|
5. MUNICIPAL
CONCURRENCE AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS FOR ANTENNA
SYSTEMS PROCESSUS MUNICIPAL D'APPROBATION ET DE CONSULTATION
PUBLIQUE CONCERNANT LES SYSTÈMES D'ANTENNES |
PLANNING COMMITTEE AND
AGRICULTURE AND
RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council approve:
1. The Municipal Concurrence and Public
Consultation Process for Antenna Systems contained in Document 1;
2. Implementation of the Process 30 days
after it is approved by Council;
3. Amendments to the Delegation of
Authority By-law No. 2011-28, Planning Fees By-law 2011-92 and the Site Plan
Control By-law No. 2002-4 as detailed in Document 2; and
4. The implementing
by-law for the amendment to the Site Plan Control By-law No. 2002-4 not be
forwarded to Council until the process contained within Document 1 has come
into effect.
RECOMMANDATIONS
DU COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME ET
DU COMITÉ DE L’AGRICULTURE ET DES AFFAIRES RURALES
Que le Conseil approuve ce qui suit :
1. Le
processus municipal d’approbation et de consultation publique figurant dans le
document 1;
2. Que
le processus figurant dans le document 1 n’entre pas en vigueur avant une
période de 30 jours suivant son approbation par le Conseil;
3. Les
modifications au Règlement 2011-28
sur la
délégation de pouvoirs, au Règlement
2011-92 sur les droits de demandes d'aménagement et au Règlement 2002-4 sur la
réglementation des plans d’implantation, tel qu’exposé en détail dans le
document 2;
4. Que
le règlement de mise en oeuvre visant la modification du Règlement 2002-4 sur
la réglementation des plans d’implantation ne soit pas transmis au Conseil
avant que processus figurant dans le document 1 ne soit entré en vigu.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager’s Report,
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability dated 17 February 2012
(ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0045).
2. Extract of minutes, Planning Committee
meeting of 28 February 2012.
3. Extract of draft minutes, Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of
1 March 2012.
Report to/Rapport au :
and
Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
17 February 2012 / le 17 février 2012
Submitted by/Soumis
par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Infrastructure Services and Community
Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : John Smit,
Manager/Gestionnaire,
Development Review-Urban
Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de
la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 13866 John.Smit@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
Municipal
Concurrence and Public |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
PROCESSUS MUNICIPAL
D'APPROBATION ET DE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE CONCERNANT LES SYSTÈMES D'ANTENNES |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning Committee and the Agriculture and
Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve:
1.
The Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for
Antenna Systems contained in Document 1;
2.
Implementation of the Process 30 days after it is approved by
Council;
3.
Amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law No. 2011-28, Planning
Fees By-law 2011-92 and the Site Plan Control By-law No. 2002-4 as detailed in
Document 2; and
4.
The implementing by-law for the amendment to the Site Plan Control
By-law No. 2002-4 not be forwarded to Council until the process contained
within Document 1 has come into effect.
RECOMMANDATIONS
DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme
et le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil
d’approuver ce qui suit :
1. Le
processus municipal d’approbation et de consultation publique figurant dans le
document 1;
2. Que
le processus figurant dans le document 1 n’entre pas en vigueur avant une période
de 30 jours suivant son approbation par le Conseil;
3. Les
modifications au Règlement 2011-28 sur la délégation de pouvoirs, au Règlement 2011-92 sur les droits de demandes
d'aménagement et au Règlement 2002-4 sur la réglementation des plans d’implantation,
tel qu’exposé en détail dans le document 2;
4.
Que le règlement de mise en oeuvre
visant la modification du Règlement 2002-4 sur la réglementation des plans
d’implantation ne soit pas transmis au Conseil avant que processus figurant
dans le document 1 ne soit entré en vigueur.
Assumptions and Analysis:
Radiocommunication and broadcasting antenna systems are federal undertakings regulated by Industry Canada. Under Industry Canada’s regulatory framework, proponents of new or modifications to existing antenna systems must consult with the municipality and the public unless otherwise exempt. Where required to consult, Industry Canada has established a default process. However, Industry Canada encourages municipalities to establish their own consultation processes. Based on these consultations, a municipality would provide its concurrence, conditional concurrence, or where considered unsupportable on the basis of land use concerns, its non-concurrence to the proponent and Industry Canada. In deciding whether or not to allow the installation to proceed, Industry Canada would take a municipality’s comments into account.
Currently the City regulates these installations under its Official Plan, Zoning By-law 2008-250 and Site Plan Control By-law 2002-4. Because antenna systems fall under federal jurisdiction, the City does not have the authority to regulate these installations through these Planning Act controls. Such was made clear in a 2007 Court Decision where the City of Toronto’s site plan processes were ruled inapplicable to the antenna systems constructed by the applicant. Furthermore, this type of development does not involve public consultation under the City’s existing Site Plan processes, and the scope of review is limited to the site that is the subject of the Site Plan application.
In July 2010, staff received direction from the Planning and Environment and Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committees to prepare a draft municipal concurrence and public consultation process in accordance with Industry Canada’s regulatory framework. Attached as Document 1 to this report is the recommended process entitled Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems, which if approved would replace existing Planning Act controls. Two reports under separate cover and before Committee also recommend the removal of Official Plan policies and zoning regulations related to antenna systems.
Staff have developed a process in keeping with Industry Canada’s regulatory framework, similar to existing development review processes and, where applicable, the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Process. Exemptions from municipal and public consultation have been established for installation types anticipated to have little adverse land use impact or are already exempted under Industry Canada’s regulatory framework. Where not otherwise exempt, public notification and consultation requirements have been set out and ward councillors are to be notified of all non-exempt proposals.
Given the nature of the City’s role in the approval of antenna systems, onus is placed on the proponent to undertake all external notifications and consultations with the public, community groups that have requested to receive notice of development applications (registered community groups), technical agencies and public bodies. Information as to who must be notified and consulted will be provided by staff following application submission. After reviewing an application, including comments provided by the public and the responses of proponents, staff under delegated authority will provide to the proponent and Industry Canada the City’s concurrence, conditional concurrence, or non-concurrence with the respect to the proposal.
Staff are recommending that the attached process not come into effect for 30 days following its approval by Council, in order to provide time to establish the specific process steps for administering an application for municipal review.
Legal Implications:
As provided by Legal
Financial Implications:
It is anticipated that there will be eight applications per year for Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems, and two applications per year for Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems for residential use. Estimated annual revenue is $21,952; this will affect Planning and Growth Management’s annual operating status.
Public Consultation/Input:
Consultation was undertaken with Industry Canada, industry stakeholders, registered community groups, relevant technical agencies and public bodies, as well as the public.
A website providing background information as well as a draft copy of the process was made available on the City’s website for review and comment between September 15th and October 14th, 2011.
Notice of the website was provided city wide in English in the EMC, and in French in L’Express in Orleans and Perspectives in Vanier. Notice of the website was provide to all Registered Community Groups, relevant technical agencies and public bodies, industry stakeholders and the public. Both the notices and website provided a staff contact, and the website was equipped with a feedback form. The notices and website provided a timeline of 30 calendar days for the provision of feedback.
Les systèmes d’antennes de radiocommunications
et de radiodiffusion sont des projets fédéraux réglementés par Industrie
Canada. En vertu du cadre de réglementation d’Industrie Canada, les promoteurs
de nouveaux systèmes d’antennes ou de modifications de systèmes existants
doivent, sauf exception, consulter la municipalité et le public. Un processus
de consultation par défaut a été mis en place par Industrie Canada, qui
encourage toutefois les municipalités à créer leur propre processus de
consultation. Au terme de ce processus de consultation, la municipalité donnera
son accord, son accord conditionnel ou, dans les cas où la proposition est
considérée non fondée pour des raisons d’utilisation du sol, refusera son
accord au promoteur et à Industrie Canada. En décidant d’autoriser ou non
l’installation, Industrie Canada devra tenir compte des commentaires de la
municipalité.
À l’heure actuelle, la Ville réglemente ces
installations dans le cadre de son Plan officiel, de son Règlement de zonage
2008-250 et de son Règlement 2002-4
sur la réglementation des plans d’implantation. Étant donné que les systèmes
d’antennes relèvent de l’autorité fédérale, la Ville ne dispose pas de
l’autorité pour réglementer ces installations par le biais de contrôles de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire. Cet
état de fait a été clairement démontré par une décision de la Cour de 2007,
selon laquelle les processus de réglementation des plans d’implantation de la
Ville de Toronto ont été jugés inapplicables aux systèmes d’antennes construits
par le requérant. En outre, ce type d’aménagement n’implique aucune
consultation publique dans le cadre de ses processus actuels réglementation des
plans d’implantation, et la portée de l’examen est limitée au site faisant
l’objet de la demande de réglementation du plan d’implantation.
En juillet 2010, le personnel a été chargé par
le Comité de
l’urbanisme, le Comité de l’environnement et le Comité de l’agriculture et des
affaires rurales d’élaborer un processus municipal d’approbation et de
consultation publique, conformément au cadre de réglementation d’Industrie
Canada. Le document 1 joint au présent rapport, intitulé Processus municipal d’approbation et de consultation publique
concernant les systèmes d’antennes, décrit le processus recommandé.
S’il est approuvé, il remplacerait les contrôles actuels de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.
Deux rapports, sous pli séparé et soumis au
Comité, recommandent également la suppression des politiques du Plan officiel
et des règlements de zonage liés aux systèmes d’antennes.
Le personnel a élaboré un processus conforme au
cadre de réglementation d’Industrie Canada, similaire aux processus actuels
d’examen des demandes d’aménagement et, s’il y a lieu, au processus d’émission
d’avis publics et de mise en œuvre d’activités de consultation. Des exemptions
de consultation municipale et publique s’appliquent aux types d’installation
pour lesquels peu de répercussions défavorables sur les utilisations du sol sont
prévues ou faisant déjà l’objet d’une exemption en vertu du cadre de
réglementation d’Industrie Canada. Pour le cas où aucune exemption n’est
applicable, les exigences relatives aux avis publics et aux consultations ont
été établies, et les conseillers de quartier doivent être avisés de toutes les
demandes de ce type.
Compte tenu de la nature du rôle de la Ville
dans l’approbation des systèmes d’antennes, il incombe au promoteur de procéder
à toutes les émissions d’avis externes et à toutes les consultations auprès des
membres du public, des groupes communautaires ayant demandé à recevoir un avis
de demande d’aménagement (groupes communautaires enregistrés) ainsi que
des organismes techniques et publics.
Les renseignements concernant les intervenants à aviser et à consulter seront
fournis par le personnel après la présentation de la demande. Après avoir
examiné la demande, y compris les commentaires des membres du public et les
réponses des promoteurs, le personnel municipal, en vertu de l’autorité qui lui
est déléguée, donnera au promoteur et à Industrie Canada son accord, son accord
conditionnel ou son refus pour chaque proposition.
Le personnel recommande que le processus décrit
dans le document ci-joint n’entre pas en vigueur avant une période de 30 jours
suivant son approbation par le Conseil, afin d’accorder suffisamment de temps
pour établir les étapes précises du processus d’administration des demandes aux
fins d’examen par l’autorité municipale.
Répercussions légales et gestion des
risques :
Telles que fournies par les Services juridiques
Répercussions financières :
On prévoit qu’il y aura huit demandes par année
dans le cadre du processus municipal d’approbation et de consultation publique
concernant les systèmes d’antennes et deux demandes par année dans le cadre du
processus municipal d’approbation et de consultation publique concernant les
systèmes d’antennes à usage résidentiel. Les recettes annuelles sont évaluées à
21 952 $; cette opération aura une incidence sur les dépenses de
fonctionnement annuelles du Service de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de la
croissance.
Consultation
publiques / commentaires :
Des activités de consultation ont été
entreprises auprès d’Industrie Canada, des intervenants du secteur, des groupes
communautaires enregistrés, des organismes techniques pertinents et divers
organismes publics ainsi que les membres du public.
Une page Web proposant de l’information
contextuelle et le texte provisoire du processus a été mise à la disposition
des membres du public, du 15 septembre au 14 octobre 2011, sur le site Web de
la Ville, aux fins d’examen et de commentaires.
Un avis mentionnant l’existence de cette page
Web a été diffusé sur le territoire municipal en anglais dans EMC ainsi qu’en
français dans L’Express à Orléans et dans Perspectives à Vanier. Cet avis a été
transmis à l’ensemble des groupes communautaires enregistrés, des organismes
techniques et publics pertinents, aux intervenants du secteur ainsi qu’aux
membres du public. Les avis et la page Web contenaient les coordonnées d’une
personne-ressource et la page Web contenait également un formulaire de
commentaires, avec un délai de 30 jours civils pour leur acheminement.
BACKGROUND
Radiocommunication and broadcasting antenna systems are federal undertakings regulated by Industry Canada, and include the antenna, as well as its supporting tower, mast or other supporting structure. These systems, hereinafter referred to as antenna systems, are currently regulated as a form of development under the Site Plan Control By-law No. 2002-04, as a land use under the Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, and are subject to policies contained within the Official Plan, all pursuant to the Planning Act.
Given these installations, which include cellular and amateur radio towers, are federal undertakings, the City cannot continue to require compliance with the above mentioned Planning Act controls. Such was made clear in a 2007 Superior Court decision in which the City of Toronto’s Site Plan Control By-laws were rendered inapplicable to the antenna system installations of the applicant, Telus.
On January 1, 2008 Industry Canada’s Client Procedure Circular 2-0-03 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems came into effect (CPC-2-0-03). Under CPC-2-0-03 Industry Canada in some cases requires as a condition of the operating license granted to proponents, that they consult with land use authorities, in this case the City, and the public for the purpose of addressing reasonable and relevant concerns regarding the siting and design of new or modifications to antenna systems.
At the conclusion of the consultation process proponents would receive municipal concurrence, conditional concurrence, or in instances where for example the proposal is considered unsupportable due to size, location or poor design, non-concurrence.
Where a
municipality does not support a proposal, it would be for Industry Canada to
determine whether the installation could proceed as proposed. While Industry
Canada is not bound by a municipality’s position on a proposal, Section 4.1 of
CPC-2-0-03 states:
“Industry
Canada believes that any concerns or suggestions expressed by land-use
authorities are important elements to be considered by proponents regarding
proposals to install, or make changes to, antenna systems.”
Industry Canada is encouraging municipalities to adopt protocols or policies establishing a local consultation process for the provision of the municipality’s position. Several Ontario municipalities have adopted protocols or policies establishing municipal and public consultation requirements, as well as the provision of their position in accordance with Industry Canada’s regulatory requirements.
In July of 2010 staff brought forward a report to Planning and Environment (PEC) and Agricultural and Rural Affairs (ARAC) Committees, which set out the jurisdictional issues and rationale for adopting a municipal concurrence and public consultation process in keeping with Industry Canada’s regulatory framework. The report provided the rationale for replacing existing Site Plan Control approval processes with a municipal concurrence and public consultation process as the means for providing the City’s position to Industry Canada on proposed antenna system installations. To review, this rationale is based on the following:
i) A municipal concurrence and public consultation process clearly establishes for the public the City’s role in the approval of antenna systems;
ii) As compared to Site Plan regulations under the Planning Act, more flexibility is afforded staff for the review of antenna system proposals under a municipal concurrence and public consultation process. Under the existing site plan process staff are limited in their review to those issues expressly set out under the Planning Act as they apply to the lands that are the subject of the application. Conversely, under Industry Canada’s framework the City is limited only in that concerns raised must be reasonable and relevant according to CPC-2-0-03. That document describes a reasonable and relevant concern as one which relates to the requirements of CPC-2-0-03 and to the particular amenities or important characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed installation, and not just those of the immediate site. Under such circumstances staff can advance with the proponent issues such as co-location, alternate site possibilities, as well as site and design considerations.
iii) Antenna systems do not involve public consultation under the City’s existing Site Plan processes. Under the proposed municipal concurrence and public consultation process public consultation requirements are based on an antenna system’s proximity to residential areas and the height of the installation, as well as lighting requirements.
Both PEC and ARAC directed staff to develop and bring forward such a process for committees’ and Council’s approval.
As per the 2010 Report, the proposed Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems (the “Process”, see Document 1), is similar to and modelled after the Planning and Growth Management Department’s existing development review processes, and where applicable, consistent with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Process approved by Council on July 11, 2001. In preparing the Process, Planning and Growth Management staff consulted with other relevant City departments, applicable technical agencies and public bodies, reviewed existing concurrence processes from other Canadian municipalities, and undertook public and stakeholder consultations.
Since the 2010 Report
staff have investigated, in consultation with Legal Services, the removal of Planning Act controls related to antenna
systems contained within the Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Site Plan Control
By-law. Legal Services concurs with the position of the Planning and Growth
Management Department that as the City has no regulatory control over antenna
system installations, its role in their approval should be limited to its
involvement as set out in the attached Process. As such this report recommends an
amendment to the Site Plan Control By-law (Document 2) to remove antenna
systems from it. Similarly, two reports under separate cover and before Committee contain an Official Plan amendment to
remove policies governing antenna systems, and a Zoning By-law amendment to
remove antenna system regulations. Except where modified through consultations,
the Official Plan policies and Zoning By-law regulations now form part of the
Process and will be used to educate proponents on the City’s preferred options
for antenna system development, and would help guide the determination of
whether the City would provide its concurrence, conditional concurrence or
non-concurrence with respect to a proposed antenna system.
Industry Canada’s
Regulatory Framework
As Industry Canada is the approval authority for antenna systems, any municipal consultation Process must operate within the context of Industry Canada’s regulatory framework. In addition, Industry Canada requires that all municipal consultation policies be reasonable, relevant and predictable.
Industry Canada sets out exceptions under which a proponent is not required to consult with either the public or the municipality. In implementing their own consultation processes, municipalities may expand upon these exceptions, but may not be more restrictive. The exceptions are as follows:
(i) Maintenance of an existing antenna system;
(ii) The modification of an existing antenna system, or the addition of an antenna system to existing infrastructure, a building, water tower, etc. provided the modification or addition does not result in an overall height increase above the existing structure of 25% of the original structure’s height;
(iii) Maintenance of an existing antenna system’s painting or lighting;
(iv) Installation of temporary antenna system for a special event or emergency operation for a period of not more than 3 months; and
(v) New antenna systems with a height of less than 15 metres above ground level.
Industry Canada has identified circumstances where despite these exceptions it may be prudent for a proponent to consult the municipality where local sensitivities exist. As discussed further below, to ensure installations proposed within community-sensitive locations are reviewed, the City has developed more restrictive exemption criteria.
In addition to any consultation with a municipality and the public, Industry Canada requires all proponents of proposals for new or modifications to existing antenna systems to comply, in addition to requirements related to electronic interference, with the following:
(i) Transport Canada and NAV Canada’s aeronautical safety requirements;
(ii) Health Canada’s safety guidelines (Safety Code 6) regarding limits of exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic fields;
(iii) The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, where required;
(iv)
Industry Canada’s immunity
criteria dealing with the minimization of malfunctioning of electronic
equipment in the local surroundings; and,
(v)
CPC-2-0-17 - Conditions of Licence for Mandatory
Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site
Arrangements.
Determination of compliance with these requirements is solely within the jurisdiction of Industry Canada.
Proposed Municipal Concurrence
and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems
To ensure the City’s expectations with respect to antenna system development are clearly articulated to the public, and in keeping with Industry Canada’s expectations under CPC-2-0-03, the Process sets out the following objectives:
(i) The establishment of a documented consultation process, criteria and guidelines for the review of land use impacts associated with antenna systems;
(ii) To provide an opportunity for public consultation;
(iii) To encourage antenna system development with minimal visual impact and which leaves undisturbed, natural and human heritage features and sensitive lands to the greatest extent possible; and,
(iv) To minimize the number of new towers within the city.
As described below, these objectives are achieved by way of a process which establishes:
(i) Definitive criteria as to when a proponent must consult with the City and the public;
(ii) Relevant siting and design guidelines that build upon the City’s expectations for antenna system development as stated in (iii) and (iv) above; and,
(iii) Predictable public consultation requirements.
In so doing the Process clearly establishes the City’s role in the approval of antenna systems, while providing an opportunity for meaningful involvement in the location and design of antenna systems by affording the ability for purposeful and relevant input.
Process Overview
The Process requires proponents of new or modifications to existing antenna systems, unless otherwise exempt, to submit an application for review to the City. After reviewing the proposal staff will provide the proponent and Industry Canada with the City’s position on the installation in the form of either concurrence, conditional concurrence, or in instances where for example the proposal is considered unsupportable due to size, location or poor design, non-concurrence.
Industry Canada, as the
approval authority, maintains the right to allow a proponent to circumvent a
particular provision of the Process on the basis that it is unreasonable or overly
burdensome as compared to CPC-2-0-03. This may occur where a municipal process
requires consultation where a proposal would be otherwise exempt under
CPC-2-0-03.
Staff are of the opinion that the
provisions of the Process, including its exemption criteria, are both
reasonable and in keeping with the intent of CPC-2-0-03. However, should
Industry Canada receive a request from a proponent to be deemed exempt even if
not otherwise so under the Process, Industry Canada has assured staff that the
City would have an opportunity to make submissions in support of a requirement
for municipal review and, if applicable, public consultation.
One issue not addressed within the Process is health impacts. Industry
Canada and Health Canada are the federal departments responsible for ensuring
antenna systems pose no adverse health impacts, and Industry Canada requires
antenna systems comply with Health Canada’s guidelines concerning
radiofrequency emissions. As such, the City of Ottawa will not be addressing health related
issues through the proposed Process. This approach has been reviewed with and
agreed to by Ottawa Public Health.
The following provides an overview of the six main parts of the Process, with the applicable Part identified in parenthesis and which can be found in Document 1:
1. Exemptions (Part 4)
2. Site Selection and Design Guidelines (Part 5)
3. Pre-Application Consultation (Part 6)
4. Application Submission (Part 7)
5. Public Consultation (Part 8)
6. Review and Position Submission (Parts 9 through 12)
The Process differentiates between antenna systems used primarily for personal use, such as amateur radio antennas and satellite dishes, and all others, such as cellular towers. Under the Process the former type of antenna systems are defined as residential use antenna systems, while all other types are defined as antenna systems. This terminology is maintained below and therefore where reference below is made to an antenna system, it does not include a residential use antenna system, and vice versa.
As noted above, Industry
Canada exempts proponents of certain types of installations from the
requirement to consult with the City and the public. In some instances the
proposed Process builds upon these exemptions in order to recognize
installations with little or no land use impact. In other instances the Process
is more restrictive (i.e., it includes certain types of installations that
would otherwise be excluded under CPC-2-0-03) on the basis that there exists
local sensitivities, which necessitate the need to review a proposed antenna
system installation in order to notify the proponent and Industry Canada of
potential land use impacts. In this regard the Process differs from Industry
Canada’s exemptions in two key areas i) antenna systems within the downtown,
and iii) the treatment of residential use antenna systems.
The Process employs a more
restrictive threshold than Industry Canada within the Central Area, as defined
under the Zoning By-law and within the view plane of Parliament Hill from Beechwood
Cemetery, as set out within the Official Plan. When proposed within these
areas, a proponent is not exempt from the Process if the antenna system or
residential use antenna system exceeds the maximum permitted building height
limit as established under the Zoning By-law, regardless of whether it would
qualify under Industry Canada’s CPC-2-0-03. The purpose of this is to protect
the visual integrity of the Parliamentary Precinct, an area of national
importance, by ensuring proposed installations exceeding the established height
limits within these areas are subject to municipal review and comment.
For residential use antenna
systems, because of their location in residential areas, within which
sensitivities to the visual impacts of antenna systems are heightened, an
installation must respect all of the applicable siting and design guidelines
(described further below). These guidelines revolve around the location of the
installation on the lot, as well as its height, and if they all cannot be met,
an application for review will be required. However, as discussed below, staff
may, on a case-by-case basis, exempt individual installations on the basis that
they are perceived to pose little or no land use impact, despite not meeting
all of the applicable siting and design guidelines.
Where an antenna system is
proposed within a municipal right-of-way the City’s position on the
installation will be provided through the municipal consent process. However,
where such an installation would not otherwise meet the exemption criteria
(e.g., it is 15 metres or more in height), the City will require the proponent
to undertake public consultation in accordance with the proposed Process before
municipal consent can be obtained.
The Process contains guidelines against which proposals for new or
modifications to antenna systems and residential use antenna systems not
otherwise exempt are to be evaluated. These Site Selection and Design
Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) set out the City’s expectations with respect to
the installation of these systems throughout the city.
Existing Official Plan policies and Zoning By-law regulations were
reviewed for inclusion within these Guidelines, and included where appropriate.
In certain instances the Guidelines have moved away from existing zoning
controls, for example defined parking rates, which have been replaced with
recommendations to provide adequate parking as determined by staff in each
instance. Such changes were made on the basis of consultation with staff,
applicable technical agencies and public bodies, the public and industry
stakeholders, as well as a review of guidelines from other Canadian
municipalities.
Particularly as regards residential use antenna systems the Guidelines
represent a departure in some respects from the Zoning By-law regulations
contained within Section 120 (currently under appeal and recommended for
removal through a separate report) concerning accessory tower antennas in
residential areas. The following table summarizes these changes:
Table 1:
Performance Standard Differences
|
|
Zoning By-law
Section 120 as applicable to Accessory
Tower Antennas in Residential Zones |
Proposed
Guideline |
|
Height |
Same as building height or amount equal to lot width, whichever greater,
unless on roof of building three-storeys or 11 metres in height, in which
case the installation cannot exceed nine metres from highest point of the
roof |
In keeping with Industry Canada requirements, 15 metres above ground
level, whether on the ground or on the roof. |
|
Location |
Ground Mounted – Only in rear yard and not in extension of corner side
yard into the rear yard Roof Mounted: i) Less than three-storeys
or 11 metres – only on half of roof closest to rear yard ii) Greater than three-storeys
or 11 metres – setback 4.5 metres from roof edge |
Same |
|
Setback |
Amount equal to quarter of the height of the antenna, with the
exception of roof mounted installations described in “ii” directly above |
Installations must be setback 1.5 metres from all lot lines. |
|
Number of
Support Structures |
One |
No limit |
Staff are of the opinion that these changes reflect an appropriate
balance between acceptable development and respect for technical constraints associated
with these installations. Further guidelines have been included to promote the
protection of environmentally sensitive areas.
Where a proponent cannot meet all of the Guidelines, their application
must include an explanation as to how they will minimize negative visual
impacts on surrounding properties through the use of for example screening,
landscaping and design changes.
The Guidelines applicable to antenna systems fall into two categories: i)
site selection, and ii) engineering, design and landscaping. The site selection
guidelines promote co-location or the placement of antennas on existing
infrastructure before new tower construction, and where a new tower is
necessary, the maximization of its distance from residential areas. This is
consistent with Industry Canada’s requirement that proponents investigate co-location
opportunities before constructing a new tower. However, where the addition of
an antenna to a co-located structure would increase the adverse visual impact,
and the tower is located close to residential areas, new, smaller and less obtrusive
towers are preferred.
The Guidelines recommend the avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas
such as flood plains and areas designated in the Official Plan as Natural Environment
Areas, Significant Wetlands and Urban Natural Features. This recommendation
reflects the language of policies 11 and 12 of Section 3.1 of the Official
Plan. Of note however, agricultural
resource areas are not recommended as places to avoid, due to the limited
impact antenna systems have within these areas, and the revenue potential for
land owners. The acceptance of antenna systems within agricultural resource
areas is also consistent with the Provincial Policy Statements.
The Guidelines also recommend proponents avoid placement of antenna
systems on properties designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, and the placement
of antenna systems in such a manner as to block views and vistas identified
within the Official Plan, in particular those of the Parliamentary Precinct.
The second category, engineering, design and landscaping guidelines
include the promotion of appropriate servicing, drainage and access, environmental
preservation, the utilization of design techniques such as stealthing (e.g.,
camouflaging an antenna system within a church steeple or flagpole), as well as
the use of landscaping or screening to minimize negative land use impacts. Where
an antenna system must be lit in accordance with Transport Canada requirements,
the Guidelines recommend the use of the lowest illumination and number of
lights allowable.
Consultation with staff will
be required before an application may be submitted. At this meeting the
proponent will provide information concerning their proposed installation, and
staff will provide information concerning the Process, application
requirements, any public consultation requirements, and the City’s site
selection and design guidelines. Co-location opportunities, alternate site
locations and design alternatives will also be discussed. Proponents of antenna
systems will also be encouraged to pre-consult with the Ward Councillor.
In the instance of residential
use antenna systems, the Process delegates to staff the opportunity to exempt
on a case-by-case basis installations which do not meet all of the applicable
site selection and design guidelines, but are anticipated to pose little or no
negative land use impact. Such instances may for example, include installations
which are located partially within the front yard, but the subject lands are in
the rural area and the installation is located such that there is little or no
adverse land use impacts.
Application Submission
requirements were created based on consultations with staff, a review of
municipal concurrence processes in other Canadian municipalities, as well as
submission requirements for existing development review applications.
Proponents must include a Site Selection / Justification Report which explains
the rationale for the selected site and design of the installation.
In the case of antenna
systems, staff will provide the Councillors of all wards within a distance
equal to 120 metres or three times the height of the antenna system, whichever
is greater, of the proposed location of the installation with a heads-up,
unless the Councillor was consulted previously by the proponent. At this stage
staff will also provide to the proponent a list of technical agencies, public
bodies, property owners and registered community groups to be consulted by the
proponent.
Public notification and consultation requirements are included within the
Process in light of residents’ concerns over antenna system and residential use
antenna system development throughout the city, and the need to clarify with
the public the roles of Industry Canada and the City in the approval of these
installations. Review processes instituted by other Canadian municipalities
also include public notification and consultation requirements, and Industry
Canada encourages public consultation.
If a process is silent on public consultation, Industry Canada requires
proponents to consult the public pursuant to its default public consultation
process.
Where triggered, public notification and consultation requirements must be
undertaken by a proponent not otherwise exempt from the Process, to ensure
members of the public are informed as to the approval process, receive
information on the proposed development before construction, and are provided
an opportunity to discuss their concerns directly with the proponent. Owing to
the City’s role as a commenting agency, public consultation requirements under
the Process are completely proponent driven, and require the proponent to
engage the property owners, technical agencies, public bodies, and registered community
groups directly.
The Process provides for different notification and consultation
requirements for residential use antenna systems from all other types. This
distinction recognizes limitations in the size, scale and visual impact of
antenna systems used by residents, and the excessiveness of requiring a
resident to undertake extensive consultation.
Where a residential use antenna system is proposed and not otherwise
exempt, a proponent must notify the City, the Ward Councillor, and the adjacent
property owners, as well as those property owners on the opposite side of the
abutting street. The Process prescribes the content of the notice, which in
addition to information about the proposed installation must include statements:
(i) that Industry Canada is
the approval authority, and the City will be providing its position to Industry
Canada at the conclusion of the review process;
(ii) that the City will be
taking into account public comments received by the proponent and the proponent’s
response to each when providing its position to Industry Canada;
(iii) that the antenna system
will comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, which regulates exposure to
radiofrequencies; and,
(iv) inviting those notified
to provide the proponent with their comments or a request to be informed of the
City’s position within 30 days.
Where staff anticipates no public reaction to a proposal, but a review by
City staff or other technical agencies is still warranted, they may waive some
or all of the public consultation requirements.
For all other types of antenna systems public notification and
consultation will consist of notice to affected property owners within a
defined radius and the hosting of a Community Information and Comment Session,
and may also include the placement of a notice in the local community newspaper,
all of which is to be undertaken by the proponent.
Specifically, where the antenna system is located within 120 metres or
three times the height of the installation, whichever is greater, of a residential
zone, residential use or mixed use building, notice must be provided to all
property owners within this same radius, and a Community Information and
Comment Session must be held within the community. Where a proponent of an antenna system must notify property owners, the
proponent must also notify staff, all Councillors who received a heads-up from
staff, as well as applicable Registered Community Groups.
Additionally proponents must notify all neighbouring
municipalities within 120 metres or three times the height of the proposed installation,
whichever is greater, from the base of the antenna system.
In all instances a notice in the local community newspaper will be
required where the installation will be 30 metres or more in height or contain
white lights to satisfy Transport Canada’s requirements. The Process delegates
to staff the discretion to waive the requirements for a Community Information
and Comment Session and a notice within a local community newspaper in
instances where, for example, only two or three residences are captured within
the notification radius and no high intensity white lights are required by
Transport Canada.
The Process prescribes the content of the notice sent to property owners and
the notice published in the local community newspaper. For notifications
provided directly the required statements are similar to that required for a
residential use antenna system.
However, more detail regarding the proposal must be provided, including
maps showing the location of the antenna system within the community and
photographs of its location with the installation superimposed. For
notifications published in a local community newspaper, the details are limited
to a brief description of the proposal and statements regarding Industry Canada
and the City’s role in the approval of the installation, as well as an
invitation to provide comments to or receive notice of the City’s position from
the proponent. Similarly, the Process sets out the minimum content that must be
made available at a Community Information and Comment Session.
The intended effect of these public notification and consultation
requirements is to encourage proponents to locate more visually obtrusive
antenna systems outside of residential areas, and where these installations
must be located in proximity to residents, provide property owners with
sufficient information about the proposal and the opportunity to have their
questions answered by the proponent. In so doing, and by ensuring that residents are consulted,
the City is working to encourage less contentious locations for antenna system
development, and ensuring Industry Canada is aware of land use issues
associated with their installation.
The test to be employed by
staff when determining the City’s position on a proposal is twofold. Firstly,
the proponent must have followed the steps as set out within the Process, for
example all necessary consultations must have been undertaken and completed.
Secondly the proponent must have addressed the Process’s site selection and
design guidelines, comments received by the proponent during consultations, and
any other reasonable land use issue identified to the satisfaction of the City.
Based on its review, the City
will provide its concurrence, conditional concurrence, or non-concurrence for
consideration by Industry Canada. Staff anticipate under normal circumstances
to conclude their review and provide a position within 100 calendar days after
the date an application is submitted.
Should the City and a
proponent disagree as to a condition of concurrence, or the City provides
non-concurrence, the proponent may petition Industry Canada for a review. Pursuant
to CPC-2-0-03, Industry Canada maintains a dispute resolution process. Where
utilized, each side is requested to submit evidence to Industry Canada for it
to make a determination on what action must be taken by the proponent in light
of the City’s position and comments received by the public. Similarly, should a
proponent fail to adhere to a condition of the City’s concurrence, the City may
petition Industry Canada to review the matter and render a decision.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Process to
come into effect 30 days after approval
Before the Process can be implemented the internal administrative
procedures must be established. This includes developing specific process steps
for administrating the application, the establishment of MAP tasking, and the
creation of correspondence templates, an application form and website material.
Staff are requesting 30 days after Council adoption of the Process to provide
the necessary resources for the Process’s implementation.
RECOMMENDATION 3:
Proposed Amendment to Site Plan Control By-law 2002-4
As detailed above, it is recommended that the Site Plan Control By-law be amended to remove reference to communication towers as such installations fall outside the scope of the City’s authority to regulate. Document 2 contains an amendment to the By-law to remove reference to communication towers so as to enable such installations to be reviewed pursuant to the proposed Process.
Proposed Amendment to Delegation of Authority By-law
2011-28
As the City is not approving the establishment of new or changes to existing installations, but instead providing its position for the benefit of Industry Canada, the Process delegates to staff the responsibility for providing concurrence, conditional concurrence or non-concurrence on behalf of the City. As set out in Document 2, an amendment to the Delegation of Authority By-law 2011-28 is proposed to provide the staff person to whom the application for municipal review is assigned the authority to provide concurrence, conditional concurrence or non-concurrence on behalf of the City.
Providing staff the authority to submit comments to Industry Canada on behalf of the City is in keeping with the Council approved Strategic Priorities related to Governance, Planning and Decision Making and Council’s objectives of improving transparency, accountability and streamlining the decision making process, as well as Service Excellence and the objective of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of City services.
Proposed Amendment to Planning Fees By-law 2011-29
As this is a new process, the level of effort required by staff to process an application has not yet been determined. It was determined that the level of effort required to process an application for an antenna system under the Process most closely resembles the level of effort required to process a Staff Approved Site Plan Revision, which has a $2,699.00 application fee. It is recommended that until such time as sufficient data can be accumulated to accurately assess the level of effort required by staff, this fee be applied to applications for municipal review associated with antenna systems.
Where a residential use antenna system is proposed, representatives of the amateur radio community informed staff that a $2,699.00 fee is unreasonable and would in many instances exceed the cost of the equipment involved. Staff were informed that such a fee would be tantamount to a prescriptive requirement to meet the exemption criteria and may deter future persons from taking up the activity.
In addition, it is anticipated that far less time and resources will be required than is involved in the review of an antenna system due to the reduced application submission and consultation requirements. Staff recommend a fee of $300.00 for the review of residential use antenna systems, which is the same fee for a pool enclosure permit.
An amendment to the Planning Fees By-law 2011-29 is detailed in Document 2.
Through the proposed Process the City will continue to recommend protection of significant natural heritage features and ecological functions. The guidelines within this proposed Process are consistent with Official Plan policies for environmental protection. Environmental impact statements will be requested in support of antenna system applications where appropriate; in some cases, an environmental screening may also be required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. City staff will not support proposals within areas identified for environmental preservation (i.e., Natural Environment Areas, Significant Wetlands, Urban Natural Features) or areas of significant habitat for endangered and threatened species, and will recommend to Industry Canada that any mitigation measures identified in an environmental impact statement be implemented as conditions of concurrence.
It is proposed that the recommendations of this report be applied to all City Wards.
Consultation has been undertaken with Industry Canada, industry stakeholders, registered community groups, relevant technical agencies and public bodies, as well as the public.
A draft of the Process was provided to Industry Canada for review and comment. Industry Canada commented that the City was free to institute any process it felt necessary, however where the City’s process was unacceptably more restrictive or burdensome than the CPC-2-0-03, Industry Canada may not require proponents to comply with the specific requirement of the Process at issue. As stated above, where such a situation arises, Industry Canada has assured staff that the City will have an opportunity to present its case before a decision is rendered.
A website providing background information as well as a draft copy of the Process was made available on the City’s website. Notice of the proposed Process and the website was provided city wide in English in the EMC, and in French in L’Express in Orleans and Perspectives in Vanier. Notice of the website was provided to all registered community groups, relevant technical agencies and public bodies, industry stakeholders and the public. Both the notices and website provided a staff contact, and the website was equipped with a feedback form. The notices and website provided a timeline of 30 calendar days for the provision of feedback.
A summary of the comments received and staff responses are found in Document 3 – Consultation details.
No comments were received from Ward Councillors.
Approval of a process for municipal review of antenna systems will clarify the City’s role in the approval process vis-a-vis Industry Canada. A similar process has been adopted by other Canadian municipalities.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no risk implications
There are no direct technical implications associated with this report.
It is anticipated that there will be eight applications per year for Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems, and two applications per year for Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems for residential use. Estimated annual revenue is $21,952; this will affect Planning and Growth Management’s annual operating status.
ACCESSIBILITY
IMPACT
There are no impacts on accessibility associated with this report
The Process is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Priorities related to:
i. Governance, Planning and Decision Making and Council’s objectives of improving transparency, accountability and streamlining the decision making process. The delegation to staff for coordinating the City’s position for the benefit of Industry Canada represents an effective allocation of City resources;
ii. Service Excellence and the objective of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of City services;
iii. Economic Prosperity and the related objective of supporting the development of the necessary infrastructure to stimulate growth; and
iv. Environmental Stewardship and Council’s objective of reducing environmental impacts, in this instance by promoting where feasible the use of existing infrastructure, minimizing the disturbance of existing natural features, and mitigating potential environmental impacts associated with antenna system development.
Document 1 Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems
Document 2 Amendments to:
· Site Plan Control By-law 2002-4
· Delegation of Authority By-law 2011-28
· Planning Fees By-law 2011-29
Document 3 Consultation details
Please also see Reports ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0201 (Official Plan Amendment) and ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0204 (Zoning By-law Amendment).
DISPOSITION
Planning and Growth Management to:
Legal Services to forward the implementing by-laws to City Council.
DOCUMENT
1
CITY OF OTTAWA
Municipal
Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems
Radiocommunication
and broadcasting antenna systems are federal undertakings regulated by Industry
Canada. Antenna systems include the antenna, and may include a supporting
tower, mast or other supporting structure, and an equipment shelter.
Industry Canada
requires proponents of proposals for new or modifications to existing antenna
systems, to consult with municipalities and the public. Industry Canada’s public and municipal
consultation requirements are set out in CPC-2-0-03 entitled Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna
Systems, and provide that proponents must follow the consultation process
put in place by the municipality where one exists. Under Section 6 of
CPC-2-0-03 proponents of certain types of antenna system development are not
required to consult with the municipality and the public.
This Municipal Concurrence and Public
Consultation Process for Antenna Systems
allows the City meaningful involvement in the location and design of antenna
systems by affording the ability for purposeful and relevant input. Guidelines
and criteria for the siting and design of new or modifications to existing
antenna systems not otherwise exempt are set out, as well as
requirements for proponent driven consultation with the public and the City.
At the conclusion
of the consultation process City staff under delegated authority will provide
their concurrence, conditional concurrence, or in instances where for example
the proposal is considered unsupportable due to size, location or poor design,
their non-concurrence for each proposal.
This process
distinguishes between antenna systems used solely for personal use by
residents, such as for amateur radio, and all others. This distinction
recognizes limitations in the size and scale of antenna systems used by
residents, and the means available to a resident to undertake extensive
consultation. As such the process introduces separate siting and design
guidelines, as well as submission and public consultation requirements for
antenna’s used solely for personal use, different than those for all other
antenna systems.
Final approval for the siting and design of
an Antenna System rests with Industry Canada. In addition to requiring public
and municipal consultation Industry Canada requires proponents to comply with
the following:
a)
Transport
Canada’s lighting and marking requirements;
b)
NAV
Canada’s aeronautical safety requirements;
c)
Health
Canada’s safety guidelines regarding limits of exposure to Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic fields, commonly known as Safety Code 6;
d)
The
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, where
required;
e)
Industry
Canada’s immunity criteria dealing with the minimization of malfunctioning of
electronic equipment in the local surroundings; and,
f)
CPC-2-0-17
- Conditions of License for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing
and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements.
2.0 Objectives
The objectives of this process are:
a)
to
establish a documented and predictable land-use consultation process for the
review of proposals for antenna systems and residential use antenna systems
(RUAS) in accordance with Industry Canada’s regulatory framework;
b)
to
establish guidelines which set out the City of Ottawa’s preferences for the
development of antenna systems and RUAS throughout the city;
c)
to
encourage the development of antenna systems and RUAS in a manner which
minimizes their visual impact, and leaves undisturbed natural and human
heritage features and sensitive lands to the greatest extent possible;
d) to minimize the number of new
towers within the city and encourage the placement of antennas on existing
towers, buildings or structures; and,
e)
to
provide an opportunity for public consultation to address concerns over the
development of non-exempted antenna systems and RUAS.
3.0 Definitions
Antenna – means a device designed for the purpose of
the reception and/or transmission of radiocommunications, but does not include
a tower or other supporting structure, or an equipment shelter.
Antenna System – means all the components and equipment
required on a site, including an antenna and, if required, its supporting tower
and an equipment shelter, for the operation of a wireless communication
network, but does not include a residential use antenna system.
Co-location – means the placement of antennas by
at least two proponents on the same building, structure or tower.
Equipment shelter – means a building or structure containing
electronic equipment for the operation of an antenna system, which is not
staffed on a permanent basis and only requires periodic maintenance.
Height – means the vertical distance
between the grade
at the base of the tower, or if the installation is located on
a building or structure, the average grade abutting the building or structure,
to the installations highest point including any antenna, lighting, lightning
rod or other attached device.
Mixed Use Building - means a building which contains
both residential and non-residential uses as defined within the City of Ottawa
Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (the “Zoning By-law”)
Residential Use
Antenna System (RUAS) – means an antenna used primarily for personal use by a resident, such
as satellite dish or for amateur radio communications, and may include a
supporting tower.
Residential Use
Building – means
a building which contains solely residential uses as defined within the Zoning
By-law.
Stealth Design
Techniques – the
blending in or hiding of an antenna system within surrounding buildings,
structures or landscaping such as camouflaging antenna systems within church steeples, clock towers, flagpoles or
lighting standards.
Tower – means all types of towers
including but not limited to: a monopole; tripole; lattice tower; guyed tower;
self-supported tower; pole; mast; or other structure, which are used to support
one or more antennas and may be located at ground level or attached to a
building or structure.
4.1 Exemptions
All proposals for
new or modifications to antenna systems or residential use antenna systems
(RUAS) are subject to this process except for the following:
a)
proposals
for new RUAS provided the proposal;
(i)
is
a satellite dish less than or equal to 1 metre in diameter which does not have
a supporting tower and is attached directly to a building or structure by means
of an arm and a bracket; or
(ii)
complies with all of the guidelines set out in
(a) through (f) in Part 5.1;
b)
proposals
for temporary antenna systems or RUAS installed for no longer than six months;
c)
maintenance
of an antenna System’s painting or lighting in order to comply with Transport
Canada’s requirements;
d) maintenance of existing radio
apparatus including the antenna, transmission line, mast, tower or other
antenna-supporting structure;
e)
proposals
for new ground mounted antenna systems including masts, towers or other
antenna-supporting structure, with a height of less than 15 metres above ground
level;
f)
proposals for the addition to, reconstruction of,
or modification of a RUAS or an antenna system provided the addition,
reconstruction or modification does not result in an overall height increase
above the existing antenna system or RUAS of 25% or more of its original
height; and,
g)
proposals
for rooftop or structure mounted antenna systems that do not result in an
overall height increase above the existing building or structure of 25% or more
of the original height of the building or structure.
Proponents should consider and
incorporate the siting and design guidelines contained in Part 5, even if
exempt pursuant to this part.
4.2 Parliamentary Precinct
Despite the exemptions contained
in Part 4.1 above, in order to protect the visual integrity and symbolic
primacy of the Parliament buildings, a proposed new or modification to an
antenna system or RUAS is subject to this process if it will protrude above the
maximum permitted height limit specified in the Zoning By-law within the
following areas:
a) the Central Area as identified in
Schedule 11 of the Zoning By-law; and,
b) the Beechwood Cemetery viewshed as
shown in Annex 12 of the Official Plan.
4.3 Antenna systems within the Municipal Right-of-Way
Antenna systems located within a
municipal right-of-way are not subject to this process, but instead are subject
to the municipal consent process. A decision by the City under the municipal
consent process shall constitute the City’s position on the proposal for the
purposes of satisfying Industry Canada’s requirements under CPC-2-0-03.
Despite the above, where an
antenna system is proposed within a municipal right-of-way, and would not
otherwise qualify under one of the exemptions listed in Part 4.1 above, a
proponent must undertake public consultation in accordance with Part 8.
5.1 Residential Use
Antenna Systems (RUAS)
The purpose of these
guidelines is to encourage the development of RUAS in a manner which mitigates
the visual impact on the adjacent property owners.
All residential use antenna systems should:
a)
be
setback at least 1.5 metres from all lot lines, unless located on a roof in
accordance with (c) below;
b)
be
located only in the rear yard but excluding the extension of a corner side yard
into a rear yard, as defined in the Zoning by-law unless located on a roof in
accordance with (c) below;
c)
if
located on the roof:
(i)
of
a building three storeys or 11 metres or less in height, be located only on
that half of the roof closest to the rear yard; or,
(ii) of a building higher than three
storeys or 11 metres, be setback a minimum of 4.5 metres from the perimeter of
the roof;
d)
be
no higher than 15 metres measured from ground level, whether located on the
ground, or attached to a building or structure;
e)
carry
no advertising, flags, graphics or other such devices, as well as permanent
lighting;
f)
avoid
placement of an RUAS within:
(i)
Natural
Environment Areas, Significant Wetlands or Urban Natural Features as shown on
Schedules A & B of the Official Plan;
(ii)
Any
1:100 year flood plain, and Unstable Slopes shown on Schedule K of the Official
Plan;
(iii) significant habitat of endangered
and threatened species as defined in Section 4.7.4 of the Official Plan; and,
(iv) 30 metres to the normal highwater
mark or 15 metres to the top of the bank of any watercourse or waterbody,
whichever is greater.
Where a proposal for an RUAS does not conform
to all of the above guidelines (a) to (f) it should be designed so as to
mitigate negative impacts on the surrounding properties and the environment,
including but not limited to decreasing the size and visibility of the RUAS, or
selecting an alternate location on the property. To reduce the scale and visual
impact mitigation measures could include the installation of screening and
landscaping, the application of appropriate design features, colour and
materials. Non-reflective surfaces and neutral colours that blend with the
surrounding should be used.
5.2 Antenna Systems
The purpose of these
guidelines is to:
Antenna systems
should have minimal impact on living areas and areas of historical or
environmental significance. In general, the City prefers that antenna systems
not locate in or near residential areas and that proponents explore
opportunities for co-location and the placement of antennas on existing towers,
buildings or structures. However, where an antenna must be located in or near a
residential area, the use of unobtrusive towers such as monopoles or the use of
stealth design techniques may be preferable to the co-location of the antenna
on an existing tower, building or structure.
5.2.1 Site Selection
When selecting a site for an antenna system a
proponent should:
a)
attempt
to co-locate the antenna on an existing tower or place it on a building or
structure before constructing a new tower;
b)
maximize
the distance of new towers from residential zones, residential use and mixed
use buildings;
c)
avoid
placement of an antenna system within:
(i)
Natural
Environment Areas, Significant Wetlands or Urban Natural Features as shown on
Schedules A & B of the Official Plan;
(ii)
Areas
designated as Sand and Gravel or Limestone Resource Area, except as an interim
use pending future extraction of mineral resources;
(iii) Any 1:100 year flood plain and
Unstable Slopes shown on Schedule K of the Official Plan or as identified
through a site specific geotechnical investigation
(iv) significant habitat of endangered
and threatened species as defined in Section 4.7.4 of the Official Plan; and,
(v)
30
metres to the normal highwater mark or 15 metres to the top of the bank of any
watercourse or waterbody, whichever is greater.
d)
ensure
compliance with those policies within Section 3.6. of the Official Plan that
deal with protecting the visual integrity of the Parliament Buildings including
protected views from Beechwood Cemetery, and avoid exceeding the maximum
permitted height limits set out in the Zoning By-law within the following
areas:
a.
the
Central Area as shown on Schedule 11 of the Zoning By-law; and,
b.
the
Beechwood Cemetery viewshed as shown in Annex 12 of the Official Plan;
e) avoid blocking or marring views or
vistas identified in the Official Plan;
f) ensure that new towers and
equipment shelters are setback an appropriate distance from lot lines;
g)
avoid
placement of an antenna system within the Heritage Conservation Districts set
out in Official Plan Annex 4, and if for technical reasons the antenna system
must be located within the Heritage Conservation District take steps to
minimize the antenna system’s visual impact;
h)
avoid
placement of an antenna system on a property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and if for
technical reasons the antenna system must be located on a property designated
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act take steps to minimize the antenna system’s
visual impact; and,
i)
minimize
the impact on the natural environment and preserve where feasible existing
trees and vegetation.
5.2.2 Engineering,
Design and Landscaping
When designing an antenna system a proponent
should:
a)
where
it includes a new tower and the tower is located more than 120 metres or three
times the antenna system height, whichever is greater, from a residential zone,
residential use or mixed use building, ensure that the antenna system is designed
to provide for future co-location;
b)
where
the antenna must be located within 120 metres or three times the antenna system
height, whichever is greater, of a residential zone, residential use or mixed
use building and requires a tower because;
a.
the
antenna cannot be placed on an existing building or structure; or
b.
co-location
would increase the adverse visual impact of an existing antenna system,
utilize
a monopole or stealth design technique, and not design the antenna system to
provide for future co-location;
c)
in
all instances mitigate negative impacts on surrounding uses including but not
limited to the use of stealth design techniques, or decreasing the size and
visibility of the antenna system so that it blends in with the surroundings to
the greatest extent possible. To reduce the scale and visual impact of antenna
systems, mitigation measures should include where feasible the installation of
screening and landscaping, design features, structure type, colour and
materials. Non-reflective surfaces and neutral colours that blend with the
surroundings are to be used (though it is recognized that new antenna systems
must comply with the requirements of Transport Canada and NAV Canada);
d)
not
include any offices, maintenance uses or indoor or outdoor storage facilities
unless otherwise permitted under the Zoning By-law;
e)
ensure
that the antenna system is no higher than is necessary to operate effectively
and safely;
f)
place
a small plaque in a clearly visible location and in accordance with By-law No.
2005-439, as amended, and entitled “A
by-law of the City of Ottawa regulating permanent signs on private property”,
which identifies the owner of the tower and contact information. No advertising
or promotion is permitted on the antenna system unless used for the purposes of
stealth design;
g)
where
Transport Canada requires an antenna system be lit, limit lighting to the
minimum number of lights and the lowest illumination allowable;
h)
ensure
that any lighting other than that required by Transport Canada meets the criteria
for “full cut-off” and results in minimal spillage onto adjacent properties,
generally not exceeding 0.5 foot candles;
i)
provide
appropriate parking, access, security, servicing, grading, and drainage;
j)
ensure
that the placement of any parking space or any component of the antenna system
does not create or cause a situation of non-compliance with the Zoning by-law
for any other use, building, or structure on the same lot;
k)
where
feasible, locate equipment in an existing building or structure before constructing
a new equipment shelter; and,
l)
when
a new equipment shelter is necessary, ensure that it is attractively designed
and screened from public view.
Unless otherwise exempt under Part 4,
pre-application consultation is required prior to the submission of an
Application for Municipal Review and Concurrence. At the pre-application
consultation meeting City staff:
a)
will
outline the City’s site selection and design guidelines;
b)
will
discuss with the proponent the appropriateness of the selected site for, and
design of the antenna system or residential use antenna system (RUAS),
including all proposed works and any expected lighting requirements in light of
the City’s site selection and design guidelines, as well as alternative siting
and design options if necessary;
c)
may,
where it is anticipated that there will be no negative impacts associated with
an RUAS, exempt the proponent from the requirements of this process and will
issue concurrence or conditional concurrence in accordance with Part 12;
d)
will
if necessary provide the proponent with a copy of this document;
e)
will
explain the application submission, public consultation and review process
including:
(i)
the
extent of the lands to be included on the site plan or sketch; and,
(ii)
the applicable public consultation
requirements.
Proponents of antenna systems must bring to a
pre-application meeting a map of the service area showing any existing towers
within the search area and the closest residential zone, residential use or mixed
use building to the base of the antenna system.
Following the pre-application consultation
with City staff, proponents of antenna systems are strongly encouraged to
undertake pre-application consultation with the applicable Ward Councillor.
Following the pre-application consultation
the City shall e-mail the proponent the Applicant’s
Study and Plan Identification List[1]
detailing any plans, studies and / or reports that are required by the City for
its review of the antenna system or RUAS proposal.
Unless exempt under Part 4 or Part 6(c) a
proponent must submit an Application for Municipal Review and Concurrence to a
Client Service Centre comprised of the information outlined below.
7.1 Submission Requirements
for Residential Use Antenna System (RUAS)
a) Site Selection / Justification
Report which sets out:
(i) the rationale for the RUAS
location and its height; and,
(ii) any design elements or mitigation
measures proposed in order to minimize the impact of the RUAS;
b)
a sketch including the dimensions of the lot or that part of the lot on which
the RUAS will be located, showing the RUAS and its distance in metres to
adjacent lot lines, as well as the location of the principal dwelling, and
where relevant, the location of any accessory buildings and structures; and,
c)
a
completed Application for Municipal Review and Concurrence including the
Application fee.
a) Site Selection / Justification
Report which sets out:
(i) a map showing the area to be
serviced by the antenna system and the location of all existing towers within
it;
(ii) the rationale for the antenna
system’s location and its height;
(iii) why the antenna couldn’t/shouldn’t
be co-located on an existing tower, or placed on a building or structure within
the proponent’s search area;
(iv) any alternate sites for the
location of the antenna system that were investigated by the proponent, and the
rationale for eliminating these sites as the preferred alternative;
(v) any design elements proposed in
order to minimize the visual impact of the antenna system;
(vi) any lighting and marking features
that are anticipated to be required by Transport Canada; and,
(vii) in addition to the above, any site
selection and design guidelines which have not been met, and the reasons why;
b) a photograph of the selected lot
taken from the street lot line closest to the antenna system with the
installation superimposed in colour showing its height, design and any expected
lighting and marking features;
c) a site plan which includes the
antenna system, the leased area, and those applicable elements set out in the
City of Ottawa Guide to Preparing Plans
and Studies;
d) any other plans, reports and
studies identified on the Applicant’s
Study and Plan Identification List which may include landscape plans, site
servicing plans grading and drainage plans, and erosion and sediment control
plans;
e) scaled elevation drawings noting
any expected lighting and marking features;
f) certification from an acceptable
professional engineer that all lighting features other than those required by Transport
Canada have been designed using only
fixtures that meet Full Cut-Off Classification as recognized by the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America and that spillage onto
adjoining properties will not exceed 0.5 foot candles, or an amount acceptable
to the City;
g) confirmation as to whether or not
pre-application consultation was undertaken with the Ward Councillor;
h) an undertaking to provide the City
with written confirmation of any lighting and marking required by Transport
Canada;
i)
any
other information requested by City staff; and,
j)
a
completed Application for Municipal Review and Concurrence including the
Application fee.
Once an Application for Municipal Review and
Concurrence has been submitted City staff will review the Application to ensure
that all required information has been submitted, and upon verification deem
the Application complete. Once deemed complete City staff shall:
a)
in
the instance of an antenna system, provide the Ward Councillor (if the
proponent did not pre-consult) and the Councillors of all Wards within 120
metres or three times the antenna system’s height, whichever is greater, of the
base of the tower with a heads-up indicating the location and nature (including
the height and any expected lighting requirements) of the antenna system;
b) set out which technical agencies
and public bodies (e.g., Hydro Ottawa, National Capital Commission, applicable
Conservation Authority, School Board, Ministry of Transportation, Parks Canada
etc.) must be consulted by the proponent;
i. The proponent must provide and
inform any such agencies or bodies that they have 30 days to provide their
comments to the proponent, and it is the responsibility of these agencies and
bodies to comment within these timelines;
c)
if
applicable, provide the proponent with a list of those Councillors to be
notified and a list of the addresses of all property owners and registered
community groups to be notified pursuant to Part 8;
d)
if
required, identify the applicable local community newspapers in which notice is
to be placed; and,
e)
if
required, identify appropriate venues for the Community Information and Comment
Session.
A proponent of an antenna system must also
notify all neighbouring municipalities within 120 metres or three times the
antenna system’s height, whichever is greater, measured from the base of the
tower.
In addition to this
Application, the proponent is responsible for securing all
applicable permits
or approvals from City departments or other agencies, if required.
Unless exempt under
Part 4 or Part 6(c), a proponent must undertake public notification and
consultation in accordance with this Part. Where notification of the public is
required, the notice must be placed in an envelope and the envelope must have
in bold type on its face the statement:
“Contains
Information Concerning an [select one] Antenna System or
Residential Use Antenna System Proposed
in Your Community”
If the provisions
of this Part require notification of owners located within a condominium
development, a proponent may provide the required notice to the condominium
corporation, instead of the individual owners within the development.
8.1 Public Consultation for Residential Use
Antenna Systems (RUAS)
A proponent of an RUAS must provide written
notice of the proposal to:
a)
the
City;
b)
the
Ward Councillor; and
c)
all owners or occupants of residential property
abutting the lot and directly across the street from the lot on which the RUAS
is to be located.
The notification
must include the following information:
a) the statement:
“I/We is/are proposing [select one] an antenna system or an addition to the existing antenna system
at [insert address], which consists
of the following: [insert description of proposed works including the
location, colour, type and design]. Once
completed the antenna system will measure [insert height] metres in height.
Industry Canada is responsible for the
approval of this antenna system, and requires that I/we review this proposal
with the local municipality. After reviewing this proposal the City of Ottawa
will provide its position to Industry Canada and myself/us”;
b) information explaining:
(i)
the
RUAS purpose;
(ii) the need for the RUAS height and
its location on the lot;
c) a statement that the RUAS will
comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, and an explanation that Safety Code
6 regulates human exposure to radiofrequency emissions from antennas;
d) a statement that the RUAS will
respect good engineering practices including structural adequacy;
e) the statement:
“I/We invite(s) you, within 30
calendar days of the date of this notice, to provide by letter your comments,
and / or request to be informed of the City’s position on the proposed antenna
system. To do so please contact…” followed by the name of the
proponent and their mailing address; and,
f) a statement that the proponent
will respond to all reasonable and relevant concerns, and that the City will be
taking into account comments from the public and the proponent’s response to
each when providing its position to the proponent and Industry Canada.
Despite the notification requirements of Part
8.1, the City may waive some or all of these requirements, upon consultation
with the proponent, where the City anticipates there to be no public reaction
to the proposal.
8.2 Public
Consultation for Antenna Systems
8.2.1 Waiver of Public Consultation
Requirements
The City may waive
the requirement for a Community Information and Comment Session, for example
where only two or three residences are captured within the notification area,
however in such instances notice shall be provided in accordance with Part
.8.2.2 and the proponent shall indicate and allow 30 days for property owners
to provide their comments to the proponent or request notification of the
City’s position on the installation. Similarly, the City may also waive the
requirement for a notice in the local community newspaper.
8.2.2 Notice of Community Information and
Comment Session
A proponent of an
antenna system must host a Community Information and Comment Session within the
community in which the antenna system is proposed if the base of the tower is
within 120 metres, or three times the antenna system height, whichever is
greater, of a residential zone, residential use or mixed use building.
Written notice of
the Community Information and Comment Session must be provided in both official
languages to:
a) the
City;
b) all
Councillors identified by City staff and the Member of Parliament for that
constituency;
c) Registered
community groups; and,
d) all
property owners within 120 metres or a distance equal to three times the
antenna system height, whichever is greater, as measured from the base of the
tower.
The notification
must include the following information:
a) the statement:
“[insert name of proponent] is/are proposing [select one] an antenna system or an addition to the existing antenna system
at [insert address], which consists
of the following: [insert description of proposed works including the
antenna system’s colour, type, design and any lighting and marking features]. Once completed the antenna system will
measure [insert height] metres in
height.
Industry Canada is responsible for the approval of this antenna system,
and requires [insert
name of proponent] to review this
proposal with the nearby public and local municipality. After reviewing this
proposal the City of Ottawa will provide its position to Industry Canada and [insert
name of proponent]”;
b) a map showing the location of the
antenna system within the community;
c) information explaining:
(i) the antenna system’s purpose;
(ii) the reasons why existing antenna
systems or other infrastructure cannot be used to support the antenna; and,
(iii) the need for the antenna system’s
height and its location on the lot;
d) a photograph of the selected lot taken
from the street lot line closest to the antenna system with the installation
superimposed in colour showing the height, design and any expected lighting and
marking features;
e) a statement that the antenna
system will comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, and an explanation that
Safety Code 6 regulates human exposure to radiofrequency emissions from
antennas;
f) a statement that the antenna
system will respect good engineering practices including structural adequacy;
g) if applicable, an explanation of the
expected Transport Canada lighting and marking requirements for the proposal;
h) the statement:
“[insert name of proponent] invite(s)
you to attend our Community Information and Comment Session at [insert date, time and location], or
within 30 calendar days of the date of this notice provide by e-mail or letter
your comments, and / or request to be informed of the City’s position on the
proposed antenna system. Please contact…” followed by the name of
the proponent, their mailing address, phone number and e-mail.”; and,
i)
a
statement that the proponent will respond to all reasonable and relevant
concerns, and that the City will be taking into account comments from the
public and the proponent’s response to each when providing its position to the
proponent and Industry Canada.
8.2.3 Information at Community Information
and Comment Session
The proponent must convene a Community
Information and Comment Session no earlier than 14 days and no later than 20
days from the date of mailing of the notice or the publication of the notice in
the local community newspaper (if required), whichever occurs later.
At the Community Information and Comment
Session the proponent must, in addition to addressing all reasonable and
relevant concerns raised by the public, present the following information:
a) an explanation that Industry
Canada is the approval authority for antenna systems, Industry Canada’s
requirements for consultation with the public and the land use authority under
CPC-2-0-03, the City’s role as a commenting body within Industry Canada’s
approval process, and the purpose of the Community
Information and Comment Session;
b) an explanation of the purpose of
the antenna system, the need for the selected location and height, its future
sharing possibilities and what other structures were considered and reasons why
existing antenna systems or other infrastructure cannot be used;
c) a description of the design of the
antenna system including its height, colour, dimensions, any expected lighting
and marking features, as well as a description of all other works proposed;
d) a map showing the antenna system’s
location within the community;
e) a photograph of the selected lot
taken from the street lot line closest to the antenna system with the
installation superimposed in colour and including its height, design and any
expected lighting and marking features;
f) if applicable, an explanation of
the expected Transport Canada lighting and marking requirements for the
proposal;
g) a statement that the proponent
will respond to reasonable and relevant concerns raised by the public and:
(i)
an
explanation of what Industry Canada under CPC-2-0-03 classifies as a reasonable
and relevant concern; and,
(ii)
the
deadline (i.e. 10 days) for bringing reasonable and relevant concerns to the
proponent after the Community Information and Comment Session.
This
information may be provided in English, but a representative of the proponent
must be available at the Community Information and Comment Session to provide
information and respond to comments and questions in French.
8.2.4 Notice in Local Community Newspaper
A proponent must place a notice in the local
community newspaper where an antenna system is:
a) to be 30 metres or more in height;
or
b) after an addition will measure 30
metres or more in height; or,
c) is expected to contain medium or
high white intensity lighting for the purposes of satisfying Transport Canada
requirements,
The notice must include the following in both
official languages:
d) the statements:
“[insert name of proponent] is/are proposing [select one] an antenna system or an addition to the existing antenna system
at [insert address], which consists
of the following: [insert description of proposed works including the
antenna system’s colour, type, design and any lighting and marking features]. Once completed the antenna system will
measure [insert height] metres in
height.
Industry
Canada is responsible for the approval of this antenna system, and requires [insert name of proponent] to review this proposal with the public and
local municipality. After reviewing this proposal the City of Ottawa will
provide its position to Industry Canada and [insert name of proponent]”;
“[insert name of proponent] invite(s)
you, within 30 calendar days of the date of this notice, to provide by e-mail
or letter your comments, and / or request to be informed of the City’s position
on the proposed antenna system. Please contact…” followed by the
name of the proponent, their mailing address, phone number and e-mail.”; and,
e) a statement that the proponent
will respond to all reasonable and relevant concerns, and that the City will be
taking into account comments from the public and the proponent’s response to
each when providing its position to the proponent and Industry Canada.
Where a Community
Information and Comment Session is also required, the notice must, in addition
to the above, include an invitation to the Community Information and Comment
Session, along with its date, time and location.
8.3 Record of Public Consultation
Within
fourteen days of the close of the public consultation period the proponent
shall provide to the City the following:
a) an affidavit executed by an
authorized representative of the proponent stating that public consultation was
carried out in accordance with the requirements of this process and, if
applicable, that all technical agencies and public bodies identified by City
staff, as well as neighbouring municipalities were notified of the proposal;
b) written copies of all submissions
made by the public and, if applicable, registered community groups to the
proponent and all responses provided;
c) if applicable, a record of
attendees, comments and the proponent’s responses provided at the Community
Information and Comment Session; and,
d) if applicable, copies of all
correspondence, comments, etc. provided to and received from technical
agencies, public bodies and neighbouring municipalities relating to their
review of the proposal, as well as any information pertaining to how concerns
or issues were resolved.
9.0 Application Review
9.1 Changes to
Application
If at any point during this process the
proposal is revised, the proponent must advise the City of these changes as
soon as possible. If revisions to the proposal include:
a)
a
change in the location of an antenna system, which results in the base of the
tower being within 120 metres or a
distance equal to three times the antenna system height, whichever is greater,
of a residential zone, residential
use or mixed use building; or,
b)
a
significant change in the height or design of an antenna system,
City staff shall notify those Ward
Councillors previously notified under Part 7 of the changes.
City staff shall notify the proponent if:
a)
the
proponent is required to resubmit drawings, documents, reports or studies
showing proposed changes;
b)
the
proponent must consult with additional technical agencies or public bodies,
undertake public consultation or further public consultation as the case may
be, in accordance with Part 8 as a result of revisions to the proposal; or,
c)
the
timeframes under Part 10.0 need to be extended.
9.2 Concluding
Review
Where the proposal fails to adequately
address the siting, design, engineering and landscaping criteria set out in
this process, or any other reasonable land-use issues identified, City staff
shall discuss with the proponent alternatives or mitigation measures for
resolving any concerns.
Once the review is complete, including the
review of any resubmitted documents, drawings, etc., City staff shall determine
whether the City will provide its concurrence, conditional concurrence or
non-concurrence based on whether the proponent has followed this process and
addressed to the satisfaction of the City the following:
a)
the
site selection and design guidelines set out in Part 5;
b)
comments
received from the public, registered community groups, technical agencies and
public bodies; and,
c)
any
other reasonable land use issue identified by City staff.
A proponent may be required, if requested by
the City, to provide a Letter of Undertaking, requiring the posting of security
for the remediation of City-owned property.
The proponent and Industry Canada will be
notified of the City’s position by City staff. Staff shall provide a letter to
the proponent, copied to Industry Canada and all those Ward Councillors
notified under Part 8 indicating the following:
a) whether the proponent followed
this process and if not, identify what issues remain outstanding; and,
b) that based on its review the City:
(i) concurs with the proposal, or
(ii) concurs with the proposal subject
to the proponent meeting certain conditions detailed within the letter to the
proponent, or
(iii) does not concur with the proposal
and the reasons why.
City staff will include with the letter to Industry
Canada a copy of all documentation provided by the proponent to the City
related to submissions by the public, registered community groups, technical
agencies and public bodies as well as the proponent’s response to each.
All
proponents are responsible for distributing, within 15 days of receiving the
City’s position, a copy of the City’s position to all persons who requested
that they be notified in accordance with Part 8.
BY-LAW AMENDMENTS DOCUMENT
2
Proposed Changes to
Site Plan Control By-law 2002-4:
1. Delete the following:
(a) paragraph 4(1)(a)(viii);
(b) paragraph 4(1)(b)(v);
(c) subparagraph 4(2)(c)(i)(B); and,
(d) subparagraph 4(2)(c)(ii)(C).
2. Delete references to the above paragraphs appearing in any other sections, subsections or paragraphs of the by-law”
Proposed Changes to Delegation of Authority By-law 2011-29:
1.
Add to Schedule “C”,
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability Portfolio the following
Section immediately after Section 47:
“MUNICIPAL REVIEW OF ANTENNA SYSYTEMS
47A. (1) The staff person to whom the application for municipal review of an antenna system or residential use antenna system has been assigned is delegated the authority to provide,
(a) Concurrence;
(b) Concurrence with conditions; or
(c) Non-concurrence
on behalf of the City to the applicant and Industry Canada in accordance with the Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems as approved by Council and provided the applicant has complied with all applicable requirements outlined therein.
(2) The exercise of delegated authority pursuant to subsection (1) shall be reported to the appropriate Standing Committee at least once in a calendar year.
Proposed Changes to
Planning Fees By-law 2011-92:
1. Add the following as
Section 17:
“MUNICIPAL REVIEW OF
ANTENNA SYSTEM
17A. The fees for an application for municipal review of antenna system shall be in accordance with Schedule “L”.
2. Renumber all Sections
of the By-law accordingly.
3. Add the following as
Schedule L:
“SCHEDULE “L”
Municipal Review of Antenna Systems
1. A fee of $2669.00 excluding
HST is payable at the time of an application for Municipal Review where such
application is required pursuant to the Council approved Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna
Systems for an antenna system as defined under that process.
2. A fee of $300.00 excluding
HST is payable at the time of an application for Municipal Review where such
application is required pursuant to the Council approved Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna
Systems for a residential use antenna system as defined under that process.
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT
3
The following set out a summary of and staff responses to comments
received during public consultation on the proposed Process.
The comments are organized under the following headings:
1.
Process Scope and Exemptions – relating to the rationale for the
Process itself and what it specifically exempts from review.
2.
Health Issues – relating to the treatment of health issues
associated with antenna systems by the City through the Process.
3.
Residential Use Antenna Systems – relating specifically to how
amateur radio installations are addressed within the Process.
4.
Public Consultation and Application Submission – relating to the
public notification and consultation requirements required under the Process.
5.
Process Objectives and Siting and Design Guidelines – relating to
what the Process is and should be attempting to achieve and the City’s
recommended guidelines for antenna systems.
6.
Review and Comment by the City to the Proponent and Industry
Canada – relating to how the City will review a proposal and enforcement of the
City’s position as provided to Industry Canada.
Public Comment:
The City of Ottawa should not be removing current Planning Act controls such as Official
Plan policies, but instead strengthening its by-laws. By doing away with
Official Plan provisions, regulations and by-laws, and instead establishing
“guidelines” and focussing on “consultation”, the City is effectively
renouncing its responsibility for safeguarding urban integrity and the health
of its residents. Specifically, the proposed change effectively leaves the City
powerless to prevent the location of high-powered antenna systems in
health-threatening locations.
Industry Canada does not and cannot authorize the construction of
antenna systems because they are not legally mandated to do so. Industry Canada
can licence and approve operation, based on meeting technical specifications
and related criteria, but this is not an authority to build. Therefore the City
has the authority and the duty to maintain its land use controls.
In adopting the proposed Process the City would effectively leave
approval of locations for antenna systems entirely to Industry Canada, a
federal body mandated to promote business, not safeguard public health, and the
City would be reduced to a mere consultation-convening role. Even in such a
role, the Process uses weak language such as “should” instead of “must”.
Staff Response:
As antenna systems are federal undertakings, the jurisdiction to
regulate them lies with the Federal Government. Industry Canada, pursuant to
the Radiocommunications Act, has the
authority under Section 5 of that Act to approve each site of an antenna
system, as well as the erection of all masts, towers and other
antenna-supporting structures. Furthermore, the Ontario Superior Court has
ruled that the City of Toronto’s site plan control by-laws are inapplicable to
antenna systems, as these are federal undertakings. Given this, and as confirmed
with City Clerk and Solicitor Department staff, Planning and Growth Management staff
are of the opinion that the City cannot continue to regulate antenna systems
through its Planning Act controls.
To ensure the City continues to provide meaningful input into
potential land use impacts associated with antenna systems, the proposed Process
is recommended for approval. While the City would be providing its position on
each installation to Industry Canada, representatives from Industry Canada have
advised that these comments will be taken into account. Furthermore, while the
City cannot prevent the installation of an antenna system, it does have the
capacity to influence antenna system siting through its municipal and public
consultation practices.
The City of Ottawa is not alone in this initiative. The City of
Toronto, along with numerous other Canadian municipalities such as Calgary,
Edmonton, Oakville, Burlington, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Kitchener and Waterloo have
instituted consultation policies similar to the one proposed by the City of
Ottawa, for the purposes of providing comments to Industry Canada on individual
proposals.
Public Comment:
The Process should not exempt antenna systems that are under 15
metres in height. The potential health impact on humans is actually higher if
the antenna is closer to the ground and other impacts including those on the
landscape can be high depending on location, not on absolute antenna height.
Staff Response:
Industry Canada exempts all antenna systems below 15 metres in
height from the requirement to consult with the City and the public. While the
municipality cannot deviate from these exemptions, staff are recommending the
City take the position that in the instance of installations that exceed the
permitted height limit under the Zoning By-law, the process still be followed.
Similarly, residential use antenna systems, because they will be constructed
within residential areas, are proposed to be subject to different exemption
criteria and siting and design guidelines which seek to reduce any negative
visual impacts.
As regards health issues associated with the height of the antenna
system, Industry Canada requires that all antenna systems, regardless of
height, comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 dealing with safe exposure
levels for radiofrequency emissions.
Public Comment:
Will the proposed Process address existing installations,
including those that are no longer in use?
Staff Response:
The proposed Process is not retroactive, but instead applies to
new proposals or modifications to existing installations unless otherwise
exempt under the proposed Process.
Public Comment:
The City should not adopt the proposed Process and should maintain
its land use controls as such installations would still require a building
permit, therefore evidencing the City’s right to control these installations.
Staff Response:
As antenna systems are federally regulated (please see the staff response above), the support structures (i.e., towers) are not subject to the Ontario Building Code and accordingly, the City is not able to require the owner of the tower to submit a building permit application for its construction and installation, no matter the size. Should a building that houses the equipment for the antenna system have a surface area of greater than 10 square meters, a building permit, for the construction of the building only, is required.
Some proponents submit a building permit application for a tower and/or the accessory building even though these are not required, as a courtesy and for obtaining code advice. The City in this case is only able to provide comments which the applicant may or may not choose to incorporate into their proposal.
Towers that are attached to a building or installed atop a building are subject to the building permit process but again, the City is not able to dictate any standards regarding the tower itself, and can only direct the applicant vis a vis the implications of the installation to the building’s structure itself.
Industry Comment:
The exemption regarding additions to or modifications of existing
antenna systems should also include instances where antenna systems are
reconstructed and should enable a proponent to reconstruct the antenna system
within a radius of one tower height of the original location.
Staff Response:
The above wording has been added, with the exception of allowing
as an as of right exemption for antenna system reconstruction within one tower
height of the original location.
Such changes to the location of an antenna system may result in
negative land use impacts, and as such the City should be made aware of these,
and afforded the opportunity to comment before it is constructed.
Industry Comment:
The proposed Process cannot be more restrictive than Industry
Canada’s CPC-2-0-03. In requiring proponents to consult when a proposed
installation exceeds the maximum permitted building height within the Central
Area, despite meeting one of the exemption criteria set out in CPC-2-0-03, the Process
is being more restrictive. The planning objective here can be met instead
through the use of design guidelines.
Staff Response:
Given the need to protect the visual integrity of the
Parliamentary Precinct, the Process must ensure staff have the opportunity to review
and comment on proposals which would impact on the view planes and viewscapes
of this national symbol. CPC-2-0-03 encourages proponents to consider, where
community sensitivities exist, consultation with the municipal authority. Staff
are of the opinion that the need to maintain oversight of development affecting
the foreground and background views of the Parliamentary Precinct necessitates
the inclusion of this requirement, instead of allowing proponents to exercise
discretion in each instance. The incorporation of design guidelines, although
already included within the Process, are insufficient in and of themselves to
ensure proponents respect the views of Canada’s Parliament.
Industry Comment:
The Process should indicate the use of municipal lands as the
preferred option for the location of antenna systems.
Staff Response:
As this is a policy document it is inappropriate for the City to
use the Process to place itself at a competitive advantage over private land
owners. While the City may wish to pursue rental incomes associated with
antenna systems, these endeavours should be the subject of a separate policy,
which addresses the unique considerations associated with the landlord / tenant
relationship. The Real Estate Partnership and Development Office is undertaking
the preparation of a policy dealing with antenna systems on City owned lands.
Industry Comment:
The method by which the proposed Process is applied to antenna
systems within the ROW is confusing and results in significant duplication,
process delay.
Staff Response:
Staff agree, the Process has been revised such that all antenna
systems within the ROW will be dealt with under the municipal consent process, but
will be subjected to the public consultation measures as set out within the
municipal concurrence process. In so doing residents are assured that the same
notification and consultation requirements will apply regardless of the
location of the antenna system.
Public Comment:
Antenna siting
is no longer merely an argument about aesthetics versus utility for a
commercial enterprise. Frequencies used for telecommunications are an
increasingly recognized serious health issue. The City of Ottawa not only has a
right, it has a duty to its citizens, with its mandate to protect public
health, to maintain input into siting of antennas.
The City of
Ottawa should maintain power to control the siting of communication antennas.
The City must have the power to have harmful antennas removed swiftly.
Staff
Response:
Industry Canada
requires all proponents to comply with Health Canada’s safe exposure guidelines
entitled Safety Code 6. As such, the City of Ottawa
will not be addressing health related issues through the proposed Process. This
approach has been reviewed with and agreed to by Ottawa Public Health. Specifically,
Ottawa Public Health does not comment on the siting of antenna systems, and
relies on the expertise of Health Canada, who are mandated to investigate and
set out public health requirements for protection from radiofrequency energy.
As more and more evidence-based information becomes available, it will be
incumbent on Health Canada to keep Safety Code 6 current.
Public Body Comment:
The International Cancer Research Centre (le Centre international
de Recherche sur le Cancer) classifies electromagnetic fields such as
radiofrequency emissions as possibly carcinogenic for humans. Le Conseil des
écoles catholiques du Centre-Est (CECCE) has concerns about the exposure of
radiofrequency energy to its students and staff. The CECCE recommends that
regardless of whether an antenna system is exempt or not, it should be limited
in its emissions (transmission power) to an acceptable threshold and setback
sufficiently so as not to encroach upon neighbouring properties if the tower
broke and fell. For antenna systems not otherwise exempt from the process the
CECCE recommends that these be setback at least 500 metres from its schools.
The CECCE is opposed to any antenna system within 500 metres of its schools.
Staff Response:
As already noted, Industry Canada is the regulatory authority for
antenna systems, and requires that proponents of all installations maintain
radiofrequency emissions at levels recommended in Health Canada’s Safety Code
6. Health Canada is the government body responsible for studying the effects of
radiofrequency emissions on human health. Should a proponent fail to meet the
emission guidelines of Safety Code 6, it would be for Industry Canada, as the
regulatory authority, to ensure this is corrected.
As Industry Canada presumes an installation to have no negative
health impact provided it complies with Safety Code 6, the City in turn cannot
justify promoting the location of antenna systems away from residential areas,
schools, hospitals, etc. on the basis of health concerns. Instead, the City
must focus on land use issues, in accordance with Industry Canada’s regulatory
framework, and the Process sets out siting and design guidelines which seek to
minimize adverse land use impacts.
Public Comment:
Residential Use Antenna Systems (RUAS) should be subject to the
same consultation process as Antenna Systems, and should be required to notify
everyone within 120 metres, as well as the registered community groups.
Staff Response:
As land use impacts associated with an RUAS are anticipated to be
limited to the immediate neighbours, large scale consultations with those
within 120 metres of the installation is considered excessive, as would
requiring the proponent to notifying individuals and groups beyond the
immediate neighbours.
Public Comment:
Installations used for amateur radio (which would be classified as
Residential Use Antenna Systems) are not only used to maintain the hobby, but
also serve a useful function within the community and the City as a whole.
Amateur radio plays an important function in emergency response and disaster
relief situations. Amateur radio operators also offer services to the
community, using their installations to assist in events where other systems
are absent or not functioning.
Our primary concern is to avoid a process that is so onerous as to
discourage amateurs from pursuing their interests and erecting the antennas
that are necessary to support these interests. Many municipal protocols focus
only on commercial installations.
It appears that an amateur radio operator contemplating a
relatively simple installation could be involved in a very onerous process,
beginning with a pre-application meeting, progressing to involving the Ward Councillor
and culminating in lengthy paperwork. The root of the problem is that amateur
radio operators get caught up in procedures that are actually designed more
with commercial radio installations in mind. But amateur radio interests are
nothing like those of a commercial radio operation. Most amateur radio installations are small
and have such a small impact that there seems to be no good reason to regulate
them at all. CPC-2-0-03 fails in this regard by treating amateurs in a manner
similar to commercial installations, and the City’s Process suffers the same
defect.
Most municipalities do not address amateur radio installations
because they are not growing as rapidly as commercial telecommunications, they
are much smaller in scale, and consequently they do not generate significant
issues for municipalities compared to commercial installations. This is the
situation in Ottawa today. The amateur radio community does not expect a rapid
increase in the number of amateur radio towers in the coming years. In fact it
is quite likely that the number of new towers to be built will be roughly the
same as the number of towers that come down as people leave the hobby.
There is no evidence in the general population of Ottawa of a
clamor to regulate or control amateur radio nor are there specific changes in
the hobby that would merit increased attention by the City. There has been no
rash of conflicts between radio amateurs and their neighbours. City officials
have been unable to quantify or even describe what complaints may have been
made in past years. The amateur radio community is small and relatively closely
connected. If there were problems someone in the clubs would have heard about
it. As there is no evidence of a need to review these installations, the City should
focus its attentions on the issue of commercial installations and should exempt
Residential Use Antenna Systems from the Process because of their minimal land
use impacts. A failure to exempt amateur radio installations, with few
exceptions, would result in extra work for both amateur operators and City
staff.
Staff Response:
Irrespective of the limited size of an RUAS, one of the principal
objectives of the Process is to reduce the negative visual impacts associated
with all types of antenna systems, and such impacts are most prevalent in
residential areas, the City must ensure there is a mechanism within the Process
to review an RUAS which poses potential negative effects on surrounding
property owners.
As described in the staff response immediately below, the City has
worked with the amateur radio community to find a balance so as to exempt low
impact installations while still retaining the ability to review and comment on
installations which pose potential land use issues.
Public Comment:
The Process creates consultation requirements that are more
onerous for Residential Use Antenna Systems (RUAS) than for Antenna Systems
(e.g., cell towers) because the outright exemption for antenna systems less
than 15 metres in height does not apply to an RUAS. Industry Canada’s
CPC-2-0-03 states that all installations less than 15 metres in height are
exempt from any requirement for consultation as they are deemed to have minimal
impact. The City cannot, pursuant to this document, include installations that
would otherwise be exempt, and any attempt to would violate federal direction
and be of no effect. Instead, the City can only build upon this exemption.
The CPC-2-0-03 does permit some exceptions to its exemptions under
limited and special circumstances, and states that in such instances it may be
prudent for the proponent to consult with the municipality even if exempt.
Instead of only in special circumstances, the City is applying limited
exemption criteria to an RUAS in all instances. The CPC-2-0-03 makes it clear
that it is up to the proponent, not the City, to decide if he wishes to follow
a process for public consultation even though his installation is exempted by
the CPC.
Additionally, there is no justification provided for this
distinction and commercial antennas could be installed in a residential area.
Staff Response:
Given the sensitivities associated with residential areas,
particularly in the urban context, staff feel it is prudent to ensure that some
degree of consultation is undertaken in all instances where, even though an
installation would be otherwise exempt, negative impacts on the neighbourhood
would exist regardless. For example, while built at a height less than 15
metres, a residential use antenna system located within a front yard would
result in a negative visual impact within the community. Exemption criteria
based on the location of the installation in an area of the property that is
less obtrusive, instead of just a height limit, better balances the interests
of all residents so as not to create potential situations of conflict within
neighbourhoods. Such direction is in keeping with the approach taken by some
other municipalities and reflects the intent of the regulations currently
within the Zoning By-law related to tower antennas accessory to a residential
use.
Staff do not dispute that CPC-2-0-03 places the onus on proponents
to consult in instances where local sensitivities exists. However, as stated,
all residential areas are considered areas of local sensitivity, and therefore
the City should take the position that a blanket exemption is inappropriate in
such areas. In this particular instance, staff are of the opinion that such a
position is warranted, regardless of the language of the CPC-2-0-03.
Furthermore, in recognition of the possibility that residential
use antenna systems which do not meet the exemption criteria may still pose no
adverse land use impact, the Process provides to staff the authority to exempt
on a case-by-case basis, proposals that are likely to pose no adverse land use
impact. Such a determination would be made at the Pre-Application Consultation
stage of the Process. Staff are of the opinion that this mechanism balances the
concerns of amateur radio operators that otherwise innocuous installations will
be subject to review, with staff’s concerns that some level of review will be
required in some instances. Lastly, it must be kept in mind that not all
residential use antenna systems are amateur radio installations, as these
include antennas used for the reception of television broadcasts, and therefore
the City cannot provide a total exemption based on the concerns of only some of
those affected.
Furthermore applicants for residential use antenna systems are
subject to limited municipal and public consultation processes as compared to
commercial or government proponents, which is designed to recognize the limited
means of applicants and the more limited extent of potential visual impacts
from their proposed installations. Specifically, application submission
requirements are reduced, so as to avoid the need for the inclusion of
consultants, and public consultation is limited to immediate neighbours, as
opposed to the larger community. Where land use impacts may exist, such as
issues related to flood plains or environmentally sensitive areas, but no
visual impacts on abutting property owners are evident, staff are delegated the
authority to waive some or all of the public consultation requirements.
Staff are of the opinion that residential use antenna systems
should not be exempt from the process, as their location within sensitive areas
means there may be land use impacts of which the City should advise the
proponent and Industry Canada, and to which neighbouring residents should have
the opportunity to comment.
However, in recognizing that such instances will likely be in the
minority, staff have developed a Process which also protects the interests of
the amateur radio community.
As regards the distinction between the application of the 15 metre
height exemption to residential use antenna systems and all others, it is
staff’s opinion that there is little to no likelihood that a commercial antenna
system would be located on a residential property. To date such installations
appear to be limited to placement on or near the rooftops of larger apartment
buildings.
Public Comment:
The inclusion within the City’s zoning by-law of a section dealing
with antenna systems accessory to residential uses was not prompted by
complaints. This clearly indicates that amateur radio operators in the City
have been sensitive to their neighbours without any form of government
regulation or involvement. Furthermore, large residential areas of the City are
governed by deed covenants that prohibit all outdoor antennas and this practice
has been going on for at least forty years. Finally, the relative impact of
amateur-radio antenna systems is trivial in comparison with other construction
that is permitted by zoning. Therefore, the City should exempt amateur radio
installations from the proposed Process.
Staff Response:
Please see the response above.
Public Comment:
As regards the requirement for review if within the Beechwood
Cemetery viewshed, any antenna system or residential use antenna system not
exceeding a height of 15 metres would be inconsequential at a distance of a
couple hundred metres and virtually invisible at a distance of a few hundred
metres even if installed such that there were no obstructions blocking its
view.
Beechwood Cemetery is on a hill above Beechwood / Hemlock and the
closest part of the corridor outside of the cemetery is in a valley that is
itself virtually invisible from the cemetery. Further, trees (exceeding a
height of 20 metres) are virtually ubiquitous throughout the occupied portion of
this corridor. As a result, it is unlikely that any antenna system or
residential use antenna system not exceeding a height of 15 metres would be
visible unless it were installed on the grounds of the cemetery itself.
Therefore, there is no reason for this and all other exemptions not to apply in
this corridor.
Staff Response:
The Beechwood Cemetery viewshed is designed to protect the views
from Canada’s National Cemetery of the Parliamentary Precinct. This protection
applies equally to all buildings or structures within the corridor, including
antenna systems of all types. Where a residential use antenna system were
proposed within it, but as noted above resulted in no real land use impact on
the viewshed, it would be exempted by staff at the pre-application consultation
stage, subject perhaps to the results of any consultations with the National
Capital Commission.
As noted in earlier staff responses the aim is to balance the
protection of neighbourhood (and in this case national) interests, with those
of the proponent.
Public Comment:
The siting and design criteria for residential use antenna
systems, which also serve as the exemption criteria, show some misunderstanding
of the requirements of amateur radio installations. Taken together, the
definition of tower (which could include any kind of support), the restriction
that only one tower is permitted per lot, the setback requirements, together
with the inapplicability of the exemption for installations less than 15 metres
in height, would have the effect of requiring almost every amateur antenna
installation to undergo consultation.
As amateur radio operators use different frequencies, they often
have multiple antennas and these antennas have different design requirements.
For example the common wire antenna uses supports (i.e., towers) with a wire
strung between. The most visible components are the lightweight poles that hold
up the antenna in cases where there are no nearby structures or trees to
perform this function. These are no more visible than a clothes line and much
less visible than the power lines running through many neighbourhoods. As these
types of installations require two supports, and most often must be quite long,
they violate the one tower preference, and may be required to locate within the
front yard.
There should be no setback requirement in cases where a pole or
mast is simply supporting one end of a wire antenna.
The Process does not appear to recognize the differences between
urban and rural locations. Many municipalities have chosen to exempt rural
areas from consultation requirements. The City could consider exempting from consultation structures that are
separated from residential areas by several (3-6) times the height of the antenna.
The City of Winnipeg uses setbacks of one foot from the property
line for the antenna system, and has no limit on the number of towers. This
puts a reasonable constraint on design and does not needlessly rule out long
wire antennas. Winnipeg also sets out a height limit of 21 metres which recognizes
the legitimate need for height for the antennas to work properly.
Staff Response:
In response to concerns raised by the amateur radio community,
staff have revised the siting and design requirements for residential use antenna
systems. The one tower preference has been removed and the setback revised from
being ¼ of the installation’s height to being setback 1.5 metres from all lot
lines. However, given the sensitive nature of residential areas, particularly
in the urban context, the City has maintained its preference not to have
residential use antenna systems in the front yard, and has instituted a
preferred height limit of 15 metres.
While more restrictive than those provided for by the City of
Winnipeg, these setbacks are in keeping with those proposed by other Ontario
municipalities, and the height limit reflects that chosen by Industry Canada as
part of its exemption criteria.
Staff are of the opinion that a higher height limit exemption and
smaller setback would result in the exemption of installations which may pose
negative land use impacts, and in such instances should be reviewed by staff.
These revisions will continue to ensure that only antenna systems which pose
limited visual impact are exempted, while providing amateur radio operators
with greater flexibility to pursue their hobby without the need to consult with
the City.
As noted in the previous staff response, and to address the
differing context between the urban and rural areas, the Process delegates to
staff the ability to exempt at the Pre-Application Consultation stage,
proposals that even if otherwise not-exempt, pose no adverse visual
impact.
Public Comment:
The definition of the term “tower” is too encompassing for use
with amateur radio, as it includes all manner of supports and could possibly be
interpreted to even include a tree or building as a “tower”.
Staff Response:
In recognition of the concerns raised by the amateur radio
community the preference for one tower has been eliminated. As such, staff do
not feel it necessary to revise the definition of tower, and to do so may
result in the inadvertent exclusion of installations which may pose adverse
visual impacts.
Public Comment:
The fee set for review of residential use antenna systems should
be related to the scale of the project and the amount of work the city needs to
undertake, suggesting a fee of less than 1% of that required for a commercial
system. The City recognizes the difference between commercial and non-profit
activities in its present fee structure, allowing the latter to have its
development fee reimbursed, and something similar should be considered for
residential use antenna systems.
Staff Response:
Staff are proposing different fees for residential use antenna
systems and all other types in light of the factors raised above and as
detailed within the report.
Public Body Comment:
The Rideau Canal, a World Heritage Site, must be protected.
Therefore, Residential Use Antenna Systems, like Antenna Systems, should be
requested to locate outside the 30 metre setback from the high water mark.
Also, Parks Canada should be identified by staff at the pre-application
consultation as an agency which must be consulted by the proponent.
Staff Response:
Staff agree and these recommendations have been included within
the Process.
Public Comment:
The consultation process should provide an opportunity at least
for residents living near the antenna system to be aware of the risks posed by
these devices and have the opportunity to express their view.
Staff Response:
Where not otherwise exempt, proponents must at the very least
notify all property owners within 120 metres or three times the antenna system
height, whichever is greater, of a proposed antenna system about the nature of
the proposal if located within this same distance of a residential area. This
notification must include a statement that the installation will comply with
Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, as regards health impacts, and a proponent must
invite those notified to provide their comments, questions or concerns to the
proponent and to attend a Community Information and Comment Session, which the
proponent must also host. Additionally, in all instances where an installation
contains white lighting as required by Transport Canada, or exceeds 30 metres
in height, notice within a local community newspaper is required.
Public Comment:
Can a resident request a public meeting?
Staff Response:
The ability of a resident to request a public meeting is not included within the Process. Staff are
of the opinion that the instances when such a meeting is required are
sufficient, and any further requirements would be overly burdensome.
Public Comment:
Proponents are not required, but only recommended to consult with
the Ward Councillor. This should be mandatory.
Staff Response:
Staff received direction from Committees of Council to prepare a Process
which was in keeping with existing development review processes. Existing
processes and the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Process do not
require, but instead encourage pre-application consultation with the Ward
Councillor. As this consultation has not been mandated for existing
applications, it would not be in keeping with current practices to require it
in the instance of an application for municipal concurrence. However, in the
absence of a proponent pre-consulting with the Ward Councillor, staff will
provide a heads-up following the submission of an application.
Public Comment:
What if a proponent does not meet the notification requirements?
Staff Response:
Where a proponent fails to meet any requirement of the Process,
the City will not provide its concurrence to Industry Canada and the proponent
on this basis, and will notify both parties as to which requirements remain
outstanding.
Public Comment:
What is considered a reasonable and relevant concern, and whether
there will be no public reaction to a proposal seem subjective in their
determination.
Staff Response:
Industry Canada has determined through its regulatory requirements
what qualifies as a reasonable and relevant concern. The factors that will
determine whether a concern is reasonable and relevant will vary but will
generally be considered if they relate to the requirements of the CPC-2-0-03
and to the particular amenities or important characteristics of the area
surrounding the proposed antenna system. Examples include: Why is an alternate
site not possible? What are the steps the proponent took to ensure compliance
with Safety Code 6? One example of a question which is not reasonable and
relevant includes questioning whether Safety Code 6 is valid or should be
reformed in some manner (taken directly from CPC-2-0-03).
City staff will evaluate individual situations to determine
whether public reaction is anticipated. While not all situations can be
anticipated, one example could be an instance where a residential use antenna
system at the proposed height can not be viewed by the neighbours.
Public Comment:
All proponents of antenna systems proposed to be 15 metres or more
in height, either initially or after an addition, should be required to place
an advertisement in the local community newspaper and hold a Community Information
and Comment Session.
Staff Response:
In keeping with Industry Canada’s default public consultation
process, and consultation processes instituted by other municipalities, the
extent of any public consultation is related to the height of the installation,
lighting, as well as its proximity to residential areas. Therefore only large
scale installations are subject to the advertisement requirements, and only
installations close to residential areas are subject to the requirement to
notify and host a Community Information and Comment Session. This provides an
incentive to proponents to locate away from residential areas and thereby avoid
public consultation requirements.
Industry Comment:
The ability of a Ward Councillor to require a Community
Information and Comment Session in any instance is arbitrary and contrary to
Industry Canada’s requirement for a predictable process. Additionally, there is
no incentive to locate outside of residential areas.
Staff Response:
To provide predictability in the process, staff have amended the
public consultation requirements. To ensure residents are provided with
sufficient opportunity to gain information and comment on proposals, Community
Information and Comment Sessions will be required if the installation is not
otherwise exempt, and is proposed within 120 metres or three times the antenna
system height, whichever is greater, of a residential zone or existing
dwelling. Staff are of the opinion that this balances the interests of Councillors
and the concerns of the community, while establishing a predictable process
that encourages development away from existing residential areas.
Industry Comment:
To require an ad be published when a Community Information and
Comment Session is required is unduly onerous. The limited land use impact
associated with these installations does not warrant inviting the whole
community.
Staff Response:
Presently the Process requires the publishing of a newspaper
notice where the installation is to be 30 metres or more in height or contains
white lighting for the purpose of satisfying Transport Canada’s requirements.
This is consistent with Industry Canada’s default consultation process, and
other municipal concurrence policies within Ontario.
Industry Comment:
To ensure the public consultation process is traceable and recordable
the submission of comments by telephone should not be allowed.
Staff Response:
Staff agree and have limited submissions to letter or email.
Industry Comment:
The use of a trigger based on the greater of 120 metres or three
times the height of the antenna system will result in taller towers on average
as there is no process advantage for towers shorter than 1/3 the numeric value,
i.e., 40 metres in height. Instead the Process should utilize only three times
the tower height, as per CPC-2-0-03.
Staff Response:
The use of 120 metres as a minimum separation distance threshold,
whether for public notification or as per certain siting and design
requirements is a recognized standard under the Planning Act, and has been
utilized within numerous other municipal policies. Staff are of the opinion
that this minimum distance best ensures that residents are notified of
installations within their area. Staff also assume that proponents will
construct installations only to the necessary height, and should such installations
need to be located within 120 metres of a residential zone or existing
dwelling, the Process operates to encourage appropriate design and facilitate
public notification and consultation.
Industry Comment:
To require proponents to undertake public consultation prior to
the submission of an application is overly onerous as a proponent has not
finalized, through discussions with the municipality, the location and design
of its installation. In addition, should the municipality not concur with a proposal,
the proponent should have the right to withdraw the application before creating
any public controversy.
In addition, the Ward Councillor should only be notified following
submission of an application, and not after pre-application consultation.
Staff Response:
Undertaking public consultation (and Ward Councillor) notification
following the submission of an application is consistent with current
development review practices, and therefore staff have no issue with making
this change. Furthermore, the Process does encourage proponents to pre-consult
with the Ward Councillor prior to submitting an application.
Industry Comment:
Circulation to technical agencies and public bodies should be
undertaken by the municipality.
Staff Response:
In keeping with the City’s role as a commenting body in the
approval of antenna systems, this step will be undertaken by proponents to
limit the use of staff resources associated with this type of application.
Industry Comment:
Application to Transport Canada to determine obstruction marking
and lighting requirements is not made until after municipal consultation is
complete.
Staff Response:
The proposed Process now speaks to “expected” lighting and marking
requirements, and requires an undertaking on the part of the proponent to
advise City staff of the actual requirements once assigned. Should concurrence
be provided on the basis that the installation is to contain no white lighting,
but such lighting is in fact added, the City may revoke its concurrence.
Industry Comment:
Site servicing, grading and drainage, as well as erosion and
sediment control plans are not necessary for this type of development.
Staff Response:
These plans are not required for every installation and their
necessity will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Industry Comment:
Proponents should not be required to verify the classification of lights at an installation.
Staff Response:
This is a standard condition utilized by the City to ensure there will be no light pollution spilling onto adjacent properties, and should be applied to ensure such impacts on neighbours are mitigated.
Industry Comment:
The proposed Process is geared towards the urban area, and does
not recognize the unique characteristics of the rural area, particularly the
fact that there exist fewer residences.
Staff Response:
In part, out of recognition of the fact that there may be a
limited number of residents to consult within the rural area, the Process now provides
discretion to staff to waive the requirement for a notice in a community
newspaper and a Community Information and Comment Session. However, in all
instances notice will still need to be provided to all property owners within
120 metres or three times the antenna system height, whichever is greater, where
such a requirement is triggered.
Industry Comment:
Where a meeting is required, an open house should be acceptable an
forum for communicating with the public.
Staff Response:
Staff were directed by Planning and Environment and Agricultural
and Rural Affairs Committees to develop a draft process in keeping with
existing development review processes. Therefore, staff are recommending as
part of the Process that proponents be required to undertake a Community
Information and Comment Session, as this is currently used where public
consultation is required pursuant to the Council approved Public Notification
and Consultation Policy.
Public Comment:
Stealth design techniques should be applied to antenna systems and
where recommended, acted upon by proponents.
Staff Response:
The proposed Process encourages the use of stealth design
techniques when within 120 metres of residential areas. When located farther
than 120 metres, co-location, as opposed to stealth design is encouraged.
The rationale for these requirements is based on the Process’s
objectives of both reducing the visual impact of antenna systems for residents,
and reducing the number of new towers within the city. In all instances,
proponents are encouraged to take measures to reduce any negative visual
impacts, whether through the use of stealth design techniques, or by way of
screening measures such as landscaping.
Public Comment:
The Process should aim to reduce the number of new towers within
the city and encourage co-location in all instances.
Staff Response:
The Process has as one of its objectives the limitation of new
towers throughout the city. However, this objective must be balanced against
the need to reduce negative visual impacts associated with these installations,
and therefore in some instances multiple small, unobtrusive towers such as
monopoles, may be better suited for an area than one larger tower with multiple
antennas co-located on it.
Industry Canada also requires that proponents investigate
co-location opportunities prior to constructing new antenna support structures.
Public Comment:
There needs to be strong criteria identified and a suitable weighting scheme used to control site plan selection.
The proposed Process should provide the preamble objective of
fostering appropriate land usage and minimizing intrusion into otherwise
desirable public and private lands.
The guidelines set out within the Process for use when evaluating a proposal should identify a weighted factor selection process to show how potential sites will be evaluated.
Staff Response:
The Process sets out as its objective the development of antenna systems in a manner which minimizes their visual impact, and leaves undisturbed natural and human heritage features and sensitive lands to the greatest extent possible. Additional objectives include the reduction of new towers, and the opportunity for public involvement and input. These objectives orient the Process, including its siting and design guidelines, towards the consideration of the most appropriate location for antenna systems within the context of a given situation.
As every proposal and site is different, the Process places the responsibility on staff to determine whether in the particular circumstances, and based on the applicable siting and design guidelines, feedback from the public, technical agencies and public bodies, the proposal is acceptable from a land use perspective. Given the variation in sites and circumstances, it is not possible to give definitive weight to each guideline in all instances.
Public Comment:
The proposed Process only states “proponents should” and does not prohibit the placement of installations within sensitive areas, nor does it speak to agricultural lands.
Staff Response:
As Industry Canada approves the installation of antenna systems, the City can only discourage the placement of antenna systems within a given area. This being said, the City will not provide its concurrence if it does not agree with the selected location. Staff are of the opinion that antenna systems pose little land use impact to agricultural areas, and represent a source of additional revenue for land owners. Additionally, the location of these land uses within these areas is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statements.
Public Comment:
Telecommunication antennas are several orders of magnitude more powerful than individual cell phones, and yet the new Process would do nothing to effectively prevent their placement on or in the immediate vicinity of schools, hospitals and residential buildings. Instead the Process would actually encourage it, as use of “existing infrastructure”.
Staff Response:
As set out in this report, health issues associated with antenna systems are matters within the sole jurisdiction of the federal government, and are regulated by Industry Canada pursuant to Safety Code 6. The proposed Process will address the identification of potential land use impacts. Staff are of the opinion that such impacts are not prevalent where the antenna system is located on an existing building or structure, regardless of its type (i.e., whether it be a school, hospital, office, industrial building, etc.).
Industry Comment:
Co-location results in an increase in the visual obtrusiveness of a facility.
Staff Response:
One objective of the Process is to reduce the number of new towers throughout the City, thus reducing the overall impact on the cityscape. While a co-located facility may be more visually obtrusive than several smaller installations, when located outside of residential areas co-location offers an opportunity to reduce the overall impact on the landscape. However, the City encourages (in appropriate situations) the construction of a new tower as an alternative to co-location where the antenna must be within 120 metres of a residential area. Ultimately therefore, the Process seeks to achieve a reduction in visual impact through an overall reduction in new towers throughout the City, and the use of stealth design techniques and mitigation measures to reduce an installation’s visual impact when located near a residential area.
Industry Comment:
A requirement to maximize towers from residential zones and existing dwellings will result in more facilities because proponents will not be able to maximize coverage by siting at preferred locations.
Staff Response:
Because of their visual impact, staff are of the opinion that efforts should always be made to maximize the distance of new towers from residential areas. However, this is only one preference to be taken into account, and where technically feasible, or where adequate mitigation measures have been incorporated, staff may not be averse to new tower development in or near residential areas. Each installation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and all of the siting and design guidelines weighed.
Industry Comment:
The requirement to separate from both residential zones and existing dwelling units creates uncertainty as it will not always be apparent that there is a dwelling unit in the vicinity. Even if a dwelling is present, the land use impacts associated with an antenna system are inconsequential compared to the impacts normally associated with the normal uses within a mixed use zone. Only zone boundaries should be used for the sake of certainty.
Staff Response:
The use of zone boundaries alone does not guarantee that dwelling units within non-residential zones will be identified. A major component of the proposed Process is public notification and consultation and the City should not differentiate between residents within residential and mixed-use zones. Where the impacts are considered limited, the Process proposes staff be delegated the authority to exempt proponents from certain public consultation requirements.
Staff feel the current policy framework sets an appropriate balance between assurances that all affected residents are captured, while not unduly burdening proponents.
Industry Comment:
It is unfair to have proponents ensure the antenna system is designed with co-location capacity where there has been no identified need for it.
Staff Response:
A key objective of the Process is the reduction of new towers throughout the city. Staff are of the opinion that this is best achieved through the encouragement of co-location, which in turn relies on encouraging proponents of new towers to ensure this is feasible in the future. Where a proponent does not foresee any future co-location potential they can address this siting and design guideline within the justification report, which accompanies the application. If staff are satisfied with the rationale as to why future co-location capacity is not needed, concurrence may still be provided.
Industry Comment:
Equipment shelters are not subject to zoning regulations because they are part of the federal undertaking.
Staff Response:
Staff agree and the guideline has been changed to recommend placement of equipment shelters within existing buildings before constructing a new one, or where a new building is required, recommending that it be attractively designed and screened from public view.
Industry Comment:
There should be no parking requirement on the basis of the Zoning By-law as antenna systems only require intermittent visits for maintenance.
Staff Response:
The guideline has been revised to require “appropriate parking”.
Industry Comment:
The height of the antenna system should be measured to the top of the supporting structure rather than to the top of the antenna system equipment located on the tower.
Staff Respose:
Antennas attached to a supporting structure may protrude considerably above the height of the supporting structure, and therefore add to the visual impact created by the overall height of the installation. For this reason the antenna should be included in the calculation of height.
Industry Comment:
There should be no prohibition on the placement of antenna systems within flood plains. This type of development does not pose a risk to human health and these sites present a good opportunity to site away from nearby residential areas.
Staff Comment:
Installations of such structures may require significant grading changes through the removal or placement of fill, and may also require the installation of an access road. The installations themselves may cause an obstacle to flooding, and debris caught up in the installation may make it unsafe.
While the City prefers such structures not locate within flood plains, a proponent is not prohibited from presenting through its justification report sound planning rationale and sufficient evidence of how any environmental impacts will be mitigated, which may be acceptable to staff and the applicable Conservation Authority in the particular situation.
Industry Comment:
The City should consider monopoles with internat antennas (i.e., no pinwheels) as an acceptable stealth design technique.
Staff Response:
Whether such an antenna system would qualify as a stealth design technique would depend on the specific location of the antenna system, which is to say whether or not the antenna system is designed to blend in with its surroundings.
Industry Comment:
The ultimate location of an antenna system within a given property is often dictated by the land owner. Carriers often have limited control over the exact location of their antenna system.
Staff Response:
While the preferences of the landlord are one factor to be considered, the City will evaluate each application for municipal concurrence on the basis of the anticipated land use impacts and the mitigation measures undertaken by the proponent. Whether the City will concur with an antenna system proposal will depend upon an evaluation of all the issues involved.
Industry Comment:
The plaque to be placed on the antenna system should identify the owner of the tower, not the lessee or operator.
Staff Response:
Staff agree and the proposed Process has been amended.
Public Body Comment:
The recommendation to locate antenna systems outside of flood plains and unstable slopes shown on Schedule K of the Official Plan should be broadened as this Schedule does not identify all floodplains and areas of unstable slopes.
Staff Response:
Staff agree and have broadened the language to include any 1:100 year floodplain or area subject to unstable slopes as identified on Schedule K of the Official Plan or identified through a site specific geotechnical investigation.
Public Body Comment:
Conservation Authorities should be circulated prior to pre-application consultation to indicate for a proponent whether they are within a regulatory area.
Staff Response:
Similar to existing Pre-Application Consultation procedures, staff can extend an invitation to participate and advise the applicable Conservation Authority when a meeting is to be held with the proponent.
Public Comment:
Will the City have engineering / technical experts to deal with claims by telecom companies that their proposed location is the only suitable one?
Staff Response:
The City will not have experts specifically within the field of telecommunications to determine whether a site is the only suitable one from a technical perspective. Instead, the City will utilize its land use expertise do review and discuss with a proponent whether, from a land use perspective, an alternative site or design may be more appropriate. Proponents are required under the Process, and as part of the application submission, to provide a Site Selection and Justification Report, which explains the need for the installation at that particular location.
If staff are of the opinion that a different design or location is preferable, and the proponent disagrees on the basis of technical constraints, the City will provide either conditional concurrence or non-concurrence to the proponent on the basis of its land use concerns, and it will be for Industry Canada, as the approval authority, to determine whether the proponent must revise its proposed installation.
Public Comment:
How will the City ensure that telecom companies comply with landscape requirements the City deems necessary?
Staff Response:
The City cannot approve or refuse an installation, but can only provide its position on it to Industry Canada and the proponent. Should conditional concurrence (or non-concurrence) be provided, based in part on landscaping requirements, and the proponent proceed irrespective of the City’s position, the City will advise Industry Canada and request that it take appropriate action.
extract of
PLANNING COMMITTEE Minutes 30 28 FEBRUary 2012 |
|
extrait Du ProcÈs-verbal 30 ComitÉ de l’urbanisme le 28 FÉvRier 2012 |
MUNICIPAL CONCURRENCE AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS FOR ANTENNA SYSTEMS
PROCESSUS MUNICIPAL
D'APPROBATION ET DE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE CONCERNANT LES SYSTÈMES D'ANTENNES.
ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0045 City Wide/ à l'échelle
de la Ville
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee recommend Council endorse the following:
1.
The Municipal Concurrence and Public
Consultation Process contained in Document 1;
2.
That the process contained within
Document 1 not come into effect until 30 days after it is approved by Council;
3.
The amendments to the Delegation
of Authority By-law No. 2011-28, Planning Fees By-law 2011-92 and the Site Plan
Control By-law No. 2002-4 as detailed in Document 2; and,
4.
That the implementing by-law for
the amendment to the Site Plan Control By-law No. 2002-4 not be forwarded to
Council until the process contained within Document 1 has come into effect.
This item was discussed in conjunction with Items 5 and 6 below. Eric
Cooper, Planner, provided an overview of the reports and recommendations. A
copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Committee received the following written submissions, copies of which
are held on file with the City Clerk:
·
Written
submission of 24 February 2012 from Danilo Orozco
·
E-mail
dated 27 February 2012 from Andrew Hart
·
E-mail
dated 27 February 2012 from Raymond Perrin
Committee heard from the following public
delegations:
Stephen
D’Agostino, Solicitor for Rogers, Bell and Telus,* spoke in support of the
proposed process, with specific points as outlined in his PowerPoint
presentation held on file.
Danilo Orozco,* spoke in
opposition to the process as recommended by staff, requesting modifications as
outlined in the submission held on file.
Andrew Hart,* amateur radio
operator, had several comments and concerns pertaining to the proposed process
as it applied to Residential Use Antenna Systems (RUAS) as outlined in the
submission held on file.
Glenn MacDonnell, President of the Ottawa Amateur
Radio Club, was concerned that the proposed process for RAUS
was excessive and prohibitive for amateur radio operators, and requested the
process be modified.
Raymond Perrin,* amateur radio
operator, was also concerned with the process as it pertained to RAUS and
amateur radio operators. He requested
two modifications to the process, as outlined in his PowerPoint Presentation
and written submission held on file.
J.P. Unger spoke in
opposition to the process recommended by staff.
* Comments and/or presentation held on file
with the City Clerk.
The report recommendations were put to
Committee and CARRIED, with the following direction to staff:
DIRECTION
TO STAFF:
That
Staff undertake s with the Ottawa Amateur Radio Club to determine whether the
recommended process can be refined to reflect their concerns, and that staff
report the results of their review in a memo to Council prior to Council’s
consideration of this matter on 28 March 2012.
This report will be
presented to Council on 28 March 2012 in Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee Report 16
Municipal Concurrence and Public
Consultation Process for Antenna Systems
PROCESSUS MUNICIPAL D'APPROBATION ET
DE CONSULTATION
PUBLIQUE CONCERNANT LES SYSTÈMES
D'ANTENNES
ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0045 City-wide / À l'échelle de la Ville
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Planning
Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council
approve:
1. The Municipal Concurrence and Public
Consultation Process for Antenna Systems contained in Document 1;
2. Implementation of the Process 30 days
after it is approved by Council;
3. Amendments to the Delegation of
Authority By-law No. 2011-28, Planning Fees By-law 2011-92 and the Site Plan
Control By-law No. 2002-4 as detailed in Document 2; and
4. The implementing
by-law for the amendment to the Site Plan Control By-law No. 2002-4 not be
forwarded to Council until the process contained within Document 1 has come
into effect.
At the Planning Committee meeting of 28 February 2012, this item was discussed in conjunction with Planning Committee Agenda Items 5 (Official Plan Amendment – Wireless Telecommunication Facilities, ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0053) and 6 (Appeal Against Zoning By-Law 2008-250 - Section 120 - Accessory Satellite Dish or Accessory Tower Antenna in Residential Zones, ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0056). Eric Cooper, Planner, provided an overview of the reports and recommendations. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Committee received the following written submissions, copies of which are held on file with the City Clerk:
· Written submission of 24 February 2012 from Danilo Orozco
· E-mail dated 27 February 2012 from Andrew Hart
· E-mail dated 27 February 2012 from Raymond Perrin
Committee
heard from the following public delegations:
Stephen
D’Agostino, Solicitor for Rogers, Bell and Telus,* spoke in support of the
proposed process, with specific points as outlined in his PowerPoint
presentation held on file.
Danilo Orozco,* spoke in
opposition to the process as recommended by staff, requesting modifications as
outlined in the submission held on file.
Andrew Hart,* amateur radio
operator, had several comments and concerns pertaining to the proposed process
as it applied to Residential Use Antenna Systems (RUAS) as outlined in the
submission held on file.
Glenn MacDonnell, President of the Ottawa Amateur
Radio Club, was concerned that the proposed process for RAUS
was excessive and prohibitive for amateur radio operators, and requested the
process be modified.
Raymond Perrin,* amateur radio
operator, was also concerned with the process as it pertained to RAUS and
amateur radio operators. He requested
two modifications to the process, as outlined in his PowerPoint Presentation
and written submission held on file.
J.P. Unger spoke in
opposition to the process recommended by staff.
* Comments and/or presentation held on file
with the City Clerk.
The report
recommendations were put to Committee and CARRIED, with the following direction
to staff:
That Staff undertakes with the
Ottawa Amateur Radio Club to determine whether the recommended process can be
refined to reflect their concerns, and that staff report the results of their
review in a memo to Council prior to Council’s consideration of this matter on
28 March 2012.
This report will be presented to
Council on 28 March 2012 in Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Report 16
At the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) meeting of 01 March 2012, Mr. John Smit, Manager, Development Review, Urban Services, PGM, began by suggesting that this item could be considered in conjunction with ARAC Agenda Item 6, Official Plan Amendment, Wireless Telecommunication Facilities, ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0053, as they were related. Committee Chair Thompson agreed.
Mr. Smit introduced Mr. Eric Cooper, Program Manager, Legislative and Technical Services Unit, Development Review, Urban Services Branch, PGM, and Ms. Marica Clarke, Program Manager, Land Use and Natural Systems Policy Unit, Policy Development and Urban Design Branch, PGM. Mr. Cooper spoke to a PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk) to provide the Committee with a detailed overview of the report.
The following delegation spoke in support of
the report recommendation, subject to modifications which he suggested could be
made during the project’s consultation phase:
· Mr. Stephen D’Agostino, of the firm Thomson, Rogers, on behalf of Bell, Telus and Rogers Communications.
The following delegations spoke in general support of Item 6, but suggested that the City take a cautionary approach for Item 5, pertaining to exemption criteria for residential amateur radio systems:
· Mr. Glenn MacDonell, President, Ottawa Amateur Radio Club, and;
· Mr. Raymond Perrin, an amateur radio operator.
Messrs. MacDonell and Perrin confirmed for the Chair that they would work together to bring their proposals to staff per the Planning Committee’s Direction to Staff (noted above) given at its meeting of 28 February 2012. Correspondence was also received from the following individual, outlining his concerns regarding the Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation process (distributed to all Committee members in advance of the meeting):
·
Mr. J.P. Unger.
Following questions pertaining to
the scope of public consultation, jurisdiction regarding Federal and Municipal
oversight of telecommunications systems and the necessity for municipal
concurrence, the report recommendations were then put
to Committee and CARRIED, as presented,
with Councillor S. Qadri dissenting.
[1]For the purposes of determining the required plans, studies and reports, an Application under this process is to be considered an application for Site Plan Approval under the Official Plan.