HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-02 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdf
City of Maple Ridge
Note: If required, there will be a 15-minute break at 3:00 p.m.
Chair: Acting Mayor
1. DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS – (10 minutes each)
1:00 p.m.
1.1 Golden Ears Winter Club Presentation
• Jeff Cawker, President, Board of Directors
2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council
Agenda:
1101 2015-062-AL, 20232 Powell Avenue, Non-Farm Use Application
Staff report dated November 2, 2015 recommending that Non-Farm Use
Application No. 2015-062-AL to allow a family daycare be forwarded to the
Agricultural Land Commission.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
November 2, 2015
1:00 p.m.
Council Chamber
Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review of issues. No voting
takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more
information or clarification before proceeding to Council. The meeting is live
streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge.
Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications may be permitted
to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
November 2, 2015
Page 2 of 3
1102 2015-181-RZ, 12117 Laity Street, RS-1 to R-1
Staff report dated November 2, 2015 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7158-2015 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit a subdivision of
approximately six lots be given second reading and be forwarded to Public
Hearing.
1103 Fraser Valley Intermunicipal Business Licence Program
Staff report dated November 2, 2015 recommending that the continuance of
the Fraser Valley Intermunicipal Business Licence on a permanent basis be
approved and that Maple Ridge Intermunicipal Business Licence Scheme
Amending Bylaw No. 7175-2015 be given first, second and third reading.
3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police)
1131 Proposed Cottonwood Cell Tower – Support For Next Steps
Staff report dated November 2, 2015 recommending that the construction
and operation of a telecommunications tower at 11400 Cottonwood Drive by
SBA Inc. be supported, that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the
Licence of Occupation agreement and that SBA be required to complete
stipulated conditions prior to undertaking construction.
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES
1151
5. CORRESPONDENCE
1171
6. OTHER ISSUES
1181
Committee of the Whole Agenda
November 2, 2015
Page 3 of 3
7. ADJOURNMENT
8. COMMUNITY FORUM
Checked by:________________ Date: ________________
COMMUNITY FORUM
The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to ask questions of
Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing
bylaws that have not yet reached conclusion.
Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff
members.
Each person will be permitted 2 minutes to speak or ask questions (a second
opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the
podium). Questions must be directed to the Chair of the meeting and not to the
individual members of Council. The total time for this Forum is limited to 15
minutes.
If a question cannot be answered, the speaker will be advised when and how a
response will be given.
Other opportunities are available to address Council including public hearings and
delegations. The public may also make their views known to Council by writing or
via email and by attending open houses, workshops and information meetings.
Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way to have a voice in the future
of this community.
For more information on these opportunities contact:
Clerk’s Department at 604-463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca
Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: November 2, 2015
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-062-AL
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Non-Farm Use Application
20232 Powell Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This non-farm use application pertains to a proposed neighbourhood daycare for the property at
20232 Powell Avenue. The subject property is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. The proposed
use is permitted outright in the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Zone in the Zoning Bylaw, but
exceeds the maximum number of children permitted under Agricultural Land Commission
Regulations.
This report will outline the implications of permitting this use on the subject property, which could
include requirements such as structural retrofits for code compliance. In general, however, this
proposal is supportable as this use complies with the Zoning Bylaw. For this reason, the
recommendation is to forward the application to the Agricultural Land Commission for their approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
That non-farm use application # 2015-062-AL be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Reaghan L Gasparre
Owner: Francesco Gasparre & Reaghan L Gasparre
Legal Description: Lot 69, District Lot 263, Plan: NWP38722
OCP :
Existing: Agricultural
Proposed: No Change
Zoning:
Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: 3 properties, rural residential use
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation Agricultural
South: Use: 8 properties, urban residential use
Zone: RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
Designation: Urban Residential
1101
- 2 -
East: Use: 2 properties, rural residential use
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation: Agricultural
West: Use: Farm and rural residential use
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation: Agricultural
Existing Use of Property: Rural Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Rural Residential with daycare business as an
accessory use
Site Area: 0.883 hectares
Access: Powell Avenue
Servicing: Municipal Sewer and Water connection
b) Project Description:
This application is for permission for a neighbourhood daycare on the subject property. Subject to
compliance with specific regulations prescribed in the bylaw, the use is permitted under current
zoning up to a maximum of 15 children in care. However, the property is within the Agricultural Land
Reserve and therefore subject to the regulations of the Agricultural Land Commission. These
provincial regulations have an established maximum of 8 children in care.
The proposed neighbourhood daycare will be within the home and the applicant is not proposing
changes to the existing building or property beyond those required for code compliance. The subject
property is 0.883 hectares (2.2 acres) and has a driveway that can accommodate parking during
pickup and drop off times.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan
Child care facilities are valued for the role they provide in the community, as recognized in Policy 4-
36 of the Official Community Plan, as follows:
Maple Ridge supports the establishment of child-care facilities in Residential, Institutional,
Commercial, and Industrial land use designations subject to compliance with District bylaws
and regulations.
Zoning Bylaw
As small scale child-care facilities are generally compatible with residential uses, the Zoning Bylaw
recognizes and permits 2 categories of child care facilities, as follows:
Family Day Care, which means the provision of care of children in a home environment, licensed
for this use in accordance with the Community Care and Assisting Living Act, and includes Group
Daycare, Out of School Care, Pre-School, Emergency Care and Child Minding, as defined under
the Child Care Licensing Regulation, not to exceed a maximum of 8 children in care.
and
- 3 -
Neighbourhood Daycare, which means an establishment for the provision of care and
supervision of a maximum of 15 children in a home environment, licensed for use in accordance
with the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, and includes Group Daycare, Out of School
Care, Pre-School, Emergency Care and Childminding, as defined under the Child-Care Licensing
Regulation.
d) Interdepartmental Issues:
Licences, Permits and Bylaws. This department issues business licenses for Family and for
Neighbourhood Daycares. The issuance of a license for a Family Daycare is conditional upon
approval of the Fire Department and Fraser Health. The issuance of a license for a Neighbourhood
Daycare is conditional upon compliance with BC Building Code requirements for assembly use.
Business licence requirements include professional assurances confirming that the structure is safe
for the use intended based on structural and electrical inspections. In addition, approvals from the
Fire Department and Fraser Health are required.
e) Intergovernmental Issues:
Daycare uses and the subject property are under the jurisdiction of senior agencies, whose role for
this purpose may be summarized as follows:
Fraser Health; in addition to being an integral part of the approvals and licensing process, Fraser
Health prescribes a complement of number of employees to children in care, based on the children’s
ages.
Provincial Building and Safety Standards Branch: This provincial agency has established building
requirements for daycare use. These requirements are included in the BC Building Code and are
adhered to by the building permit process and inspection services of the Building Department.
Ministry of Health: This agency administers the Community Care and Facilities Act. Section 20 of the
Act states that licensed child care facilities that accommodate no more than 8 children shall not be
required to conform to any BC Building Code requirements beyond those that apply to a single family
dwelling. Therefore, a neighbhourhood daycare of up to 15 children in care must comply with BC
Building Code requirements for assembly use.
Agricultural Land Commission: The subject property is within the Agricultural Land Reserve and
therefore subject to the requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission. Commission Policy #7
establishes regulations around home occupation use in the Agricultural Land Reserve, which does
not require that the parcel has ‘farm’ classification. Pertinent excerpts from this policy are as
follows:
Home occupation use may be more specifically defined and regulated in a local government
bylaw. For Commission purposes a home occupation use does not include the following
facilities, where more than 8 persons or clients are served or accommodated at one time:
On this basis, as the current proposal exceeds this maximum, this non-farm use application and
Commission approval is a requirement of this use being permitted on the subject property.
- 4 -
f) Citizen/Customer Implications:
As noted, daycare facilities provide an essential service in the community, and are needed near
residential neighbourhoods. For this reason, this application is supportable.
g) Alternatives:
Based on the findings of this report, the recommendation is to forward this application to the
Commission for final approval. However, Council has the option to deny this application from
proceeding further, and it would therefore this matter would be be considered closed.
CONCLUSION:
This non-farm use application is for a permitted use within the Zoning Bylaw under the existing
zoning of the subject property. The use – a child care facility – is permitted under the regulations of
the Agricultural Land Commission, However, the size of this proposed facility exceeds the maximum
permitted under Commission regulations, and therefore, the Commission’s approval is required prior
to allowing this proposal to proceed further. On this basis, the recommendation is to forward the
application to the Commission for their approval.
“Original signed by Diana Hall”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Diana Hall, M.A, MCIP, RPP
Planner 2
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_____________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
Acting Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Ortho Photo
Appendix C – Letter from applicant
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Mar 13, 2015 FILE: 2015-062-AL BY: PC
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
12420213
1248120283 2029412491 20383/4052037112464 204062025112476 202951246920
20205
1202871248920225
12480
124
372024312433
1 2467
12471
12440
12469
1247020295202752026312490
12468
20383451
53821247420232112450 120293124552029912531
12498 203702026012606
203772022012451
112486
20
2
3
5 202021246612518
2024012024712484
12513
9012494
124
437 202692027720274425
12555
12426/28 20291124B AVE.202B ST.POWELL AVE.
.
.202 ST.1
2
5
AVE
.202A ST.203 ST.POW
125 AVE
125 AVE.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,000
20232 POWELL AVENUE
APPENDIX A
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Mar 13, 2015 FILE: 2015-062-AL BY: PC
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
12420213
1248120283 2029412491 20383/4052037112464 204062025112476 202951246920
20205
1202871248920225
12480
124
372024312433
1 2467
12471
12440
12469
1247020295202752026312490
12468
20383451
53821247420232112450 120293124552029912531
12498 203702026012606
203772022012451
112486
20
2
3
5 202021246612518
2024012024712484
12513
9012494
124
437 202692027720274425
12555
12426/28 20291124B AVE.202B ST.POWELL AVE.
.
.202 ST.1
2
5
AVE
.202A ST.203 ST.POW
125 AVE
125 AVE.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
District of Maple Ridge´
Scale: 1:2,000
20232 POWELL AVENUE(2011 photography image)
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
- 1 -
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: November 2, 2015
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-181-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Second Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7158-2015
12117 Laity Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 12117 Laity Street, from
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District), to permit a future subdivision of
approximately six lots. Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7158-2015 on July
28, 2015. The minimum lot size for the current RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone is 668 m2,
and the minimum lot size for the proposed R-1 (Residential District) zone is 371 m². This application
is in compliance with the OCP. Pursuant with Council direction, information regarding Community
Amenity Contributions is included in this report, and an option for including an additional
recommendation has been provided for Council’s consideration.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1)That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7158-2015 be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public
Hearing;
2)That Council require, as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer to pay to the City an
amount that equals 5% of the market value of the land, as determined by an independent
appraisal, in lieu of parkland dedication in accordance with Section 941 of the Local
Government Act; and,
3)That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading:
i)Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure;
ii)Road dedication as required;
iii)Removal of existing building; and
iv)In addition to the site profile, a disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional
Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage ta nks on the
subject property. If so, a Stage 1 Site Investigation Report is required to ensure that t he
subject property is not a contaminated site.
1102
- 2 -
DISCUSSION:
1) Background Context:
Applicant: Jonathan Craig
Owner: Wade Gienow
Legal Description: Parcel “E” (Reference Plan 3460) District Lot 242 Group 1
Except: The North 180 Ft., New Westminster District
OCP:
Existing: Urban Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Proposed: R-1 (Residential District)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Church
Zone: P-4 (Place of Worship)
Designation: Institutional
South: Use: Vacant (Fortis Right-of-Way)
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
East: Use: Residential; Lions Park
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential; Park
West: Use: Residential
Zone: RG (Group Housing Zone)
Designation: Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 0.33 Ha (0.8 acres)
Access: Laity Street and 212 Street
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
Companion Applications: 2015-181-SD
2) Project Description:
The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property, located at 12117 Laity Street, from RS-1
(One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit future subdivision into six single
family residential lots not less than 371 m² (3,994 ft²) (see Appendix D). The subject property is
bound by St. Paul’s Lutheran Church to the north, single family residential and Lions Park to the east,
a vacant lot owned by FortisBC Energy Inc. with a Fortis Gas Right-of-Way to the south and
townhomes to the west (see Appendix A). The subject property is flat with some sparse vegetation
located throughout the site. Three of the lots will be accessed from Laity Street, while the other
three lots will be accessed from 212 Street. It is noted that the proposed lot sizes are significantly
larger than the minimum R-1 (Residential District) requirements. The larger lot size of 530-540 m²
(5,705-5,813 ft²) will ensure compatibility with the existing lot sizes in the surrounding
neighbourhood.
- 3 -
3) Planning Analysis:
i) Official Community Plan:
The OCP designates the property Urban Residential, and is subject to the Major Corridor
infill policies of the OCP. These policies require that development be compatible with the
surrounding neighbourhood, with particular attention given to site design setbacks and lot
configuration with the existing pattern of development in the area. The proposed rezoning
to R-1 (Residential District) is in conformance with the Urban Residential designation and
infill policies. In order to fit the surrounding neighbourhood context, the lots exceed the
minimum lot size.
ii) Zoning Bylaw:
The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) (see Appendix C) to permit future subdivision into
approximately six single family residential lots (see Appendix D). The minimum lot size for
the current RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone is 668 m² (7190 ft²), and the
minimum lot size for the proposed R-1 (Residential District) zone is 371 m² (3994 ft²).
iii) Development Permits:
A Form and Character Development Permit is not required for this single family residential
development.
iv) Advisory Design Panel:
A Form and Character Development Permit is not required and therefore this application
does not need to be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel.
v) Development Information Meeting:
A Development Information Meeting was held at the Maple Ridge Library on October 19,
2015. Five people attended the meeting. A summary of the main comments and
discussions with the attendees was provided by the applicant and include the following
main points:
Concern that the homes would be situated too close to Laity Street.
Concern that Laity Street is too busy for an additional three driveways.
Concern that the size of the lots and massing will not fit in with the surrounding
neighbourhood.
The following are provided in response to the issues raised by the public:
Road dedication will remove approximately 3 m of frontage from Laity Street;
as well there is consideration of situating the homes further back to allow more
off-street parking and to create more distance between the street and homes.
The subject property is within a park zone, so speed limits are reduced in this
area.
The current proposal indicates that lot sizes will be considerably larger than the
minimum requirements for the R-1 (Residential District) zone. As well, it is the
developer’s intention to enhance the neighbourhood with a style and massing
that fits the surrounding area.
- 4 -
vi) Parkland Requirement:
As there are more than two additional lots proposed to be created, the developer will be
required to comply with the park dedication requirements of Section 941 of the Local
Government Act prior to subdivision approval.
For this project, there is no suitable land for park dedication on the subject property and it
is therefore recommended that Council require the developer to pay to the City an amount
that equals the market value of 5% of the land required for parkland purposes. The
amount payable to the City in lieu of park dedication must be derived by an independent
appraisal at the developer’s expense. Council consideration of the cash-in-lieu amount will
be the subject of a future Council report.
vii) On October 19, 2015 Council passed a number of resolutions pertaining to the
establishment of a Citywide Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) program. Options for
dealing with in-stream applications were discussed and staff were directed to include
information on the proposed CAC program in future staff development reports. It is noted
that the Resolutions passed at the Council Workshop can be used as a guide for
determining CAC contributions, in the interim period while the CAC OCP amending Bylaw is
being considered.
As this is the first application to be considered by Council since the CAC discussion
occurred, Council may wish to include the following term in Recommendation 3).
That a voluntary Community Amenity Contribution be provided in keeping with the direction
given by Council with regard to amenities.
Should Council elect to include the above noted term in the Recommendation, staff will
include this item as a Recommendation in all subsequent reports while the CAC OCP
Amending Bylaw is being considered.
4) Environmental Implications:
The subject property is located within the Fraser River Escarpment area, where stormwater must be
directed to Municipal storm sewer, as per Council Policy 6.23 - Control of Surficial and Groundwater
Discharge in the Area Bounded by 207 Street, 124 Avenue, 224 Street and the Crest of the Fraser
River Escarpment.
5) Traffic Impact:
As the subject property is located within 800 metres of the Lougheed Highway, a referral has been
sent to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and granted Preliminary Approval on
September 1, 2015, for one year, pursuant to section 52(3)(a) of the Transportation Act. Ministry
approval of the Zone Amending Bylaw will be required as a condition of final reading.
- 5 -
6) Interdepartmental Implications:
i) Engineering Department:
A Rezoning Servicing Agreement is not required for this rezoning application, as there are
no works or services required for the rezoning. All deficient services will be provided
through a Subdivision Servicing Agreement at the time of subdivision.
7) School District No. 42 Comments:
The School District has noted that the subject properties fall within the Glenwood Elementary and
Westview Secondary school catchments. Actual numbers for 2013 indicate that Glenwood
Elementary is at 79% utilization, with 289 students. In terms of secondary school enrollment
capacity, actual numbers for 2013 indicate that Westview Secondary is at 63% utilization, with 768
students. Therefore, there is available elementary and secondary school capacity for the proposed
development.
CONCLUSION:
As this application is in compliance with the OCP, it is recommended that second reading be given to
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7158-2015, and that application 2015-181-RZ be forwarded to Public
Hearing.
It is further recommended that Council require, as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer
to pay to the City an amount that equals 5% of the market value of the land, as determined by an
independent appraisal, in lieu of parkland dedication.
“Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski” for
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Adam Rieu
Planning Technician
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
Acting Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Ortho Map
Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7158-2015
Appendix D – Proposed Subdivision Plan
DATE: Jul 7, 2015
2015-181-RZ
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD LAITY ST212 STWICKLUND AVE
121 Ave
´
Scale: 1:2,500
12117 Laity St
Legend
\\Wetlands
GPS Creek Centrelines
Streams & Rivers (Topographic)
Feature Type
Indefinite Creek Centreline
Ditch Centreline
River Centreline
Rivers & Lakes (Topographic)
Feature Type
Canal
Flooded Land
Lake/Reservoir
Marsh
River
APPENDIX A
DATE: Jul 7, 2015
2015-181-RZ
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD LAITY ST212 STWICKLUND AVE
121 Ave
City of Maple Ridge´
Scale: 1:2,500
12117 Laity St
Legend
\\Wetlands
GPS Creek Centrelines
Streams & Rivers (Topographic)
Feature Type
Indefinite Creek Centreline
Ditch Centreline
River Centreline
Rivers & Lakes (Topographic)
Feature Type
Canal
Flooded Land
Lake/Reservoir
Marsh
River
(2011 photography image)
APPENDIX B
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7158-2015
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as
amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7158-2015."
2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Parcel “E” (Reference Plan 3460) District Lot 242 Group 1 Except: The North 180
feet, New Westminster District
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1640 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to R-1 (Residential District).
3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the 28th day of July, 2015.
READ a second time the day of , 20
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20
READ a third time the day of , 20
APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this day of
, 20
ADOPTED the day of , 20
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX C
211522116621161211782119012090
12098 2123112089
12025
12161 21295120391204712022 21322213281202821334
2114221149211602117021175211932120112073
12081
12171
12062
12070
12086
12186
120232129221312
12010211502115321167211752117821188211891202012037
12145
12156 213012130921321120591 2 0 3 221151211552118521190/92211991205021221 12061
12117
12020
12032
12044
12031 2131421311213231203621145211442115421158211652116121175211912119512069 2121121196/982120712116 212972130012007
12011
12015
12018 213192114712038
1207021210 12101 21282212901201321299 1206321146211492117012101-53
2120021220212412123012047 12050
12056
12128
12138
213181205521328211462118821198212002124012196
12014
120261205121320 21327WICKLUND AVE.
122 AVE.McINTYRE CT.212 ST.McINTYRE CT.
121 AVE.LAITY ST.CAMPBELL AVE.
P 15470
293
10
156 155
297
2
1
*LMP 23192P 62355
130
P 59 0 03
B
BCP 161921
2 1114P 70 7 21
22 2
25 6P 4667223 3
310
P 47383
6
308
P 53420 P 46290P 47383 NWS 1462P 15078
5
304
P 14112
358
303
300
P 47517
EP1 62 8 5
1
66LMP 413381
28 7P 601004
22 0 22 1P 56 8 96
P 5798025 3
22 4
10 9
309
126
154
298
357
Rem N 180' E
4
P 8790
360
of 2
A
BCP 303
2
4
3
18 6
25 9
25 5 Rem 323 8Rem 4P 56 8 96
292
NWS 336
11
5
295
301
181
3
Rem 1
3
3
P 74 5 04P 1468667P 32 5 05
23423525 7 25 2
P 74 9 9of 3P 36 5 19
P 56 8 96
P 79726
2
120
305
2
122
Rem E
359
P 378892
2
1
2
W 100'25 8P 53420
P 19872
157
294 P 48094306
296
P 77954
P 53420
2
6
124 P 3460125
C
D P 9327PARKRem 2
23 1
P 56 8 96
23 7
23 0
25 1
25 4
158
1
4
175
119110
302
P 53420
182
Rem 1
Rem N 1 /2
P 47 0 1
LMP 57 683
P 57 9 80
68
22 9
22 3
LMP 11122 PL.
(EP 47384)
P 48094
121
1
P 58583
P 53420
299
P 47383
P 48995
P 47383
E
2
of S 1 /2
A
P 74 9 9
Rem 2
23 2
23622 5
RW 18394
EP 53421LMP 39636P 62150EP 53421 LMP 38963LMP 5769
LMP 39238LMP 38783 LMP 39238RW 18394
LAITY ST.W ICK LUN D AV E .
´
SCALE 1:2 ,0 00
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From:
To:
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
R-1 (Residential District)
7158-20151640
APPENDIX D
Page 1 of 3
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: November 2, 2015
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW
SUBJECT: Fraser Valley Intermunicipal Business Licence Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On January 1, 2013, nine Fraser Valley municipalities implemented a one year Intermunicipal Business
Licence (IMBL) Pilot Project. The participating municipalities included the Township of Langley, City of
Langley, City of Abbotsford, City of Surrey, City of Maple Ridge, City of Pitt Meadows, District of Mission,
City of Chilliwack and the District of Hope. Maple Ridge took a leadership role in implementing the IMBL
project.
During the two year pilot program, the IMBL Committee worked closely with the Province’s Small Business
and Red Tape Reduction Branch to ensure the successful development of an Intermunicipal Business
Licence Program taking into consideration the addition of other municipalities to the program, developing
a more sustainable revenue sharing formula, and expanding the eligible business types. The Ministry has
provided a commendation to Maple Ridge for the work done on this project (appendix II).
With the continuation of the program on a permanent basis, both the Corporation of Delta and the District
of Kent have confirmed their interest in joining the Fraser Valley IMBL program bringing the total number
of participating municipalities to eleven. The committee has also agreed on a new method of revenue
sharing for 2016 which proposes that each participating municipality retains 90% of the IMBL revenues
and redistributes the remainder evenly to the other participating municipalities. The new formula is a
more economical system that will allow for the inclusion of additional municipalities who may wish to join
the program in future. Furthermore, the committee has reviewed the definition of current eligible
business types and are proposing that the existing definition be modified to include other mobile
businesses who may not be directly related to the construction industry however provide similar types of
services.
After further review, the IMBL Committee recommendation is to continue with the Fraser Valley IMBL
Program on a permanent basis. All participating municipalities are bringing forward proposed
amendments to their current Intermunicipal Business Licence Bylaw for their Councils consideration. The
proposed bylaw amendments include changes to remove the provisions identifying the program as a pilot,
adding the Corporation of Delta & the District of Kent to the list of participants, revising the revenue
sharing method to a more sustainable formula, and expanding the definition of “Mobile Business” to
expand the scope of businesses that will be eligible to purchase an IMBL.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1.That approval be given for the Fraser Valley Intermunicipal Business Licence Program to be
continued on a permanent basis; and further
2.That Maple Ridge Intermunicipal Business Licence Scheme Amending Bylaw No. 7175 -2015 be
given first, second and third readings.
1103
Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Prior to the implementation of the Intermunicipal Business Licence Pilot Program, non-resident
(mobile) trade contractor businesses were required to obtain a business licence from their home
municipality in which they were based, as well as purchase a non-resident business licence from
each municipality in which they operated. Under the Intermunicipal Business Licence Program,
the participating municipalities have agreed to allow non-resident (mobile) trade contractor
businesses from within the participating municipalities to operate in their municipality on the
basis of one Intermunicipal Business Licence purchased from their home municipality. The cost
of the IMBL is $250 annually, and each mobile trade business is still required to purchase a
resident business licence from their home municipality. The revenue generated from sales of
Intermunicipal Business Licences is shared among the participating municipalities.
The initial Fraser Valley Intermunicipal Business Licence Pilot Program was adopted for one year
and was set to expire on December 31, 2013. On October 3, 2013 the IMBL Committee
conducted a review of the existing pilot to determine if the Fraser Valley Intermunicipal Business
Licence program was meeting the needs of the municipalities and businesses and whether the
program should be continued. Upon further discussion, it was determined that additional time
was required to allow for a more comprehensive review of the program and therefore, with
participating Councils’ approval, the initial one year pilot program was extended for an additional
two years expiring on December 31, 2015.
During the two year pilot extension, the IMBL Committee has worked closely with the Province’s
Small Business Branch to ensure the successful development of an Intermunicipal Business
Licence Program taking into consideration the addition of other municipalities to the program,
developing a more sustainable revenue sharing formula, and expanding the eligible business
types.
Currently the list of municipalities participating in the Fraser Valley IMBL Program in clude the
Township of Langley, City of Langley, City of Abbotsford, City of Surrey, City of Maple Ridge, City of
Pitt Meadows, District of Mission, City of Chilliwack and the District of Hope. Since that time, both
the Corporation of Delta and the District of Kent have confirmed their interest in joining the
program as it moves forward to a permanent basis.
The revenue sharing formula that was originally implemented for the pilot program calculated the
percentage of revenue distribution based on the non-resident license sales of each participating
municipality at the start of the pilot. While this method initially appeared feasible, as the program
progressed and with additional municipalities expressing interest in joining the program, it was
determined that a more sustainable revenue sharing method was required. The new proposed
method of revenue sharing proposes that each participating municipality retains 90% of the IMBL
revenues and redistributes the remainder evenly.
For the purpose of the pilot project it was agreed that the type of businesses that would be
eligible to purchase an IMBL would be specific to trade contractors or other professionals related
to the construction industry. With the differing regulations surrounding mobile businesses in
each municipality, it was found that all participating municipalities share similar regulations with
regards to trade contractors and therefore it was agreed to use this specific business type for the
pilot project. Upon further review of the types of businesses that may be eligible to purchase an
IMBL, it was determined that expanding the types of businesses beyond the construction industry
was not viable. Local Government bylaws are implemented taking into consideration the specific
needs of each respective community which often differ from one municipality to another.
Broadening the list of eligible business types outside of the construction industry poses concerns
Page 3 of 3
that the bylaws of each participating municipality may be compromised. The Committee did
however recognize that the current definition of a “Mobile Business” could be amended to allow
for additional types of mobile businesses by adding provisions that allow for mobile businesses
that perform maintenance and or repair of land & buildings other than from their ”Premises”. The
proposed new definition expands the list of eligible mobile businesses to those who may not be
directly related to the construction industry however are similar in the types of services provided.
b) Financial Analysis:
The cost of an IMBL is $250 annually, and businesses are still required to purchase a resident
business licence from their home municipality. The revenue generated from the IMBL sales is
distributed among the participating municipalities using a revenue sharing formula. The current
pilot program requires that revenue be distributed between the participating municipalities based
on a percentage derived from the non-resident license sales of each participating municipality at
the start of the pilot. While this formula initially appeared to be adequate for the purpose of the
pilot program, it did not allow for future expansion of the program. The new revenue sharing
formula offers more flexibility and lends itself to support future growth of the program while
maintaining a level of revenue neutrality.
c) Desired Outcome(s):
To obtain Councils approval for the continuance of the Fraser Valley Intermunicipal Business
Licence Program on a permanent basis.
CONCLUSIONS:
The IMBL Committee will continue working closely with the Province’s Small Business Branch to ensure
the ongoing delivery of a successful Intermunicipal Business Licence Program. Consideration will also be
given to the addition of other municipalities into the program, developing a more sustainable re venue
sharing formula, and possibly expanding the eligible business types.
“Original signed by R. MacNair”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: R. MacNair
Manager of Bylaw and Licencing Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
General Manager: Public Works and Development Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
Acting Chief Administrative Officer
RM/jd
Attachments:
Appendix I – Maple Ridge Ticket Intermunicipal Business Licence Scheme Amending
Bylaw No. 7175-2015
APPENDIX I
City of Maple Ridge
Maple Ridge Intermunicipal Business Licence Scheme
Amending Bylaw No. 7175-2015
A bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Intermunicipal Business Licence Scheme Bylaw No. 6957-2012
WHEREAS the Council of The City of Maple Ridge deems it expedient to amend Maple Ridge
Intermunicipal Business Licence Scheme Bylaw No. 6957-2012;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1. This bylaw may be cited as Maple Ridge Intermunicipal Business Licence Scheme
Amending Bylaw No. 7175 -2015
2. Maple Ridge Intermunicipal Business Licence Scheme Bylaw. No. 6957-2012 is
amended as follows:
(a) Part 3, section 3.2 is deleted in its entirety
(b) Part 4 definition “Mobile Business” is amended by deleting the words “that
provides a service or product other than from their Premises” and replacing them
with “or a contractor who performs maintenance and/or repair of land &
buildings from other than their Premises.”
(c) Part 4 definition “Participating Municipality” is amended by adding the words
“Corporation of Delta” before the words “District of Hope” and adding the words
“District of Kent” before the words “City of Langley”
(d) Part 5, number 5.10 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with new number
5.10 as follows:
5.10 The revenue generated from Intermunicipal Business Licence fees
collected by the Participating Municipalities will be distributed by each
Participating Municipality to the other Participating Municipalities as
follows:
a) The revenue generated from Intermunicipal Business Licence
fees collected from January 1 to December 31 inclusive will
be distributed by February 28 of year following the year in
which the fees were collected.
(e) Adding a new Part 6 as follows:
Part 6 Intermunicipal Business Licence Fee Sharing Formula
6.1 The revenue generated from Intermunicipal Business Licence fees is
shared on the following formula:
a) The Principal Municipality is to retain 90% of the fee collected
and the remaining 10% is to be distributed to the remainder
of the Participating Municipalities.
(f) Deleting Schedule A in its entirety
READ A FIRST TIME this ____ day of ______________, 2015.
READ A SECOND TIME this ____ day of ______________, 2015.
READ A THIRD TIME this ____ day of ______________, 2015.
ADOPTED this ____ day of ______________, 2015.
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: November 02, 2015
and Members of Council
FROM: Acting Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW
SUBJECT: Proposed Cottonwood Cell Tower – Support For Next Steps
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City undertook a Request For Proposals (RFP) process last year to identify cell tower sites. The
intention was to use City lands first for cell towers, to promote sharing of the towers with other
service providers, and to gain secondary revenue for the City.
The successful candidate from that RFP evaluation was SBA Inc., a cell tower building and leasing
company. They have agreed to terms to build 2 cell towers, one at the Rock Ridge reservoir site in
Silver Valley, and another at the old Cottonwood landfill site.
Prior to building the towers, SBA had to hold a public consultation process for each site, in
accordance with our Telecommunications Tower Siting Protocol V2. SBA decided to complete the
Rock Ridge consultation process first, which occurred in April of this year and was the subject of a
memo to Committee of the Whole on April 28th. That process was to be followed by one for the
Cottonwood site in September.
The Cottonwood consultation process occurred during August 21st to September 27th. The SBA report
on the Cottonwood project and the consultation process is appended. In summary, the consultation
process:
- notified all residences within 300m radius of the proposed tower site by mail, a total of 436
owners and occupants;
- newspaper advertisements were run in 2 consecutive issues of each newspaper – a total of
4 advertisements -- in the 2 week period prior to the public meeting;
- a public open house meeting was held at Thomas Haney Secondary School September 17th
with 16 members of the public attending.
At the open house, there were 3 representatives from SBA and 2 City staffers in attendance to
engage the public and answer any questions that arose. Attendees could fill out a comment sheet at
the meeting, or submit one later, or write in with questions. The period for public comment, and
response from SBA, began August 21st and ended September 27th.
Of 25 members of the public that responded during the formal consultation process, 17 were in
favour of the project.
Just after the formal consultation process concluded, 10 residents along Cottonwood Drive and 116
Ave. became aware of a proposed cell tower in the area and emailed comments, concerns and
1 1131
objections. The concerns and comments were included into the feedback process, and responses
were provided. Of these, 9 objected to cell towers on grounds of health concerns, aesthetics, and
property value impacts. The central message from most of these folks was they do not want a tower
in the neighbourhood.
The appended report summarizes the public feedback and response from SBA in Section 3, and
Appendix C provides a more thorough summary. Suffice it to say, concerns expressed were legitimate
and the reponses from SBA were appropriate.
From the staff perspective, there is insufficient reasons to cancel the project and any evident
impacts can be managed. Further, the City needs to rely on the guidance of senior government
agencies responsible for protecting public health (ie – Health Canada and the Provincial Medical
Health Officer) and their view at present is that safety codes are adequate for protecting public
health. They have also noted current research evidence does not support any additional concerns
over public health.
Staff are recommending support for the project, as the proposed tower:
- meets Council objectives with respect to promoting use of appropriate City lands and could
prevent other towers from going into the neighbourhood;
- builds in excess capacity to accommodate 3 other carriers;
- is sited a minimum of 100m away from the nearest residences at the east end of 116
Avenue, and is much more distant from residents on 236A St and from those on Cottonwood
Drive;
- the former landfill property is an appropriate location to host such a use;
- the lower half of the tower is screened from view by tree cover; and
- there is support for the project from some residents as there is a phone service deficiency in
the neighbourhood.
The report of the consultation effort and outcome are attached.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.That the construction and operation of a telecommunications tower at the former
Cottonwood landfill property, 11400 Cottonwood Drive, by SBA Inc. be supported;
2.That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the Licence of Occupation agreement
between the City of Maple Ridge and SBA Inc.; and
3.That SBA be required to complete the following prior to undertaking construction of the
tower:
- that the proposed tower be painted a suitable colour to improve background blending;
- that SBA provide a Safety Code 6 impact analysis as tenants are added to the tower;
- that SBA receive support of Industry Canada; and
- that SBA successfully apply for a building permit.
2
BACKGROUND:
An information memo was distributed to Council in February that gave an update on our
telecommunications tower Request for Proposals (RFP) and discussed the outcome of that process.
That memo noted we had come to terms with SBA Inc., a tower building company, to build two cell
towers on City land. One of the tower locations is beside the City water reservoir at Rock Ridge in the
Silver Valley neighbourhood, and the other location is at the old Cottonwood landfill site. Council of
the day felt that it was through the RFP process that we had more local control over siting decisions
given it is City lands and not private property.
The agreement that came out of the RFP process provides for the construction of a 50m monopole
structure at each site, both of which are designed to accommodate not only an anchor tenant but 3
other service providers. It is anticipated the project will reduce the demand for other tower building
sites in residential neighbourhoods and will generate ongoing secondary revenue for the City.
As a critical step in the site review process, SBA was required to undertake public consultation on
the proposals in both neighbourhoods in accordance with our Telecommunications Tower Siting
Protocol V2. SBA completed the public consultation requirements for the Rock Ridge tower site back
in April and Council supported the staff recommendations at the April 28, 2015 Committee of the
Whole meeting1.
For the Cottonwood proposal, property owners/occupants within a 300m radius of the site were
notified of the project by mail beginning on August 21st. Four advertisements were run in the local
newspapers, and a public open house attended by 16 members of the public occurred on
September 17th at the Thomas Haney Secondary School. Additionally, SBA received 17 comment
sheets and several emails. The public consultation period concluded September 27th.
For a description of the consultation process, the public feedback and responses to questions,
please see the attached SBA report on the project.
In summary:
- concerns were expressed about the consultation process
- concerns were expressed about the aesthetic impact of the tower
- concerns were expressed about potential human health impacts of background radio
radiation
- concerns were expressed about impacts on property values
Please see the attached for more detailed review of the specifics of the feedback and the responses
provided by SBA.
1 Recommendations from CoW meeting of April 28, 2015 regarding the Rock Ridge cell tower site:
That the construction and operation of a telecommunications tower at the Rock Ridge property, 13550-240 St., by SBA Inc. be
supported;
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the Licence of Occupation agreement between the City of Maple Ridge and SBA Inc.;
and
That SBA be required to complete the following prior to undertaking construction of the tower:
- receiving support of Industry Canada;
- the satisfactory completion of the Natural Features Development Permit Area; and
- the successful issuance of a building permit.
3
The next steps, to allow SBA to proceed to build and operate the tower, requires a Council resolution
of support for the project. This resolution is to be sent to Industry Canada, the approval authority, so
that SBA may get a radio broadcasting licence. As well, SBA will need to sign the Licence of
Occupation agreement with the City and receive a building permit.
CONCLUSION:
With respect to public concerns, staff feel the proposal, in terms of siting, appearance, and
commitment to monitor background radiation, strikes a balance that meets a variety of objectives
and minimizes undue neighbourhood impacts, while filling in a service gap in cellular network
performance.
In summary:
- the tower is sited on the north-east portion of the landfill a minimum of 100m away from the
nearest residences;
- is located in an isolated portion of the landfill site, away from areas to be rehabilitated and
away from any future park areas;
- is located in a bowl, 12m below the ground elevation of the nearest residences, and as a
consequence, is well-screened on it’s lower half by trees;
- is separated by a fenced public right-of-way from the rural property to the north. The property
to the north is bisected by a major ravine and as a consequence has very limited
development potential;
- the tower will employ a painted monopole design that is much more aesthetically sensitive
than alternative lattice work towers; and
- the tower will require a building permit before it can be completed which should ensure it is
safely constructed.
The proposed tower project had received public objections, but also significant public support. and
has modified characteristics and siting that should minimize any negative impacts. Staff feel the
design characteristics and siting go along way to address neighbourhood concerns and are thus
satisfied with the consultation process and conclusions.
The successful conclusion to the RFP and the construction of the Cottonwood telecommunications
tower will meet a variety of Council objectives. It will signal to the communications industry that
Council is interested in finding a balance between community impacts and support for the industry,
and It will leverage City assets and support measured entrepreneurship for community benefit.
4
“Original signed by John Bastaja”_____________________
Prepared by: John Bastaja
Director Corporate Support
“Original signed by Darrell Denton”____________________
Prepared by: Darrell Denton
Property and Risk Manager
“Original signed by Paul Gill”_________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill
General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”_______________________
Concurrence: Frank Quinn
Acting Chief Administrative Officer
5
1
Date: October 13, 2015
To: The City of Maple Ridge Attention: Properties Manager
From: SBA Canada ULC C/O Brian Gregg, SitePath Consulting Ltd.
RE: Proposed 50 meter Telecommunications Tower
Project: Cottonwood SBA
Canada
File:
BC70908-B -
Cottonwood
Site
Address:
11400 Cottonwood Drive, Maple Ridge, BC
SECTION 1 - PROPOSAL SUMMARY
SitePath Consulting Ltd. (“SitePath”) is representing SBA Canada ULC (“SBA”) regarding a proposed
telecommunications tower installation on City-owned land.
Address: 11400 Cottonwood Drive
Coordinates: 49° 12' 46.84" North, 122° 34' 20.99" West
Legal Description: LT A; SEC 16; TWP 12; NWD; PL NWP6682
PID: 005-811-830
Zoning: RS-3 – One Family Rural Residential
Objective
• In response to the City’s Request for Proposal (RFP), SBA is proposing to install a new cell tower at
the former Cottonwood Landfill property.
• The proposed facility, if approved, will provide high-speed, high-bandwidth cellular service to the
Maple Ridge community and improve public safety through the enablement of mobile communication
with emergency responders. This is particularly important given that more than 70 percent of all calls
to emergency responders are now placed through mobile devices.
• The proposed telecommunications tower will be designed to enable multiple carriers to co-locate
thereby mitigating the proliferation of towers in the community.
• Initially, Rogers Communications has agreed to install their equipment on the subject proposed tower.
Description of Proposed Site
• SBA is proposing the construction of a 50-meter monopole structure at the municipal-owned former
landfill property.
• If constructed, all of the equipment necessary to operate this facility will reside within an approximately
10.0 meter x 10.0 meter fenced compound located at the base of the monopole in the northeastern
portion of the subject property.
• As the existing zoning permits “public service” uses including telephone-related utilities and there are
no setback requirements for such utility structures, the proposal is permitted from a local land use
policy perspective. The proposed tower is setback approximately 100 m from the nearest residence.
SitePath Consulting Ltd. Telephone: 778-870-1388
Suite 1903, 838 West Hastings Street Email: briangregg@sitepathconsulting.com
Vancouver, B.C. V6C 0A6 www.sitepathconsulting.com
2
Aerial Photograph (Source: Google Earth)
Zoning Map (Source: City of Maple Ridge “Ridge View 2.0” GIS)
City of Maple Ridge
Property Report (11400 COTTONWOOD DR)
Street (large)
Public Facility or Attraction
Railway
Major River or Lake Edge
Major River or Lake
Interior Lot Boundary
School
Park
Property
Municipal Boundary
Scale 1:3,500
The City of Maple Ridge makes
no guarantee regarding the
accuracy or present status of the
information shown on this map.
´
Printed: October 20, 2014
District of Maple Ridge
RidgeView 2.0
Property ID:22103
Address:11400 COTTONWOOD DR
Folio:84520-0000-5
Plan:NWP6682
Lot:A
Legal:LT A; SEC 16; TWP 12; NWD; PL NWP6682
PID:005-811-830
LTO:BM138047
Zoning:RS-3
OCP Land Use:PARK CONSRV
Closed to Backyard Burning:Yes
Within the Fraser Sewerage Area:Yes
Recycling Pickup Day:Thursday
Approx. Area:5.253 ha.
0 250 500125 ft
0 75 15037.5 m
3
Existing Structures and Co-location Analysis
•SBA has conducted extensive fieldwork as well as reviewed Industry Canada’s database to
determine the location of all existing structures within the search area and has confirmed that
there are no existing antenna-support structures of a suitable height or location to enable co-
location.
•Specifically, the closest tower is an existing Rogers structure approximately 1.62 kilometers away
at 24186 Dewdney Trunk Road. The existing Rogers tower services a different area and would
not enable the provision of dependable wireless service in the subject search area via co-
location.
•The proposed tower will therefore be designed for co-location and will eliminate the need for
additional towers in the area.
Visibility
•The upper portion of the proposed tower site may be visible within the Maple Ridge community
from some of the adjacent properties.
•Given that the proposed tower location is adjacent to residential properties albeit setback
significantly, SBA is proposing an aesthetically integrated monopole structure painted a colour of
the City’s preference.
Photo Simulation 1 – View Looking East from Cottonwood Drive and 116a Street
(for discussion purposes only)
4
Photo Simulation 2 – View Looking West from Kanaka Mews and 236 Street
(for discussion purposes only)
Site Plan (for discussion purposes only)
5
Elevation Plan (for discussion purposes only)
6
SECTION 2 – PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS
SBA worked closely with City staff to ensure that the public and land use authority consultation
requirements noted in the City’s Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocol have been
followed.
A. Property owner notification
• Notification of all property owners within a 300 m radius of the proposed tower occurred on
August 21st, 2015. The recipients of the mail-out package were provided with a deadline of
September 27, 2015 to submit any comments.
• 436 property owners received notification packages via regular mail.
• Non-owner occupants (e.g. renters) were also notified as the envelopes were addressed to
“occupant” and labeled as specifically required in the protocol.
• Please refer to the notification radius map, sample mail-out envelope and a copy of the mail-
out consultation package in Appendix A.
B. Newspaper notices
• Voluntary notices were placed in the Maple Ridge News and Maple Ridge Times for two
issues in each paper to welcome broader public dialogue. This is not required in the City’s
protocol however the goal of including a newspaper notification was to welcome input from
any interested community members.
• Copies of the newspaper notices are located in Appendix B.
C. Public Meeting
• A public meeting was held at Thomas Haney Secondary School September 17th, 2015 from
6:00 PM until 8:00 PM.
• The public meeting was held in the school’s Rotunda Room in an open house format.
• Sixteen (16) members of the public attended the meeting.
Above: A photo from the public meeting at Thomas Haney Secondary School.
• A summary of the public comments received and responses provided are in Appendix C.
7
SECTION 3 – ISSUES & SBA RESPONSES
During the public consultation period, the following general concerns were raised:
•Health and safety concerns;
•Potential visual impacts and the perception that this may impact property values;
•Land use and site selection concerns.
In response to the above noted concerns, SBA acknowledged receipt of each comment in writing and
welcomed each individual to the public meeting. The following detailed information was also provided to
each commenter regarding each of the above noted concern categories.
Health & Safety Concerns – SBA Response
SBA provided information sheets from Health Canada and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Chief
Medical Health Officer and noted the following information on health and safety:
•Canada has one of the most rigorous safety codes in the world for devices that emit radio
frequency (RF) energy. Specifically, wireless carriers in Canada must comply with Health
Canada's Safety Code 6 - a standard that is comparable to the European Union safety
regulations.
•Safety Code 6 was developed and recently updated in March of 2015 by Health Canada as the
exposure standard for the regulation of mobile phones, base stations, Wi-Fi and other radio
communications emitting infrastructure.
•The exposure limits are the result of thorough and ongoing scientific review and are comparable
to similar safety codes in Europe, the USA, Japan and Australia.
•Industry Canada has made compliance with Safety Code 6 a condition of license for all Canadian
wireless carriers.
•Regarding public safety, over 70% of all calls to 9-11 and other emergency service providers are
now made through wireless communication devices.
Visual Impact and Property Value Concerns – SBA Response
•SBA provided three photo simulations showing how the proposed tower would look, if
constructed, from various vantage points including Cottonwood Drive and 116th Ave and Kanaka
Mews.
•SBA explained that the photo simulations demonstrate that only the upper half of the monopole
will be visible due to the fact that the lower portion of the tower is to be screened by mature trees.
•SBA noted that an aesthetic monopole design was selected to minimize view impacts, rather than
a more obtrusive guyed tower or lattice tower structure.
•It was also confirmed that there is no consistent evidence to suggest that property values are
impacted by the presence of cell towers as supported by Industry Canada.
Land Use and Site Selection Concerns – SBA Response
In response to concerns regarding land use compatibility and the site selection process, SBA provided
the following information:
•The proposed site location was selected in response to a City-led initiative that is attempting to
use City lands for such towers where possible;
•The subject property is a large former landfill property making it compatible for the proposed use;
•The large subject lot enables the tower to be setback approximately 100 meters from the nearest
residences, mitigating potential impacts on adjacent residences;
•The footprint of the proposed monopole has been kept to a minimum as only 10 m x 10 m of
space is needed for the foundation and ancillary equipment;
•Existing access roads can be used to service the tower thereby preventing the need for timber
removal;
•The proposal is for an aesthetically integrated cellular phone tower (monopole design) in the
northeast corner of the subject property;
8
• There are mature trees on the site that will mitigate view disturbances;
• The proposed communication site is located in such a way as to not impede the decommissioning
of the landfill, nor affect the future use as a park, which is still the plan according to the City;
• The tower will address cellular phone coverage issues in the area for multiple carriers, mitigating
the proliferation of cell towers in the community;
• The objective of the proposed tower is to provide high-speed, high-bandwidth wireless service to
the Cottonwood community and, as a result, the infrastructure needs to be located in the
immediate vicinity of the community;
• Locating the tower further afield on a mountainside would not provide the needed service
improvements to the desired service area;
• There are no industrial or commercial zoned lands of an appropriate location that would enable
the needed service improvements;
• An environmental assessment was completed for the proposal and the consultant found that
there will be no significant impacts due to the small footprint of the proposed facility.
SECTION 4 – NEXT STEPS
Land Use Concurrence
Industry Canada requires SBA to consult with the City of Maple Ridge as a commenting body in the siting
of antenna support structures. As a form of comment, SBA is requesting land use concurrence from the
City given that SBA has met the expectations of the protocol and addressed all relevant public comments.
In order to satisfy Industry Canada’s requirements, land use concurrence may come in the form of
Council-adopted resolution or a Council authorized letter from the City of Maple Ridge.
Although not required in order to satisfy Industry Canada, SBA has also filed a Development Permit
application along with an Environmental Assessment in order to adhere to the City’s approval process
requirements. SBA will also submit a Building Permit application.
Construction Schedule
Construction is expected to commence shortly after the Development Permit and Building Permit are
issued by the City. Construction is estimated to last approximately three (3) months.
9
APPENDIX A – PUBLIC NOTIFICATION RADIUS, SAMPLE ENVELOPE AND SAMPLE MAIL-OUT
CONSULTATION PACKAGE
• Note: All property owners and occupants within a 300-meter radius of the proposed tower
received notification packages via regular mail and were invited to the public meeting. The
notification occurred on August 21st, 2015 and the public comment period ended on
September 27, 2015.
("$(.
# * +
+$ (& # * ( #)
+$ (& -% ( &( )
+$ (& (&' (*. &( )
( * +'%* #)
$'(&, $ %*!( )!&#
#) &(#& #&-% ()& +'%*)&%#.
10
MAIL-OUT CONSULTATION PACKAGE – SAMPLE COPY
Dear Resident/Landowner August 21st, 2015
Re: Proposed 50-meter SBA Canada Radiocommunications Tower
11400 Cottonwood Drive, Maple Ridge, BC
49° 12' 46.84" North, -122° 34' 20.99" West
SBA Canada File – Cottonwood (BC70908-B)
Wireless technology offers many benefits to Canadians. Millions of individuals rely on wireless communications to
enhance their personal security and safety, enjoy more frequent contact with family, friends and business associates,
and to make more productive use of their personal and professional time. Additionally, cellular coverage improves
public safety as more than 70 percent of all calls to emergency responders are placed through wireless devices.
SBA Canada Proposal
SBA Canada is proposing a 50-meter monopole tower at 11400 Cottonwood Drive in Maple Ridge, BC. All of the
equipment necessary to operate this facility will reside within a compound located at the base of the tower. The
proposed facility is to be located at a former landfill property owned by the City of Maple Ridge. The tower, if
constructed, will be designed to enable multiple carriers to co -locate thereby mitigating the proliferation of towers in the
community while enabling wireless service improvements.
Authority
Although Industry Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over the placement of wireless telecommunications facilities, it
requires the carriers to consult with the local municipality and the general public regarding new installations. The
municipal consultation process is intended to provide an opportunity to have landowner questions addressed while
respecting federal jurisdiction over the installation and operations of telecommunications systems.
Public Consultation and Notification Process
As the City of Maple Ridge has a Council-adopted Telecommunications Antenna Structures Siting Protocol, SBA
Canada is required to follow the relevant public and municipal consultation requirements outlined in the protocol.
The protocol requires that SBA Canada undertake the following steps:
• Notification: All property owners within a 300-meter radius of the proposed tower must be notified via
regular mail of the proposal at least 21-days in advance of the required public consultation meeting. Your
property falls within 300-meters of the proposed tower location and, as a result, we are consulting you
and welcome your attendance at the upcoming public consultation meeting. A courtesy notification will
also be posted in the Maple Ridge News on September 4th, 2015 and September 11th, 2015 and the
Maple Ridge Times on September 3rd, 2015 and September 10th, 2015.
• Public consultation meeting: The public consultation meeting will be held at Thomas Haney Secondary
School on September 17th, 2015 from 6:00-8:00 PM. The address for Thomas Haney Secondary is 23000
116 Ave, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 0T8. Note that the public meeting will occur in the rotunda room.
• After the public consultation meeting: Following the public consultation meeting, SBA Canada will
respond to all reasonable and relevant public comments. The public will be provided with 10 working days
to provide any comments after the public consultation meeting. The public comment period will close on
September 27th, 2015. Upon closing of the public comment period, SBA Canada will summarize for City
staff the public comments received and responses provided prior to seeking land use concurrence from
City Council.
Site Details
1. Purpose - The purpose of the proposed tower is to improve wireless service within the community of Maple Ridge
through the implementation of a co-locatable multi-carrier tower. Currently, there are no suitable existing antenna
support structures or other feasible infrastructure that can be utilized; as a result, a new antenna support structure
is required.
11
2. Location - The tower will be located on a municipal-owned former landfill property within Maple Ridge. The
geographical coordinates for the proposed tower site are 49° 12' 46.84" North, -122° 34' 20.99" West.
3. Safety Code 6 - Industry Canada requires all wireless carriers to operate in accordance with Health Canada’s
safety standards. SBA Canada confirms that the tower described in this notification package will be installed and
operated on an ongoing basis so as to comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 including combined effects with
the local radio environment, as may be amended from time to time.
4. Site Access – The site will be accessed via an existing road that will be minimally extended into the proposed
tower compound.
5. Environment – SBA Canada confirms that the installation is excluded from environmental assessment under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
6. Design - This proposal is for a multi-carrier 50-meter monopole structure. The monopole design was selected to
minimize view disturbances while enabling multiple tenants (cellular companies 1, 2 and 3) to install their
equipment on the tower in the future. A preliminary design of the tower profile and compound plan is included in
this notification for your reference.
7. Transport Canada - The tower will be marked in accordance with the Department of Transportation and NAV
Canada requirements.
8. Structural Considerations - SBA Canada confirms that the antenna structure described in this notification package
will apply good engineering practices including structural adequacy during construction.
9. Land Use Authority – The City of Maple Ridge has a Council-adopted Telecommunications Antenna Structures
Siting Protocol and, as a result, SBA Canada is required to follow the relevant public and municipal consultation
requirements outlined in the protocol.
10. General Information- General information relating to antenna systems is available on Industry Canada's Spectrum
Management and Telecommunications website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/h_sf01702e.html.
11. Contacts:
SBA Canada
C/O Brian Gregg, SitePath Consulting
Real Estate/Government Affairs Specialist
1903 - 838 W Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 0A6
Phone: 778 870 1388
Email: briangregg@sitepathconsulting.com
Industry Canada
Industry Canada – Lower Mainland Office
13401 - 108 Avenue, Suite 1700
Surrey, BC V3T 5V6
Phone: 604-586-2521
Fax: 604-586-2528
Email: vancouver.City@ic.gc.ca
Attention: Manager
City of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Phone: 604-463-5221
Email: telecomtowers@mapleridge.ca
Should you have any specific questions regarding the proposal, please feel welcome to contact the contacts listed
herein, or return the comment sheet by mail to SBA Canada by September 27th, 2015.
12
Aerial Location Plan
Site Plan
(for discussion purposes only)
13
Elevation Plan
(for discussion purposes only)
14
COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER
49° 12' 46.84" North, -122° 34' 20.99" West
City of Maple Ridge
SBA CANADA FILE: BC70908-B – Cottonwood
1. Are you a cellular phone or wireless device user?
Yes
No
2. Do you feel this is an appropriate location for the proposed facility?
Yes
No
Comments
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
3. Are you satisfied with the appearance / design of the proposed facility? If not, what changes
would you suggest?
Yes
No
Comments
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Additional Comments
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Please provide your name and full mailing address if you would like to be informed about the
status of this proposal. This information will not be used for marketing purposes.
Name___________________________________________________________
(Please print clearly)
Mailing Address __________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Please email to briangregg@sitepathconsulting.com
or mail to 1903 – 838 W Hastings Street, Vancouver BC V6C 0A6
ATTENTION: Brian Gregg
by September 27th, 2015.
Thank you for your input.
15
APPENDIX B – NEWSPAPER NOTICES
MAPLE RIDGE & PITT MEADOWS TIMESA18 Thursday, September 3, 2015
16
PUBLIC NOTICE
PROPOSED SBA CANADA TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
50-METER MONOPOLE STRUCTURE
CottonwoodDrivePROPOSED STRUCTURE:SBA Canada is inviting
the public to comment on a proposed multi-tenant
telecommunications facility consisting of a 50-meter
monopole structure and ancillary radio equipment
situated on a former landfill property on
Cottonwood Drive, Maple Ridge.
LOCATION:11400 Cottonwood Drive, Maple Ridge, BC.
COORDINATES:49 12' 46.84 North, -122 34'
20.99 West
ANY PERSON may comment by close of business day
on September 27
th, 2015 with respect to this matter.
SBA CONTACT:Further information can be
obtained by contacting:
Brian Gregg, SitePath Consulting Ltd.
1903 ± 838 W Hastings Street,Vancouver,
BC V6C 0A6
Email: briangregg@sitepathconsulting.com
REAL ESTATE
633 MOBILE HOMES & PARKS
DON’T OVERPAY! rtmihomes.com “Your Smart Housing Solution” Canada’s Largest provider of manufactured housing. Text or call (844-334-2960). In stock 16’/20’/22’ Homes on Sale Now!
636 MORTGAGES
Mobile Mortgage Specialist1=F==#M:GAKV3#"9F9<93JMKLCall: 778-686-5107E-mail: renee.dubois@td.com
RENTALS
706 APARTMENT/CONDO
AMBER
ROCHESTER
545 Rochester Avenue,Coquitlam
Close To Lougheed
Mall, Transportation, &SFU, Colleges.
Near Coq./Bby. Border.
Linda 604-813-8789
AMBER (W)401 Westview Street,Coquitlam
Large Units.
Near Lougheed Mall,
All Transportation,
SFU & Colleges.Near Coq./Bby. Border.
604-727-5178
ARBOURGREENE552 Dansey Avenue,Coquitlam
Extra Large 2 Bedroom’s.Close To Lougheed Mall,All Transit,SFU & Colleges.Near Coq./Bby. Border.
Of ce: 604-939-4903Cell: 778-229-1358
BURQUITLAM APTS561 Cottonwood Avenue,CoquitlamBachelor, 1 BR & 2 BR
Includes heat, hot water,
underground parking, near bus
stop, school, SFU, Lougheed
Mall. No pets.604-773-6467
CALYPSO
COURT
1030 - 5th Avenue,
New Westminster
Near Transit & Skytrain,Douglas College & More.Well Maintained Building.
Call for info/viewing604-813-8789
COTTONWOOD
PLAZA555 Cottonwood Avenue,Coquitlam
Large Units. Some With 2nd Bathrooms or Den.
On Bus Routes, Close To SFU & Lougheed Mall.
604-936-1225
GARDEN VILLA1010 6th Avenue,New Westminster
Suites Available. Beautiful
atrium with fountain. Byshops, college & transit.Pets negotiable. Ref req.
604-715-7764Bayside Property Services
bcclassified.com MERCHANDISE: Antiques &
collectibles, to sporting goods & electronics, to
parakeets & pet supplies, if it’s considered
merchandise for sale, you can find it here.
RENTALS
706 APARTMENT/CONDO
HARRIS ROADHOUSING CO-OPPitt Meadows
3 BR $1235/mo$3500 Share purchase.Available Sept 1st.V%=F;=<:9;CQ9J<
Near bus & school. No subsidy.Pets OK.
Email for INCENTIVE:grotaru@baywest.ca
604-465-1938
JUNIPERCOURT
415 Westview Street,
Coquitlam
Close to Lougheed Mall,All Transit Connections,
Skytrain & Schools;SFU, BCIT, Colleges.
604-939-8905
KING ALBERTCOURT
1300 King Albert,
Coquitlam
GREAT LOCATION;Close To Lougheed Mall,All Transportation, SFU,BCIT, Colleges & More.
Of ce: 604-937-7343Cell: 778-863-9980
NEW WESTMINSITER,2 bdrm Apt., $980 incl ht/cbl.Nr college/mall. N/P. Refs req’d.Available now.778-980-417
Park TerraceStarting at2 Bdrm. $870
In beautiful Langley City.
Also Available:ï Bachelor $700ï 1 Bdrm.V2 Bdrm. $870In beautiful Langley City.Includes Heat, Hot Water,Parking. On-Site Manager.
604-530-0030www.cycloneholdings.ca
Find the H OMEof Your Dreams!
bcclassified.com
Real Estate Section - Class 600’s
RENTALS
706 APARTMENT/CONDO
ROYAL CRESCENTESTATES22588 Royal Crescent Avenue,
Maple Ridge
Large Units. Close To
Golden Ears Bridge,Shopping & More.
GREAT RIVER VIEW!
Of ce: 604-463-0857Cell: 604-375-1768
SKYLINE TOWERS102-120 Agens Street,New Westminster
Hi-Rise Apartment withRiver View & Indoor Pool.1 BR 7 2 BR Available. Rentincludes heat & hot water.Remodeled building andCommon Area. Gatedunderground parking available.References required.
604-525-2122Bayside Property Services
VILLA MARGARETA320-9th Street,New WestminsterSuites Available.
All suites have balconies,Underground parking available.Refs. req. Small pet OK.
604-715-7764Bayside Property Services
736 HOMES FOR RENT
Maple Ridge - Smaller 3 bdrm. house. Pets welcome. Avail. Oct. 1 $1300/mo. 1-250-379-2123
748 SHARED ACCOMMODATION
CENTRAL MAPLE RIDGE house to share, all utils incl. Near amens & WCE. $500/mo. 778-689-8424
749 STORAGE
Pitt Meadows Marina
14179 Reichenback Rd!""#$%&'(&)*$+,&$#'"#'-&./0$))1$+21*3""#'-*"#$%&'45$/+$6+&'-*$#*/)%4*'789:.")*;'<"#'="$*>?''(@A>?'B$#>?'C#1DE>'F'C#$/+&#>''G$1)D;'($.H'I/*;'8'+/)&>'$)3$.H+&'H$#E/)%'<"#'*#$DE>'$)3'*#$/+&#>'2)>/*&'!$)$%&#
604.465.7713
RENTALS
752 TOWNHOUSES
COQUITLAM - 2 Bdrm. townhouse. $1005/mo. Quiet family complex. No pets. Call: 604-942-2277
Pitt Meadows 19250-119 Ave. Townhouses; 3 BR $1235, share $3500 & 2 BR $1130 shares $2500. Small pet ok. 604-465-1938
PORT COQUITLAM - 2 bedroom townhouse. $905/mo. Quiet family
complex! No pets. 604-464-0034
TRANSPORTATION
845 SCRAP CAR REMOVAL
ï Autos ï Trucksï Equipment RemovalFREE TOWING 7 days/wk.We pay Up To $500 CA$H
Rick Goodchild 604.551.9022
990 FEATURE PAGE
<IMG SRC=””http://xsrv212.server-logistics.com/nw-ads/imag-es/ads/Susan Hillis.jpg”” ALT=””http://xsrv212.serverlogis-tics.com/nw-ads/images/ads/Susan Hillis.jpg””>HILLIS, Susan Margaret 1953 - 2015 Susan passed Away peacefully at home August 18th. She had suffered for a number of years with the complications of dia-betes. Her passing ended a long battle fought without complaint. She kept a brave face and always had a positive outlook for her many friends, family and acquaintances. All those who loved and respected Sue’s tenacity and many craft tal-ents will miss her very much. Su-san’s son Damian and husband Geordie will morn the loss of her love. We would like to remind eve-ryone to hug their loved ones lots, as you never know when they will not be there. There will be a cele-bration of life for family and friends the 3rd of September.
Com munity N ewspapers
We' re at the heart of things
'RQҋWWDNH\RXUPXVFOHV
IRUJUDQWHG2YHU
&DQDGLDQVZLWKPXVFXODU
G\VWURSK\WDNHWKHPYHU\
VHULRXVO\
/HDUQPRUHDWPXVFOHFD
,WWDNHV
PXVFOHV
WRIROG
XSWKLV
QHZVSDSHU
MAPLE RIDGE & PITT MEADOWS TIMES Thursday, September 10, 2015 A23
Troy Landreville/TIMES
Homes continue to sprout up in the Albion area of Maple Ridge.
Maple Ridge and Pitt
Meadows continue to be
popular places to buy
– especially for single-
family homes.
TROY LANDREVILLE
tlandreville@mrtimes.com
House prices continues to
inch up in Maple Ridge and Pitt
Meadows, but that doesn’t seem to
be deterring homebuyers.
The two communities combined
for 151 sales of detached homes
in August, second most in 16
regions under the Real Estate Board
of Greater Vancouver (REBGV)
umbrella. Only Richmond (181)
saw more detached homes change
hands last month.
As well, 63 attached homes (such
as rowhomes and townhouses)
and 25 apartments were sold in
Maple Ridge and Pitt
Meadows last month.
This, despite
what’s been a steady
rise in prices.
The benchmark
price for a detached
home in Maple Ridge
is $518,400. That’s
up 1.6 per cent from
July and nine per
cent from August 2014 (the bench-
mark price is the estimated sale
price of a benchmark property;
benchmark represents a typical
property within each market).
In Pitt Meadows, a detached
home was worth, on average,
$572,900 in August, up 1.3 per cent
from July and 8.5 per cent more
expensive than last August.
Even so, Maple Ridge is far
and away the cheapest place to
buy a detached house in Metro
Vancouver, and Pitt Meadows isn’t
all that far behind.
Compare Maple Ridge’s bench-
mark price to that of Greater
Vancouver, at an eye-popping
$1,159,600, and snapping up a
house locally is a relative steal.
The benchmark price for all
residential properties in Metro
Vancouver is $708,500. This repre-
sents a 12 per cent increase com-
pared to August 2014.
In the townhouse market, the
benchmark price in Maple Ridge
last month was $289,600, with Pitt
Meadows setting a buyer back, on
average, $367,700.
Price are down 0.8 per cent in
Maple Ridge and up 1.7 per cent in
Pitt Meadows from July.
The condo market in Maple Ridge
has stalled, which is relatively good
news for buyers, with the bench-
mark price for apartments aver-
aging at $169,300. That’s down 0.2
per cent from July.
In Pitt Meadows, the average
price for a condo is $252,600, up
1.2 per cent from July and 8.3 per
cent from August 2014.
Sizzling summer
Meanwhile the market across
Metro Vancouver shows no signs of
cooling down.
Between June
and August, home
sales were between
25 and 30 per cent
above the 10-year
sales average.
The REBGV
reports that residen-
tial property sales
in Metro Vancouver
reached 3,362 on the
Multiple Listing Service in August.
This represents a 21.3 per cent
increase compared to the 2,771
sales recorded in August 2014,
and a decrease of 15.5 per cent
compared to the 3,978 sales in July
2015.
July sales were 27.9 per cent
above the 10-year sales average for
the month.
“There was no summer lull in
our market this year,” said Darcy
McLeod, REBGV president and
Maple Ridge resident. “They’re
motivated, but they’re competing
for a smaller supply of homes for
sale than is typical for this time of
year – that’s the dynamic driving
our market right now.”
REAL ESTATENo summer ‘lull’ in
the housing market
“There was no
summer lull in
our market this
year.”Darcy McLeod
17
The two cities are mem-
bers of the Pitt Meadows
Airport Society, a non-
profit volunteer organi-
zation that operates the
airport. It was supposed
to be a recipe for success.
™ Because the airport
is publicly owned by the
municipalities, the public
has a high expectation
for efficiency and finan-
cial performance and
especially for transpar-
ency and accountability.
Performance has been far
below the public expecta-
tion, Blakely adds.
He criticizes the group's
long-range planning, lack
of transparency, spot zon-
ing, lack of written oper-
ating and policy manuals,
and ™ appalling relations
with tenants and neigh-
bours.
™ Lease holders are the
sole source of income for
the airport, and it makes
sense to treat them with
respect, and not give
them an unnecessary
hard time, he said.
Although Blakely
speaks only for him-
self, his comments were
echoed by airport busi-
ness owners who wished
to remain anonymous,
because they are tenants
at YPK, and fear reper-
cussions.
™There's a high level of
animosity around the air-
port, Blakely said.
There is a movement
to begin an airport busi-
ness owners association,
so tenants have a unified
voice. YPK business own-
ers have been requesting
meetings with Pitt Mead-
ows Mayor John Becker.
Blakely would also like
to see the City of Pitt
Meadows in sole control
of the airport.
™ It would be a lot sim-
pler. The duties of that
group would be obvious,
and the responsibilities,
as well.
Pitt Meadows residents
should decide the future
of the airport, since it is
entirely within their city,
he asserts.
He has flown across
the country and back
five times in his 1947
Luscombe, and makes a
point of stopping at small
airports like Pitt Mead-
ows ± they're often close
to town, and have a flying
club that welcomes visi-
tors.
™ In talking to the peo-
ple, the common factor in
successful airports is that
they're really tied into the
community, he said.
™ It should be what the
community wants. The
biggest deficiency has
been the failure to evolve
a vision for the future of
the airport.
That's the opinion of
Becker.
He has not given up on
the idea of Pitt Meadows
being the sole member
of the airport society,
even though Maple Ridge
Mayor Nicole Read said
it's not going to happen.
On July 29, the day be-
fore the airport society's
AGM, Pitt Meadows
council shocked Read
and her council with a
request that Maple Ridge
leave the society.
™ º We have no inten-
tion of divesting ourselves
in our interest in our joint
asset, Read responded in
a letter.
That's not the end of the
conversation.
The issue caused the
airport society's AGM to
be recessed until Oct. 29.
City staff have been on
holidays and both coun-
cils on hiatus, but Becker
will soon seek a conversa-
tion about control of the
airport. It may be him
and Read and respective
city administrators, or
sub committees of coun-
cils.
™ We cannot let this sit
in the middle of the road,
said Becker.
He wasn't surprised by
Maple Ridge's reaction.
But he points out Pitt
Meadows gets all of the
tax revenue from the air-
port businesses, and Pitt
council deals with issues
arising from ™ the inter-
face with the community
and the airport, such as
resident worries about
increased air traffic, noise
and safety.
He asks what value Ma-
ple Ridge's involvement
adds to the society.
Becker also believes that
a future vision of the air-
port is critical to ™ take it
to a new level.
Vancouver Internation-
al Airport is pushing out
many of its smaller ten-
ants, and that is creating
an economic opportunity
for other airports.
™They are exactly the
kinds of businesses we
would welcome in Pitt
Meadows, he said.
Becker also said he
knew of problems at
the airport in his capac-
ity as a local lawyer, and
they were coming before
council in 2002, when he
was first elected.
™ I'm acutely aware of
the issues at the airport,
he said.
Those issues have
changed over time, from
financial shortfalls to run-
way expansion, but there
are always challenges.
However, Dale Floyd at
Coast Dog Aviation is an
entrepreneur whose busi-
ness has flourished in the
environment of the Pitt
Meadows airport, and
from his perspective the
facility is well run.
™ I'm very happy with it,
everything is going good,
he said. ™ We're trying
hard to make it a profes-
sional airport.
!"#$%&'()('&*+&,-#.*/#012
Airport from front
www.rmcollege.ca
email rmc@sd42.ca
T 604 466 6555 F 604 463 5437
20575 Thorne Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC
How To Get Better Grades In School
20017 T Oct 13 7:00 -8:30 Pm
$49/1 Session
Pilates With Kathy White, Professional Trainer And Stott Pilates Certifi ed Since 2003.
20013 W Sep 9-Dec 16 6:30 -7:30 PM
$119/14 Sessions $10 Drop-In Fee
Downsizing And Clearing Clutter
(Or How To Organize Your Life) With Simplifi ed Solutions
20022 M Oct 5 6:30-9:00 PM$39/1 Session
Hair Cutting Class20031 W Sep 30 6:00-9:00 PM
$129/1 Session Equipment Included In Course Fee
Computers For Absolute Beginners20000 Sa Oct 17-Nov 7 10:00 AM-12:00 PM
$119/4 Sessions
Soap Making, Pure And Simple
All Supplies Included In Course Fee.
20001 W Oct 7 6:30 -9:00 PM
$49/1 Session
Writing Under The Skin
Memoir Writing As A Tool For Insight And Healing.20016 W Sep 23-Oct 28 6:30 -9:00 PM
$179/6 Sessions
Introduction To Your Digital Camera
With Eric Svendsen20018 T Sep 22-Oct 13 7:00 -9:30 PM
$119/4 Sessions
Finding Your Family Tree Introduction To Genealogy
20028 Sa Sep 26 9:00 AM-4:00 PM
$79/1 Session
How To Overcome Obstacles In Your Life:
Kiss Your Excuses Goodbye!
With Christina Waschko
20037 Sa Oct 17 9:00AM-12:00PM$39/1 Session
Assertiveness And Self Confi dence
With William Duncan
20009 T Sep 22 6:30 -9:30 PM
$79/3 Sessions
Stop Lecturing Start CommunicatingWith Maria Gallo.
20014 Sa Sep 19 10:00 Am-12:00 Pm
$39/1 Session
Smarter Selling 101 With Dominic Kotarski
20040 Th Sep 24 6:30-9:30Pm
$39/1 Session
Italian Conversation & Food
With Maria Angotti20043 M Sept 28-Dec 7 6:30-8:00Pm
$159/10 Sessions $10 Material Fee
Spanish Beginners
Spanish With Adriana Cassullo
20003 T Sep 22 6:30 -8:00 Pm$159/10 Sessions Text: $25
Spanish For Travelers
Spanish With Adriana Cassullo
20004 W Sep 23 6:30 -8:00 Pm
$159/10 Sessions Text: $25
Spanish For Travelers 2
20005 T Sep 22 8:00 -9:30 Pm
$159/10 Sessions
Spanish Intermediate
Pre Requisite: Spanish Beginners Or Equivalent. Uses The Same Text As Spanish For Beginners.
20006 W Sep 23 8:00 -9:30 Pm
$159/10 Sessions
Spanish Advanced
Pre Requisite: Spanish Intermediate Or Equivalent. Uses The Same Text As Spanish For Beginners.
20007 Th Sep 24 6:30 -8:00 Pm
$159/10 Sessions
Spanish For Travelers 3 20008 Th Sep 24 8:00 -9:30 Pm
$159/10 Sessions
General Interest &
Personal Development
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: SBA Canada is
inviting the public to comment on a proposed
multi tenant telecommunications facility con
sisting of a 50 meter monopole structure and
ancillary radio equipment situated on a former
landfill property on Cottonwood Drive, Maple
Ridge.
LOCATION: 11400 Cottonwood Drive,
Maple Ridge, BC.
COORDINATES: 49 12í 46.84î North, 122
34í 20.99î West
ANY PERSON may comment by close of
business day on September 27th, 2015 with
respect to this matter.
SBA CONTACT: Further information can be
obtained by contacting:
Brian Gregg, SitePath Consulting Ltd.
1903 ñ 838 W Hastings Street, Vancouver,
BC V6C 0A6
Email: briangregg@sitepathconsulting.com
PUBLIC NOTICE
PROPOSED SBA CANADA
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
50 METER MONOPOLE STRUCTURE
!!"##"$%""&'()*+,'Call Cheryl today to ask about our all inclusive,
just one fl at fee, monthly rate. 604-467-2808
greystoneresidence.ca
11657 Ritchie Ave, Maple Ridge,
Behind McDonalds on 228th St.
Come join the fun
starting at 10:30 am
Open to everyone! Join us for a day of fun
as we celebrate Grandparents Day
with a Country Fair.
100th birthday celebration for our princess Joan Martin
with a performance by Lauren Webb
Co n c e s s io n sG am e sPriz e s& M o r e m e sGRANDPARENTS DAY
ANDPAPPRENTS DA
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 13
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
A&W 228th & Lougheed Hwy
A&W Haney Place Mall
A&W 20468 Lougheed Hwy
A&W Fremont Village Port Coquitlam
! " # $ $ " % ! & ' % % $ ( ! ! " # $ $ " % ! & ) # * + (A ! " #
! " # $ % & # M' ( ) & # C% * ( + $ ) & #P ! " B# $ % & $ '
DELICIOUS!
A&W 8 11 15!
!
!
"
#
4
On Thursday, August 27, we came together as an
A&W family all across Canada, united under the great
cause of ending multiple sclerosis.
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
CRUISIN’ TO END MS
A hugeThank You
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
to our community
for your
contributions!
16 -- Friday, September 4, 2015 -- THE NEWS - www.mapleridgenews.com
18
pmelnychuk@mapleridgenews.com
Maple Ridge fire, police
and public works were
kept hopping Aug. 29
when a wild storm with
winds of up to 100 km/h
walloped the West Coast.
Public works crews an-
swered 180 calls relating
to downed trees, power
outages and live wires on
the ground.
Russ Carmichael, direc-
tor of engineering opera-
tions, told council Tues-
day that 11 trees fell on to
houses in Maple Ridge.
As for the Maple Ridge
Fire Department, it re-
ceived 75 calls in a 12-
hour period compared to
an average of about a doz-
en calls a day, deputy chief
Howard Exner added.
However, there was
only one car crash, when
trees at 116th Avenue
crashed down on to a
moving vehicle and two
parked cars.
With no electricity as a
result of widespread out-
ages across Metro Van-
couver, there was no pow-
er to pump out the sewage
stations. That required
crews to move mobile
generators from station
to station in order to keep
them pumped out.
™ A lot of stuff you didn't
see, but at least we kept
the taps running, Carmi-
chael said.
Carmichael agreed
with the theory that the
extensive damage from
the storm was caused by
drought-stressed trees in
full foilage in soil recently
softened by rain were eas-
ily blown down by the
wind.
!"#$%&'()*%&+,%#-&-"#.&/011(1*2
PHOTO COURTESY OF GORVING.COMOFGORVING.COMTICKETS ADULT $8 | SENIORS $6 | YOUTH $5 | CHILDREN FREE
FAMILY PACK $20 | MULTI DAY PASS $10
|
TRADEX ABBOTSFORD rvshowsbc.com | 1.866.739.4999
BC’S ONLY FALL RV SHOW
SEE THE LATEST MOTORHOMES, TOWABLES, CAMPERS AND MORE!
SELLINGYOUR RV? CALL 604.870.4678OR VISITRVSHOWSBC.COM TO BOOK YOURSPOT!
FREE RVLIFESTYLE SEMINARS:
t RV TRAVEL ADVICE
t TECHNICAL & DIY TOPICSPHOTO COURTESY OF GORVING.COMTICKETS ADULT $8 | SENIORS $6 | YOUTH $5 | CHILDREN FREE
FAMILY PACK $20 | MULTI DAY PASS $10
|
TRADEX ABBOTSFORD rvshowsbc.com | 1.866.739.4999
BC’S ONLY FALL RV SHOW
SEE THE LATEST MOTORHOMES, TOWABLES, CAMPERS AND MORE!
SELLINGYOUR RV? CALL 604.870.4678OR VISITRVSHOWSBC.COM TO BOOK YOURSPOT!
FFFFRRREEEEEE RRRVVVVVLLLLIIFFFFEEESSSTTTTYYYYLLLLEEE SSSEEEMMMMIINNNNAAAARRRSSS:::
tttt RRRVVVVV TTTTRRRAAAAVVVVAAAAEEELLLLL AAAADDDDVVVVIICCCCEEE
tttt TTTTTEEECCCCHHHNNNNIICCCCAAAALLLLL &&&&DDDIIYYYYY TTTTOOOOPPPPIICCCCSSS
FREE RVLIFESTYLE SEMINARS:
t RV TRAVEL ADVICE
t TECHNICAL & DIY TOPICS
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 T: 604-463-5221 F: 604-467-7329 mapleridge.ca
Notice of Public Hearing
TAKE NOTICE THAT a Public Hearing will be held in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Hall, 11995
Haney Place, Maple Ridge, North-East corner entrance, at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 15, 2015 to
consider the following bylaws:
1) 2014-014-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING BYLAW NO. 7071-2014
LEGAL: Lot 3, Section 28, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 3007
Except: Reference Plan 15218, Plans 66891, LMP46668, LMP47584, BCP10664,
BCP42355, EPP9001 and EPP23139
LOCATION: 13316 235 Street
FROM: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
TO: R-1 (Residential District) and
RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential)
PURPOSE: To permit a subdivision into 13 lots.
2) 2015-212-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING BYLAW NO. 7161-2015
PURPOSE: To amend the Maple Ridge Zoning bylaw to prohibit the sale of liquor and wine in
grocery stores by adding the following under Part 4, GENERAL REGULATIONS,
Section 401(3);
g) The sale in or from a grocery store, or in or from a store located in a grocery
store, of beer, cider, wine or spirits, or any other product intended for human
consumption, that contains more than 1% alcohol by volume, except a product
produced primarily for cooking purposes.
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that a copy of the aforesaid bylaws and copies of staff reports and other
information considered by Council relevant to the matters contained in the bylaws will also be available
for public inspection at the Municipal Hall, Planning Department counter, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. from September 3, 2015 to September 15, 2015, Saturdays, Sundays and Statutory Holidays
excepted. Some of this information will also be posted on the City website www.mapleridge.ca on the
Your Government /Meet Your Council/Council Meetings page.
ALL PERSONS who deem themselves affected by any of these bylaws shall be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to be heard at the Public Hearing before Council on the matters contained in the bylaws
or by making a written submission to the attention of the Manager of Legislative Services or by
sending an e-mail to the Clerk’s Department at clerks@mapleridge.ca, by 4:00 p.m., September 15,
2015. Please note that all written submissions provided in response to this consultation will become
part of the public record which includes the submissions being made available for public inspection..
Dated this 3rd day of September, 2015.
Ceri Marlo
Manager of Legislative Services
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: SBA Canada is
inviting the public to comment on a proposed
multi tenant telecommunications facility con
sisting of a 50 meter monopole structure and
ancillary radio equipment situated on a former
landfill property on Cottonwood Drive, Maple
Ridge.
LOCATION: 11400 Cottonwood Drive,
Maple Ridge, BC.
COORDINATES: 49 12í 46.84î North, 122
34í 20.99î West
ANY PERSON may comment by close of
business day on September 27th, 2015 with
respect to this matter.
SBA CONTACT: Further information can be
obtained by contacting:
Brian Gregg, SitePath Consulting Ltd.
1903 ñ 838 W Hastings Street, Vancouver,
BC V6C 0A6
Email: briangregg@sitepathconsulting.com
PUBLIC NOTICE
PROPOSED SBA CANADA
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
50 METER MONOPOLE STRUCTURE
!!"##"$%""&'()*+,'www.discoverycommunitycollege.com
604-463-1174
Call now to receive a free information package
Your Career Starts Here
DCC Campus located inside Retirement Concepts
GRADUATEEMPLOYMENTRATE (2014)96%.25 Just laid off?
WE HAVE
RETRAINING
OPTIONS.
You will
qualify for a
$1500 bursary.
Funding may
be available.
Evenings & Weekends Available
Become aHEALTH CAREASSISTANT
Join one of the most in demandprofessions in B.C.
Earn your Diploma in only 39 weeks
Hands-on accelerated training by skilled
professionals, with a schedule that lets
you earn while you learn.
Get credit for your training towards
a nursing career
2.5 days per week
14 -- Friday, September 11, 2015 -- THE NEWS - www.mapleridgenews.com
19
APPENDIX C - PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
A. Comments Received During the Public Comment Period – August 21st to September 27th, 2015
During the public comment period, SBA received comments from twenty-five (25) members of the public
regarding the proposed communication site. Of the twenty-five (25) comments received, seventeen (17)
support the proposal, five (5) are non-supportive, and three (3) are neutral or pertain to information
seeking only. The fact that the vast majority (68 percent) of the commenters provided supportive
feedback reflects the fact that there is a need to improve wireless service in the community. This level of
support is not common for proposed towers such as this.
Regarding the method through which comments were submitted, fifteen (15) were received via e-mail, six
(6) were received at the public meeting, three (3) were received via regular mail, and one (1) was
received via a phone discussion.
Supportive Comments
Seventeen (17) project supporters stated the following reasons for their support:
•The majority of the supporters are wireless device users and they feel that there is very poor or
no wireless service in the Cottonwood community across all wireless carriers;
•The tower design and location are acceptable;
•This project is long overdue due to a long-standing lack of service.
In response to receiving the supportive comments, SBA acknowledged receipt of each comment in writing
and welcomed each individual to the public meeting.
Opposed Comments
Five (5) non-supporters stated the following general reasons for their opposition to the project:
•Health and safety concerns;
•Potential visual impacts and their perception that this may impact property values;
•Land use and site selection concerns.
In response to receiving the non-supportive comments, SBA acknowledged receipt of each comment in
writing and welcomed each individual to the public meeting. The following detailed information was also
provided to each commenter regarding each of the above noted concern categories.
Health & Safety Concerns – SBA Response
SBA provided information sheets from Health Canada and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Chief
Medical Health Officer and noted the following information on health and safety:
•Canada has one of the most rigorous safety codes in the world for devices that emit radio
frequency (RF) energy. Specifically, wireless carriers in Canada must comply with Health
Canada's Safety Code 6 - a standard that is comparable to the European Union safety
regulations.
•Safety Code 6 was developed and recently updated in March of 2015 by Health Canada as the
exposure standard for the regulation of mobile phones, base stations, Wi-Fi and other radio
communications emitting infrastructure.
•The exposure limits are the result of thorough and ongoing scientific review and are comparable
to similar safety codes in Europe, the USA, Japan and Australia.
•Industry Canada has made compliance with Safety Code 6 a condition of license for all Canadian
wireless carriers.
•Regarding public safety, over 70% of all calls to 9-11 and other emergency service providers are
now made through wireless communication devices.
•The following link from Industry Canada discusses frequently asked questions regarding health
and safety and supports the above noted points:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08792.html
•The following fact sheet link from Health Canada discusses what Safety Code 6 is and also
supports the above noted points: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/radio_guide-
lignes_direct/safety_code_6_fs-code_securite_6_fr-eng.php
20
•The following link from the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority indicates that there are no
science-based health concerns associated with wireless infrastructure as long as Health
Canada’s Safety Code 6 is followed: https://www.vch.ca/media/CMHO_CellPhones-June2011.pdf
Visual Impact and Property Value Concerns – SBA Response
•SBA provided three photo simulations showing how the proposed tower would look, if
constructed, from various vantage points including Cottonwood Drive and 116th Ave and Kanaka
Mews.
•SBA explained that the photo simulations demonstrate that only the upper half of the monopole
will be visible due to the fact that the lower portion of the tower is to be screened by mature trees.
•SBA noted that an aesthetic monopole design was selected to minimize view impacts, rather than
a more obtrusive guyed tower or lattice tower structure.
•It was also confirmed that there is no consistent evidence to suggest that property values are
impacted by the presence of cell towers as supported by Industry Canada.
•The following Industry Canada webpage discusses various property value studies and the
rationale as to why property values are not to be the subject of an antenna consultation:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08353.html
Land Use and Site Selection Concerns – SBA Response
In response to concerns regarding land use compatibility and the site selection process, SBA provided
the following information:
•The proposed site location was selected in response to a City-led initiative that is attempting to
use City lands for such towers where possible;
•The subject property is a large former landfill property making it compatible for the proposed use;
•The large subject lot enables the tower to be setback approximately 100 meters from the nearest
residences, mitigating potential impacts on adjacent residences;
•The footprint of the proposed monopole has been kept to a minimum as only 10 m x 10 m of
space is needed for the foundation and ancillary equipment;
•Existing access roads can be used to service the tower thereby preventing the need for timber
removal;
•The proposal is for an aesthetically integrated cellular phone tower (monopole design) in the
northeast corner of the subject property;
•There are mature trees on the site that will mitigate view disturbances;
•The proposed communication site is located in such a way as to not impede the decommissioning
of the landfill, nor affect the future use as a park, which is still the plan according to the City;
•The tower will address cellular phone coverage issues in the area for multiple carriers, mitigating
the proliferation of cell towers in the community;
•The objective of the proposed tower is to provide high-speed, high-bandwidth wireless service to
the Cottonwood community and, as a result, the infrastructure needs to be located in the
immediate vicinity of the community;
•Locating the tower further afield on a mountainside would not provide the needed service
improvements to the desired service area;
•There are no industrial or commercial zoned lands of an appropriate location that would enable
the needed service improvements;
•An environmental assessment was completed for the proposal and the consultant found that
there will be no significant impacts due to the small footprint of the proposed facility.
B. Comments Received at the Public Meeting – September 17th, 2015
Beyond the above noted public comments, SBA also had sixteen (16) attendees at the public meeting. Of
the sixteen (16) public meeting attendees, only six (6) submitted comment sheets during the public
meeting, five (5) of which stated support for the proposed communication site and one (1) neither stated
support nor opposition but had questions about potential environmental impacts.
Given that 436 members of the public were invited to the public meeting via regular mail and only 16
attended, this suggests that there is limited public concern with the proposal.
21
C. Comments Received by the Private Property Owner Directly to the North of the Proposed Tower
(The Peereboom Family)
During the consultation, SBA received detailed feedback from the Peereboom family as they own the
large lot directly to the north of the proposed tower. The Peereboom’s expressed the following general
concerns via the submission of two letters and a comment sheet.
•The proximity of the proposed tower relative to the what they perceive to be the most developable
portion of their large property;
•Privacy concerns during tower construction and maintenance;
•A fear that the tower could collapse onto their property, if constructed;
•Health concerns and the perception that this could impact property values;
•The location of the SBA tower within a sanitary sewer right of way and the concern that this could
hinder future development of the Peereboom’s property;
•A preference to relocate the proposed tower approximately 50-100 meters south of the current
proposed location;
•A preference for a group presentation at the public meeting rather than one-on-one discussions;
•The fact that only sixteen (16) members of the public attended the public meeting and that it could
have been better attended;
•A concern that the comments submitted at the public meeting were not recorded;
•A suggestion that business cards should have been provided at the public meeting;
•An opinion that they did not leave the public meeting better informed than when they arrived.
D. Comments Received After the Public Comment Period - September 28th onward
(Late Comments)
Upon the closing of the public comment period required by the City’s Telecommunications Antenna
Structures Siting Protocol, SBA received ten (10) additional public comments via email. Of these ten (10) late
comments, nine (9) state opposition to the proposed facility and one (1) states support.
The nine (9) late oppositional comments are largely the result of the fact that a community member went door-
to-door requesting community members to write letters of opposition regarding the proposal. The concerns
expressed reflect the same general concern categories noted above including health and safety concerns,
visual impact concerns, potential property value impacts and land use or site selection concerns.
Most of the late comments were submitted by residents who live in the community the west of the proposed
tower. Many of these commenters had the misapprehension that the tower is proposed for Cottonwood Drive
and 116 Avenue which is not correct since the tower is setback significantly into the former landfill property.