AGENDA - Special Council - 20130430PUBLIC RELEASE
April 26, 2013
TOWN OF AURORA
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
7 p.m.
Council Chambers
I DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF
II APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the agenda as circulated by the Customer and Legislative Services
Department be approved.
III DELEGATIONS
IV CONSIDERATION OF BUSINESS FOR WHICH NOTICE WAS GIVEN
V READING OF BY-LAWS
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the following by-law be given first, second, and third readings and
enacted:
5508-13 BEING A BY-LAW to Confirm Actions by Council pg. 163
Resulting from Special Council Meeting on April 30, 2013
VI ADJOURNMENT
Special Council Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Page 2 of 7
AGENDA ITEMS
(Deferred from Council meeting of April 23, 2013 – Item 1(1))
1. General Committee Meeting Report of April 16, 2013
PR13-021 – Skateboard Park Options pg. 1
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PR13-021 be received; and
THAT Council provide staff with an upset limit for design and construction of a
skateboard park outside of the Aurora Family Leisure Complex (AFLC).
(Deferred from Council meeting of April 23, 2013 – Item 1(3))
2. General Committee Meeting Report of April 16, 2013
PR13-023 – Award of Tender PRS2013-14 for the Provision of pg. 22
Landscape Grounds Maintenance Services on Municipal
Property at Various Locations in the Town of Aurora
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PR13-023 be received; and
THAT Tender PRS2013-14 for Landscape Maintenance at Various Locations
in the Town Of Aurora, for one year ending December 31, 2013 with an upset
limit of $62,456.36 (with the option to renew for an additional two, one-year
periods), be awarded to Municipal Maintenance Inc.; and
THAT Council authorize the Director to renew Tender PRS2013-14 in
accordance with this report for an additional two, one-year periods, pending
an annual analysis and satisfactory performance review by the Director; and
THAT the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to execute the Agreement,
including any and all documents and ancillary agreements required to give
effect to same.
Special Council Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Page 3 of 7
(Deferred from Council meeting of April 23, 2013 – Item 1(4))
3. General Committee Meeting Report of April 16, 2013
CAO13-009 – Supplementary Unemployment Benefit pg. 28
Amendments to Policy #17 – Pregnancy and Parental Leave
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report CAO13-009 be received; and
THAT Council approve the revision of Policy #17 – Pregnancy and Parental
Leave, as recommended in this report and attached as Attachment #1,
including the payment of Supplementary Unemployment Benefits.
(Deferred from Council meeting of April 23, 2013 – Item 1(14))
4. General Committee Meeting Report of April 16, 2013
Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Development Services pg. 37
Re: Revised Elevation Drawings, Planning Report No. PL12-043
Applications to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Perwick Investments Limited, Files: D09-03-05 and D14-16-05
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the memorandum regarding Revised Elevation Drawings, Planning
Report No. PL12-043, for the Perwick Investments Limited proposal be
received; and
THAT the following recommendations outlined in the February 5, 2013
Memorandum be adopted:
THAT Commercial School use be removed from the list of Shopping
Centre Commercial (C4) Exception Zone permitted uses outlined in
Report PL12-043; and
THAT Retail and Convenience Retail Uses be permitted provided that the
combined floor area of all retail uses does not exceed forty percent (40%)
of the total commercial floor area; and
THAT Application to Amend the Official Plan File: D09-03-05 be approved,
to redesignate the subject lands from “Aurora Promenade General” to
“Aurora Promenade General Special” to permit site specific development
standards to facilitate a one storey 1,255m2 (13,509ft2) multi-unit retail
plaza; and
Special Council Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Page 4 of 7
THAT Application to Amend the Zoning By-law File: D14-16-05 be
approved, to rezone the subject lands from “Office Commercial (C6) Zone”
to a site specific “Shopping Centre Commercial (C4) Exception Zone” to
permit a one storey 1,255m2 (13,509ft2) multi-unit retail plaza; and
THAT by-laws to adopt the Official Plan Amendment and implementing
zoning be presented at a future Council Meeting for enactment.
(Deferred from Council meeting of April 23, 2013 – Item 1(17))
5. General Committee Meeting Report of April 16, 2013
PR13-017 – Diamond Jubilee Park – Follow-up Report pg. 62
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PR13-017 be received; and
THAT Council consider renaming an existing municipal Park “Diamond
Jubilee Park”; and
THAT a park to be renamed be selected from the candidate parks
contained in this report; and
THAT staff notify all Aurora Recipients of the Queens Diamond Jubilee
Medal of the proposed addition of their name to the Park signage.
(Deferred from Council meeting of April 23, 2013 – Item 1(18))
6. General Committee Meeting Report of April 16, 2013
LGL13-004 – Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) pg. 73
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report LGL13-004 be received; and
THAT the Mayor, on behalf of Council, advocate and write a letter to The Hon.
Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario, and to The Hon. John Gerretson,
Attorney General of Ontario, urging them to bring forward legislation to
implement the recommendations of the Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel; and
THAT the Mayor also send a copy of the letter to the mayors and councils of
all other municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area requesting that they write
to the Premier of Ontario and the Attorney General in support of the contents
of the letter.
Special Council Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Page 5 of 7
(Deferred from Council meeting of April 23, 2013 – Item 1(21))
7. General Committee Meeting Report of April 16, 2013
PR13-018 – Award of Request for Proposal No. PRS2013-04 – For the pg. 130
Supply, Delivery and Maintenance of Automated Teller
Machines (ATMs) at the Stronach Aurora Recreation
Complex (SARC) and the Aurora Community Centre (ACC)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PR13-018 be received; and
THAT Request for Proposal No. PRS2013-04 – For the Supply, Delivery and
Maintenance of Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) at the Stronach Aurora
Recreation Complex (SARC) and the Aurora Community Centre (ACC) be
awarded to Access Cash General Partnership (Access Cash); and
THAT the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary
Agreement, including any and all documents and ancillary agreements
required to give effect to same.
(Deferred from Council meeting of April 23, 2013 – Item 1(29))
8. General Committee Meeting Report of April 16, 2013
PL13-024 – Simplified Development Agreement Execution pg. 134
2298276 Ontario Limited
Lots 1, 2, & 15, Plan 65M-2806 and Lots 102 & 103, Plan 65M-2805
115, 118 & 119 Stemmle Drive and 126 & 130 Brookeview Drive
Minor Variance File Numbers: D13-(30-34)-11
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL13-024 be received; and
THAT the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to execute the simplified
development agreement, including any and all documents and ancillary
agreements required to give effect to same.
(Deferred from Council meeting of April 23, 2013 – Item 1(30))
9. General Committee Meeting Report of April 16, 2013
PL13-028 – Simplified Development Agreement Execution pg. 142
Jacqueline Lee Kubica
Plan 65M-2725, Part Lot 9
19 Ing Court
Minor Variance File Number: D13-(26A&B)-12
Special Council Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Page 6 of 7
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL13-028 be received; and
THAT the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to execute the simplified
development agreement, including any and all documents and ancillary
areements required to give effect to same.
(Deferred from Council meeting of April 23, 2013 – Item 1(31))
10. General Committee Meeting Report of April 16, 2013
PL13-029 – Simplified Development Agreement Execution pg. 150
Wayne Hinrichs and Stacey Lewis
Lot 36 and Part Block A, Plan M-1582; Part 7, 65R-20000
40 Steeplechase Avenue
Minor Variance File Number: D13-(11A&B)-12
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL13-029 be received; and
THAT the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to execute the simplified
development agreement, including any and all documents and ancillary
agreements required to give effect to same.
(Deferred from Council meeting of April 23, 2013 – Section VI - Item 1)
General Committee Meeting Report of April 16, 2013
11. AAC13-05 – Accessibility Advisory Committee Report pg. 158
April 3, 2013
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report AAC13-05 be received; and
THAT Council adopt the following Accessibility Advisory Committee
recommendations from the meeting of April 3, 2013:
Delegation (a) Kim McKinnon, representing Concerned Citizens for
Accessibility and Mobility, and Community Legal Clinic of York
Region
Re: Introduction of Organizations and Disability Awareness
Week Event
THAT Council consider endorsing the Mobility Maze event to be held at the
Aurora Community Centre on Wednesday, June 5, 2013.
Special Council Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Page 7 of 7
(1) Memorandum from the Accessibility Advisor
Re: “On-Demand” Accessible Taxis
THAT staff be directed to add information to the Town’s website regarding
“on-demand” accessible taxicabs toward educating residents on accessible
transportation.
(4) Correspondence from the Planner
Re: Application for Site Plan Approval – Request for Comments
(Submission #1) St. Andrew’s College
15800 Yonge Street, Part 3 of Lot 84, Conc. 1, 64R-1463
File Number: D11-15-12
THAT the following comments be forwarded to the Planner as suggestions to:
1. Consider adding accessible parking closer to the front entrance of the
building without having to cross a vehicular traffic path;
2. Ensure that all washrooms on the main floor and second floor are
accessible with automatic door openers and appropriate barrier-free
access; and
3. Ensure that the fire alarm system includes both audible and visual warning
signals.
(7) Correspondence from the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
Re: Accessibility Advisory Committee Forums 2013
THAT staff be directed to investigate further registration information and
details and advise the Committee regarding the Toronto Forum being held on
May 22 with respect to attendance by Committee members.
12. Update from Warren Mar, Director of Legal Services/Town Solicitor
Re: Bell Canada Telecommunications Tower at 14820 Bathurst Street
King Township*
*Information to be provided.
TOWN OF AURORA
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
7 p.m.
Council Chambers
Additional Information
Re: Item 12 – LGL13-006 – Bell Canada Wireless Telecommunication Tower
14820 Bathurst Street, Township of King
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council resolve into a General Committee Closed Session to consider:
The receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including
communications necessary for that purpose; Re: Item 12 LGL13-006 – Bell
Canada Wireless Telecommunication Tower 14820 Bathurst Street, Township of
King
TOWN OF AURORA
ADDITIONAL ITEMS (REVISED)
FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
7 p.m.
Council Chambers
ll APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Moved by Councillor Buck Seconded by Councillor Thompson
THAT the agenda as circulated by the Customer and Legislative Services
Department, with the following addition, be approved:
Additional Information — Re: Item 12 — LGL13-006 — Bell Canada Wireless
Telecommunication Tower, 14820 Bathurst Street, Township of King
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor Buck Seconded by Councillor Gallo
THAT solicitor -client privilege be waived to release confidential report LGL13-006 to
the general public.
CARRIED
TOWN OF AURORA
COUNCIL REPORT
CONFIDENTIAL CLOSED SESSION REPORT No. LGL13-006
SUBJECT: Bell Canada Wireless Telecommunication Tower
14820 Bathurst Street, Township of King
FROM: Warren Mar, Director of Legal Services/Town Solicitor
DATE: April30, 2013
THAT Council receive Report No. LGL13-006 for information.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The purpose of this report is to respond to Council's direction at its meeting of
April 24, 2013, "that staff be directed to seek a stop work injunction against the
completion of the tower for a length of time sufficient to allow the Town, citizens,
and Bell Canada to review options with regards to the tower...". In addition, this
report provides an update on the response from Bell Canada regarding the
concerns of residents and the Town about the location and height of the cell
phone tower.
BACKGROUND
A summary of the relevant events to date can be found in the attached legal
opinion from Bruce Engel[, Partner at WeirFoulds LLP, under the heading "Public
Consultation" on pages 3 to 4.
COMMENTS
Legal Opinion from WeirFoulds LLP
As noted above, attached to this report is the legal opinion from Mr. Engell, Partner at
WeirFoulds LLP and an experienced litigation lawyer. In summary, Mr. Engell
states: "... the Town would have tremendous difficulty putting forward an arguable case
Confidential Closed Session
April 30, 2013 - 2 - Report No. LGL13-006
for an interlocutory injunction in the circumstances of this matter. If the Town were able
to put forward an arguable case, it is our opinion that the Town has virtually no chance
of success in obtaining the interlocutory injunction it is considering:"
In coming to this conclusion, Mr. Engell also noted that, the prejudice caused by that
letter [the 'no comment' email from a Town planner] would not be materially different
from silence in the face of notice having been served on the Town. In addition, given
that the entire exercise is set up to render municipalities close to powerless on these
issues, the harm caused by the letter is mitigated — had the Town objected, the outcome
would most likely have been identical"
This latter point speaks to the idea that the consultation process with regards to
the installation of cell phone towers is actually akin to a question and answer
session. According to Industry Canada Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03,
proponents are required to serve notice to nearby residents (three times the
tower height from the tower location according to Industry Canada) and respond
to certain questions. This Industry Canada procedure does not require
proponents to reply to questions regarding, for example, disputes about the
proponent's service; effects on property values or municipal taxes; or questions
regarding whether Health Canada's Safety Code 6, local by-laws, local protocols,
or the processes mandated by Industry Canada are valid or should be reformed. l
Proponents such as Bell Canada do not have to adhere to the wishes of local
municipalities or residents unless they are willing to do so, or unless they agree
to do so after Industry Canada intervenes in the impasse process in the face of
objections. Ultimately, if the technical justification can be made for a tower, then
the process established by Industry Canada ensures that such a justification can
always overrule local concerns, since municipalities do not have a substantive
role to play in the installation of cell phone towers.
With regards to the cost of launching an interlocutory injunction, Mr. Engell notes
that, "The costs are difficult to estimate at the outset since the procedures that
will be involved are not definite (cross-examinations, adjoumments and so on).
However, the Town would realistically be looking at $50,000 to $100,000 for an
interlocutory injunction, and that does not include paying any award of costs to
the respondents, should the Town be unsuccessful." This amount is consistent
with having a minimum of three associates at around $250-$300/hour working
together with one partner at $5507$600/hour, plus disbursements and other time
spent by other lawyers who may be called upon to give specific advice as the
need arises over the course of 2-3 intense weeks of preparation, plus the
r)
Confidential Closed Session
April 30, 2013 - 3 - Report No. LGL13-006
submission of documents, cross-examinations, and attendance at the injunction
hearing. Accordingly, Mr. Engell's estimate of $50,000 to $100,000 for an
interlocutory injunction in this matter is entirely reasonable and appropriate given
the circumstances.
The end of Mr. Engell's opinion does note that Industry Canada has a dispute
.resolution process where an impasse is reached and there is a formal objection
from. a stakeholder other than the general public. While the outcome may not
change, and Industry Canada may deny the request for dispute resolution at this
stage, it may be an option for the Town to pursue.
According to Industry Canada Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03:
"Upon receipt of a written request, from a stakeholder other than the
general public, asking for Departmental intervention concerning a
reasonable and relevant concern, the Department may request that
all involved parties provide and share all relevant information. The
Department may also gather or obtain other relevant information and
request that parties provide any further submissions if applicable.
The Department will, based on the information provided, either.
• make a final decision on the issue(s) in question, and advise the
parties of its decision; or
• suggest the parties enter into an alternate dispute resolution
process in order to come to a final decision. Should the parties be
unable to reach a mutually agreeable solution, either party may
request that the Department make a final decision.
Upon resolution of the issue under dispute, the proponent is to
continue with the process contained within this document as
required."
Response from Bell Canada
Further to the direction of Council, on April 25 the Mayor, Mr. Garbe, Mr.
Ramunno, and I spoke with lawyers and representatives for Bell Canada and Bell
Mobility, including Matthew Milligan, Real Estate and Municipal Relations Advisor
for Bell Mobility. The written response from Mr. Milligan is attached to this report,
together with the site selection report from Proliferate Consulting Group Inc.
C > (" PCG') on behalf of Bell.
Confidential Closed Session
April 30, 2013 - 4 - Report No. LGL13-006
In summary, at the teleconference meeting, Bell stated that King Township owns
the notification process in accordance with its protocol, and Bell's obligation is to
generally follow the protocol of the municipality in which the infrastructure is
located. A site investigation was completed by PCG which concluded that no co -
location was feasible and the tower was required at the 60 metre height to meet
demand. Bell was not asking for, nor is it now interested in, comments from the
Town. As part of the notification process, and since it is neither the local
authority with jurisdiction nor an approval authority, the Town was simply being
advised in the notice that an open house meeting was being held to explain the
tower installation.
Bell acknowledged that the protocol for notice followed King's protocol and ended
at the municipal boundary. The Industry Canada standard (three times the height
of the tower, from the tower location) was applied to Aurora, resulting in about
ten residents receiving notices. Town staff asserted that PCG misrepresented to
King that the notice limit of 250 metres from the tower location was applied to
both King and Aurora. In reply, Bell stated that they were not aware of this
representation, but regardless of what was stated by PCG, it did follow the
applicable standard set out by Industry Canada and there was no technical
violation of the notification process.
In the end, however, Bell's position is that it has no plans to alter the structure of
the tower in height, massing or location. According to Bell, its research has
found that the design of the tower has the least impact from visual and aesthetics
perspectives. Officially, Bell did offer to enhance the screening around the
ground -related infrastructure and add landscaping along Bathurst Street.
Town staff will continue to work with Bell Canada and Industry Canada to see
what else can be done to mitigate the visual impact of the tower.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
None.
ALTERNATIVE(S) TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THAT Town staff formally request Industry Canada to begin the dispute resolution
process to address the Town's objection to the size and location of the Bell Canada
cell phone tower.
(l
Confidential Closed Session
April 30, 2013 - 5 - Report No. LGL13-006
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None. Should the Town formally request that Industry Canada begin the dispute.
resolution process, the matter will be handled internally by Town staff.
PREVIOUS REPORTS
There are no previous written reports on this matter. A verbal report was
presented to Council regarding this matter on April 24, 2013.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the Town's external lawyer, an interlocutory injunction to cease
Bell's use and operation of the cell phone tower will not be successful In the
absence of jurisdiction in this matter, and since the process is not one that allows
municipalities to have a formal substantive input on the location of cell phone
towers, the Town is left with no realistic legal options other than continuing to
lobby Bell Canada and Industry Canada regarding the location and size of the
tower. Even though the tower is already built, the Town may request to begin the
i formal dispute resolution process with Industry Canada in an attempt to address
the concerns of residents.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1: Legal Opinion from Bruce Engel[, WeirFoulds LLP, dated April 29,
2013.
Attachment #2: Letter from Matthew Milligan, Bell Mobility, dated April 29, 2013.
Attachment #3: PCG Site Location Report to the Township of King, dated February
13, 2012.
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Neil Garbe; Chief Administrative Officer
Prepared by. Warren Mar, Director of Legal Services/Town Solicitor
uUav�. Nl�.
Warren Mar,
Director of Legal Services/Town Solicitor
Barristers &Solicitors ATTACHMENT 1 WeirFouldsLLP
April 29, 2013
VIA E-MAIL
Bruce H. Engell
T:416-947-5081
bengell@weirfoulds.com
File 08337.00001
Mr. Warren Mar
Town Solicitor
Town of Aurora
100 John West Way, Box 1000
Aurora, ON L4G 6J1
Dear Mr. Mar:
Re: Legal Opinion Regarding the Commencement of an Interlocutory Injunction
to Halt the Operation and Use of a Bell Canada Cell Phone Tower
14820 Bathurst Street, Township of King, Ontario
You have asked for our opinion on a number of issues relating to the potential to seek an
interlocutory injunction to halt further construction on and use of a cell phone tower.
Conclusion
Our overall summary conclusion is that the Town would have tremendous difficulty putting
forward an arguable case for an interlocutory injunction in the circumstances of this matter. If
the Town were able to put forward an arguable Case, it is our opinion that the Town has virtually
no chance of success in obtaining the interlocutory injunction it is considering. The detailed
answers to the specific questions you have posed are set out at the end of this letter.
Context
As a matter of the constitutional division of powers between the federal government and the
provincial ones, cell phone towers fall under federal jurisdiction as an integral component of
telecommunications. As a result, the Province of Ontario does not have the authority to enact
legislation relating to them. The Town, like all municipalities in Ontario, is a creature of the
Province — it only has the authority which the Province has chosen to give to it. Since the
Province has no authority over cell phone towers, it is also unable to give the Town, or any other
municipality, any authority to address cell phone towers, including their size, location or other
aspects relating to their installation and use..
T:416-365-1110 F:416365-1876
4100 - 66 Wellington Street West, PO Box 35, Toronto -Dominion Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. M5K 1 B7
w .weirfoulds.com
Barristers & Solicitors
WeirFouldsuP
The only regulatory framework governing where .cell phone towers can get erected is the
framework that emanates from the federal level. That framework is dealt with by Industry
Canada, with licenses issued to cell phone service providers on an overall basis — there is no
specific permit or license granted for each cell phone tower that a service provider wishes to
build. Instead, Industry Canada has set up two regulatory approaches: a safety standard and a
public consultation protocol.
The public safety standard is referred to as Safety Code 6 by Health Canada. Industry Canada
maintains, "that there is no scientific or medical evidence that a person will experience adverse
health effects from exposure to radio frequency fields, provided that the installation complies
with Safety Code 6.
The public consultation protocol (Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4,
"Radiocommunications and Broadcasting Antenna Systems") first addresses alternatives to the
construction of'a new cell phone tower. The protocol requires sharing of existing cell towers
were possible and then the location of new facilities on existing buildings and structures. Once
those alternatives have been explored, the protocol addresses the public consultation process
in relation to the construction of a new cell phone tower.
Industry Canada encourages local municipal protocols for public consultation but also provides
a default protocol in the event that a local municipality has not set up one of its own. In this
instance, the Township of King (the "Township") and the Town of Aurora (the "Town") both have
their own protocols in place. Since the cell phone tower in question is in the Township, Bell
followed the protocol of the Township and not the Town.
Industry Canada's Circular notes "conclusion of local consultation may include such steps as
obtainingfinal concurrence for the proposal via the relevant committee, a letter or report
acknowledging that the relevant municipal process or other requirements have been satisfied, or
other valid indication, such as the minutes of a town council meeting indicating —approval.
Compliance with informal city staff procedures... will not normally be sufficient"
One further point of note — Industry Canada's procedure includes a dispute resolution process
where parties have reached an impasse: "Upon receipt of a written request, from a stakeholder
other than the general public, asking for Departmental intervention concerning a reasonable and
relevant concern, the Department may request that all involved parties provide and share all
relevant information... The Department will make a final decision." The mechanism is referred to
in the Township's protocol and the Town's protocol.
2
Barristers & Solicitors
Weir o Ulds' np
Public Consultation
As we understand it, the public consultation process in this instance included the following:
1. On May 11, 2012, the Town was notified via email to its Planning Department
and to the Town Clerk that Bell was proposing to place a 60 metre cell phone tower at 14820
Bathurst St in the Township, about 25 metres from the boundary between the Township and
the Town. The notice also informed the Town of an open house on June 12, 2012, to provide
further information and receive comments.
2. Notice of that June 12, 2012 open house was also given to at least 10 residences
in the Town.
3. On May 15, 2012, a Planner for the Town responded to the email acknowledging
receipt of the notice stating, "[tjhe Town of Aurora has no comment on the proposal ° The
proposal was not forwarded to Council and Council took no position on it. There is no indication
of any further notice given to the Town regarding the proposal.
4. The June 12, 2012 open house was attended by seven members of the public,
including three Town residents. However, due to an illness of Bell's consultant, they were told
the meeting would not proceed, their names and addresses were taken down , and they were
advised that everyone previously notified would be re -notified of a new date.
5. Apparently, a new notice was sent out to the same people who were sent the
notice of the June meeting. This notification was for a new public meeting date of August 14,
2012. The Town did not receive this notice. Only two members of the public attended.
6. In a letter to Township Planning staff dated August 20, 2012, Bell's consultant
confirmed that the Township's protocol requirements were met, including the fact that all
Township and Town residents within a distance of 250 metres from the tower location were
notified (in accordance with the Township's protocol for notification distance). Also in
accordance with the Township's protocol, a newspaper ad was run in the local Township paper
and a sign was posted at the property. No ad was run in a Town paper since the tower was
located in the Township and its protocol applied. The Township's protocol does not call for an
ad to be run in a neighbouring jurisdiction's local newspaper even in instances where the
notification area crosses municipal boundaries.
7. On October 15, 2012, the Township's Committee of the Whole approved a
recommendation to inform Industry Canada that the Township's protocol was complied with.
(^1
Banisters & Solicitors - - I I Vii FO 1 ldsu-p
This was adopted by its Council on October 29. On November 19, 2012, Township Planning
staff informed Industry Canada that the Township's protocol was complied with.
8. Over the past several weeks, Bell completed the construction and installation of
the tower. According to Bell, the tower is not yet active (transmitting), but will be soon.
9. Once construction was underway and completed, Town residents in the
subdivision on the east side of Bathurst St. complained about the tower. These Town residents
include those who allegedly did not receive notification due to the fact that they were
supposedly outside of the notification area. The complaints about the tower are mainly about its
size and height (60m), and secondarily about the health impacts of such a tower located close
to a residential subdivision. There are general complaints that proper notice was not served
and that Town Planning staff did not properly handle the notice received (e.g., the response of
.no comment" was not appropriate, notice should have been placed in an Aurora paper, Council
should have been notified, and the notification area should have been wider).
10. The residents' concerns culminated in the matter being addressed at Council's
regular meeting on April 23, 2013 and at a special Council meeting on April 24, 2013.
11. As part of that special Council meeting, Council instructed staff to seek further
information about pursuing an interlocutory injunction to prevent Bell from activating and using
the cell phone tower until such time as the Town, residents, and Bell can work together to
review options about the tower.
Interlocutory Injunctions
An interlocutory injunction is an order to restrain or require certain action pending the
determination by the Court of a proceeding that is before the Court. It is designed to preserve
the status quo until the trial, or other hearing, can be held.
To obtain an interlocutory injunction, the Town would have to establish each of the following:
(a) . that it has an good case for obtaining relief from the Court after the trial or final
hearing .("arguable case");
(b) that the final relief in question would include injunctive relief ("permanent
injunction");
(c) that if an interlocutory injunction were not granted, the Town would suffer
irreparable harm ("irreparable harm"); and
4
Barristers & Solicitors - - 1 ► Vii 1 O U JdSLLP
(d) that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction the Town seeks
("balance of convenience").
Arguable Case
In order to seek an interlocutory injunction, the Town would first have to commence proceedings
seeking relief, and seeking the interlocutory injunction on an interim basis to preserve the
_Town's position until the matter can be heard on its merit.
As a result, an interlocutory injunction can only be in aid of a claim for more permanent relief — it
is not a freestanding matter, and it is cannot be sought to preserve rights until something
happens in which the Court is not .involved. in this instance, the Town cannot seek an
interlocutory injunction to allow time for the Town, residents and Belli to work together to review
options about the tower.
In the circumstances, it is our opinion that the Town does not have an arguable case to seek
relief after a trial. Essentially, Industry Canada has set up a consultation process that leaves
municipalities powerless. While it does require a consultation process, and prefers that service
providers not ruffle feathers if avoidable, it is clear that municipalities are not given any
substantive role in determining if a tower is to be put in a certain location.
1
We also note that Industry Canada's procedures, and both the Township and Town's protocols
provide a dispute resolution mechanism: Industry Canada will hear and finally determine any
dispute that results in an impasse. Any claim by the Town will likely be met by the objection that
the Town was obliged to bring the dispute to Industry Canada and that it failed to do so. A Court
is likely to rely on that argumeni to rule that any proceedings by the Town are premature.
We also have no doubt that if the Town brought the dispute to Industry Canada, that the final
determination would be against the Town.
There are a few procedural objections that might be identified and there are two substantive
objections to the cell tower. Substantively there are objections to the visual impact of the 60 m
tower and concerns about the safety of a cell tower near residential uses. As we understand it,
the cell tower will transmit about 1% of the permissible level of electromagnetic radiation
permitted under Safety Code 6. As a result, there is no credible basis for a health and safety
objection.
The concerns about visual impact are understandable, but in the context of cell phone towers,
they would not attract any attention from Industry Canada or a judge. The policy framework
5
Barristers & solicitors
WeirFouldsup
provides that cell towers are necessary facilities and need to be located to order to provide
comprehensive service. There are about 21 other cell towers in the Town.. In addition, you have
advised that apparently Industry Canada records show'f or 2 cell towers being installed per
Week in southern Ontario. Bell would also have provided Industry Canada with the required
technical report and justification for the location and height of this tower. As a result, a court is
unlikely to be convinced there is something unacceptable about constructing this particular
tower.
As a result, the most the Town could rely on are procedural irregularities in the consultation
process. However, since there do not appear to be any substantive prohibitions on putting this
tower in this location, it is our opinion that a court would not give much credence to any such
irregularities.
In respect of any procedural irregularities, it is our opinion that none of them rise to a level
sufficient to base a legal proceeding to invalidate what was done. It is undisputed that the
Town's Clerk and Planning Departments received notice of the proposal and of an open house
to discuss it. This would give Bell the ability to argue, convincingly, that if the Town's Council did
not get the opportunity to comment or object to the proposal, this was due entirely to the Town's
own processes, and Bell cannot be saddled with any internal process issues at the Town. In the .
end, whether Bell relied on an absence of response from the Town (after notice of the proposal
was given), or on a specific response (such as that from the Town planner), Bell would be able
to point to there being no objection from the Town, despite notice being given.
Permanent Injunction
Closely related to the first element we considered, there is a need to show that at the trial or
hearing of the main proceeding, the Town would be entitled to seek a permanent order requiring
work to cease on the tower, or even for its removal. In our view, the Town is unlikely to be able
to put forward a claim for a permanent injunction in relation to this tower. Since the complaint is
a procedural one, not a substantive one, then a court would be driven to ordering that the
consultation process be undertaken afresh. Unfortunately, redoing the consultation process
would not result in the cell tower being required to- be moved to a different location because
there does not appear to be a substantive basis on which to argue that it cannot be put there.
As a result, in our opinion, the Town would have great difficulty satisfying a judge hearing a
motion for aninterlocutory injunction that the Town has an arguable case for a permanent
injunction respecting this cell tower.
Barristers & Solicitors
WeirFouldsnp
Irreparable Harm
The Town would also have to satisfy a judge that unless further work on the cell tower is
enjoined that the Town would suffer irreparable harm, that is, harm which cannot be
compensated in damages. In our opinion there is no evidence of irreparable harm in this
circumstance.
The health and safety argument will not be successful, given the emission levels measured
against Safety Code 6. Given the ubiquity of cell towers in Ontario, in our opinion that argument
would go nowhere.
The visual intrusion argument is undercut by the fact the tower has already been built — in our
view it would not be possible to show that there is any harm, relating to visual impact, caused by
making the tower operational compared to having it remain, but be inoperative. Certainly, any
such harm would not rise to the level of irreparable harm.
Balance of Convenience
Essentially this element of the test weighs the impact on some parties of granting an injunction
against the impact on other parties of not granting an injunction. Bell claims there is an area that
is underserved in the absence of this cell tower and it appears to have already invested
substantially all of the costs of putting this tower in place to remedy that deficiency. These
factors would be weighed against the benefits that would accrue to the Town of granting the
injunction. Given the discussion above respecting safety and visual impact, in our opinion, a
court would find that on the facts of this matter, the balance of convenience favours Bell and
accordingly no injunction would be available under this last component of the test.
In addition, the Town could face a claim for damages should it turn out that it obtained an
interlocutory injunction which in the end should not have been granted. It is unclear what
business losses Bell could assert, but there is that risk of exposure for the Town.
Specific Issues and Opinions
1. Does the May 15, 2012 response from a Town Planner prejudice the Town's
position (or act as an estoppel), since this was construed as showing that the Tow_ n had no
objection to the proposed tower?
7
Banisters & Solicitors
V YeirFo1. ldsuP
(a) The response would undoubtedly be used to resist any legal proceedings taken
by the Town. However, the prejudice caused by that letter would not be
materially different from silence in the face of notice having been served on the
Town. In addition, given that the entire exercise is set up to render municipalities
close to powerless on these issues, the harm caused by the letter is mitigated —
had the Town objected, the outcome would most likely have been identical.
2. The lack of notification to the Town about the new August 14, 2012 meeting:
Does this mean that Bell's consultant did not follow the Township protocol in this matter? Is this
enough basis for the Town to request that the use of the tower stop until proper notification is
made, or did the Town Planners "no comment" remove any requirement for further notice?
(a) In our opinion, the structure of the Township's protocol does not require the Town
to receive notice of the open house in August (nor of the prior one in June).
Instead it required that the proposal be circulated to the Town and that Bell
"provide confirmation of this consultation to the Township'. Bell would be able to
point to the notice given to the Clerk and Planning Department as consultation.
There is an argument that more than just the notice ought to have been provided
to the Town, but in our opinion, that argument is unlikely to get very far in a court
Proceeding.
3. Did Bell's consultant mislead the Township when it stated in its August 20, 2012
letter that all Township and Town residents within a distance of 250 metres from the tower
location were notified (in accordance with the Township's protocol for notification distance).
(a) It appears that this statement by Bell's consultant was incorrect. On the
Township side notice was given to those 250 metres from the tower location, in
accordance with the Township's protocol for notification distance. On the Town
side, notice was only given to those within 180 metres of the tower location
(being three times the height of the tower),, in accordance with Industry Canada
requirements contained in Industry Canada Guidelines CPC-2-0-03. The Town's
protocol requires notice to be given to residents that are within a radius of 120
metres or three times the tower height, whichever is greater, from the subject
property (not the tower location).
(b) However, it is our opinion that any complaint about a defect in that notice would
have to be raised by a person other than the Town — it would have to be raised
by a resident who did not get notice, but was within 250 metres and therefore
maintains that they ought to have received notice. Nevertheless, given the
Town's own protocol would only require notice within 180 metres, and Industry
Canada's default is 180 metres, it would be very difficult for a resident or the
Town to rely on this as a defect warranting judicial intervention.
M
Barristers & solicitors
WeirFouldsup
4. What are the legal processes and requirements to be followed in order to obtain
an interlocutory injunction in Federal Court?
(a) If the Town had an arguable case for a permanent injunction (as addressed
above) and was able to get over the hurdle of showing irreparable harm, then the
Town would have to give notice to Bell, Industry Canada, and the landowner in
order to minimize any argument about delay. It would then have to issue an
originating process in the Federal Court setting out its claim. Presumably, the
argument would be that Bell was in breach of the conditions of its licence
because of defects in the consultation processes leading to the Township's sign -
off on the tower location.
(b) The Town would then need to prepare a notice of motion for an interlocutory
injunction along with supporting affidavits setting out the events and documents
in question. Once Bell and others had a chance to file responding materials,
there could be cross-examinations on affidavits and then preparation of written
arguments with supporting casebooks.
5. Relatedly, how long would it reasonably take to appear before a Federal Court
judge in this matter and how much would you estimate it to cost?
(a) Given the difficulty in coming up with an arguable case, it would likely take 2 or 3
intense weeks to prepare the necessary materials. However, depending on how
the respondents choose to respond, the motion might not get heard for several
months (also depending on the Court's schedule). Since this is not an emergency
or urgent matter, it would be scheduled later in the docket in a busy court
schedule.
(b) The challenge in this circumstance would be to come up with sufficient grounds
to make the motion credible at all. From what we have seen so far, there is no
basis to proceed.
(c) The costs are difficult to estimate at the outset since the procedures that will be
involved are not definite (cross-examinations, adjournments and so on).
However, the Town would realistically be looking at $50,000 to $100,000 for an
interlocutory injunction, and that does not include paying any award of costs to
the respondents, should the Town be unsuccessful.
6. What common law tests would have to be met by the Town in its arguments in
favour of granting an interlocutory injunction?
(a) The tests are noted earlier in this letter and explained in more detail herein.
Barristers & Solicitors
WeirFouldsnp
7. Is an interlocutory injunction an appropriate remedy in this situation, and what are
the odds of success? What challenges would be faced by the Town in seeking an interlocutory
injunction?
(a) In our view, an interlocutory injunction is not an appropriate remedy in this
situation and the Town would have virtually no chance at success.
(b) In a nutshell, the significant hurdles that would be readily apparent to a judge are:
under the federal regime, Bell can put up towers where it likes; the Town did not
object .to the location; this tower has already been built; the outcome is most
unlikely to be any different if the consultation process was done entirely over
(and impeccably);, and the Town will suffer no objective harm, let alone
irreparable harm.
8. What further action could the Town take to stop the use of the tower by Bell or to
have the tower removed? (For example: An application to some federal tribunal governing
Industry Canada? An application for judicial review of some type? An application to quash the
Township's confirmatory by-law and decision that the Townships protocol was properly met?)
(a) In our opinion, Industry Canada provides Bell with its licence with conditions.One
of those conditions is to follow an appropriate consultation process before
installinga new cell tower. Ultimately, ensuring appropriate community
consultation has been undertaken is not the Township's responsibility, it is Bell's.
As a result, we see no real value in seeking to quash the Township's decision.
(b) The Town could try to the invoke Industry Canada's dispute resolution
mechanism. This would allow all the relevant facts and arguments to be
marshalled, but in a much less expensive manner - and without exposure to
paying court costs to any respondents. The difficulty with beginning this process
is that the tower is already built. In our view, there would be little chance of
success in this forum, similar to the Town's chances in respect of a court
challenge. An Industry Canada challenge might cause Bell to pause, for a time,
the completion of the tower, in an effort by Bell and Industry Canada to
demonstrate their responsiveness to municipal concerns_ However, any pause
would be on the basis that Bell wishes to preserve goodwill and we cannot judge
its eagerness to do so in this circumstance.
As lawyers we enjoy challenging cases, but there' has to be something to work with.
Unfortunately, in our opinion this situation is one where there is no credible basis for the Town
to seek an interlocutory injunction in respect of a cell tower which has already been built.
If you have any further questions, please let us know.
W1
Banisters & Solicitors
WeirFouldsLLp
Yours truly,
WeirFoulds LLP
Bruce H. Engell
BHEQnb
5383888.1
it
E,
Attachment 2
April 29, 2013
His Worship Mayor Geoffrey Dawe
Town of Aurora
100 John West Way, Box 1000
Aurora, Ontario L4G 6.11
Dear Mayor Dawe:
RE: Bell Mobility Inc. ("Bell") Telecommunications Site —Bathurst St., Township of King
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you and Town of Aurora staff on last Thursday's
conference call regarding the issues raised by the Town and your constituents in connection with Bell's
telecommunications tower, located in the Township of King at 14820 Bathurst St. The tower site was
constructed to meet customer demand for improved wireless coverage in the area and will serve the
thousands who live in and commute to and through the area. The site location is optimal for providing this
improved wireless services and will allow for future co -location with other wireless companies. The height of
the tower is required to meet the coverage objectives of the Bell Network.
Since this site is located. within the Township of King, Industry Canada requires that Bell consult with it in
accordance with CPC-2-M3 and obtain land use concurrence. As part of the municipal consultation process
with the Township of King, Bell submitted a site selection report with supporting information to justify the
need for installing the tower at this location. The notice provided to the Town of Aurora was based on the
information documented in this report. I have attached a copy of the justification report for your reference.
As you can see, the report contained a photo rendering of the appearance of the tower and documented
Bell's investigations into the possibility of collocating Bell's telecommunications equipment on an existing
tower within the area.
The closest tower identified as a possible collocation site is 2.2 kilometres away from the tower. After
considering various technical issues, it was determined that co -location at this alternate site would not meet
Bell's coverage objectives. Bell's review also determined that there were no other feasible structures in the
area for Bell to consider as a possible co -locate option. In keeping with Township of King and Town of
Aurora objectives to reduce the number of towers, the Bell installation was designed with collocation in
mind, and will accommodate another carrier in the future.
With respect to the Town's request for a more visually appealing structure, we would like to point out that
the installed structure is a shrouded tripole. Unlike a typical lattice design tower, the antennas are installed
behind fibreglass panels. The cabling that connects to the ground mounted equipment shelter is contained
within the frame of the tower and is invisible from the outside. It has been our experience that a tripole
structure is widely considered by municipal officials as the most suitable type of structure for deployment in
urban settings. Based on the location and its surrounding land uses, Bell believes this to be the most
1
appropriate type of structure when compared to either lattice or monopole designs since it permits future
collocation without adding to the visual clutter normally associated with collocation.
The triple support design also allows the skyline to be viewed through the tower's legs which does not occur
with a monopole structure. Bell acknowledges the Town's suggestion of a flag pole design as an alternative
option, however at 60 metres in height, the diameter of a flagpole would be far more noticeable on the
landscape than the current design. In addition a flag that is appropriately sized for a large pole would attract,
rather than deflect, attention and create significant noise impacts.
As discussed on our conference call, Bell confirms that it is open to providing additional landscaping to
mitigate the view of the tower base and equipment shelter, subject to obtaining the necessary permission
from the owner of the lands. Although there was only one concern raised about telecommunications and
health during the public consultation, we would be happy to provide further information to staff or residents
regarding the stringent federal health and safety requirements that Bell is required to comply with as a
condition of licence. In this regard, I confirm that the tower is in full compliance with Heath Canada's Safety
Code 6 directive with significant room to spare.
Your feedback on the public consultation process has been valuable and as we have committed to you, we
will be reviewing Bell's processes and templates to ensure that these types of situations do not occur in the
future. Likewise we feel that it is important for the Town to act within the appropriate timelines and to
comment appropriately on information received from wireless carriers with respect to projects in
neighbouring jurisdictions. We understand that the Town will be considering changes to its own internal
procedures and look forward to working with the Town in the future to ensure that residents of Aurora have
unimpeded access to wireless services.
I trust that this letter addresses all of your concerns raised in last week's conference call. I would be happy
to further discuss any of the points addressed in this letter at your convenience. I can be reached at 905-
282-2778 or via email at matthew.milligan@bell.ca
Yours Truly,
Bell Mobility Inc.
Matthew Milligan
cc: Keith Ranney, Director, Infrastructure Management
Michel Dagenais, Vice President, Access Network Engineering
Serge Bertuzzo, Director, Regulatory Affairs
Noel Peacock, Senior Legal Counsel
Stephen D'Agostino, Thomson Rogers
2
Attachment 3
I PROLIRFERATE
CONSULT
February 13, 2012
Township of King
Planning Department
2075 King Road
King City, Ontario L7B 1A1
Attention: Mr. Stephen Kitchen, Director of Planning
FEB 13 2012
TOWNSHIP OF KING
RE: Request for Municipal Concurrence
Proposed Bell Canada Wireless Communication Installation
14820 Bathurst Street, King, Ontario
Bell Files W2354
Dear Mr. Kulyk:
On behalf of Bell Canada, please find enclosed this application for municipal concurrence for a
proposed new wireless telecommunication installation in the Township of King.
Purpose
(� Bell Canada ("Bell") constantly strives to improve coverage and network quality for the sake of
j their clients. This document provides information on the selection of the proposed wireless
communication installation at 14820 Bathurst Street, and the required public consultation
process.
Network Requirements and Site Selection
The selection of a wireless communications site works similarly to fitting a piece into a puzzle.
In this case, the puzzle is a complex radio network, situated in a rural setting. Client demand,
radio frequency engineering principles, local topography and land use opportunities working in
concert with one another direct the geography of our sites.
In order to'achieve a reliable wireless network, carriers must providea seamless transmission
signal to alleviate any gaps in coverage. Gaps in coverage are responsible for dropped calls, and
unavailable data service to clients. Bell would utilize the proposed site location in order to
provide high quality network signal for its 3.5G high-speed wireless voice and data network.
In the recent past, due to subscriber feedback, our Network Planning and Engineering
departments have become aware of coverage deficiencies in the area of subject property.
Proposed Site Location
Bell's proposed site location is an agricultural property. The proposed wireless communication
facility will be located approximately 25 metres from Bathurst Street (please see the enclosed
1 plan survey for additional details). The installation will be comprised of a 60-metre tri-pole style
21 A Price Street 416:637 8380 (Toronto) j www.Proliferategroup.wm
Toronto, Ontario f 778.371 1516 (Vancouver) I Appendix A
M4W IZl Canada 416.981.7248 (facsimile
MIPRLTINGOLIFERATEGROUPCONSUINC
tower and a walk-in equipment cabinet at the base within a secured compound. Lighting and
colouring will be in accordance with Transport Canada and NAV Canada regulations for
installations of this type.
Access to the installation will be via an existing driveway onto Bathurst Street. The location of
the proposed driveway is indicated on the included plan survey.
The property's legal description is Part of the Lot 18, Concession 2, Township of King, Regional
Municipality of York.
The location of the proposed site is shown on the aerial photo, below.
The geographic coordinates for the site are as follows;
NAD83 N43059' 07.5", W79`29' 34.0"
Description of Proposed System
Bell proposes to implement a 60-metre tri-pole style tower communication structure. The radio
equipment cabinets for the proposed installation would occupy a cast reinforced concrete slab
area of approximately 4.4 square metres in size. The height and colour of the tower will be in
21A Price Street 416.637 8380 (Toronto(
Toronto, Ontario 778.371.1516 (Vancouver(
M4W 1Z1 Canada 416.981.7248 (focsimile(
www. prol iferateg roup.corn
Hft I
0
I
Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Antenna Installation
Bell Canada
14820 Bathurst Street, King, Ontario
Additional Photo -Simulations of Proposed Installation
Simulation of proposed installation, looking south
Simulation of proposed installation, looking north
M
1 PRtOLIFFERATE
CONSU
Surrounding wireless communication facilities and Request for co -location
The site as proposed will achieve the necessary engineering coverage objectives for our
network. Below is a map depicting the location of the nearest existing telecommunication
installation:
Bell: dark blue
Rogers: red
Telus: green
Wind: light blue
The closest existing non -Bell installation is located 2.2 kilometres south of the proposed location
(Rogers Communication's site code C0734). This is a watertower installation. It is located too far
from the service target area to be a viable alternative to a new installation. There are no existing
structures in the vicinity that are of sufficient height to satisfy network engineering
requirements. Therefore, a new installation is required.
Radio Frequency Plots
The following RF plots depict the current level of service and the proposed level of service:
21 A Price Street 416.637 8380 (Toronto) www.proliferategroup.com
Toronto, Ontario 778.371.1516 (Vancouver)
M4W 1Z1 Canada 416.981 7248 (facsimile)
0
CONSULTING GROUP INC
Current level of service.
This indicates that the area around the proposed installation is deficient in the provided service
levels. This can result in slow wireless data speeds and dropped calls.
The proposed installation will satisfy network engineering requirements and will improve
coverage and capacity in the service target area.
Distance to Adjacent Structures
21 A Ni.-
Toronto, O
M4W I Z
IN
MIPRLTINGOLIFERATE
GROUP INC.
CONSU
There are no existing structures on the property. The nearest existing structure is a residence
approximately 135 metres to the east northeast.
Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance
Bell attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will comply with
Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits, as may be amended from time to time, for the protection
of the general public including any combined effects of additional carrier co -locations and
nearby installations within the local radio environment. For more Information on Safety Code 6,
please visit the following Health Canada site: www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation.
Control of Public Access
The site facility would include a locked, alarmed and electronically monitored mechanical
equipment cabinet, which would be situated within a fenced compound.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
Bell attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will comply with
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as this facility is exempt from assessment.
Transport Canada's Aeronautical Obstruction Marking Requirements
Bell attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will comply with
Transport Canada / NAV Canada aeronautical safety requirements.
The structure lighting system to be used for this installation will include upward facing
directional baffles as part of the lighting module that will direct light upward to air traffic and
away from the view of those residents, pedestrians and motorists on the ground.
For additional detailed information, please consult Transport Canada at:
www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/Standards/Sta ndard621.htm
Transport Canada has been consulted with and indicated that no special lighting or painting is
required.
Engineering Practices
Bell attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will be
constructed in compliance with the National Building Code of Canada and comply with good
engineering practices including structural adequacy.
Local Land Use Requirements
Wireless facilities are exclusively regulated by the Federal Government and as a result are not
required to obtain municipal permits of any kind,
21A Price Street 416.637 8380 (Toronto) www proliferategroop.com
Toronto, Ontario I 778.371. 1516 (Vancouver) j
M4W 1Z1 Canada 416.981.7248 (facsimile)
MIPROLTINGUKRATE
CONSUGROUP INC.
The Township of King has adopted a telecommunication tower protocol. Accordingly, Bell will be
following this protocol for public consultation.
Industry Canada's Spectrum Management
Please be advised that the approval of this site and its design is under the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Government of Canada through Industry Canada. Bell Canada is participating in this
consultation in accordance with Industry Canada's guidelines CPC-2—M3.
Industry Canada
Toronto District Office
Room 909, 9th Floor
55 St. Clair Avenue East
Toronto, Ont. M4T SM2
Telephone: 416-973-8215
Fax:416-954-3553
Email: spectrum.toronto@ic.gc.ca
Public consultation
In accordance with the Township of King telecommunication tower protocol, a public
consultation package will be provided to all Township landowners within a distance of 250
\ / metres from the proposed installation. A copy of this application package will also be provided
/ to Aurora authorities.
The Township's protocol includes a requirement for a public information session, and that this
requirement can be waived at the discretion of the Director of Planning.
We estimate that only approximately 4 households are located within King Township are within
the notification radius. In our opinion, effective and thorough public consultation for this
proposed installation can be achieved by the combination of a mail -out, a sign posted on the
property and a newspaper ad placed in a local newspaper. Comments from the public could be
solicited in writing by mail or email, and a copy of each, with Bell's response, could be provided
to the municipality. In our opinion, an information session would not be necessary to ensure the
public has an opportunity to learn about the proposed installation and provide comment.
Accordingly, we request a waiver from this requirement.
Contact Information
As a representative of Bell Canada, you can contact me at the following:
Bell Canada
c/o Sean Galbraith
Municipal Affairs Manager
Proliferate Consulting Group, Inc.
21 Price Street
( t Toronto, ON M4W 1Z1
21A Price Street 416.637 8380 (Toronto) www.proiiferategroup.com
Toronto, Ontario 778.371 1516 (Vancouver)
M4W IZl Conodo 416,981 7248 (facsimifel Bdl
O
RIPRLTINGOLIFC-RATE GROUP INC.
CONSU
(647) 728-7785 (work)
(416) 732-5069 (cell - better)
or via email at sgalbratth@proliferategroup.com
Conclusion
Bell Canada feels that the proposed site is well situated to provide and improve wireless data
services in the targeted area. The proposed site has been situated and designed to have
minimal impact on surrounding land uses. We look forward to working with you to improve
telecommunication services in the community.
Best regards,
Sean Galbraith, MCIP, RPP
Municipal Affairs Manager
Proliferate Consulting Group, Inc. (Agents for Bell Canada)
21A Price Street ( 416.637 8380 (Toronto) ` www.prolifeiategroup.com
Toronto, Ontario 778.371.1516 (Vancouver! BdI
M4W 1Z1 Canada 416.981,7248 (facsimile) f