For a while now local Club representives have been assisting (negotiating with) with City Planning Committees on what to do with Amateur Radio Antennas. From what I see in this mornings Ottawa Citizen it seems they have come to some sort of agreement…
For me living in a Garden Home with a small lot I can’t see me improving things by much… One of the things they were talking about was grandfathering any antenna systems that were already in the air. My antenna systems are already up so I am safe but my tallest antenna is my 43 foot S9 vertical which comes in under the 15 meter height so I am safe anyway…
The house shown in the picture is not mine but it does show the same antenna I use for HF at home. My yard is just slightly smaller… by about 95% or so…
The following link takes you to the Ottawa Citizen story on the issue…
City relaxes rules for personal antennas.
However if you go to the City of Ottawa Website and do a bit (OK a LOT of searching) of searching you would find this page which describes things in more detail or you can just scroll down for a cut and paste of the data…
————————————————
4. APPEAL AGAINST ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250 – SECTION 120 – ACCESSORY SATELLITE DISH OR ACCESSORY TOWER ANTENNA IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
APPEL DE LA DÉCISION CONCERNANT LE RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE 2008-250 – ARTICLE 120 – ANTENNES PARABOLIQUES OU ANTENNES-PYLÔNES ACCESSOIRES DANS LES ZONES RÉSIDENTIELLES
Committee recommendationS
That Council endorse the zoning amendment as detailed in Document 1, to resolve an appeal against the Zoning By-law 2008-250, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board.
RecommandationS DU Comité
Que le Conseil appuyé la modification de zonage décrite dans le document 1, afin de résoudre l’appel de la décision concernant le Règlement de zonage 2008-250, et de transmettre un règlement incorporant la modification requise à la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager’s report, Planning and Infrastructure, dated 17 February 2012 (ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0056).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, Planning Committee meeting of 28 February 2012.
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
17 February 2012 / le 17 février 2012
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager,
Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire,
Policy Development and Urban Design/Élaboration de la politique et conception urbaine, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance Élaboration
de la politique et conception urbaine
(613) 580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
City-wide
Ref N°: ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0056
SUBJECT:
APPEAL AGAINST ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250 – SECTION 120 – ACCESSORY SATELLITE DISH OR ACCESSORY TOWER ANTENNA IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
OBJET :
Appel de la décision concernant le Règlement de zonage 2008-250 – Article 120 – ANTENNES PARABOLIQUES OU ANTENNES-PYLÔNES ACCESSOIRES DANS LES ZONES RÉSIDENTIELLES
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That Planning Committee recommend that Council endorse the zoning amendment as detailed in Document 1, to resolve an appeal against the Zoning By-law 2008-250, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil d’appuyer la modification de zonage décrite dans le document 1, afin de résoudre l’appel de la décision concernant le Règlement de zonage 2008-250, et de transmettre un règlement incorporant la modification requise à la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario.
BACKGROUND
Zoning By-law 2008-250 was adopted June 25, 2008, and the City received 76 appeals against it, of which 16 were disqualified for not having made submissions prior to its adoption. The vast majority of appeals have been resolved, or heard by the Ontario Municipal Board. This report deals with the appeal against Section 120 – Accessory Satellite Dish or Accessory Tower Antenna in Residential Zones. The appellant is opposed to the language contained in Section 120, as it is perceived to regulate tower antennas beyond the City’s jurisdiction and intrudes upon federal powers, is unreasonable, arbitrary and not necessary. This appeal has remained outstanding while awaiting the preparation of the City’s Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems (“Protocol”).
In its document CPC-2-0-03 Issue 4 – Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (“CPC”) which came into effect on January 1, 2008, Industry Canada has outlined a consultation process for proponents who plan to install or modify an antenna system. Proponents must follow the default CPC consultation process unless the municipality has established its own consultation process for the siting of antennas. As detailed in the Planning Report entitled “Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation on Antenna Systems” (ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0045), Industry Canada encourages municipalities to establish their own consultation process for the siting of antenna systems, and allows them a role in commenting on antenna system applications, but does not permit local authorities to regulate them.
DISCUSSION
There was a great deal of debate concerning the wording of Section 120, with more than 100 amateur radio enthusiasts participating in discussions with staff. Staff met with representatives of the local and regional amateur radio associations and modified the wording to accommodate concerns. During deliberations on the Zoning By-law, staff felt that there was justification for including Section 120 in the Zoning By-law and that it neither intruded into nor conflicted with federal jurisdiction. This was due to the fact that Section 34 of the Planning Act gives a municipality the authority to regulate the location of structures generally.
At the same time as the Zoning By-law was being deliberated upon, Industry Canada released the CPC which encourages municipalities to establish their own protocol.Both a mediation session and a teleconference were held with the appellant, in an attempt to resolve this appeal. It was agreed that staff would revise some of the wording of Section 120, and the appellant could submit a standard list of criteria, originally intended to be used by staff when reviewing minor variance applications, but which have now been considered in the creation of the Protocol.
During the mediation of this appeal, other departmental staff were given the direction by Planning Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee to develop the City’s own Protocol in keeping with Industry Canada’s regulatory framework under the CPC 2-0-03.
In the creation of the City’s concurrence and consultation process, staff considered including the matters noted in the appellant’s draft list of criteria as amongst those matters that would be of interest to the City when reviewing any development proposal for residential use antenna systems.
Adopting the City’s own Protocol, including general criteria for the location and siting of antennas, recognizes the City’s role as a commenting body, and essentially replaces the intent of Section 120 of Zoning By-law 2008-250.
With the public review of the proposed Protocol underway, it was felt that staff were in a position to approach the appellant with a proposal to settle the appeal. The appellant has agreed to a settlement, as detailed under the “Consultation” section of this report.
It is clear that the deletion of Section 120 will satisfy the appeal and that the proposed Protocol covers the same concerns while respecting Industry Canada’s jurisdiction over telecommunications. Further, the list of criteria that the appellant supplied to staff as part of the mediation process has been considered in the creation of the municipal concurrence and public consultation process. Once the Protocol is approved by Council, the City will then use a list of criteria when evaluating proposals for antenna systems. This will standardize the manner in which antenna systems will be reviewed and will provide clear direction to staff, applicants, stakeholders and interested individuals.
In addition to the recommended deletion of Section 120, additional minor amendments to Zoning By-law 2008-250 are also recommended. These include the removal of antenna systems from the definition of “utility installation”, and to add a note that identifies that antenna systems are subject to the City’s Protocol.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
Both the deletion of Section 120 and the introduction of the Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation process (under separate cover) affect all individuals and businesses regardless of location within Ottawa.
CONSULTATION
The appellant affected by the changes noted in Document 1 has been sent a copy of this report, as well as both a copy of the Planning Report Number ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0045 – Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation on Antenna Systems, and a copy of Planning Report Number ACS2012-ICS-PGM-053 – Official Plan Amendment – Wireless Communication Facilities. All these reports will be considered by Planning Committee on the same agenda.
The appellant has signed Minutes of Settlement drafted by the City’s Legal Services.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
N/A
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation, if carried, will allow the resolution of the appeal of Section 120 presently before the Ontario Municipal Board.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no risk implications.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS
N/A
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
N/A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Details of Recommended Zoning
DISPOSITION
Planning and Growth Management Department to prepare the implementing by-law and forward to Legal Services.
Legal Services will provide a copy of the implementing by-law to the Ontario Municipal Board for approval, together with a copy of this report.
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 1
1. That Section 54 – Definitions, “utility installation” be amended by deleting the period at the end of the definition and adding the phrase “but excludes antenna systems.” immediately following the words “wind turbine farm.”;
2. That Subsection 55 (4) – Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures be deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following new 55 (4), as follows:
Section 55 (4) “Antenna systems, including satellite dishes, are not subject to the regulations of this Zoning By-law, but are subject to the City’s Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems.”;
3. That Section 64 – Permitted Projections Above the Height Limit be amended to delete the following from the list of permitted types of projections: “television, radio or telecommunication antenna, excluding a satellite dish or tower antenna accessory to a permitted use in a residential zone (see Section 120 for provisions).”;
4. That Subsection 91 (4) be amended by deleting the words ‘transmission and telecommunication towers’ from the sentence; and
5. That Section 91 be amended to add a new subsection (8) that would read as follows:
“(8) Antenna systems, including satellite dishes, are not subject to the regulations of this Zoning By-law, but are subject to the City’s Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems.”; and
6. That Section 120 – Accessory Satellite Dish or Accessory Tower Antenna in Residential Zones be deleted in its entirety.
APPEAL AGAINST ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250 – SECTION 120 – ACCESSORY SATELLITE DISH OR ACCESSORY TOWER ANTENNA IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
APPEL DE LA DÉCISION CONCERNANT LE RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE 2008-250 – ARTICLE 120 – ANTENNES PARABOLIQUES OU ANTENNES-PYLÔNES ACCESSOIRES DANS LES ZONES RÉSIDENTIELLES
ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0056 City Wide/ à l’échelle de la Ville
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That Planning Committee recommend that Council endorse the zoning amendment as detailed in Document 1, to resolve an appeal against the Zoning By-law 2008-250, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board.
CARRIED
Planning Committee considered this item in conjunction with Report ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0045, Municipal Concurrence and Public Consultation Process for Antenna Systems. Please see Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Report 16, Item 5.
———————————————–
NOTE: ALTHOUGH THE ABOVE IS A CUT AND PASTE (WITH NO EDITING) FROM THE CITY WEBSITE PLEASE VISIT THE CITY WEBSITE FOR THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT.
———————————————–
So after a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo it seems we have some new guidelines…
If you want to put up a 48 foot tower with a beam on top on your small city lot you will have a few more hoops to jump through and steps to take. If you want a structure that meets the guidelines then just get it installed and the City will stay out of it… Below a certain level Industry Canada will stay out of it and the city seems to have 15 m as the height they can live with…
If they can live with it then I guess I can live with it…
73bob
ps…. as funny as it sounds… Jeff KE9V got this posted before I did… He reads my local paper it seems and earlier than I do as well… Jeff posted the link on Twitter… I knew where to go to give you a bit more into
If you have some time this afternoon (Eastern Time) give a listen on 20m ssb around 14.285 up to around 14.345 and also perhaps keep SOTAWATCH or QRPSPOTS active on your twitter account…
So this morning while we are dreaming for an updated version lets look a what we would like. I have been using my FT817 for a long time now and my wishes would be:
Todays post just made me laugh and I had to share it with you.
