelioration du reseau consiste a agrandir la
portee de celui-ci sur de nouvelles zones et a eliminer les
soi-disant « zones mortes », soit les zones 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
supportent sont des composantes fondamentales d'un systeme de
telecommunications. Sans elles, aucun des services sur lesquels
peuvent compter la population, les entreprises et les instances
gouvernementales du Canada n'existeraient.
- 115 -
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.
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 &valuer les options
presentes dans la zone en question, selon les caracteristiques
des radiofrequences. Plusieurs facteurs influent sur ces
caracteristiques: le terrain, les structures existantes, le nombre
d'abonnes, la distance relative aux emplacements dela en place,
la disponibilite de structures existantes (immeubles, autres tours,
etc.) et la presence d'un proprietaire dispose a louer 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, l'utilisation de structures dela 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 dela existante permet de
reduire les couts et le d&Lai 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 pylones, mais elle peut faire en sorte que les tours
doivent etre plus hautes et plus visibles. A 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 outages, 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 pyl"ones.
- 117 -
- 118 -
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 cette section
• Competence
• Cadre reglementaire relatif a remplacement d'antennes sans fiL
• Autorites regionales responsables de l'utilisation du sol
- 119 -
Z
6'1,
r)
14
The Antenna Approval Process
Jurisdiction
Any discussion of tower approval procedures requires an
understanding of the jurisdictional issues and the facts upon
which jurisdiction is based. Canada's federal government has
exclusive and comprehensive jurisdiction over the area of
radiocommunication and telecommunications .1 The Privy
Council determined in its decision re Regulation and Control
of Radio -Communications in Canada2 that the Parliament
of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and control ra-
diocommunication. Provincial Courts of Appeal (such as British
Columbia and Ontario) have followed the Privy
Council's decision without reservation. National jurisdiction
over telecommunications, including the authorization of radio-
communication facilities, is a common characteristic
of the regulatory structures of all countries having advanced
radiocommunication networks.
Industry Canada is responsible for regulating radiocommunica-
tion in Canada including authorizing the installation of radio-
communication towers and sites. This authority is derived
from the Department of Industry Act, which describes the
powers and duties of the department and the minister, and
the Radiocommunication Act, which specifically provides the
authority to approve antenna supporting structures. Indeed,
the most recent authoritative review of Industry Canada's
policies governing the siting of radiocommunications facilities,
i.e. the 2004 Townsend Report, recommended that the
legislative authority to regulate the siting of towers "should
remain exclusively with the Government of Canada." 3
1 Canadian Municipalities and the Regulation of Radio Mtrraus and their Support Structures, prepared for I dusty Canada
by David Townsend, Faculty of Law, University of Nov Brunswick. 1967
2 re Regulation and Control of Radio Communications of Canada [19321 A.C. 304 (Privy Ccuncill
Report on the National Antenna Tower 14slicy. prepared for Indust,y Canada by David Towrecnd. Faculty of Law, University of
New Brunswick. 2004
Le processus d'approbation relatif aux antennes
Competence
Toute discussion sur le processus d'approbation d'un pylone
necessite une bonne comprehension des questions de competence
et des faits sur tesquels 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 Cotombie-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 responsabilites du ministere et du
ministre, et par la Loi sur (a radiocommunication, qui confere
explicitement le pouvoir d'autoriser les structures qui supportent
les antennes. En effet, la plus recente etude faisant autorite au
sujet des politiques d'Industrie Canada visant ['emplacement des
installations de radiocommunications, soit to rapport Townsend de
2004, recommandait que l'autorisation legate de reglementer
['emplacement des tours 'o demeure la competence exclusive du
gouvernement du Canada. 3 »
Les municipalizes carodiennes et to reglementation des antennes radio et des basis d'antemes, rapport soumis a
Industrie Canada par David Townsend. Faculte de droit, Universile du Nouveau -Brunswick, 1987.
2 Cacnl Plivc. In re. la regtententation et to contrdle de fa radiocommunication at Canada, [19321 A.C. 304
Repportwrl'eramen de lapolitioue imamate air lerpylrinesd'antrme. rapport soave a Industrie Canada tor David T*d,
Facult&do dmrt. Universit4 du tlouveau•Bn0uwids, 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 l'emplacement d'antennes sans fil
Les procedures dicties par Industrie Canada pour la construction
et l'installation de batis d'antennes sont enoncees dans une
Circulaire des procedures concernant les clients intitulee
Processus environnemental, champs de radiofrequences et
consultation sur ('utilisation du so(. Le respect de ces procedures
est une condition de licence pour les fournisseurs de services
cellulaires ou SCP.
Pour exercer ses pouvoirs, Industrie Canada peut egalement
compter sur les commentaires et l'expertise d'autres ministeres
et organismes federaux. Afin de s'assurer que l'environnement
est protege, les batis 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 l'emplacement et des batis
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 infirieures aux
limites permises.
- 121 -
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 responsables de ['utilisation du sol
Parce que ['exploitation des telecommunications est de
competence federate, les mesures de controle traditionnelles
de l'amenagement du territoire, telles que les reglements de
zonage, l'approbation de lotissements et les normes et
reglements de construction, sont sans effet pour ce qui est
de la localisation, l'emplacement materiel, la conception,
la construction et ['exploitation d'immobilisations relatives
a des secteurs regis par le federal, comme le sont les
telecommunications cellulaires ou SCP. En d'autres mots,
['interdiction, la restriction ou la reglementation de
['utilisation du sol relativement a des installations de
telecommunications sans fit releve du responsable de
['utilisation du sol.
Toutefois, Industrie Canada exige comme condition de licence
que les telecommunicateurs consultent les responsables de
['utilisation du sol municipaux ou regionaux lorsqu'ils prevoient
installer une structure d'antenne d'importance, afin d'obtenir
leur assentiment. Industrie Canada croit qu'a partir du moment
ou le responsable de ['utilisation du sol concerne a ete avise,
celui-ci doit faire connaitre sa decision au requerant dans les 60
jours. En outre, l'ensemble du processus de consultation devrait
etre termine dans un dela' de 120 jours.
Dans la vaste majorite des cas, les procedures et processus en
place ont permis de satisfaire aux besoins des collectivites, des
individus, des telecommunicateurs sans fit et de leurs abonnes.
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
estions de sante et de securite
s tette section
C mps et ondes electromagnetiques
Qmpetence relative a la sante et la securite de bads d'antenne
• e de securite 6
-utres proets visant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fit
- 123 -
17
Health and Safety Issues
Electromagnetic Waves and Fields
One of the most volatile issues related to antenna sites anywhere
in the world is the potential effects they may have on human
health because they emit electromagnetic energy. Wireless
devices use radio frequencies (RF) that are non -ionizing waves
below the visible light part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Waves above visible light are of the ionizing type such as gamma
and X-rays, which are know to be harmful to humans.
Electromagnetic waves are a form of energy that consist
of vibrating electric and magnetic fields. Electric fields are
produced by forces of electric charges, and magnetic fields are
produced when electric charges are in motion. When an
appliance is plugged in, an electric field is produced around the
appliance; when the appliance is turned on and the electrical
current is flowing, a magnetic field is produced.
The main natural source of electromagnetic radiation is the sun.
Natural electromagnetic energy (i.e. sunlight) is necessary for
photosynthesis in plants. Man-made sources, however, account
for most of the electromagnetic radiation in our environment.
With the proliferation of new technological devices in our home
and workplace we are all exposed to electromagnetic radiation
daily. Everyday household electrical devices such as hair dryers,
electrical ovens, fluorescent lights, microwave ovens, stereos and
computers all emit electrical and magnetic fields of varying
intensities. Mobile phones and the transmitters that support
these items, just like all radio systems, function because they are
able to send, receive and manipulate these fields. Studies have
shown that cellular/PCS emissions represent less that 25% of the
ambient RF emissions in an urban area.
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.
Evaluation of Electromagnetic Field Intensity in the Cfty of Toronto, Industry Canada, lune 2002
Questions de sante et de securite
Champs et ondes electromagnetiques
Une des questions les plus tumultueuses associies 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
ilectriquement chargees, alors que les champs magnetiques sont
engendres par le deplacement de charges electriques. Quand
un appareil est branche, un champ electrique se forme autour
de l'appareil; quand un appareil est mis sous tension et que le
courant electrique y passe, un champ magnetique se forme.
Le soleil est la principale source naturelle de rayonnement
electromagnetique. L'inergie electromagnetique naturelle
(c'est-a-dire la lumiere du soleil) est necessaire a la
photosynthese des vegetaux. Toutefois, l'essentiel du
rayonnement electromagnetique present dans notre
environnement provient de sources artificielles. Compte tenu
de l'abondance de nouveaux appareils technologiques dans
nos foyers et nos lieux de travail, nous sommes tous exposes
quotidiennement au rayonnement electromagnetique. Des
appareils electriques de tous les jours comme les sechoirs
cheveux, les cuisinieres electriques, les lampes
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 parte 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 oil Pon
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 (soit 705
fois moins). L'etude a egalement demontre que les transmissions
cellulaires ou SCP ne representaient que 9 pour cent a 24 pour cent
de l'energie en radiofrequences mesuree.
4 Evaluation de 1'Inrensite du champ elecrromagnotidue dant to ville de Toronto. Industrie Canada, Juin 2002
- 125 -
Jurisdiction over Health and Safety of Antenna Installations
The Electromagnetics Division of Health Canada has primary
responsibility for ensuring that devices that emit electromagnetic
fields are not harmful to Canadians. In order to meet this man-
date, the Division:
• develops guidelines for the protection of the general
public and workers from exposure to EMFs
• conducts research in the assessment of EMF exposure
levels in residential and workplace environments
• conducts laboratory studies and monitors external
research on the biological effects of EMFs
• sets regulations for the safe use of microwave
ovens and enforces their compliance
• advises government departments and agencies,
industry, and the general public on exposure to EMFs
20
Competence relative a la sante et la securite des bads d'antenne
La responsabilite de s'assurer que les appareils qui emettent
La responsabilite de s'assurer que les appareils qui emettent
des champs electromagnetiques ne sont pas nocifs pour la
sante des Canadiens repose principalement sur la Division
d'electromagnetisme de Sante Canada. Afin de remplir ce
rnandat, la division:
• developpe les lignes directrices pour la protection du grand
public et des travailleurs contre ['exposition aux champs
electromagnetiques
• mene des recherches relatives a ['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 ['exposition aux champs electromagnetiques
Safety Code 6 Code de securite 6
The guideline that applies to mobile phones, base stations and
all other RF transmitters is Safety Code 6.5 This safety code
is one of a series of guidelines Health Canada has produced on
the safe use of devices that emit radiation. Safety Code 6 has
been adopted by many organizations across Canada and referred
to in a number of regulations, including the Canada Occupational
Safety and Health Regulations. The limits given in Safety Code
6 were arrived at after looking at many scientific studies on the
health effects of RF energy exposure and considering
international exposure standards. At ground level, the level of
exposure to RF emissions is typically a small fraction of Health
Canada's Safety Code 6 levels.
Health Canada does not directly regulate mobile phone
manufacturers or network operators. Industry Canada does
directly regulate the industry, and requires, as a condition
of licence, that:
radio stations are installed and operated in a manner that
complies with Health Canada's limits of human exposure to
radio frequency electromagnetic Melds 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.
limits of Human E.ytostre to Radiofrequency Etectromognetic Fields in the Frequency Rarr3e from 3 «HZ to 300 GHZ - Safety Code 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 adopt& par de nombreuses organisations
partout au Canada; on y fait reference dans nombre de
reglementations, y compris dans le Reglement canadien sur la
sante et la securite au travail. Les limites prescrites par le Code
de securite 6 ont ete etablies suite a une revue de nombreuses
etudes scientifiques sur les consequences sur la sante de
l'exposition a l'energie des radiofrequences et en tenant compte
des normes internationales d'exposition. Au niveau du sol, le
degre d'exposition aux emissions de radiofrequences represente
habituellement une fraction minime des limites prevues au Code
de securite 6.
Sante Canada ne regit pas directement les fabricants de
telephones mobiles ou les exploitants de reseaux. Industrie
Canada a le pouvoir de reglementer directement l'industrie et
exige comme condition de licence que :
les stationsradiosoient installees et exploitees
conformement aux limites d'exposition humaine aux champs
de radiofrequences electromagnetiques etablies par Sante
Canada qui visent le grand public, en tenant compte des
installations de radiocommunications deja en place dans le
milieu environnant.
Le Code de securite 6 correspond aux normes internationales et
est fond& sur de nombreux documents de recherche scientifique,
y compris un examen mene par la Societe royale du Canada a la
demande de Sante Canada.
Limites d'exposltion humaine aux champs de radiofrequences electron ogee iques darts la yamme de frt'quences de 3 RHZ d 300 GHZ - Code de securite 6
- 127 -
m
Q
21
Other Projects on Health and Safety of Wireless Devices
Health Canada has also been taking part in the International EMF
Project, coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO).
The goals of this project are to verify reported biological effects
from exposure to electromagnetic fields and to characterize any
associated health risks to humans.
A valuable source of information on the state of the science
around the health effects of EMF is RFcom.ca based at the Uni-
versity of Ottawa McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk
Assessment. RFcom.ca is an internet-based information resource
managed by a Science Panel that reviews and reports on the most
recent research studies about wireless technology and health
from around the world.
More than 6 million calls to 9-1-1 are made per year from cellular phones.
Plus de 6 millions des appels au 9-1-1 chaque armee sont places 5 partir d'un cellulaire.
Autres projets visant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fil
Sante Canada participe egalement au Projet international sur les
CEM coordonne par ['Organisation mondiale de la Sante (OMS).
Le but de ce projet est de verifier les effets biologiques reportes
resultant de ['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/index1.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.strategis. ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst. nsf /fr/
sf01637f . html
Un apercu du processus de localisation d'antennes de
radiocommunications. Comprend une presentation video.
Centre R. Samuel McLaughlin d'evaluation du risque pour la
sante des populations a l'Universite d'Ottawa
www.rfcom.ca
Une source complete de renseignements sur les frequences
electromagnetiques et leur effet sur la sante. Comprend
une introduction sur les frequences electromagnetiques, les
telephones sans fil et une bib[iographie a jour sur des articles
de revues scientifiques sur les effets des champs
electromagnetiques sur la sante.
Code de securite 6 de Sante Canada
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/
99ehd-dhm237/preface-preambule_f.html
Un lien vers le Code de securite 6, la norme de securite etablie
par le gouvernement du Canada qui resift. ['emplacement
d'antennes.
Organisation mondiale de la Sante
http: / /www.who. int/peh-emf/project/ EMF_Project/fr/
index. html
Le Projet CEM de ['OMS fournit des renseignements sur les
champs electromagnetiques, y compris les consequences
eventuelles sur la sante de ['exposition a ceux-ci.
- 129 -
1111
a�Ili? • ill!
Litt;
all 1
. , 1111107• i" -
ie......,..1
11�_.i111 '%�.,/1��,�I,IDI I - 'i I
•
ill►illi
III►, �11i
"Pail
,��'i►�►��ul�l l,l►iil
I� ��I Irl► •II�
�tE �II►�11�
ii�rMi11.1111110 1
:1\11I
!ill ILII
edi
-i1
.41
- 130 -
1311
Nol
4041
!71
4
li
41
I �� il►�is►\�
IikI
VAlkijkil
I► �',1'
ir
���� IG •' � ill/i,�� �------
'1 lI: riii � �iil►� li
shared network
C A N A D A
Ai fACHMENT + 7 , r ,
REPOH1 / PLN I '19
Schedule C
From:
Subject: SNC Flle Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont
Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26 PM
To: municlpal@sharednetwork.ca
I am a resident ofiNeSidelineO 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 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.
- 131 -
AT IACHMENT #
REPORT 1l
T6
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://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-
desirability/
Notwithstanding the above study, on the matter of the impact of cell towers on
residential real estate values, with everything else being equal, would you really
argue that there would exist the same demand for properties within or without
proximity to cell towers? If you reasonably conclude that yes, everything else being
equal, of course there would be Tess people interested in properties close to cell
towers, i.e. less demand, then how could you not logically also conclude that the
price for such properties would also be lower. Is this not the most basic economics
principle? Lower demand...lower price. Will SNC protect my family against any such
depreciation in property value?
Thank you,
Aghlab Al-Joundi
From: Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca>
Sent: July 10, 2018 3:57 PM
To:
Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca; Pickles, David, Councillor; murnaghanc@hotmail.com; Morrison,
Cody; kbentley@pickering.ca; crose@pickering.ca
Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal
Gond AftPrnnnn Mr Al-.Intinrii
- 132 -
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT #
I hope your week is going well.
Please find the attached response to your comments and concerns attached. Please feel free to reach out should you have any
questions or concerns regarding the attached letter, or anything else regarding this project.
Thanks!
Dom Claros
Shared Network Canada
http://sharednetwork.ca
647-544-5080 (direct)
dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca
- 133 -
ATTACHMENT #
ilLPOHT # R_K) )0-14j
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 AI-Joundi
Cc: sbutt@pickerlrry.ua, r'tcKtes, uavla, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, murnaghanc@hotmail.com, Morrison, Cody
cmorrison@pickering.ca, kbentley@pickering.ca, crose@pickering.ca
Good Afternoon Mr. Al-Joundi,
I hope you had a good weekend.
Thank you for following up. I have been working with our team, and I believe when they were on site they made a mistake In reporting the street address and our engineer calculated a different
address as the closest. You are absolutely right, after following up with the team and looking over the plans, your property Is approximately 100 metres from the proposed location. As mentioned In
our letter, we would be willing to work with your family to relocate the tower to the opposite end of the field to greatly increase this setback, please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks for sending the link, our team will look into this new website. During our initial research we came across this website which references the study titled 'Neighborhood Cell Towers 8 Antennas
— Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?' conducted by the 'National Institute for Science, Law 8 Public Policy', but our team has not been able to locate the actual study or published documents
with This title or by this organization. Please let us know If you coukl help our team locate this study for our review.
We will look forward to receiving your response this week.
Please lel me know if I can help with anything else.
Kind regards,
Dom Claros
Shared Network Canada
htto://shared network.ca
647-544-5080 (direct)
do m.claros@shared network.ca
On Jul 19, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Ag Al-Joundi
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.orq/electromagnetic-health-blog/surveypropeljy-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@shat sinetwQrk&a>
Sent: July 10, 2018 3:57 PM
To
Cc: sbutt' oickering.ca: Pickles. David, Councillor: murnaghanc@hotmail.com. Morrison Cody: kbentley@pickering.ca:
crose@pickering.ca
Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal
Good Afternoon Mr. Al-Joundi,
I hope your week is going well.
Please find the attached response to your comments and concerns attached. Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions or concerns regarding
the attached letter, or anything else regarding this project.
Thanks!
nnm clarnc
- 134 -
Shared Network Canada
htto://sharednetwork. ca
647-544-5080 (direct)
dom.claros@ sharedn etwork.ca
ATTACHMENT #,
REPORT # FLN. j (0-19/
- 135 -
REP
Tuesday July 24, 2018
Mr. Dom Claros
Shared Network Canada
275 Macpherson Ave., Unit #103
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1A4
Re: Proposed Shared Network Canada ("SNC") Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Claremont -Union
Cemetery, Pickering, ON, SNC File Number: SNC0120, and response to your letter to me dated June 23,
2018, and email to me dated July 23, 2018
Dear Mr. Claros,
Thank you for your letter to me dated June 23, 2018, as well as your email to me more recently on July
23, 2018.
As I mentioned to you in my initial, email, response to your June 23, 2018 letter, said letter does not
address the relevant issues I presented in my May 16, 2018 letter to the City of Pickering, addressed to
Mr. Kyle Bentley. A primary issue presented in this May 16, 2018 letter is that SNC ignores the most
basic Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the
sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority,
"before building a new antenna -supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first
explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a
structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as
rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for
an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing,
modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing
infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light
standards"
Mr. Claros, in the two communications you have extended to me (as noted above), you have not
addressed this point about making use of existing infrastructure. Instead, you quickly offer to move the
tower about 100 metres to the east. Such a proposal does not address the critical issue of making use of
existing infrastructure. Please demonstrate to Industry Canada, The City of Pickering, and my family, that
you have conducted an independent engineering study that proves you have explored available,
alternative, antenna -supporting infrastructure, and that such alternatives are not viable thereby confirming
that a cell tower is required, and is required only in the specific location you propose. You mention
specifically in your June 23, 2018 letter to me that, "while Shared Network Canada does not currently
provide cellular or internet service (a point which I asserted in my letter dated May 16, 2018 to emphasize
that SNC's business model is not directly linked to improving community cellular and internet services,
but rather is directly linked to the erection of cell towers), the process of determining potential tower
locations does not differ from companies which provide such services". Hence clearly you acknowledge
that the requirements (as noted above) for the erection of such towers is the same for SNC, however you
do not address this requirement other than to acknowledge it, and continue to avoid providing any
evidence that you have adhered to such requirements in determining that the proposed site is exactly the
site required to erect a new cell tower.
- 136 -
4
pati_ 16V1q
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
- 137 -
ATTACHMENT
REPORT `L _
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. sh are do e l wo rk. ca
275 Macpherson Ave #103, Toronto, ON M4V 1A4
- 138 -
shared network
CANADA
ATTACHMENT 1r`
REPORT 1r PL.r -1 cf
providers as per Industry Canada Protocol. The tower is proposed in an optimal location in order
to serve as the only infrastructure needed in the Claremont area to deliver the services needed,
providing co -location to all service providers while eliminating the need for the proliferation of any
other tower nearby.
SNC understands your concern regarding the initial proximity of the proposed tower to your
property, and we are willing to relocate the tower on the Claremont -Union Cemetery property,
fully masked by mature trees on all sides in order to greatly reduce its visual impact. Moving the
tower over 100 metres further from the proposed location will have a great impact on viewshed
from your property and eliminate potential noise from any technicians driving to the site.
In regards to your comment "1 find it curious that notwithstanding the research that is abundantly
available suggesting a deprecation in residential property values within the proximity of a cell
tower (an example of which has been referenced in my May 16, 2018 letter, and my July 19, 2018
email to you)" referencing the research you presented titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers &
Antennas—Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found here
(http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-desirability/), this
potential study and survey cannot be located anywhere, more specifically in a scientific journal.
The data and facts presented are not reinforced by any scientific journal or governmental agency.
Upon research of the "National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy (NISLAPP)"
found here Chttps://natinstsciencelaw.org/j 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.
- 139 -
IP. shared network
CANA
Thank you,
Dom Claros
647-544-5080 (direct)
dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca
CC:
ATTACHMENT # 4 TO
REPORT # _FLN f b -fes
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
- 140 -
" shared network
CANADA
ATTACHMENT `l TO
REPORT /r EL -hl i iv -r cf
Schedule A
SNC0120 - Claremont
Coverage area of the exieting ante -inns near the pruoesed situ.
Legend
• fxlsttng Coverage
✓ Rogers Towers
- SNC0120 Coverage Area
+ SNC0120Poposed Location
t
.uuJwaod '� � 7' .-..., .
-.. �� • Rogers Towers [11 '..5h$. 1444.0131 W77,1369 ogerStiToylrrS z��d:Gm Nad.tl09L K'(`1' S41'�
SHC012Q
Google Earth
G 2010(3.0
1..9°02016 Fine n^nn
qrren
- 141 -
*IPS shared netwoA D Ark
C A N
ATTACHMENT TO
REPORT / N �b
Schedule B
SNCO12O - Claremont
Coverage area of the proposed ate.
Legend
• ExI IIng Coverage
1 Rogers Towers
•. SNCO 120 Coverage Arse
X SNC0120 Popogod Lonntion
`1-
-,
tuoJwoyd
.4 rR" Roger, r0 Ill'i1.5h� N44.0131 W77.1169
107 Ne"." }
5'.
oilers lowers (2142:6rn —N44.00,1/ 1M114 '342-
C 2118 exg6
nags a 2016 ewer.. 6060E.
- 142 -
rill shared network
mss-
CANADA
ATTACHMENT #,
REPORT �1
Appendix D
- 143 -
_10
]�7-tI__
Subject Properties
ATTACHMENTrY.ru
UNNIT IT ri Ptr�
0 Radius around subject
properties
riProperties inside
radius
- 144 -
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
0/0 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
B COMMUNITY
POETRY SLAM IN PICKERING
17ACHIVIENT rt`
REPORT # N) b -I ct
1
Jason IJebregL4/ Metmland
Cheyene Jones from Dunharton High School competed in the annual Poetry
SLAM at Dumbarton High School on May 3. Once again this year, Durham
schools brought their hest spoken -word poets to compete. Six schools vied to
claim the trophy and the title of best SLAM school in Durham this year.
ffJSTEVENSONWHELTON
MAcDONALD&S\VAN LLP
PERSONAL INJURY - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
lr
Experienced Trial Lawyers Serving
Oshawa, Pickering and Whitby
Ul
289.634.1680
I
13 John Street West
Oshawa
chatr
MU[IIU
GGB DATA
ON OUR S50/M0. PLAN'
I K4
sero 860.00"
—A11111 tR 14:111111 M IIU I1rnM
111-7-1,—T; •4
LETS BET OOIN6
won't um
•.., ,. „. r �fn �!
[3151 win. Mil lwl W /11 W u1rw 111 f mom 7�
lull rrrw PIM Lod4I Wino r Ilnratallrlru Ielrw..1r. .... a le. low.'
11KPNUI11w0.HIIf11P/lslllw B{ NM PIS tiAII.... r.•.1 rn l4 .r.I4 r..11
chatr
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
TO PART 4, 40R-20211
• Facility: The facility will include a
proposed 10m x 10m fenced
compound.
• Site: The site space for Improved
wireless voice and data services in
the surrounding area,
Innovation, Science and Economic
Development Canada (ISEDC) is the
governing body for installations of this type
or telecommunication antenna Installation
and can be contacted at: ISEDC — Toronto
District Office —151 Yonge Street, 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 this matter. Please reference site
SNC0120 In your correspondence.
Further information may also be obtained
through the following contact:
Municipal Contact Information
Cody Morrison, Planner I
City of Pickering — City Development
Department
(905) 420.4660 / cmorrison@pickering.ca
-Telecommunication tower/antenna
systems are regulated exclusively by
Federal Legislation under the Federal
Radiocommunication Act and administered
by Industry Canada, Provincial legislation
such as the Planning Act, Including zoning
by - laws, does not apply to these facilities.
The City of Pickering is participating in land
- use consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of
Industry Canada's CP C 2 - 0 - 03. In the
case of a dispute between the proponent
and the City, a final decision will be made
by Industry Canada';
APPLICANT CONTACT:
Municipal Affairs Manager
Shared Network Canada
10 Four Seasons PI, 10' Floor Suite 1056
Etoblcoke, ON M9B 0A6
(647) 242-9395
m uniclpal@s h a red network.ca
SITE LOCATION MAP
- 146 -
I�TIAGHMEN-T
REPORT 0 Ft -NI t r q
SHARED NETWORK CANADA IS PROPOSING TO LOCATE A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER FACILITY,
BEING 45 METRES IN HEIGHT, ON THIS PROPERTY
PUBLIC COMMENT IS INVITED
THE CLOSING DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS IS TUNE 11'", 2018
FOR FURTHERINFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS MANAGER:
MUNLCIPAL@SHAREONETWORK.CA
G42-242.9395
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA SYSTEMS ARE REGULATED EXCLUSIVELY BY FEDERAL
LEGISLATION UNDER THE FEDERAL RAOIOCOMMUNICATIONACT AND ADMINISTERED BY
INDUSTRY CANADA. PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE PLANNING ACT INCLUDING ZONING
BYLAWS, 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 2 003 IN THE CASE
OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PROPONENT AND THE CITY, A FINAL DECISION WILL BE MADE 01'
INDUSTRY CANADA.
•9 52
1011 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT CITY OF PICKERING — CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CODY MORRISON, PLANNER I AT 905 420.4660 OR
SEDC — TORONTO DISTRICT OFFICE: 152 YONGE STREET, "'FLOOR, TORONTO, ON MEC 2W7
ICSPECTRUMENOO-SPECTREOENO.ICE4CANAOA, CA
1 N I•
'ter .
•r:
to
shared network
• CANADA
tii iNC11MEIIT is Lit
REPORT PLIC } 1e -1 1
Appendix E
- 148 -
PAL= nteimorrr Mom ....._
....• mt. I
. ........ tit 10.11••••• 4 I i
7....,.....7
\ ---i 1
1 ;
LOT;
l': I
••021•
11.•••• 1 l
l Q !
1
1
• PM 8.1=4,17 ,,, il i
l ,
3013,40,•
• Z
PART 2 I
roau •
ftr''"1Th'
e
• I
tesnrOL•mil
••••011•1
Pagan. me.
••••• ••••
44i Cilowing
.•
09,••••••
••••••• 0•1:1•••$
•posg 4•4•491.20•40
Mr"
101•0, 'PM
••11.2. _a_
1•0•1.
a0m•
11011.0 *ORM 0000
•OC
ankr
PROACEE3 132•31,auld) wrote AJVJ
NOM .0
O On ••••lay e
*POO
avla.toorg
Par '-'4.-qtreirrs.PW
metanIEVICI
° 77.14
MT 1 KY. 4004.20
M11.71. go
20.110.1., AQ
0
111.1=••••••••••••
Ellarta MA%
wrirl• Car
W
-Atammetta$EL
- r a r, r If OP A
-#P
ta}9
1.4\ le
11
11
tIte
. ;VT
I I.
•
cA"
I IRART 71—
arIT 32
K3R-3.73
tmsri.r.tut
AART 23
re*
a 4-
IPrAllijir""u"I aginiglgrX0555115111:16
0
Jar •
RLAM .113-202•
20.114.00, 0
- 149 -
van 2.
tem.3•73
Wear
/ORME
com0,20ft
•••
MO. lr
ans.
900 mr,
MU •
1.• AMY. WI Villt•C• .0011• 2/0111.
1••••••• AWN POMP
• 9401fAiG TOPODRAPlif
AK. SITE LAYOUT OESP4
Of PROPOSED TELECOM TOKA IMETOLLATIOto
PART OF LOT 14
CONCESSION 9
(PHO Teme.M. te TIMM)
CITY OF MUSING
REGIONAL. IIANORAUTT �EURIAM
Mar •
r T
3R, RaRZ3 WOO
NMI toom spew
7 7—
bERC NOWNIeggitrItX111441511/..
3123.11ESMIRSZWR'''"
TM.164/MaZit'S.r.
MMNRMIL"4=CMit7Creili.
apik:§Lanthfil"'"
MOM
o 10.09I ••••011,1.0.
▪ MAU Wm.( Me
• 113011160,101,••
• l_ SOW 111.*10.
ID MOS thlo
laas It RIC 41.J.
.1 MMUS OF "Ma •••1". IA ft.
ORIN R. aN-11.1.1
IP Cara ma •ar
OMR atip,
-a-am pawns PDX
salearroNsne egentralE
172‘0,
osi. Ira ti.ilat IC .8 Sew t.• ems* arm
we., •
Owzza
Wawa wpm.se cn PSIA •Yel.
ur•PMS am' OM, MO. /MOO •••• mamar •ftoRCI••
It••••••••• f0a•Cr.•••••••••••• Ortl• MEMO .0
lesmodacw s worn+
SottAEO NETIPCRS
101..i • •••••••.,
.090 • MONTY,
1115•01. TM.
SEE 3,,,C2120 OtARDKPIT - 11.01 CO&IDIY
J.D.I3ARNES
41iP•Virpaancl,
sAck,tra. ..kma-gatt
em•INS•••
DICKERING
_cdg -
Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: PLN 17-19
Date: June 17, 2019
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-004/P
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18
Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1, 40R-29457
(Southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue)
Recommendation:
1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-004/P, submitted by Trillium Housing Oak
Non -Profit Corporation, to re -designate the lands located on the southeast corner of William
Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue from "Urban Residential Areas — Medium Density
Areas" to "Urban Residential Areas — High Density Areas" to allow a maximum site density of
161 units per net hectare in order to facilitate a residential condominium development
consisting of 264 stacked units, be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 37
to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 17-19 be forwarded to
Council for enactment;
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18, submitted by Trillium Housing Oak
Non -Profit Corporation, to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of
264 stacked units on lands located on the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and
Earl Grey Avenue, be endorsed subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to
Report PLN 17-19, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing
Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment;
3. That Informational Revision 25 to the Pickering Official Plan Duffin Heights Neighbourhood
Map 25 to delete the symbol for a "Proposed Separate Elementary School", as set out in
Appendix III, be approved; and
4. That the changes to the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guideline Figure A —
Tertiary Plan, as shown on Appendix IV to Report PLN 17-19, to delete the "Future
Elementary School", be approved.
Executive Summary: The subject lands are located on the southeast corner of William
Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map
and Air Photo Map, Attachments #1 and #2).
- 150 -
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 2
Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation has submitted applications for an Official Plan
Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high density residential condominium
development consisting of 264 stacked units, accessed through an internal private road (see
Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3). The proposed site layout and design represents a logical
and orderly development, and is in keeping with other recently constructed residential
condominium developments within this neighbourhood.
City Development staff are in support of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with Provincial
Plans and conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan. While the current Pickering Official
Plan designation does not permit the requested number of units, the request can be supported
based on a relatively small development area, the dedication of a public park, underground
parking area, the inclusion of appropriate private amenity spaces, and the opportunity for 60 to
100 families to receive mortgage assistance from Trillium Housing.
The development complies with urban design and relevant policies of the Pickering Official Plan
and the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Guidelines.
Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve Official Plan Amendment Application
OPA 18-004/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18. Additionally, staff
recommends approval of the housekeeping changes to the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Map 25
of the Pickering Official Plan, and the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Tertiary Plan of the
Neighbourhood Development Guidelines.
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed
development.
1. Background
1.1 Property Description
The subject lands are located at the southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl
Grey Avenue within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1).
The subject lands have an area of approximately 1.74 hectares with approximately
196 metres of frontage along William Jackson Drive and approximately 98 metres of
frontage along Earl Grey Avenue. The lands are presently vacant with a few clusters of
trees that are proposed to be removed to accommodate the development (see Air Photo
Map, Attachment #2).
Surrounding land uses include:
North:
East:
South:
Across Earl Grey Avenue is a residential subdivision consisting of freehold
semi-detached and townhouse dwellings.
Vacant lands that are designated as "Open Space Systems — Natural Areas",
the Urfe Creek valley lands and further east is the Pickering Golf Club.
Hydro corridor that includes a parking lot that services the Pickering Golf Club
and further south is Creekside Neighbourhood Park.
- 151 -
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 3
West: Across William Jackson Drive is a residential condominium development by
Averton (Brock) Limited. The development includes a mix of townhouse units
on the north and south sides of Rex Health Drive, and two 8 -storey apartment
buildings and townhouse units along Brock Road (not yet under construction).
In late 2017, Averton (Brock) Limited submitted a rezoning application to
permit an increase in the number of apartment units and an increase in the
height of the apartment buildings.
1.2 Applicant's Proposal
Trillium Housing has submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning
By-law Amendment to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of
264 stacked units accessed through an internal private road. The conceptual plan
illustrates 13 residential blocks fronting William Jackson Drive, Earl Grey Avenue, a private
road and internal courtyards areas (see Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3). The
residential blocks will have four levels. However, all buildings will appear as though they
are 3 -storeys from William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue (see Conceptual Elevation
Plan and Rendering, Attachments #4 and #5). A mix of one, two and three bedroom units
are proposed.
Vehicular access to the internal private road will be provided from William Jackson Drive
across from Rex Heath Drive and from a second access on the south side of the site. An
underground parking garage is proposed providing 405 spaces for residents and visitors,
and an additional 16 surface spaces for visitors. Resident parking is provided at a ratio of
1.25 spaces per unit, and visitor parking at a ratio of 0.25 spaces per unit, for a total of
421 parking spaces.
The applicant is proposing a 935 square metre park block to be conveyed to the City as
parkland dedication, which is approximately 5 percent of the land area. The block is
located at the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the hydro corridor. Also proposed is
a centrally located private amenity area that includes an indoor amenity building and an
outdoor amenity area. This space is intended to include a landscaped area, and areas of
decking, decorative paving or other similar surfaces. The design of these areas will be
determined as part of the site plan approval process.
Along the easterly edge of the site is a 30 metre buffer area from a natural heritage feature
located on adjacent lands owned by Infrastructure Ontario. In consultation with the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the applicant has refined the limits of the buffer
area so that a consistent separation limit is established between the development block and
the natural area. The revised boundary line will be fenced, and lands east of the fence will
be naturalized.
- 152 -
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 4
2. Comments Received
2.1 November 28, 2018 Open House Meeting, January 7, 2019 Public Information
Meeting, Written Submissions and a Petition
An Open house meeting was held on November 28, 2018 and a Public Information Meeting
was held on January 7, 2019 at which a number of households attended to voice their
concerns with the proposal. In addition, staff also met with a group of residents to further
discuss their concerns on December 20, 2018, and a petition was received by the Clerks
Department on January 14, 2019, signed by approximately 173 households outlining a list
of concerns.
In summary, the key concerns and comments included:
• an objection to the application to re -designate and rezone the lands to a high density
residential development
• concerned with the increase number of new stacked residential developments in the
area
• the proposal will increase traffic congestion on neighbourhood streets and intersections
• the proposal will create a greater strain on Creekside Park that is already heavily used
by residents and by the Pickering Soccer Club
• the proposal will further impact on -street parking issues
• that the City look into a long-term strategy for the neighbourhood prior to further
approving new developments in the area including the need for common spaces, City
facilities, parks and schools
A letter was received from Averton (Brock) Limited, the owner of lands located at the
northwest and southwest corner of William Jackson Drive and Rex Heath Drive. Averton
(Brock) Limited requested further clarification and information regarding servicing capacity
available to participating landowners of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group.
2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments
2.2.1 Region of Durham
• the Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional approval
• the proposed residential development will support new affordable higher density
development at the periphery of a neighbourhood, efficiently utilizing existing
infrastructure and in proximity to existing transit service. The proposed development is
consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement
• the proposed development is in conformity with the objectives of the Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe
• the Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Living Areas", which are
intended to be used predominantly for housing purposes with a mix of housing types,
sizes, and tenure
• the proposal conforms to the policies of the Regional Official Plan
• municipal water supply is available to service the proposed development from the
existing watermain on William Jackson Drive
- 153 -
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 5
• a Waste Management Plan illustrating how waste collection can be accommodated is
required at the site plan application; if the development does not meet Region's
standards for municipal waste collection on private property, then the applicant will be
responsible for retaining private waste collection services
• as a condition of approval, the Region requires the applicant to include all
recommended noise attenuation measures of the Noise Feasibility Study in a future
condominium/site plan agreement to the satisfaction of the Region
2.2.2 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department
• no objection to the proposal
• matters with respect to grading and drainage, fencing details, stormwater management
details, construction management requirements, snow storage location, landscaping
requirements will be further reviewed through the site plan approval process
2.2.3 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
• no objection to the proposal
• technical matters will be further reviewed and addressed through the site plan approval
process
2.2.4 Hydro One Networks Inc. (HONI)
• the development proposal is abutting and encroaching onto HONI high voltage
transmission corridor
• all technical requirements are required to be addressed to HONI's satisfaction
3. Planning Analysis
3.1 The proposal is consistent and conforms with the Provincial Policy Statement and
the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides provincial policy direction on land use
planning. The PPS provides for appropriate development while protecting resources of
provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built
environment. The PPS supports improved land use planning and management, which
contributes to a more effective and efficient land use planning system.
The PPS indicates that healthy, livable and safe communities are to be sustained by,
among other matters, promoting efficient development and land use patterns and
accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential. The proposed development
promotes residential intensification and provides appropriate density where existing
infrastructure and public service facilities are available. The proposed development is
consistent with the PPS policies that encourage the efficient use of land, infrastructure and
planned public service facilities.
- 154 -
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 6
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) sets out a planning
vision for growth throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The subject lands are located
within the "built up area" of the City of Pickering. The proposed development provides for a
compact form of development that is consistent with the Growth Plan.
3.2 An amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to increase the density on the subject
lands is appropriate
The subject lands are within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood and are designated
Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas. The Medium Density Areas
designation provides for housing at a residential density of over 30 units and up to and
including 80 units per net hectare. The applicant is proposing 264 units on a 1.64 hectare
of developable land, resulting in a density of 161 units per net hectare, which is not within
the permissible density range and therefore an Official Plan Amendment is required to
facilitate the proposal.
The applicant has submitted an Official Plan Amendment application to re -designate the
lands from Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas to Urban Residential Areas -
High Density Areas. The proposed density of 161 units per net hectare exceeds the
maximum High Density Areas permission of 140 units per hectare. Therefore, the Official
Plan Amendment includes a site specific exception to permit a maximum density of
161 units per net hectare.
The policies of the Official Plan state that City Council shall encourage a broad diversity of
housing by form, location, size, tenure and cost within the neighbourhoods so that the
housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over time. City
Council shall maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure and minimize the
consumption of vacant land by encouraging infill development of vacant or underutilized
blocks of lands. Furthermore, City Council shall encourage the provision of an adequate
supply of housing throughout the City including the provision of an adequate supply of
affordable housing.
Trillium Housing is a non-profit housing provider which has a mortgage assistance program
providing financial support for buyers entering the housing market, who otherwise could not
afford to buy a new home. Trillium advises that this program will be available to assist
approximately 60 to 100 purchasers and therefore this proposal provides and promotes an
affordable housing option for future residents of this neighbourhood.
The proposed development reflects a compact urban form that makes efficient use of
resources and infrastructure. The proposed stacked unit housing type and built form will
create a safe, attractive and pedestrian friendly environment and is appropriate, desirable
and in keeping with the current and evolving Duffin Heights Neighbourhood.
Staff support the site specific amendment to re -designate the subject lands from Urban
Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas to Urban Residential Areas - High Density
Areas with a maximum residential density of 161 units per net hectare. It is recommended
that the By-law to adopt Amendment 37 be forwarded to Council for enactment (see
Appendix 1). - 155
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 7
3.3 The proposal is consistent with the design objectives of the Duffin Heights
Neighbourhood Policies and Development Guidelines
The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan require a broad
mix of housing form, location, size and affordability within the neighbourhood. New
development is required to demonstrate how the proposal is consistent with the Duffin
Heights Environmental Servicing Plan (ESP) to the satisfaction of the Region, City and the
TRCA.
As a condition of approval, the landowners are required to become a party to the cost
sharing agreement for Duffin Heights or receive an acknowledgement from the Trustee of
the Duffin Landowners Group Inc. that the benefitting landowner has made satisfactory
arrangements to pay its proportion of the shared development costs.
The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines provide design objectives for
the neighbourhood. The Tertiary Plan identifies the lands as residential. The intent of the
Guidelines is to further the objectives of the Official Plan and to achieve the following:
• an accessible pedestrian -oriented residential areas, distinct in character and
harmonious with the larger neighbourhood
• a streetscape which is attractive, safe and encourages social interaction with the
neighbourhood
• a central focus to the neighbourhood which is safe, lively and attractive
• a diversity of uses to support neighbourhood and City functions, and
• a mix of housing types, forms, affordability and tenure on a variety of lot frontages
The plan conforms with the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies and Development
Guidelines. The overall design and layout of the plan facilitates a pedestrian -oriented
residential development by creating an attractive urban streetscape along a public road,
allowing for convenient pedestrian circulation through enhanced internal pathway
connections and open space areas. The proposal also provides and promotes new
affordable ownership housing.
Through the site plan approval process, staff will continue to work with the applicant to
further review detailed urban design and architectural matters in accordance with the Duffin
Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines including, but not limited to: detailed
building location and siting; internal pedestrian circulation and connections; internal
landscaping and final design of the private amenity areas; architectural design and
materials; and the location of community mailboxes, water meter room, hydro transformers,
gas meters and other utilities.
3.4 The proposal will have minimal traffic impacts on surrounding road network
The submitted Transportation Study, prepared by R.J. Burnside & Associates, investigated
the traffic conditions and effects of the proposed development on the surrounding area and
the intersections of Brock Road and Zents Drive/Rex Heath Drive, William Jackson Drive
and Rex Heath Drive/proposed north driveway and William Jackson Drive and proposed
south driveway. The Study found that under existing, background and total conditions,
during the morning and afternoon peak hours, all study intersections are operating and will
operate with excess capacity and roadi will continue to function with minimal delay.
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 8
The Study also concludes that the proposed parking supply will meet future demand.
Furthermore, the Study indicates that the site is well designed to provide access by
pedestrian and cyclist to area sidewalks, multi -use path along William Jackson Drive, bike
routes and transit, and as a result, provides choices in mode of travel. Engineering Services
has reviewed the submitted Transportation Study and concur with the consultant's
recommendations.
3.5 New Parks planned and park improvements in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood
City Council Resolution #323/17 directed staff to work with developers and agencies to plan
and provide appropriate outdoor recreation areas/parks in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood.
As noted in Section 1.2 of this report, the applicant is proposing a 935 square metre park
block to be conveyed to the City as parkland dedication, which is located at southwest
corner of the site adjacent to the hydro corridor.
Staff have explored opportunities to improve and expand playground areas within existing
parks and have approved new parks spaces within the Duffin Heights neighbourhood that
are anticipated to be completed in the next two to three years.
A summary of the key improvements and new initiatives include:
• approved funding in the 2019 capital budget to construct a pre-school aged play area
within the Jackson Green parkette located at the corner of William Jackson Drive and
Misthollow Drive, which is anticipated to be constructed by August 2019
• an expansion of the playground area which may include swings and other play
structures in the Creekside Park has been included in the Capital Budget forecast for
2020
• the Pickering Soccer Club has moved a portion of its soccer programming from
Creekside Park to Kinsman Park providing additional times for the area residents to use
the soccer fields
• a new park, having an area of 0.76 of a hectare located at William Jackson Drive and
Carousel Mews, known as Carousel Green, will include a walking path, seating and
small playground area (timing of park construction is dependent on the finalization of
plans for a residential development north of the site)
• a new park, having an area of 0.62 of a hectare, located on the west of Brock Road and
the future Four Seasons Lane, will include walking paths, seating, a multi -use court,
playground area and shade structure (anticipated to be constructed in 2021)
• a new public school with outdoor playing fields is anticipated to be located on the
decommissioned City Operations Centre located west of Brock Road, at the intersection
of Tillings Road and Dersan Street
• the City is investigating entering into a long-term lease with Infrastructure Ontario for
use of hydro corridor lands for future recreational uses
- 157 -
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 9
In addition to improvements to existing park spaces and new parks to be completed over
the next two to three years, new condominium developments within Duffin Heights that are
either approved or proposed also include private parkettes serving the residents of those
developments. A map titled Duffin Heights Parklands (see Attachment #6 to this report),
has been prepared identifying the locations of existing park spaces, proposed parks and
private amenity spaces. The proposed improvements will help to alleviate concerns
regarding the lack of public park space in the Duffin Heights neighbourhood.
3.6 Response to Key Concerns raised at the January 7, 2019 Public Information Meeting,
Written Comments and January 14, 2019 Petition
The table below summarizes the key concerns raised by area residents and staff's
response.
Concerns
Staff's Response
Traffic Congestion
The proposal will have minimal traffic impacts on surrounding road
networks
As further discussed in Section 3.4 of this report, staff are satisfied that the
traffic generated by this proposal will have minimal traffic impacts within
the Duffin Heights Neighbourhoods. Key intersections are currently
operating and will continue to operate with excess capacity, and existing
roadways will continue to function with minimal delay.
Ensuring sufficient
parking
Sufficient number of parking spaces are available to accommodate
the proposal
Resident parking is provided at a ratio of 1.25 spaces per unit, and visitor
parking at a ratio of 0.25 spaces per unit, for a total of 421 parking spaces.
An underground parking garage is proposed providing 405 spaces for
residents and visitors, and an additional 16 surface spaces for visitors.
Resident and visitor parking ratios provided are slightly higher than other
new developments in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood.
Staff are satisfied that there are sufficient parking spaces available to
accommodate the proposal.
Strain on local
park
New Parks planned and Park improvements in the Duffin Heights
neighbourhood
As discussed in Section 3.5 of this report, the City is proposing park
improvements to Creekside Park and other local parks in the community,
and new parks are also planned in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood.
The applicant is proposing a 935 square metre park block to be conveyed
to the City as parkland dedication, which adds additional park space within
the neighbourhood.
- 158 -
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 10
Concerns
Staff's Response
The Pickering
Soccer Club and
Creekside Park
The Pickering Soccer Club has moved a portion of its programming
from Creekside Park
The Pickering Soccer Club has moved a portion of its soccer programming
from Creekside Park mini fields to Kinsman Park in an effort to address
recent traffic and on -street parking concerns raised by local residents
during the soccer season. The remaining soccer program will continue at
a reduced capacity.
Compatibility with
surrounding
neighbourhood
The proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood
Through building scale, form and siting of buildings, this proposal is
compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposal facilitates a
pedestrian -oriented residential development by creating an attractive urban
streetscape along a public road, allowing for convenient pedestrian
circulation and enhanced internal pathway connections and open space
areas.
Number of
residents that will
benefit from the
Trillium program
The development is anticipated to assist a minimum of 60 purchasers
The development is anticipated to assist 60 purchasers with a Trillium
mortgage and could be increased up to 100 purchasers depending on the
availability of additional financing.
3.7 Region of Durham will monitor sanitary capacity as development within the Duffin
Heights Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station service area occurs over time
Averton (Brock) Limited, owner of the lands directly west of the subject lands at the
northeast and southeast corners of Brock Road and Rex Heath Drive, submitted a letter
requesting additional information confirming the actual capacity available at the Duffin
Heights Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (SSPS) and to review the allocation of capacity
to the participating landowners.
The Region of Durham has advised that based on projections of flows generated by
existing and future developments (pending approval and/or not constructed) located within
the Duffin Heights area, it is anticipated that ultimately the theoretical flow at the Duffin
Heights Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (SSPS) may exceed the capacity of the facility.
The remaining sanitary capacity will be on a first come first serve basis, and is allocated at
the time of signing a servicing agreement. Diversion of future flows away from Duffin
Heights SSPS may be needed in the future. The Region will continue to monitor this
situation as development within the Duffin Heights SSPS service area proceeds.
- 159 -
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 11
3.8 The applicant is required to become a party to the Duffin Heights cost sharing
agreement or pay their proportionate share of the development costs
A letter was received on behalf of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group Inc. The letter
advises that the applicant has not signed the Duffin Heights Developers Group Cost
Sharing Agreement (CSA) and is currently a non -participant with regards to the CSA.
Therefore, the Group would like to confirm that approval of applications will be conditional
upon the Trustee confirming to the City that the Owner has executed the CSA and satisfied
obligations thereunder related to the development of the subject lands.
The implementing zoning by-law amendment will include a Holding provision on the subject
lands until such time as the City receives an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the
Duffin Heights Landowners Group that the applicant has made satisfactory arrangements
to pay its proportionate share of the development costs to the Landowners Group.
3.9 Zoning By-law to be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment
Staff supports the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18 and recommends that
the site specific implementing by-law, containing the standards set out in Appendix II to this
Report be finalized and brought before Council for enactment.
To ensure compatibility with the surrounding community and an appropriate design, the
zoning by-law will have an appropriate residential zone category to implement the
proposal including but not limited to, maximum building height, minimum building setbacks,
built -to -zone, maximum number of units, minimum number of resident and visitor parking
spaces.
The zoning by-law will also include an appropriate zone category for a neighbourhood park
that will be dedicated to the City and an appropriate zone category for the open space
lands along the easterly edge of the site as determined by the TRCA.
As noted above, the by-law will include a Holding provision on the lands to address
cost-sharing.
3.10 Housekeeping amendments to the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Map and the Duffin
Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines are required
The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guideline, Figure A — Tertiary Plan, has a
symbol for a "Future Elementary School" on the subject lands. A "Proposed Separate
Elementary School" symbol also appears on the Map 25: Duffin Heights Neighbourhood
Map of the Pickering Official Plan. The City has received written confirmation from the
Durham Catholic District School Board that a separate elementary school is no longer
needed at this location.
- 160 -
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 12
Housekeeping changes to the Official Plan and Neighbourhood Guidelines are required.
Accordingly, staff recommend Council approve Informational Revision 25 to the Pickering
Official Plan Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Map 25 to delete the symbols for a "Proposed
Separate Elementary School", as set out in Appendix III to Report PLN 17-19, and approve
the changes to the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guideline Figure A —
Tertiary Plan to delete the "Future Elementary School", as shown on Appendix IV to
Report PLN 17-19.
3.11 Technical matters will be addressed through site plan approval process
Detailed design issues will be dealt with through the site plan approval process. These
requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to:
• architectural treatment
• landscaping and fencing
• lighting
• pedestrian circulation and connections
• amenity area design
• drainage and grading
• site servicing
• construction management plan
• resident, visitor and accessible parking spaces
• waste management collection
• location of community mailboxes
• location of water meter room, hydro transformers, gas meters and other utilities
3.12 Draft Approval of the Draft Plan of Condominium is delegated to the Director, City
Development
Applications for standard and common element condominium are delegated to the
Director, City Development for final approval. No further approvals are required at this
time.
3.13 Applicant's Comments
The applicant supports the recommendations of this report.
Appendices
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 37 to the Pickering Official Plan
Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 09/18
Informational Revision 25 to the Pickering Official Plan
Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Guidelines — Tertiary Plan Amendment
- 161 -
Report PLN 17-19
Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
(OPA 18-004/P & A 09/18)
June 17, 2019
Page 13
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Air Photo Map
3. Conceptual Site Plan
4. Conceptual Elevation Plan
5. Conceptual Rendering Plan
6. Duffin Heights Parklands
Prepared By:
Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP
Principle Planner, Development Review
i I
ti
Nilesh'Surti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
& Urban Design
CC:Id
Approved/Endorsed By:
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Kyle Bentley, P.Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City 9quncil
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
zoict
- 162 -
Appendix I to
Report PLN 17-19
Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 37
to the Pickering Official Plan
The Corporation of the ' f Pickering
By 19
Being a By-law to adopt Amendment xx to the
Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 18-004/P)
Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and
21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may, by by-law, adopt
amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering;
And whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to
exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval;
And whereas on February 23, 2000, Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000, which
allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its
approval;
And whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 37 to the City of Pickering
Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as
follows:
1. That Amendment 37 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as
Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted;
2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional
Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal
Official Plans and Amendments.
3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing
hereof.
By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2019.
DRAFT
David Ryan, Mayor
DRAFT
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 164 -
Exhibit "A" to By-law XXXXl19
Amendment 37
to the City of Pickering Official Plan
- 165 -
Proposed Amendment 37 to the Pickering Official Plan
Purpose:
Location:
Basis:
The purpose of this amendment is to re -designate the lands located on the
southeast corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue from
"Urban Residential Areas — Medium Density Areas" to "Urban Residential
Areas — High Density Areas" to facilitate a residential condominium
development including a site specific exemption to permit a maximum
density of 161 units per net hectare.
The site specific amendment affects the lands located on the southeast
corner of William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue described as Part
of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1, 40R-29457, City of Pickering.
Through the review of Official Plan Amendment Application 18-004/P
and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18, City Council
determined that the Amendment facilitates a development that is
compatible with the surrounding community, is an appropriate
intensification project in Pickering's urban area, and provides an
opportunity for 60 to 100 households to access funding from Trillium
Housing's second mortgage program adding to Pickering's supply of
affordable ownership housing. The Amendment is consistent with the
policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2014, and conforms to the
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Durham Regional
Official Plan.
Actual
Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by:
1. Amending Schedule 1— Land Use Structure by replacing the "Urban Residential
Areas — Medium Density Areas" designation with "Urban Residential Areas — High
Density Areas" designation for lands located on the southeast corner of William
Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue, as illustrated on Schedule 'A' attached to this
amendment.
2. Revising policy 12.17, Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies, in Chapter 12 — Urban
Neighbourhoods, to add a new subsection (q) as follows:
"(q)
despite Table 9 of Chapter 3, establish a maximum net residential density
of 161 units per net hectare on lands located on the southeast corner of
William Jackson Drive and Earl Grey Avenue described as Part of Lot 18,
Concession 3, Part 1, 40R-29457."
Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this
Amendment.
Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this
Amendment.
OPA 18-004/P
A 09118
Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
- 166 -
Schedule 'A' to Amendment 37
Existing Official Plan
J rte
/)5 jt iy
-fig /
ftwrit
/� rird
F.- A x401
tE2:4114
I�j�jljli;je1151;17,
I'
p0 d
4 r�% "AVM DM
00101dl�llig 5012112
rr i.
rA
riogLESII
I Oill f�l�i.
riOdt Ar
+lliM / rl
4AIS ,.
Redesignate from
"Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas"
to "Urban Residential Areas - High Density Areas"
Yews
City of Pickering
City Development Dopaitroent
O July. 2015
This Map Forme Pad of Edition 8 of tho Pickering 011iclol Plan and
Must Bo Road In Conjunction with tho Other Schedules and the Text
Extract of
Schedule I to the
Pickering
Official Plan
Edition 8
Land Use Structure
Open Space System
- Seaton Natural
Heritage System
Natural Areas
Active Recreational Areas
Urban Residential Areas
Medium Density Areas
High Density Areas
Mixed Use Areas
Mixed Corridors
- 167 -
Appendix 11 to
Report PLN 17-19
Recommended Zoning By-Iaw Provisions
for Zoning By-Iaw Amendment A 09/18
Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/18
That the implementing zoning by-law permits the establishment of the following zoning provisions:
1. Permitted Uses:
a. Stacked Dwellings
b. Neighbourhood Park
c. Open Space/Resource Management
2. "H" Holding Provision on all lands until such time as the City receives an acknowledgement
from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group that the applicant has made
satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportionate share of the development costs to the
Landowners Group.
3. Number of Dwelling Units:
a. minimum number of units 133
b. maximum number of units 264
4. All buildings and structures shall be located entirely within a building envelope with a minimum
setback of 3.0 metres from all lot lines.
5. A 4.0 metre wide build -to -zone adjacent to William Jackson Drive
A 3.0 metre wide build -to -zone adjacent to Earl Grey Avenue
6. No building or portion of a building or structure shall be erected within the building envelope,
unless a minimum of 60 percent of the entire length of the build -to -zone is occupied by. a
continuous portion of the exterior wall of a building.
7 Stairs; cover and uncovered porches and platforms; bay, box and bow windows; balconies, box
windows; eaves; canopies, window sills and other similar features are permitted to project
beyond the building envelope, but no closer than 0.6 of a metre to any lot line.
8. Maximum Building Height of 15.0 metres and 4 -storeys.
9. Minimum 4.5 square metres of private outdoor amenity space is required per dwelling unit.
10. Minimum 230 square metres for private park area (outdoor amenity area).
11. Minimum 1.25 parking space per dwelling unit and an additional 0.25 of a space per dwelling
unit for visitors.
12. The separation distance between the front wall of a building where it faces the front wall of
another building shall be a minimum of 14.0 metres, not including the front wall of the private
indoor amenity building.
13. Provisions to permit model homes, if required.
- 169 -
Appendix III to
Report PLN 17-19
Informational Revision 25
to the City of Pickering Official Plan
Informational Revision 25 to the Pickering Official Plan
Purpose: The purpose of this revision is to change Map 25, Neighbourhood 15:
Duffin Heights, to delete the symbols for a proposed separate elementary
school.
Location: The subject lands are located on the southeast corner of William Jackson
Drive and Earl Grey Avenue.
Basis: The informational revision has been determined to be appropriate to keep
the Official Plan up to date. The Durham Catholic District School Board
has advised it does not require an elementary school site in this location.
Actual
Revision:
The lands are to be developed as a residential condominium consisting of
264 stacked units.
The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby revised by:
1. On Map 25, Neighbourhood 15: Duffin Heights, deleting the "Proposed Separate
Elementary School" symbol from the subject lands and deleting the "Proposed
Separate Elementary School" symbol from the Legend, as illustrated on Schedule 'A'
attached to this Informational Revision.
Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this
Revision.
Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this
Revision.
Cross Reference:
OPA 18-004/P
(Related Files: A 09/18)
(Applicant: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit)
(Date: May 27, 2019)
- 171 -
Schedule 'A'
MAP 25
NEIGHBOURHOOD 15: DUFFIN HEIGHTS
Delete Proposed
Separate Elementary
School
LEGEND
0 NEW ROAD CONNECTIONS (PROPOSED)
DETAILED REVIEW AREA
LANDS FOR WHICH COUNCIL HAS
ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
(REFER TO COMPENDIUM DOCUMENT)
CITY or RCKERING
WY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JULY. 2010
.12
Q_NTM9 MINI
I EMOf PMT o[ E N CONJUNCTION
T E
or CR SC11[ONL4 OST BC TIE 1[NT, YCipKE N TnTN iN
i
0
SYMBOLS
NEIGHBOURHOOD
BOUNDARY
PLACE
OF WORSHIP
CEM
PUBLIC ELEMENTARY GED
SCHOOL
SEPARATE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
PROPOSED PUBLIC
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CEMETERY
PARK
PROPOSED SEPARATE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PROPOSED PARKIlk
Delete Proposed
Separate Elementary
School from Legend
NOTE: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
APPEAR ON SCHEDULE 1
- 172 -
Appendix IV to
Report PLN 17-19
Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Guidelines
Tertiary Plan Amendment
i { TAUNTON ROAD
City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
TERTIARY PLAN - DUFFIN HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD
GUIDELINE BOUNDARY
FUTURE ROADS
EXISTING ROADS
GOLF COURSE
TABLELAND FOREST
FIGURE A • VILLAGE r E
TERANET\stud ies\Duffin Heights \Design end Tertiary Plan\DH_TeriterJ�lon2 9 A .dwil•
Vz
ti
RESIDENTIAL
BROCK ROAD STREETSCAPE
EMPLOYMENT
FOCAL POINTS
^• FUTURE STORMWATER
�SMP�
♦�# MANAGEMENT POND
N, FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD
L J PARK
• FUTURE ELEMENTARY
sr SCHOOL
FUTURE COMMUNITY
ICF
C� �� FACILITY
N
SCALE 1:12500
100 0 100
metres
MAY 22, 2019
ATTACHfMENl"i #_I. TO
REPOR1 /J ,PLN l7 —19
Zents Drive
Dersan Street
7
Carousel
Men
EWA
(6
<oVssing o •e
m U a
GD
n
O
-J
co.
Street
'f
c E
Y y. -
U >,
O a
@
Rex Heath Drive
L�
�,
Grenwich Glen
�
N
O(�,
U
115
N �C U
0 I-
I( N I0
0 o
,cor-
Adirondack Chase
Calico Mewsj
tIIIlIUIIH J
C
0
Y
Subject
Lands
U
cokreet Kalmar Avenue
aae(
�e a)—
Byford
)-Byford Street m
70
t-
3)— a—
!m=
Hayden Lane
Parkhurst Crescent
Misthollow Drive
11111
4
Location Map
File: OPA 18-004/P and A 09/18
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1 40R-29457
(SE corner of William Jackson Dr and Earl Grey Ave) I Date: May. 28, 2019
B lghtareorauon of the City or l'Ititeens PMduce d(n part) under liens Pnnter,Ol hla.arlstry of Natural Remutces. 1 SCALE: 1:5,00 1
Nl5ranareserved.;® Her Majesty the Queen hi Right or Canada, De t I Resources poral wand to .;
B Tenant Enterprises Inc. and As suppliers a8 lights resessd,;® Mu n 1 essm�Colporab. and Is suppliers ail rights reserved.; THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY
ATTACHMENT hr 2- TO
REPORT // PL -N 019
CWrouseliMews s; C to
kiagarayrstre.e:
ig r�L,-u7 �ItTOwyi
10 FiT.2.
11 6°troll Fey
N
iillziAcl
1• .. ossing,o l w \fitro,
!►a: i: �1111,101:1-.1.1:11.t!
11 {,;a 4 C'�alico-Mews
I
r• y E� 11i1111�1f1
1(21 a L4 .0
CO Cn
N
Rex Heath Drivey..-..- E
rr ED Grenw c Glen
{ !�., r■*■'�� 1i!a'Pinio!lI!n-wry
�_ Misthallaw Drive �
!F!!_!!!! !!!nur 'frit11111in
61y
Air Photo Map
File: OPA 18-004/P and A 09/18
e,
P1CKE R1 NG
City Development
Department
Applicant: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
Pro.ert Descri•tion: Part of Lot 18 Concession 3 Part 1 40R-29457
(SE corner of William Jackson Dr and Earl Grey Ave)
Date: May. 28, 2019
SCALE: 1:5,000 j
11115 IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY I
pes,rvenOtn. wry.inmenngPra,RReganpart) da.Dr sln Oniano u,arReno urces.
1 rgans resenerse Her Majesty the Queen h Right of nada,D Ime I IReso C• al right raserred,
0 Teranel Enterprises In. and es suppers al Obis reserved..01,1P pa rp es Coryoralun and is spongers al ripMs re served.;
•
ATTACHMENT #—i3 TO
REPORT W _EL (7-19
Ilii liiC
u011NIE'nnr:
`Private Road
EARL GREY AVENUE
1.1
-,1'
Fence
Won' sr .r.
—,1110 I Wa. ,.
ISsesSssf Mows)
.ns
30 m
Buffer
issers
a
2
.10
_:" - —' �► r'" Indoor Amenit
44,
ssitsisM
Of OYA110H
Outdoor AmenitL
'Visitor Parking
Lands to be dedicated to the City for
Park Purposes
City 4
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Conceptual Site Plan
File No: OPA 18-004/P and A 09/18
Applicant: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1 40R-29457
(SE corner of William Jackson Dr and Earl Grey Ave)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
` DATE: May 15, 2019
- 177 -
1102
TOP Cif ito•WIT 6n e‘
KW 0/p_Wer tr use`
LONGIwax
8
8
g.;130',
l y.
Mun Mom,
Imo
64 4
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Conceptual Elevation Plan
File No: OPA 18-004/P and A 09/18
Applicant: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1 40R-29457
(SE corner of William Jackson Dr and Earl Grey Ave)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: Dec 17, 2018
- 178 -
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Conceptual Rendering
File No: OPA 18-004/P and A 09/18
Applicant: Trillium Housing Oak Non -Profit Corporation
Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3, Part 1 40R-29457
(SE corner of William Jackson Dr and Earl Grey Ave)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: Dec 17, 2018
- 179 -
ATTACHMENT >#. is TO
REPORT 0 PLN 17 —12
Private Amenity Space
1,950
•
lild411111)Sif 1
flits mi
Adirondack Chasa
.l
i 1 1„1 1liligi}N
M1iPi.pllluitlllil
rill leililll /
r r,�
-. iteiliall131.r
i2
- ''1 Crescent
Blip UhIif411d,1IIll
10004 11
Ding umil 11.IR111
la Lana 4rive
Iiilliilil'
Jackson Greon
Private 2,820.&
,Ame94ii-Zpace
235 rnt
PICKER1NG
City Development
Department
Duffin Heights Parklands
SCAT E:1.6.000
— — ° ___.
'Mews
0 so 100 m
80
ropaeek
Proposed Fireball
aExisting Golf Gnome
Proposed PJementary Sehool
Statin alar bief.tgemsnt Pend
Certretery
_ ',Nage Arrlenfy $page
Q Neighbour heal Park
Village Green
Natural Area
Golf Course
—Gley F
DICKERING
Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: PLN 18-19
Date: June 17, 2019
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Work Program
File: D-1100-101
Recommendation:
1. That Council endorse the Work Program for Pickering's Comprehensive Zoning By-law
Review and authorize staff to proceed as outlined in Appendix 1 to Report PLN 18-19, and
2. That Council authorize staff to prepare and release a Request for Proposal to retain external
planning consultants to assist with the completion of Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning
By-law Review as outlined in Appendix 11 to Report PLN 18-19, and report back to Council on
the hiring recommendation.
Executive Summary: A zoning by-law is a set of legally enforceable regulations and mapping
that implements the objectives and policies of a municipality's Official Plan. The City is regulated
by six parent Zoning By-laws. Recently, Council has enacted parent by-laws for Seaton and the
City Centre. Four of the City's six parent by-laws were originally enacted by Council in the 1960's,
and have been amended hundreds of times by site specific by-laws and minor variance
applications. These older by-laws require updating to implement the City's Official Plan, and to
provide a strategic direction on a range of zoning issues.
Staff is proposing a Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (CZBR) of which the primary purpose
will be to update and consolidate the City's current by-laws into one zoning by-law that conforms
with and implements the City's Official Plan. A new by-law will also implement recent policy
changes regarding intensification, built form, environmental matters and mapping changes.
Performance standards will be updated, and current development and building practices will be
reflected. A review also provides an opportunity to convert the by-laws to an accessible
web -based format enhancing service delivery to City residents and the development community.
The scale of a CZBR requires both in-house and consulting expertise to direct the project and
engage the community. Staff is proposing a work program consisting of 3 phases, with Phase 1 to
be initiated later this year (see Appendix 1, Proposed Work Program). Phase 1 will be conducted
from 2019 to 2021, and includes: the preparation of discussion papers on various topics; hosting
open houses to present the findings and obtain feedback from the community; and reporting the
findings, including the community's comments, to Council (see Appendix 11, Proposed Work
Program — Phase 1).
It is recommended that Council authorize staff to initiate a CZBR, and issue a Request for
Proposal to retain external planning consultants to assist staff in undertaking Phase 1 of the
CZBR. Staff will report to Council with a hiring recommendation.
- 181 -
PLN 18-19 June 17, 2019
Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 2
Financial Implications: The 2018 Council approved budget included the amount of
$100,000.00 (2611.2392.0000 Consulting & Professional) to cover the initial portion of the first
phase of a multi-year Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. However, staff was unable to initiate
the review in 2018 so the line item was re -budgeted in the 2019 Council approved budget
submission. As a growth related study, 67.5 percent of the required funding is anticipated from
Development Charges ($67,500.00), with the remaining $32,500.00 from the tax levy.
Staff anticipate that the $100,000.00 budgeted to -date will only cover three or four discussion
papers. Future budgets will be required to cover the remainder of the discussion papers, and
complete Phases 2 and 3 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. Staff will report back to
Council prior to proceeding with issuance of any further Requests for Proposal.
1. Discussion
1.1 Review of existing zoning by-laws and zoning framework
The objectives and policies of a municipality's Official Plan are implemented by zoning
by-laws which are a set of legally enforceable regulations and mapping. Generally, zoning
by-laws regulate land use, the scale and intensity of development, and protect areas by
preventing incompatible uses. More specifically, a zoning by-law outlines how land may be
used by specifying permitted uses and other development criteria including where buildings
and structures can be located, lot sizes, parking requirements, and building heights and
setbacks.
Lands in Pickering are regulated by six parent Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036, 3037,
7364/14 and 7553/17 (see Attachment #1, Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws). With the
exception of Zoning By-laws 7364/14 (Seaton Urban Area) and 7553/17 (City Centre), the
other parent by-laws were originally enacted by Council in the 1960's and were prepared
under different jurisdictional context and policy framework pre -dating the City's Official
Plan. These parent by-laws have been amended by site specific zoning by-laws with
standards regulating development for specific sites. Many of the provisions are dated and
do not reflect current performance and development industry standards.
1.2 Why undertake a comprehensive zoning by-law review?
It is intended that official plans and zoning by-laws work together and that zoning by-laws
be updated to implement the current official plan objectives and policies. Section 26(9) of
the Planning Act requires official plans to be in conformity with the Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS), and in 2016, the requirement was added that zoning by-laws be brought
into conformity with the official plan within three years of an official plan update.
The City's Official Plan review has resulted in a series of amendments to the Official Plan
implementing changes in legislation, provincial plan and policy updates, and amendments
to the Region of Durham Official Plan. The amendments to the Pickering Official Plan have
included a revised vision for Duffin Heights, new policies for the City Centre, implementing
the Urban Growth Centre designation under the Provincial Growth Plan, updated
Environment and Countryside policies, implementation of the Greenbelt Plan and the
Central Pickering Development Plan (Seaton and the Agricultural Preserve), introduction of
planning tools resulting from changes to the Planning Act, and a general review of various
policy topics.
-
182
PLN 18-19 June 17, 2019
Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 3
With the exception of Seaton and the City Centre, Pickering's zoning by-laws in their
present form do not implement the recent amendments to the Official Plan. In addition, the
by-laws are not in an accessible format, and are not available online, making it difficult for
the community and development industry to navigate and understand. The current by-laws
also present administrative challenges for building and by-law enforcement staff.
The consolidation of various parent by-laws into a single comprehensive zoning by-law is
an approach also underway by many other municipalities across the Greater Toronto Area
and within the Province. Advantages of a comprehensive by-law review resulting in a
consolidated by-law includes the replacement and removal of outdated definitions and
provisions, the elimination and amalgamation of site specific provisions, and consistency in
interpretations. In addition, certain legislative tools are available where City wide
comprehensive by-laws exist. An example is the 'two year time out' provision of the
Planning Act where amendments to City initiated zoning by-laws are prohibited two years
following the adoption of a comprehensive zoning by-law.
1.3 What will the comprehensive zoning by-law review deliver?
The zoning by-law review will update the by-laws that regulate development across
Pickering recognizing current industry standards and recent legislative changes. The
review will result in one new City wide zoning by-law that implements Pickering's future
vision, and manages land use and development in a user friendly format that is also
accessible on the internet. Typically, zoning by-laws have a number of main sections that
apply to all zone categories including administration, general regulation, definitions and
parking regulation, and will also contain sections for specific zone categories including
residential, mixed use, employment, community use, utility, and natural heritage (see
Attachment #2, Zoning By-law 7364/14 (Seaton Urban Area) Table of Contents).
1.4 How will studies and development applications that are underway be addressed by
the review?
The Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study, and the
Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study are underway. The
findings of these studies will inform the comprehensive zoning by-law review, and be
incorporated in the preparation of the City wide zoning by-law.
Private development applications submitted prior to the initiation of and during the zoning
by-law review will not be impacted and will continue to be processed. The Committee of
Adjustment will continue to consider applications for minor variances to the existing zoning
by-laws during the zoning by-law review. Existing use and legal non -conforming rights will
need to be reviewed and, where appropriate, addressed by special provisions in the new
City wide zoning by-law.
- 183 -
PLN 18-19 June 17, 2019
Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 4
1.5 Staff is recommending that Council endorse the Work Program and authorize staff to
initiate Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review
A multi-year phased CZBR is proposed (see Appendix I, Comprehensive Zoning By-law
Review Proposed Work Program). The scale of the proposed CZBR requires both in-
house and consulting expertise to direct the project, conduct the required research and to
engage the community.
Phase 1 includes the preparation of a series of discussion papers focused on various topics
that will inform the preparation of the new comprehensive zoning by-law (see Appendix II,
Proposed Work Program — Phase 1). The following is a list of discussion papers identified
by staff:
• Guiding Principles & Vision
• Administration/Geographic Information/Technology
• General Provisions in All Zones/Definitions
• Minor Variances
• Secondary Suites
• Cannabis Production
• Residential Zoning
• Employment Zoning
• Mixed-use Areas/Intensification Areas
• Agricultural/Rural/Hamlet/Open Space & Environment
• Identification of Zone Categories
• Parking/Active Transportation
Each discussion paper will review the existing planning and zoning framework, identify the
various issues, discuss the current policy context, address best practices from other
municipalities and provide strategic directions in order to inform the preparation of the draft
comprehensive zoning by-law (see Appendix III, Potential Topics for the Discussion
Papers).
This phase will be undertaken by staff with the assistance of external consultants.
Information on the issues analysis will be presented to the public at open houses for their
input, and staff will report to City Council on the findings after three or four discussion
papers are completed.
2. Next Steps
In late July or early August, staff propose to release a Request for Proposals to retain
external land use planning consultants to assist with the preparation of the Phase I issues
analysis and community engagement. Staff will report to Council with a hiring
recommendation in the Autumn of 2019.
- 184 -
PLN 18-19 June 17, 2019
Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 5
To -date staff have completed the scope of the work for the review and developed a
preliminary communications strategy. For the remainder of 2019, prior to the initiation of
Phase I, the request for proposals will be issued and a steering committee will be
established. The steering committee will allow City departments, stakeholders and
agencies to provide input with respect to the issues analysis.
Staff will report to Council prior to proceeding with the later portions of Phase 1.
Appendices
Appendix I Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Proposed Work Program
Appendix II Proposed Work Program — Phase 1
Appendix III Potential Topics for the Discussion Papers
Attachments
1. Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws
2. Zoning By-law 7364/14 (Seaton Urban Area) Table of Contents
Prepared By:
Approved/Endorsed By:
Deborah Wylie, CIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Principal Plann-r, Development Review Chief Planner
Nilesh Surti, M IP, RPP
Manager, Development Review &
Urban Design
DW:Id
Kyl Bentley, P.Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering Ci Council
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 185 -
Appendix 1 to
Report PLN 18-19
Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Proposed Work Program
- 186 -
2019 - 2021
Phase
Discussion Papers'
Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review
Proposed Work Program
2021-2022
Discussion Papers 1-2
1. Guiding Principles &
Parameters
2. Review and
assessment of Existing
Parent By-laws
Open House(s)
Report to Council
Discussion Papers 3-5
3. Residential Zoning
4. Employment Zoning
5. Mixed-use
Areas/I ntensification
Open House(s)
Report to Council
Discussion 6-8
6. Agricultural/Rural/
Hamlet/Open Space &
Environment
7. Parking/Active
Transportation
8. Cannabis Production
Open House(s)
Report to Council
Phase 2
Draft By-law
Prepare New By-law
Draft New By-law
Circulate for Comment
Required Revisions
Open House(s)
2023
Phase 3
Council Adoption
Statutory Public Meeting
Statutory Public Meeting /
Information Report to
Council
Council Adoption
Recommendation Report
to Council adopting Zoning
By-law
Local Planning Appeal
Tribunal (LPAT) Appeals
(if applicable)
' Order of Discussion Papers is subject to review and finalization by the Steering Committee and Consultant
- 187 -
Appendix!! to
Report PLN 18-19
Proposed Work Program — Phase 1
Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review
Proposed Work Program — Phase 1
Establish Steering
Committee
Release RFP
Select Consultants
• Review proposals
• Finalize order of
Discussion Papers
Report to Council
• Enter into Agreement
with Successful
Consultant
Start-up Meeting
Commence Discussion ,
Papers 1-2
Finalize Discussion
Papers 1-2 '
1. Guiding Principles &
Parameters
2. Review and
assessment of Existing
Parent By-laws
Open House(s)
Report to Council
Discussion Papers 3-5 1
3. Residential Zoning
4. Employment Zoning
5. Mixed-use
Areas/Intensification
Open House(s)
Report to Council
Discussion 8-10
6. Agricultural/Rural/
Hamlet/Open Space &
F Environment
7. Parking/Active
Transportation
8. Cannabis Production
Open House(s)
Report to Council
' Order of Discussion Papers is subject to review and finalization by the Steering Committee and Consultant
- 189 -
Appendix III to
Report PLN 18-19
Potential Topics for the Discussion Papers
Potential Topics for the Discussion Papers
Paper
Guiding Principles and
Parameters
• Intended to provide a high-level framework to guide future work on this assignment
• Review and assess zoning methods, format, structure, layout and mapping to identity
issues and options for addressing these issues in the new comprehensive zoning
by-law
• Review recent best practices of other municipal zoning by-laws in Ontario that have
undertaken comprehensive reviews of their respective by-laws
• Identified issues (common and unique issues discovered in the parent by-laws)
together with the best practice review, to provide a list of options for consideration
for the new comprehensive zoning by-law and provide some general conclusions.
This may include:
• Options and associated requirements for the implementation of an innovative and
interactive GIS, web -based comprehensive zoning by-law
• Exploring the possibilty of including sustainable provisions in the zoning by-law
• Analysis of the benefits and weaknesses of implementing a development permit
system
• Zoning to implement the affordable housing strategy
• Inclusionary zoning, and
• Bonusing
Review and Assessment
of Existing Parent By-laws
• Review and assessment of:
• Site-specific amendments
• Minor variances to the parent by-laws
• Definitions and exploring the use of illustrations for effective communication
• General provisions for all zones
• Zone categories
Residential Zoning
Provisions
• Conduct a detailed review of:
• Existing Provincial, Regional and City Policies
• Existing residential zones within the parent by-laws and site-specific
amendments
• Existing issues, including residential minor variances
• Best practices from other municipalities
- 191 -
• Identify the proposed zone categories (e.g., low, medium and high density) and
permitted uses
• Review and assess general residential provisions, for instance:
• Residential amenity space
• Driveway widths/garage standards/restrictions on residential parking
• Minimum landscaped areas
• Accessory buildings and structures
• Decks and platforms
• Home occupations
• Conduct a detailed review and assessment on secondary suites, rooming, lodging,
group homes, and temporary short-term residential/student housing
• Review existing Provincial, Regional and City's Official Plan
• Distance separation for crisis care facilities
• Location/standards for group homes and boarding houses
• Standards for secondary suites and short-term residential
Employment Zoning
Provisions
• Conduct a detailed review of:
• Existing Provincial, Regional and City Policies
• Existing employment zones within the parent by-laws and site-specific
amendments
• Existing issues, including employment area minor variances
• Best practices from other municipalities
• Identify the proposed zone categories and permitted uses
• Review and assess existing zoning issues:
• Outdoor storage
• Sensitive land uses (minimum separation distance)
Mixed-use • Conduct a detailed review of:
Areas/Intensification • Existing Provincial, Regional and City Policies
Areas • Existing mixed-use/intensification zones within the parent by-laws and
site-specific amendments
• Existing issues, including mixed-use/intensification area minor variances
• Best practices from other municipalities
• Identify the proposed zone categories and permitted uses
- 192 -
Paper Topic Details
N'
• Review and assess existing zoning issues:
• Automotive uses
• Zoning approach for mid and high rise buildings
• Development transition to lower density development
Agricultural, Rural, • Conduct a detailed review of:
Hamlet, Open Space and • Existing Provincial, Regional and City Policies
Environment • Existing Agricultural, Rural, Hamlet, Open Space and Environment zones within
the parent by-laws and site-specific amendments
• Existing issues, including residential minor variances
• Best practices from other municipalities
• Identify the proposed zone categories and permitted uses (including for Hamlets,
Natural Heritage System)
• Review and assess existing zoning issues:
• Develop strategy for Natural Heritage System
• Zoning strategy for lands within the Rouge National Park
• Ministry Zoning Orders
• Accessory parking
• Zoning strategy for Federal airport lands
• Agri -related uses
Parking, Active • Conduct a detailed review of:
Transportation and • Existing Provincial, Regional and City Policies
Loading • Existing parking standards, including setbacks for parking areas, drive aisle
widths, minimum landscaped areas within parking facilities
• Best practices from other municipalities
• Review and assess the following topics:
• Shared parking formulates
• Bicycle parking requirements
• Drive-through facilities
• Loading facilities
• Cash -in -lieu of parking
• Maximum parking (City Centre/Intensification Corridors)
- 193 -
Paper
Cannabis Production
Facilities and Retail
Businesses
• Conduct a detailed review of relevant legislation (e.g., Federal, Provincial)
• Conduct a detailed review of best practices from other municipalities
• Health Canada requirements/licenses
• Appropriate locations
• Zoning standards
- 194 -
ATTACHMENT# 1 TO
REPORT # PL.N I -fCa
By-law 7364
By-law 3037
By-law 7553
By-law 3036
By-law 2511
By-law 2520
City
Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws
(2511, 2520, 3036, 3037, 7634/14 & 7553/17)
oi
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant: City Initiated
Date: May.n//121, 2019
]The Corporamn or the City o1 Rclenrq Produced yn pini Roger been. ioioT;(lgyeePe ex, Organo nosey or llalwaj Re source .
ADTrm el 6 Mew AeOe Ie"AaMib"WO...JIM,a reYyrede 0 cAP��1fp y Corporat�tn.nd leeuppl ors ell ryrxareeereed
SCALE. �L,110
T112. 13110T APLA1l OF SURVEY.
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT N PLN
Table of Contents
How to Read and Use This By-law 1
1.0 Administration 2
1.1 Title 2
1.2 Application 2
1.3 Purpose 2
1.4 Repeal of former By-laws 2
1.5 Effective Date 3
1.6 Certificate of Occupancy 3
1.7 Conformity and Compliance 3
1.8 Enforcement 3
1.8.1 Administration 3
1.8.2 Penalties 3
1.9 Severability 3
1.10 Establishment of Zones 3
1.10.1 Zones 3
1.10.2 Location of Zone 4
1.10.3 Special Zone Symbols 4
1.11 Interpretation 5
1.11.1 Zone Boundaries 5
1.11.2 Definitions 5
1.11.3 Examples and Illustrations 5
1.11.4 Reduction of Lot Area Due To Public Acquisition or Conveyance 5
2.0 General Regulation 6
2.1 Prohibited Uses 6
2.2 Human Habitation Not Within Main Buildings 6
2.3 Frontage on A Street 6
2.4 Public Uses Permitted In All Zones 6
2.5 Linear Utilities Permitted in All Zones 7
2.6 Permitted Yard Encroachments 7
2.7 Legal Non -Conforming Uses 8
2.8 Legal Non -Complying Buildings or Structures 8
2.9 Legal Non -Complying Lots 8
2.10 Air Conditioners 8
2.11 Swimming Pools 9
2.12 Satellite Dish Antenna 9
2.13 Accessory Dwelling Unit 9
2.14 Home -Based Business 9
2.15 Accessory Buildings and Structures 11
2.16 Standards for Detached Private Garages Accessed by a Driveway From a Street11
2.17 Standards for Detached Private Garages Accessed by a Lane 13
2.18 Standards for Attached Private Garages on Lots Accessed by Lanes 13
2.19 Standards for Attached Private Garages Accessed by a Driveway from a Street 14
2.20 Coach Houses 15
2.21 Live Work Unit 15
2.22 Model Homes 15
Seaton Area Zoning By-law
- 196 -
ATTACHMENT # cTO
PLN 1 -191
2.23 Lots on Public and Private Streets 15
2.24 Yards abutting Daylighting Triangles 16
2.25 Primary Entrance Door Location on a Through Lot 16
3.0 Parking Regulations 17
3.1 Parking Space Requirements 17
3.2 Part Spaces 20
3.3 Parking for Multiple Uses on One Lot 21
3.4 Size of Parking Spaces and Aisles 21
3.5 Setbacks of Parking Spaces and Lots 21
3.6 Standards for Parking Pads 22
3.7 Parking and Loading within yards 22
3.8 Parking Space Uses 22
3.9 Restrictions on Vehicles in a Residential Zone 22
3.10 Loading Standards 23
3.11 Tandem Parking 23
3.12 Private Garage Parking Size 24
4.0 Residential Zone Regulations 25
4.1 Uses Permitted 25
4.2 Low Density Type 1 (LD1) Zone Provisions 26
4.2.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type 26
4.2.2 Additional Provisions 28
4.3 Low Density Type 1, Heritage Lot "LD1 -HL" Provisions 28
4.4 Low Density Type 1 - Townhouse (LD1 -T) Zone Provisions 29
4.4.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type 29
4.4.2 Additional Provisions 30
4.5 Low Density Type 2 (LD2) Zone Provisions 30
4.5.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type 30
4.5.2 Additional Provisions 32
4.6 Low Density Type 2 — Multiple (LD2-M) Zone Provisions 33
4.6.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type 33
4.6.2 Additional Provisions 35
4.7 Medium Density — Detached & Semi (MD -DS) Zone Provisions 36
4.7.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type 36
4.7.2 Additional Provisions 37
4.8 Medium Density — Multiple (MD -M) Zone Provisions 38
4.8.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type 38
4.8.2 Additional Provisions 40
4.8.3 Additional Apartment Provisions 40
4.9 High Density (H) Zone Provisions 41
4.9.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type 41
4.9.2 Additional Apartment Provisions. 42
4.10 Exceptions 43
5.0 Mixed Use Zone Regulation 46
5.1 Uses Permitted 46
5.1.2 Additional Use Provisions 47
5.2 Mixed Corridor Type 1 (MC1) Zone Provisions 48
5.2.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type 48
Seaton Area Zoning By-law
- 197 -
ii
Art'ACHMENT /I_ a T.
Rr€POR ,' PA 0 --1C3
5.2.2 Additional Provisions 50
5.2.3 Additional Apartment Standards 50
5.3 Mixed Corridor Type 2 (MC2) Zone Provisions 51
5.3.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type 51
5.3.2 Additional Provisions: 53
5.3.3 Additional Apartment Provisions. 53
5.3.4 Additional Commercial Building Provisions: 54
5.4 Mixed Corridor Type 3 — Gateway Sites (MC3) Zone Provisions 55
5.4.1 Lot and Building Requirements by Building Type 55
5.4.2 Additional Apartment Provisions. 56
5.4.3 Additional Commercial Building Provisions: 56
5.5 Minor Commercial Clusters — (MCC) Zone Provisions 57
5.5.1 Building Types and Related Standards 57
5.5.2 Additional Provisions: 57
5.6 Local Node (LN) and Community Node (CN) — Zone Provisions 58
5.6.1 Building Types and Related Standards 58
5.6.2 Additional Apartment Provisions. 59
5.6.3 Additional Commercial Provisions: 59
5.7 Community Node - Pedestrian Predominant Area (CN -PP) — Zone Provisions 61
5.7.1 Building Types and Related Standards 61
5.7.2 Additional Apartment Provisions: 62
5.7.3 Additional Commercial Provisions: 62
5.8 Exceptions 64
6.0 Employment Area Zone Regulation 66
6.1 Use Categories Permitted 66
6.2 Use Limitations 67
6.3 Uses Prohibited 67
6.4 Employment Zone — Zone Provisions 69
6.4.1 Lot and Building Requirements 69
6.4.2 Additional Provisions: 69
6.4.3 Prestige Employment — Heritage Lot "PE -HL" Provisions 70
6.5 Exceptions. 70
7.0 Community use Zone REgulations 71
7.1 Uses Permitted 71
7.2 Community Use (CU) Zone — Zone Provisions 71
7.2.1 Lot and Building Requirements 71
7.2.2 Height Maximum 71
7.2.3 Additional Provisions: 72
7.3 Exceptions. 72
8.0 Natural Heritage and Open Space Zones 73
8.1 Uses Permitted 73
8.2 Open Space (OS) Zone — Zone Provisions 74
8.2.1 Lot and Building Requirements 74
8.2.2 Height Maximum 74
8.2.3 Additional Provisions: 74
8.3 Exceptions 75
9.0 Utility Zone 76
Seaton Area Zoning By-law
- 198 -
ATTACHMENT (9 TO
REPORT # PSN )8 -/R
9.1 Uses Permitted 76
9.2 Utility Zone — Zone Provisions 76
9.2.1 Lot and Building Requirements 76
9.3 Exceptions. 76
10.0 Definitions 77
11.0 Holding Provisions 93
12.0 Zoning Maps 94
Seaton Area Zoning By-law
- 199 -
iv