2371 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario
|
|
- Brandon Kelley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ISSUE DATE: August 23, 2007 DECISION/ORDER NO: 2371 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario PL Le Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique du Nouvel-Ontario has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council s refusal to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law Z of the City of Greater Sudbury to rezone lands respecting Centennial Drive and Ramsey View Court from R4 Multiple Residential Zone to I Institutional (Special) Zone for Lot 13 and R5 High Rise Multiple Residential Zone to I Institutional (Special) Zone for Lot 1 and part of Lot 2 OMB File No.Z APPEARANCES: Parties Le Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique du Novel-Ontario City of Sudbury Citizens for the Preservation of Nepahwin/Lily Creek Wetland Association ( the Citizen s Group ) Counsel M. Bull S. Watt R. Northey DECISION DELIVERED BY M. G. SOMERS AND ORDER OF THE BOARD CONTEXT Le Conseil Scolair de District Catholique du Nouvel-Ontario ( Conseil ) proposes to construct an elementary school, Ecole St. Denis, at Centennial Drive and Ramsey View Court in the Greater City of Sudbury ( the City ). The elementary school is proposed to be located on lands which are comprised of three parcels of the Plan M- 876: Lot 13, Lot 1 and Part of Lot 2 ( the subject site ). The subject site has an area of approximately 1.9 ha (4.7 acres). On June 16, 2006, applications were submitted to the City to amend By-law Z, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the former City of Sudbury, to permit the development of the elementary school by re-designating Lot 1 from R5 High-rise Multiple Residential to I Institutional Special; and Lot 13 from R4 Multiple Residential to I Institution Special. On August 31, 2006, the application was amended to include Part of Lot 2 from R5 High-rise Multiple Residential to I Institutional Special (Exhibit 5, Tabs 5 & 6).
2 - 2 - PL While two separate application forms were submitted to the City, due to separate ownerships, they were treated as a single application, and assigned one rezoning application file number. On October 6, 2006, the City s Planning Staff recommended in their report the approval of the application. (Exhibit 5, Tab 10) A public meeting was held on October 17, 2006 (deferred from September 19, 2006) with respect to the application (Exhibit 5, Tabs 16 and 17). On October 17, 2006, the Planning Committee recommended that City Counsel refuse the application. On October 25, 2006, Council refused the said application. On November 14, 2006, the Conseil appealed the decision of Council to the Board pursuant to subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act. On December 19, 2006, a new application was filed by Conseil to rezone the subject site from R4 and R5 to I-24 (Institutional Special) (Exhibit 5, Tab 7). On March 20, 2007, the Planning staff issued a staff report, recommending the approval of the application (Exhibit 5, Tab 12). However, on March 20, 2007, there was a public meeting of the Planning Committee; it recommended that Council refuse the application (Exhibit 5, Tab 19). On March 28, 2007, the Council again refused the application (Exhibit 5, Tab 20). However on May 9, 2007, Council approved the proposed development on the subject site, subject to the land exchange of Lot 13 and remainder of Lot 2 (Exhibit 5, Tab 22). PRELIMINARY MATTERS At the beginning of the hearing, representatives of a non-profit corporation, called the Citizens for the Preservation of Nepahwin/Lilly Creek Wetland ( Citizens Group ) requested party status. The Citizens Group opposed the development of the proposed school on the subject site. The Board was advised that the Citizens Group had approximately 127 members and that its purpose was the following (Exhibit 19.a): a. uniting all persons interested in the conservation of flora and faun, the natural beauties of the water bodies, creek and wetlands in the City and the beautification, protection, preservation, restoration and extension of parks, green belts, green spaces and wetlands;
3 - 3 - PL b. gathering and exchanging ideas, data and statistical, scientific, horticultural and botanical information; c. assuring protection and enhancing appreciation of the ecology of the natural environment; and d. assuring improvement of the urban environment. The two parties did not object to the Citizens Group being given party status. The Board finds that the Citizens Group does have an interest in the appeal and was given party status. The Conseil had the following witnesses at the hearing: Donald McCullough, a land use planner; Toivo Rukholm, an engineer with expertise in transportation planning and traffic engineering; John Seyler, an expert in fisheries; Bradley Walker, a biologist with expertise in fisheries, surface water, terrestrial and aquatic vegetation, wildlife and habitat assessment. The City had one witness, Eric Taylor, a senior City planner. The Citizens Group had one witness, Dr. W. Edgar Watt, an expert in flood damage reduction and floodplain management. On May 29, 2007, the Board scheduled an evening session to hear the concerns of the community regarding the proposed development. ANALYSIS 1. Land Use and Compatibility It is Mr. McCullough s evidence, on behalf of the Conseil, that the total area of the lands is approximately 1.9ha with approximately 260m frontages onto Centennial Drive and Ramsey View Court. The northerly portion of the site including all of Lot 13 is low lying. Two connected wetland features are located on parts of Lots 1 and 13. A rock outcrop is located on the south easterly part of the site on Lots 1 and 2. According to the City Staff Report (Exhibit 5, Tab 12), the Regional Flood elevation in this area is 251 metres asl. Most of Lot 13 and the easterly portion of Lot 1 are located in the floodplain. The westerly wetland comprises an area of approximately 0.25ha. The easterly wetland, which is to be retained and enhanced on the subject property, forms part of a larger wetland, which is located mostly on the abutting property to the east. Neither wetland is designated as being Provincially Significant.
4 - 4 - PL The abutting lands to the north include: Centennial Drive and the James Jerome Sports Complex (formerly Lilly Creek Sports Complex). To the east, the adjacent vacant lands contains the channel of the Nepahwin Creek and is zoned I Institutional. Council approved the abutting lands to the east in October 2006 for an office building. The related Official Plan Amendment #266 and Zoning By-law Amendment, By-law Z are subject to appeals to the Board. Lands further to the east are developed as a Shell service station. The balance of Lot 2, Plan M-876 to the south is vacant and is zoned R5, High-rise Multiple Residential. Lands further to the south are developed with a multi-storey apartment building known as Rockview Towers. Lands to the west of Ramsey View Court are developed with townhouses and multi-storey apartment buildings. According to the testimony of Mr. McCullough there is a real need for a new school for the students of Ecole St. Denis. He advised the Board, that after a review process, the Conseil identified the subject site as the most suitable for the school, based on a number of considerations such as location relative to the catchment area of the students that attend Ecole St. Denis; a location that is close to public facilities, such as: Science North, James Jerome Sports Complex, and Lily Creek Boardwalk. Mr. McCullough testified that the reports from the Director of Planning Services and the General Manager of Growth and Development, dated September 12, 2006, and October 6, 2006 (Exhibit 5, Tabs 9 & 10) reviewed the appropriateness of the development of the subject site for an elementary school in terms of conformity with the Official Plan, land use compatibility, traffic, site servicing, storm water management and environmental issues. According to the evidence of Mr. McCullough, public agencies such as the Nickel District Conservation Authority ( NDCA ), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ( DFO ) were consulted and had no objections to the Application subject to a number of conditions. The City Planning Staff recommended the approval of the Application subject to conditions to be met through the site plan approval process. Mr. McCullough advised the Board that servicing of the subject site would not be an issue. He testified that the City s Development Engineering Department confirmed that sewer and water services would be available (Exhibit 5, Tab 12). Mr. McCullough further advised the Board that the High Density Residential designation on the subject site would permit a school on the site, subject to the
5 - 5 - PL satisfaction of the four criteria mentioned in Section 2.11(b) of the Secondary Plan (Exhibit 5, Tab 2). Section 2.11(b) provides: 2.11(b) Permit subject to rezoning, institutional uses on lands designated other than Institution on Map A, provided that: i) sewer and water services are adequate to serve the site; ii) efficient traffic circulation can be provided; iii) adequate parking for the public being served is provided on the site; and, where necessary, public transit services are available or can be provided economically; iv) where adjacent to residential uses, the proposed institutional use can be integrated into the area. According to the evidence of Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor, the City s planner, all four criteria will be satisfied. In addition, it was the evidence of Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor, that the proposed school on the site would be compatible with the surrounding land uses in all respects. Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor both testified that there would be no adverse impact on adjacent land uses that one would normally experience in respect to an infill development. Mr. McCullough did acknowledge that a school on the subject site might be perceived by the neighbourhood residents, especially the residents of the Rockview Towers, to be more intrusive than the existing vacant land that they had enjoyed for approximately forty years. Nevertheless, in Mr. McCullough s opinion, this is not a measure of compatibility from a planning policy perspective. According to the evidence of Mr. McCullough, the proposed school would have a lesser impact on the existing neighbourhood, in particular, Rockview Towers, than the development that could be placed on the subject site and the remainder of Lot 2, as of right. Mr. McCullough testified that the view of the Lily Creek wetland would be significantly blocked by a 17-storey apartment building, which could be constructed on Lot 2 as of right. Based on the uncontradicted planning evidence of Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor, the Board finds the proposed development compatible with the surrounding area
6 - 6 - PL and further finds that the four criteria in section 2.11 (b) of the Secondary Plan have been met. 2. Transportation It was the evidence of Mr. Rukholm, the Conseil s expert in transportation planning, that all of the transportation issues could be satisfactorily addressed on the subject site. Mr. Rukholm s evidence was based on his Traffic Impact Report (Exhibits 21, 22 and 23), which concluded that the traffic from the school could be accommodated on the adjacent road network with the recommended road improvements. Both Mr. Rukholm and Mr. McCullough testified that the City has confirmed that the details of such improvements would be addressed though the Site Plan approval process. It was the evidence of Mr. Rukholm that the proposed parking for the site would significantly exceed the requirement of the Zoning By-law and would accommodate the entire vehicle parking, and bus and car pick up and drop-off on the subject site. In addition, Mr. Rukholm testified that the traffic generated by the school would be significantly less than the traffic that would be generated by the apartment buildings that could be located on the site pursuant to the existing as of right zoning. It is the opinion of Mr. Rukholm and Mr. McCullough that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on transportation. In addition, the City will require, as part of the site plan control agreement, to have a Bulb Out, constructed in the northwest corner of the intersection of Centennial Drive and Ramsey View Court to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety. Furthermore, the City will require the construction of a sidewalk along the school s road frontage. The City Staff Report dated March 6, 2007, notes that other issues such as: access, fencing, parking and internal circulation will be reviewed as part of the site plan process. A traffic impact study was prepared by the Conseil to review issues related to access and pedestrian safety (Exhibit 21). The Traffic Report concluded that the proposed school would have a minor impact on the Paris Street/Centennial Drive intersection. In addition, the Report concluded that the new hospital and the proposed office building on Centennial Drive would be the major reasons for the need for
7 - 7 - PL improvements at that intersection, but the school would contribute a small portion to the requirement. Based on Mr. Rukholm s uncontradicted expert evidence on traffic issues, the Board finds that the proposed development will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the traffic and parking. 3. Fisheries Mr. McCullough testified that the City Planning Staff identified fish habitat on the site as a potential concern. Mr. Seyler, a consultant with Golder Associates ( Golder ), and the Conseil s fisheries expert, testified that he helped prepare a fish habitat evaluation report ( Golder Report ), dated July 2006, which assessed the impact of the development on fisheries habitat based the application denied by Council in October It was the evidence of Mr. Seyler that there would be no alteration to the lower wetland on the site and as such there would be no adverse impact on any potential fish habitat in the lower part of the wetland. Mr. Seyler testified that the only area of the site that would be of concern in regard to fisheries would be the upper wetland. According to the evidence of Mr. Seyler no fish were observed in the standing waters or pools in the upper wetland. The only potential for the upper wetland to be used as a fish habitat would be at high water levels on a seasonal basis if the upper wetland were physically connected to the lower wetland. Even though such a connection was not observed, a conservative assumption was made that the upper wetland could potentially be a fish habitat. In the opinion of Mr. Seyler, the Conseil should provide compensation for loss of potential fish habitat by creating a permanent fish habitat on the site. As a result of the above analysis, Mr. Seyler recommended that the concept plan for the development be revised to provide a permanent pool adjacent to the lower wetland. It is Mr. Seyler s opinion that a permanent pool would provide a net gain to fish habitat value. Mr. Seyler directed the Board to section of the PPS, which provides:
8 - 8 - PL Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal regulations. Mr. Seyler testified that his recommendations would be implemented through the permitting system of the DFO and the site plan approval process and therefore would be in compliance with section of the PPS. In a letter dated February 19, 2007 to the Conseil, Golder advised Conseil that it believes that it will be possible to design and implement a fish habitat plan to address all remaining fisheries concerns and adequately compensate for fisheries impacts associated with development in the upper wetland area. Golder recommended that the Conseil proceed with their plans to create a permanent habitat in the northeast corner of the property as per the new design (Exhibit 5, Tab 13). In addition, Mr. McCullough gave evidence, based on the work of Mr. Seyler, that the proposed school would result in an enhancement of the fish habitat on the subject site as contemplated by policy. Furthermore, it was Mr. McCullough s evidence that the details of such improvements would be confirmed though the DFO permitting process and the site plan approval process as recommended by the City s planners. Based on Mr. Seyler s uncontradicted expert evidence on fish habitat, the Board finds that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on fish habitat on the site. In fact, the proposal based on the Golder Report, would result in an enhancement of the fish habitat for the proposed site. 4. Wetland Mr. Walker, a consultant with Golder, and a biologist with expertise in: fisheries, surface water, terrestrial and aquatic vegetation, wildlife and habitat assessment provided evidence regarding the assessment of the wetlands on the site. According to Mr. Walker s testimony, the upper wetland is a series of isolated pools that is not draining into any other area. It is Mr. Walker s evidence that there is no vegetation or species of significance on the subject site. In addition, Mr. Walker testified that there is no Provincially Significant Wetland ( PSW ) on the subject site. None of the Lily Creek Wetland to the north, the Nepahwin Creek Wetland, or the small upper wetland is a PSW. Mr. Walker advised the Board that section 2.1.3(b) of the PPS does not permit development or site alteration in a PSW. Section 2.1.3(b) provides,
9 - 9 - PL Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: b) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; and It is the evidence of Mr. Walker that there is no PSW on the subject site. Therefore, this section of the PPS does not apply to the subject site. Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor both testified that the Secondary Plan identifies that wetlands are to be protected. Section (b) of the Secondary Plan entitled Specific Policies, Wetland, specifically identities that wetlands shall be protected and identified in Schedule C1 (Exhibit 16). Mr. McCullough advised the Board that Schedule C1 was introduced by an amendment to the Secondary Plan. In addition, it was the evidence of Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor, that there is absolutely no requirement pursuant to the Secondary Plan to protect the wetland, if the wetland is not specifically identified on Schedule C1. Mr. Northey suggested to Mr. McCullough in cross-examination that the Secondary Plan, section (e), should be interpreted to require the protection/retention of all wetlands in the City. However, the Board notes that if section (e) required that all wetlands in the City be protected, then section (b) and Map C1, which requires the protection of specific wetlands, would be redundant and meaningless. The Board further notes that as section (e) and Map C1 were introduced by an amendment to the Secondary Plan, it should be assumed that City Council had a meaningful intent in adopting the Official Plan Amendment which introduced Map C1 and identified the wetlands to be protected. In addition, if the Secondary Plan did require the protection of all wetlands, not just PSW, it would impose a higher standard of wetland protection in the City of Greater Sudbury, than that imposed throughout the Province, by the PPS. No evidence was presented to suggest that this was the City s intent. As such, the Board does not accept that section (e) requires that all wetlands, not just PSW, are to be protected. Based on Mr. Walker s uncontradicted expert evidence on wetlands, the Board finds that there is no PSW on the site and that section 2.1.3(b) of the PPS does not apply. Furthermore, The Board accepts with the uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Walker, that the impact on the wetlands will be acceptable.
10 PL Flooding Dr. Watt, was retained by the Citizens Group, and provided evidence in the area of flood damage, reduction and floodplain management. According to the evidence of Dr. Watt, the portion of the 2005 PPS relevant to the case at hand is 3.1 Natural Hazards. In particular, section provides: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within: d) a floodway regardless of whether the area of inundation contains high points of land not subject to flooding. It was Dr. Watt s evidence that Nepahwin Creek is part of a river, stream and small inland lake system ( RSSILS ). Dr. Watt testified that for a RSSILS, the flood plain is the entirety of the flooding hazard. It was his evidence that for a RSSILS, the floodway is either all of the flood plain, or the inner portion of the flood plain, depending on whether the one-zone or two-zone concept is applied. It is Dr. Watt s opinion, that in this particular case, it is the one-zone concept that applies. As such, the floodway is the entire flood plain. Dr. Watt advised the Board that the meaning of the one-zone concept for flood risk mapping, is as follows: One-zone concept: Using this, planning authorities determine the flooding hazards limit, based on the 100-year flood or major storm-centred event, and prohibits all development or site alteration within those boundaries. This is the most effective way of minimizing threats to public health or safety or property damage. The one-zone concept is the preferred approach for the management of flooding hazards within river and stream systems as it provides the most cost effective means of minimizing potential threats to life and risks of property damage and social disruption. Where the one-zone concept is applied, the entire flood plain or the entire flooding hazard limit defines the floodway. Dr. Watt testified that in 1979, the Nickel District Conservation Authority ( NDCA ), published Flood Risk Maps for Junction Creek. The mapping was conducted by the National Flood Damage Reduction ( FDR ). It was Dr. Watt s evidence that three of the dominant points of the FDR program are: a. will not build, approve or finance flood prone development in designated flood risk areas,
11 PL b. will not provide disaster assistance for any development built after the area has been designated (except for flood proofed development in the flood fringe), c. will encourage zoning authorities under their jurisdiction to zone on the basis of flood risk. It was Dr. Watt s evidence that further restriction on developments in designated flood risk areas was provided in Ontario under the Conservation Authorities Act. He testified that the relevant map for the Nepahwin Creek area applies the one-zone concept of flood plain mapping, which makes no distinction between the floodway and the flood fringe. Dr. Watt further testified that in 1978, the Council of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury adopted an Official Plan that was approved by the Province and contained policies on Hazard Lands. According to section 9.29: It shall be the policy of Council to: b. Prohibit all new buildings, structures, and development expansion in flood plain areas, except such buildings, structures or fill which are intended for flood or erosion control or are normally associated with floodplains, and are approved by Regional Council, the Nickel District Conservation Authority, or are permitted in Section 9.29.(c) and (d); c. Permit minor infilling and redevelopment d. Permit the following uses in hazard areas, provided the hazard will not be aggravated: i. agriculture and related uses, excluding habitable buildings, and structures; ii. selected recreation uses; iii. open space; iv. forestry; v. resource extraction; vi. uses which assist in conserving or managing water supplies, wildlife, or other natural features. In Dr. Watt s opinion, the abovementioned land use restrictions and permitted uses are generally consistent with accepted flood plain management practices. Furthermore, it was Dr. Watt s evidence that the zoning map for the area had two shades covering the lands in the area of Nepahwin Creek, south of Centennial Drive. According to the By-law map legend, the two shaded areas represent Designated
12 PL Flood Plain Restricted Areas DA1 and Designated Flood Plain Restricted Areas DA2. Dr. Watt testified that the DA1 Area appears to be consistent with the floodway/floodplain. One of the restrictions set out in the text of the Zoning By-law for DA1, is no building or structure requiring a building permit, etc. In Dr. Watt s opinion this appears to be consistent with the objectives of the flood risk-mapping program. However, Dr. Watt notes that the zoning map also indicates that the same area is zoned R4, R5 and I. According to Dr. Watt, these zoning categories are not consistent with the flood risk for these lands. In Dr. Watt s opinion, the proposed development is not consistent with the PPS, as it involves development and site alteration on lands within the floodway, established by the NDCA regulatory flood line in its 1979 mapping. In particular, the proposed development places a parking lot, playing field, and access road within the floodway. However, Mr. McCullough testified that the City and the NDCA canvassed the issue of flooding, which resulted in a Concept Plan that specifically did not locate the school building within the flood plain. It was decided that the only uses that would be located in the floodplain, were: (i) playground, (ii) parking lot, and (iii) driveway. It was Mr. McCullough s evidence that the driveway would provide safe access from the school building to Centennial Drive, in the event of a regional flood event. Mr. McCullough directed the Board to Section of the Secondary Plan, which recognizes that the NDCA is the authority that is charged with the responsibility for regulation for the placing of fill in a floodplain. Section of the Secondary Plan provides: Flood Plains Flooding has historically occurred along Junction, Nolin, Copper Cliff, and Lily Creeks. The Maley and Nickeldale dams presently help to control potential flooding along Junction Creek. However, flooding problems due to downstream obstructions and lack of flood water storage still occur particularly in the Flour Mill/New Sudbury and Copper Cliff areas.
13 PL The Nickel District Conservation Authority has prepared and approved detailed flood plain mapping and established fill lines for each of the major watercourses and lakes. Map A indicates the extent of these flood plains. For the accurate determination of flood plain boundaries, NDCA maps should be referred to. Within these areas all development is subject to Ontario Regulation 171/80, of the Nickel District Conservation Authority which regulates construction, the placing of fill and the alteration of the waterways. The provisions of this Chapter also apply. The NDCA did not have any objections regarding the location of the school, as it was outside the designated floodplain area. In a letter dated September 19, 2006, from Dennis Lenzi, a Regulations Officer with the NDCA to the City (Exhibit 5, Tab 14), Mr. Lenzi states: Based on the plans submitted, we have no objection to the proposed location for the school as it is outside the designated floodplain area. The upper wetland area can have the peat removed and be filled to the existing elevation at metres to accommodate the development. The parking lot must be built on existing grad (250.5 metres) no additional fill may be brought in. The driveway may be elevated and flood proofed. The lower pond wetland adjacent to Nepahwin Creek must be protected and no encroachment or filling may occur in this area. The natural storm water drainage, which flowed into the upper wetland, must continue flowing to the lower wetland and into Nepahwin Creek. The land adjacent to Nephawin Creek will remain in its natural state. All construction near the lower wetland will require that sedimentation and erosion control measures be in place. as: The NDCA had a number of conditions that the Conseil had to follow, such 1. Sediment and erosion control measures such as silt fences should be implemented prior to work and maintained during the work phase, to prevent entry of sediment into the water. 2. All sediment and erosion control measures should be inspected daily to ensure that they are functioning properly and are maintained and/or updated as required. 3. If the sediment and erosion control measures are not functioning properly, no further work should occur until the sediment and/or erosion problem is addressed.
14 PL All disturbed areas of the work site should be stabilized as soon as possible after project completion. 5. Sediment and erosion control measures should be left in place until all disturbed areas of the work area have been stabilized. 6. Materials to be used for the project should not be taken from the shoreline or below the high water level of any water body. 7. All materials and equipment used for the purpose of site preparation and project completion should be operated and stored in a manner that prevents any deleterious substance (e.g. petroleum products, silt, etc.) from entering the water. All of the abovementioned conditions will form a part of the Site Plan Agreement. In addition, an application will have to be made to the NDCA and the DAO for the cut and fill operations, and any plans to include culverting or alterations to the watercourse. Both Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor testified that the passive uses, such as a playground, parking lot, and driveway are permitted in the floodplain, subject to the normal approval and permitting process. Mr. McCullough directed the Board to section 3.0 Protecting Public Health and Safety of the PPS. He testified that the objectives of the PPS policies in this section relate to the avoidance of unacceptable risk to public health or safety or property damage. In his opinion, the policy did not require the complete elimination of all risk, but the assessment of the extent of the risk. It is Mr. McCullough s opinion that the issues pertaining to flooding do not apply to the school building, since the school building is not going to be located on the floodplain or the floodway. According to Mr. McCullough, the proposed development is consistent with section 3.1.2(c) of the PPS. Section 3.1.2(c) provides: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within: (c) areas that would be rendered inaccessible to people and vehicles during times of flooding hazards, erosion hazards, and/or dynamic beach hazards, unless it has been demonstrated that the site has safe access appropriate for the nature of the development and the natural hazard; and It was Mr. McCullough s evidence that the concept plan for the subject site would ensure that there is safe access to the school building during a flooding hazard, given the design of the proposed driveway and the preliminary comments of the NDCA as
15 PL noted above. According to Mr. McCullough, section 3.1.2(c) would permit the playground, parking lot and the driveway to be located in the floodplain. However, it was Dr. Watt s evidence that Section 3.1.2(c) only applied to the flood fringe area of a Two-Zone system. Dr. Watt testified that section 3.1.2(c) would be very difficult to implement, since there were very few people that were qualified to interpret whether a site would have safe access. However, the Board notes, that the wording of section 3.1.2(c) does not specifically state that it applies only to the flood fringe area of a Two-Zone system. Mr. McCullough did acknowledge that section 3.1.2(d) did not permit development and site alteration within the floodway. However, it was his evidence, that in interpreting the definition of floodway in the PPS, that the floodway in a One-Zone system includes only the contiguous portion of the floodplain, where development and site alteration would cause a danger to public health and safety, property damage and would not include the entire floodplain. It was Mr. McCullough s evidence that the subject site is not considered to be within the floodway. The Board notes that it was Dr. Watt s evidence that in a One-Zone system the floodway is the entire floodplain. Accordingly, section 3.1.2(d) would prohibit all development and site alteration in the floodplain in a One-Zone system. As such, it is Dr. Watt s opinion that the proposed playground, parking lot and driveway would not be permitted on the site. However, Ms Bull noted, in her submissions, that even if Dr. Watt were correct, the exception contained in section 3.1.3(b) would permit the playground, parking lot and driveway to be located on the subject site as proposed. Section 3.1.3(b) provides: Despite policy 3.1.2, development and site alteration may be permitted in certain areas identified in policy 3.1.2: b) where the development is limited to uses, which by their nature must locate within the floodway, including flood and/or erosion control works or minor additions or passive non-structural uses, which do not affect flood flows. Mr. McCullough testified that section 3.1.3(b) permits development and site alteration in floodplains and floodways, where the development is limited to passive non-structural uses, which do not affect flood flow levels. It was Mr. McCullough s evidence that the proposed uses in the floodplain would fall within this exception.
16 PL Mr. McCullough further testified that the proposed parking lot, playground and driveway properly designed would not affect flood flows. In addition, Mr. McCullough noted that the designs would be subject to the NDCA s approval process. It is Mr. McCullough s opinion, that all of the uses proposed to be located in the floodplain, or the floodway as defined by Dr. Watt, would fall within this exception to the prohibition in section 3.1.2(d) of the PPS. It was Dr. Watt s testimony, that in a One-Zone system, no development or site alteration would be permitted on the entire floodplain. As such, it is Dr. Watt s opinion that the already existing James Jerome Park, with tennis courts, baseball field and soccer field should not have been built in its present location. According to Dr. Watt s evidence, once the flood mapping is completed, no further assessment of flood risk is required, other than enforcing the flood line drawn on the map. Ms Bull notes in her submissions, that Dr. Watt s interpretation of the PPS would impose a complete prohibition on development within the floodplain. Ms Bull argues that if this interpretation were correct, then the sections of the NDCA Regulations authorizing the NDCA to permit such development by way of permit would be meaningless. She further argued that this would not make sense, since the NDCA regulations were promulgated after the PPS. In the final analysis, Ms Bull argues that an interpretation should not be given to the PPS, which would make it directly conflict and render the regulations meaningless. The Board accepts Ms Bull s submissions and finds that Dr. Watt s interpretation of the PPS does not reflect the policy intent. In the opinion of Mr. McCullough, the proposed development is consistent with Section 3.1.4(a) of the PPS, in regard to the location of institutional uses. Section 3.1.4(a) provides: Development shall not be permitted to locate in hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the use is a) an institutional use associated with hospitals, nursing homes, preschool, school nurseries, day care and schools, where there is a threat to the safe evacuation of the sick, the elderly, persons with disabilities or the young during an emergency as a result of flooding, failure of flood proofing measures or protection works, or erosion.
17 PL As previously mentioned, Mr. McCullough testified that the school is not being built on the floodplain and the road, the playground and parking lot are passive nonstructural uses, which will not affect flood flows, and will be assessed at the time of permit issuance by the NDCA and the City though site plan approval. It is the opinion of Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor that the land use regulations in place for the City is consistent with the provisions of the PPS. It was the evidence of Mr. McCullough, that the Zoning By-law provisions regarding the Designated Flood Plain Restricted Areas (DA1) are consistent with the interpretation of the PPS. The DA1 area does not permit buildings or structures, but does permit non-structural uses, such as, playgrounds, parking lots or driveways. It is Mr. McCullough s opinion that the Concept Plan for the subject site is consistent with the DA1 provisions of the Zoning By-law, subject to the approval and permit process of the NDCA. In summary then, it was Mr. McCullough s evidence that section 3.1.2(c) permits development and site alteration, if it can be demonstrated that the site has safe access, appropriate for the nature of the development and the natural hazard. Mr. McCullough testified that the Concept Plan for the site would ensure that there was a safe access to the school building during flooding hazards. Furthermore, it was the evidence of Mr. McCullough that section 3.1(b) permits development and site alteration in floodplains and floodways, where the development is limited to passive non-structural uses and the uses do not affect flood flow levels. It was Mr. McCullough s evidence that the proposed uses in the floodplain would fall within this exception. In addition, it was Mr. McCullough s evidence, that all of the uses proposed to be located in the floodplain, would fall within this exception to the prohibition in section 3.1.2(d) of the PPS. Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor testified that the development of the site is subject to the approval and permit process of NDCA. It was their evidence that the NDCA Regulations (O. Reg. 156/06), gives the NDCA discretion to permit development in hazard lands/flood plains, if, in the NDCA s opinion, the control of flooding would not be affected by the development.
18 PL The NDCA reviewed the proposed development and as noted in Mr. Lenzi s letter dated September 19, 2006, the NDCA has no objections to the proposed development as the location of the school is outside the designated floodplain. The NDCA has a number of conditions that the Conseil has to follow and that the conditions will form a part of the Site Plan Agreement. In addition, an application will have to be made to the NDCA and the DFO for the cut and fill operation and any plans to include culveting or alterations to watercourse. The Board accepts evidence of Mr. McCullough, that section 3.1.2(c) permits development and site alteration in the floodplains and floodways, where the development is limited to passive non-structural use, which does not affect flood flow levels which is the case here. Furthermore, the Board finds that the NDCA does have the authority to permit development in hazard lands/floodplains, if in its opinion; the control of flooding will not be affected by the development. Based on the evidence of Mr. Taylor and Mr. McCullough and the NDCA s letter dated September 19, 2006, the Board accepts the evidence that the NDCA supports the proposed development subject to a number of conditions. Based on sections 3.1.2(c) and 3.1(b) of the PPS and the regulatory approval of the NDCA, the Board finds that the playground, access road and parking lot can be located on the floodplain. 6. Community Participation and Public Interest On May 29, 2007, the Board scheduled an evening session to hear the concerns of the community regarding the proposed development. In all, sixteen citizens provided statements; ten opposed the development; while six supported it. The Board in rendering its decision carefully considered all of the participants statements. A petition was filed that was signed by over 3,000 people over a two-week period that opposed the proposed development (Exhibit 31). The Board notes that the petition did not provide the signatories with any details that an elementary school was to be built on the subject property. The Board will accept the petition; however, it will give it little weight. Another petition was filed with the Board, this time it was signed by 649 parents of the children that go to Ecole St. Denis.
19 PL It was Mr. McCullough s evidence there are many public benefits associated with the proposed development. He notes that the development has the support of the Conseil and City Council, which are elected to represent the public interest in the Greater City of Sudbury. As previously noted, Mr. McCullough testified that there is an urgent need for a new school to replace the existing Ecole St. Denis. A number of the parents gave statements to the Board regarding the need of a new school. Mr. McCullough testified that the school would provide additional parking for the recreational activities at the James Jerome Sports Complex, when the school is not in session. Mr. Seyler testified that there would be a net benefit to the fish habitat on the site. The Citizens Group opposed the proposed development and it was their position that it was not appropriate. The Board notes, that the proposed school would have a lesser impact on the neighbourhood and surrounding area than the residential uses that are permitted on the subject site as of right, in terms of traffic and visual impact. Further, Mr. McCullough testified that the approval of the proposed development and the transfer of the remainder of Lot 2 to the City would ensure that a 17-storey apartment building would not be constructed on Lot 2, immediately in front of the Rockview Towers. The Board finds that there are public benefits associated with the proposed development for the surrounding area and the Greater City of Sudbury. CONCLUSION Having considered all of the viva voce and documentary evidence, as well as the submissions of Counsel, the Board finds that the establishment of a school on the subject site is an appropriate use. It was Dr. Watt s evidence that the proposed development was not consistent with the PPS, as it invited development and site alteration on lands within the floodway established by the NDCA regulatory flood line in its 1979 mapping. In particular, the proposed development, places a parking lot, playing field, and access road within the floodway. However, it was Mr. McCullough s evidence that the City and
20 PL the NDCA canvassed the issue of flooding, which resulted in a Concept Plan that specifically did not locate the school building within the floodplain. In addition, it was the evidence of Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor that the High Density Residential designation on the site permits a school. Further, Mr. McCullough testified that the four criteria set out in section 2.11(b) of the Secondary Plan had been met and that the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding land. The Board accepts with the evidence of Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor and finds that the location of the school is outside of the floodplain. In addition, the Board finds that the site is designated High Density Residential, which permits schools on the subject site. The issue then becomes, whether the regulatory scheme in the Province permits the location of the playground, the driveway and parking lot in a floodplain, provided the regulatory approval is given by the NDCA. It was Dr. Watt s evidence that once the flood mapping was complete, no further assessment of flood risk would be required, other than enforcing the floodline drawn on the map. It was Dr. Watt s evidence, no building and/or non-structural use maybe placed on a floodplain. Furthermore, it was Dr. Watts opinion, that the NDCA did not have the authority and/or discretion to allow any building, non-structural use on the floodplain. Both Mr. McCullough and Mr. Taylor testified that the passive uses, such as a playground, parking lot, and driveway are permitted on the floodplain, subject to the normal approval and permitting process. As previously mentioned, the Board does not accept Dr. Watt s interpretation that the PPS would impose a complete prohibition on the development within the floodplain. If Dr. Watt s interpretation were correct, then the sections of the NDCA Regulations authorizing the NDCA to permit such development by way of permit would not make sense. The Board accepts the evidence of Mr. McCullough that section 3.1.2(c) permits development and site alteration, if it can be demonstrated that the site has safe access, appropriate for the nature of the development and the natural hazard. Furthermore, the Board accepts Mr. McCullough s evidence that section 3.1(b) permits development and site alteration in floodplains and floodways, where the development is limited to passive
21 PL non-structural uses and the uses do not affect flood flow levels. The Board finds that the proposed uses in the floodplain would fall within this exception. Further, the Board finds that all of the uses proposed to be located in the floodplain, would fall within the exception to the prohibition in section 3.1.2(d) of the PPS. The Board finds that the development of the site is subject to the approval and permit process of NDCA. The Board further finds that the elements of the NDCA approval are consistent with the PPS and the Secondary Plan. The details and conditions of the permitted alteration of the site will be secured through the NDCA s permitting system and the site plan approval process. The key conditions regarding the NDCA s approval for the development of the site, includes the matters set out below: 1. Require the school building to be located outside the designated floodplain. 2. Permit the driveway within the floodplain provided that it is flood proofed. 3. Permit the playground and parking areas to be located within the floodplain provided that they remain at the existing elevation. Furthermore, based on Mr. Rukholm s uncontradicted traffic and transportation evidence, the Board finds that the proposed development will not have an unacceptable impact on the traffic. In addition, based on Mr. Seyler s uncontradicted expert evidence on the fish habitat, the Board finds that the proposed development will have a minimal impact on fish habitat on the site. The Board finds that there are no PSW on the subject site, based on Mr. Walker s uncontradicted expert evidence on wetlands. In addition, the Board finds that proposed development will have a minimal impact on the wetlands. The Board notes that City Council and the City s planning staff have approved the proposed development subject to conditions to be contained in the site plan agreement. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that the approval of the proposed Zoning By-law is consistent with the PPS.
22 PL The Board notes that the Planning Act requires that decisions made in the development approval process of the NDCA, DFO and the City have to be consistent with the PPS and as previously mentioned the proposed development will progress in light of the regulatory approval process. The Board finds that proposed Zoning By-law conforms to the Secondary Plan and that it represents good planning. The Board Orders that the appeal be allowed and that the proposed Zoning Bylaw (Z) as set out in Exhibit 5, Tab 4, attached hereto as Attachment 1", be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the enactment of the amending by-law, the applicant shall provide a registered survey identifying that part of Lot 2, Plan M-876, to be rezoned to I, Institutional Special Zone. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the owner shall have entered into a site plan control agreement for the development of the property, addressing along with other matters, the implementation of a traffic impact study addressing access, pedestrian safety, sidewalk requirements, on-site circulation, along with the requirements of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Nickel District Conservation Authority, fencing, landscaping, geotechnical considerations, storm water management and site servicing, all to the satisfaction of the City. The Board so Orders. M. G. SOMERS M. G. SOMERS MEMBER
23 PL061050
24 PL061050
25 PL061050
Site Plan Review Application. Interest in the Property (e.g. fee simple, land option, etc.)
1. Identification CITY OF FENTON 301 South Leroy Street Fenton, Michigan 48430-2196 (810) 629-2261 FAX (810) 629-2004 Site Plan Review Application Project Name Applicant Name Address City/State/Zip Phone
CHAPTER 11 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS
CHAPTER 11 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS 11.01.00 Preliminary Site Plan Approval 11.01.01 Intent and Purpose 11.01.02 Review 11.01.03 Application 11.01.04 Development Site to be Unified 11.01.05
Public School Facilities Element
Public School Facilities Element GOAL 1: THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS AND EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION AMONG LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND BECAUSE OF A SHARED COMMITMENT TO EDUCATIONAL
CITY OF EL MIRAGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PROCESS
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PROCESS Development Applications are reviewed by the El Mirage Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to ensure Building, Engineering and Zoning compliance before scheduling public
Application Submittal Checklist for a BASIC USE PERMIT (BUP) Planning & Development Department Planning Division
Application Submittal Checklist for a BASIC USE PERMIT (BUP) APPLICABILITY. This checklist should be used when submitting an application for a Basic Use Permit. When is a Basic Use Permit required? Section
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
OVERVIEW Effective January 1, 1992 all applications for multi-family residential and all non-residential building permits require site plan approval before permit issuance. All new developments and existing
Conceptual, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Review in Holladay City
Conceptual, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Review in Holladay City The City of Holladay incorporated in December, 1999 and adopted its own zoning ordinance in May, 2000. All land use decisions are made
KEY MAP PLAN AREA MAP. St. Albans Sub-Area Plan. Area Boundary
Richmond Official Community Plan CITY CENTRE AREA ST. ALBANS SUB-AREA PLAN Bylaw 7100 Schedule 2.10A ST. ALBANS SUB-AREA PLAN z ST. ALBANS SUB-AREA PLAN z ST. ALBANS SUB-AREA PLAN KEY MAP PLAN AREA MAP
CITY OF EL MIRAGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PROCESS
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PROCESS I. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 1. Submit TAC Review Application (See Page 3 for TAC Review Application Requirements) 2. Review of TAC Review Application by Technical
Site Plan/Building Permit Review
Part 6 Site Plan/Building Permit Review 1.6.01 When Site Plan Review Applies 1.6.02 Optional Pre- Application Site Plan/Building Permit Review (hereafter referred to as Site Plan Review) shall be required
SITE PLAN, SUBDIVISION & EXTERIOR DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SITE PLAN, SUBDIVISION & EXTERIOR DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Presubmission - Prior to a formal submission, the applicant should meet in person with
A. ARTICLE 4 SKETCH PLAN REQUIREMENTS, MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND/OR LAND DEVELOPMENT
400. 402.A. ARTICLE 4 SKETCH PLAN REQUIREMENTS, MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND/OR LAND DEVELOPMENT SECTION 400 PURPOSE The purpose of the Sketch Plan is to provide an opportunity for the applicant to consult early
PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT
Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT To: Salt Lake City Administrative Hearing Officer From: Casey Stewart; 801-535-6260 Date: Re: September 22, 2017 (for September 28 Administrative
Article 4 PROCEDURES for PLOT PLAN and SITE PLAN REVIEW
Article 4 PROCEDURES for PLOT PLAN and SITE PLAN REVIEW Section 4.01 Purpose It is the intent of this Article to specify standards, application and data requirements, and the review process which shall
SUMMIT COUNTY PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SUMMIT COUNTY PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SINGLE-FAMILY SITE PLAN INFORMATION PACKET GENERAL INFORMATION This information packet explains how your application for a single-family site plan will
David J. Gellner, AICP, Principal Planner
Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT To: From: Salt Lake City Planning Commission David J. Gellner, AICP, Principal Planner - 801-535-6107 - david.gellner@slcgov.com Date: October
2. As such, Proponents of Antenna Systems do not require permitting of any kind from the Town.
Subject: Antenna Systems Policy Number: Date Developed: 2008/09 Date Approved: April 8, 2009 Lead Department: Planning and Development Date Modified: (if applicable) November 26, 2014 A. PROTOCOL STATEMENT:
TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 7:00 P.M. 494 Main Street AGENDA
TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 18, 2017 Lincoln Center Hearing Room 7:00 P.M. 494 Main Street AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING: 1. TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION To revise
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP Department of Planning and Zoning Application for a Commercial / Industrial Site Plan Review
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP Department of Planning and Zoning Application for a Commercial / Industrial Site Plan Review Date: Application is hereby made for a Site Plan Review for a commercial or industrial use.
CHECKLIST PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
N/A Waiver (1) Four (4) copies of application form. (2) Fifteen (15) copies of plan (3) Subdivision/site plan application fee & professional review escrow deposit (4) Variance application fee & professional
CHAPTER 26 SITE PLAN REVIEW
CHAPTER 26 SITE PLAN REVIEW Section 26.1. Committee. The Planning Commission shall appoint three members of the Planning Commission to the site plan review committee which shall be responsible for site
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USE PROCESS III OR PROCESS IV
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 33325 8 th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USE PROCESS III OR PROCESS IV USE PROCESS
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT (LDP) CLEARING CLEARING & GRUBBING GRADING. Date Reviewed by. Project Name
GWINNETT COUNTY Department of Planning and Development One Justice Square 446 West Crogan Street Suite 150 1 st Floor Lawrenceville, GA 30046 Phone: 678.518.6000 Fax: 678.518.6240 www.gwinnettcounty.com
CHAPTER 3. Public Schools Facility Element
CHAPTER 3 Public Schools Facility Element Page 1 of 12 CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT GOAL 3.1: Collaborate and coordinate with the School Board of Volusia County to provide and maintain a
B.2 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN CHECKLIST
B.2 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN CHECKLIST YES* GENERAL SUBMISSION ITEMS Does the submission include: 1. Thirteen (13) copies of completed Application Form? 2. Thirteen (13) copies of the Preliminary
Town of Apex, North Carolina
POND DRAINAGE PLAN APPLICATION Town of Apex, North Carolina POND DRAINAGE PLAN APPLICATION: Applications are due by 12:00 pm on the first business day of each month. Please see the Minor Site Plan Schedule
City of Palmetto Florida
Date Submitted: City of Palmetto Florida General Development/ Construction/ Final Site Plan Application For Planned Developments nly) PRJECT NAME: TYPE F APPRVAL DESIRED: See fee schedule below) Small
Subdivision Application Checklist
City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Subdivision Application Checklist This subdivision application checklist is a tool designed to assist the applicant in the planning process and for preparing the application
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND APPLICATION
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND APPLICATION Design review is the first step in the process of any construction project requiring permits. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Board is responsible for ensuring
Aboriginal Consultation and Environmental Assessment Handout CEAA November 2014
Introduction The Government of Canada consults with Aboriginal peoples for a variety of reasons, including: statutory and contractual obligations, policy and good governance, building effective relationships
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW Information
Information The following information summarizes the City s Administrative Design Review (ADR) provisions. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning and Development Services Department at
RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICANT CHECKLIST
RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICANT CHECKLIST The purpose of this form is to inform applicants of: 1) the requirements for building permits and stormwater permits for residential demolition projects;
PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECK LIST
Name of Proposed Subdivision: The following items must be included with the initial submittal of a Preliminary Plat: Application, filled out completely Project Narrative Pre-application Conference Report
Item 2. September 28, 2017
September 28, 2017 Item 2 Applicant: Georgetown Development Location: 190 N 1100 W Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Community Development Director Public Hearing: No Zone: PRD-1 Attachments: 1. Findings. 2. Project
Radiocommunication Facility Review Protocol
Radiocommunication Facility Review Protocol 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this protocol is to outline the guidelines and review process through which Radiocommunication Facilities are evaluated within
Article 4.0 Measurements and Exceptions
This Article identifies and explains some of the more common forms of measurement used throughout this Ordinance. It also specifies exceptions to certain requirements of this Ordinance. Sec. 4.1 Measurements
SITE PLAN Application Packet (Required For All Non-Residential Development Projects)
SITE PLAN Application Packet (Required For All Non-Residential Development Projects) Community Development Department 90 North Main Street, Tooele, UT 84074 (435) 843-2130 Fax (435) 843-2139 Dear Applicant,
VARIANCE APPLICATION (NO SITE PLAN OR SUBDIVISION)
VARIANCE APPLICATION (NO SITE PLAN OR SUBDIVISION) 190-66. General procedure for completeness review. A. In order to be determined complete for review by the Board, all of the required information must
Town of Skowhegan Application For Development Review
Town of Skowhegan Application For Development Review Return to: Skowhegan Planning Office 225 Water St., Skowhegan, ME 04976 (207) 474-6904 skowcodesec@skowhegan.org To be filled in by Staff: Project Name:
APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW Please Print or Type
www.srcity.org ZONING ADMINISTRATOR (ZA) APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW Please Print or Type DESIGN REVIEW BOARD File # Related Files: LOCATION OF PROJECT (ADDRESS) ASSESSOR S PARCEL NUMBER(S) EXISTING ZONING
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE: MARCH 16, 2016 TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Chair Fox and Members of the Design Review Committee Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Robert Garcia, Senior
Notice of Decision. [2] The subject property is on Plan Blk 1 Lot 51A, located at Avenue NW, within the PU Public Utility Zone.
10019 103 Avenue NW Edmonton, AB T5J 0G9 P: 780-496-6079 F: 780-577-3537 sdab@edmonton.ca edmontonsdab.ca Date: November 2, 2018 Project Number: 286136272-001 File Number: SDAB-D-18-181 Notice of Decision
Hillside & Foothills Development Application
Hillside & Foothills Development Application This box for office use only File #: Cross Referenced File(s): Fee: Zone(s): Are Pre-Application materials attached? Yes No This application is a request to
I. REQUEST: The undersigned petition the Village of Matteson, Illinois to approve the application(s) submitted.
SITE PLAN BUILDING ELEVATION LANDSCAPE PLAN SIGNAGE PLAN APPLICATION FOR THE VILLAGE OF MATTESON I. REQUEST: The undersigned petition the Village of Matteson, Illinois to approve the application(s) submitted.
ARTICLE 3: WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMITTALS
ARTICLE 3: WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMITTALS Introduction This section provides guidance on the submittal requirements for a development to obtain a Watershed Management Permit from
TOWN OF AMHERST PLANNING DEPARTMENT MINOR SITE PLAN AND MINOR ADJUSTMENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURE
TOWN OF AMHERST PLANNING DEPARTMENT MINOR SITE PLAN AND MINOR ADJUSTMENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURE This application package includes the following: Application Procedures Application Form & Checklist
Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division Frederick Street PO Box 8805 Moreno Valley, CA SUBMITAL REQUIREMENTS
Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division 14177 Frederick Street PO Box 8805 Moreno Valley, CA 92552-0805 (951) 413-3206 Fax (951) 413-3210 SECOND UNITS Completed and Signed Project
Essential Skills: Reading and Interpreting Maps and Plans
Essential Skills: Reading and Interpreting Maps and Plans Prepared for: NEW YORK STATE PLANNING FEDERATION April 14, 2015 Prepared by: BME ASSOCIATES Peter G. Vars, P.E. Stages of Plan Review Concept /
REPORT TO COUNCIL DORWICK DITCH PETITION REHABILITATION PROJECT JUNE 8, 2016
REPORT TO COUNCIL DORWICK DITCH PETITION REHABILITATION PROJECT JUNE 8, 2016 Based on a preliminary study by Euthenics, Inc. www.euthenics_inc.com 1 SECTION I GENERAL INFORMATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Rezoning/OCP Amendment Application. Current OCP Designation. Proposed OCP Designation
Development Permit Application Rezoning/OCP Amendment Application Zoning DP Area yes no Variances Requested Development Details Property Size (m² or ha) Current Zoning Current OCP Designation Proposed
MINOR SUBDIVISION. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] B. Dimensions, bearings and curve data for all property lines and easements.
MINOR SUBDIVISION 190-69. Minor subdivisions. In addition to the requirements indicated in 190-67 (SEE BELOW), the information below shall be shown on the plans for all minor subdivision applications.
MULTIPLE-FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
MULTIPLE-FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST This application lists the content and format of the submittal requirements to initiate the Design Review process. An incomplete application will not be
SECTION 2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
SECTION 2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 2-1 ENGINEER REQUIRED: All plans and specifications for Improvements which are to be accepted for maintenance by the County and private, on-site drainage and grading shall
Mailing Address: Fax number: City: State: Zip: Property Owner: City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
/ Department of Community Development ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert California 92260 (760) 346-0611 Fax (760) 776-6417 Applicant: Telephone: Mailing Address: Fax
# Insite RE Inc./ Verizon Wireless Special Use Permit Project Review for Planning and Zoning Commission
#2015-52 Insite RE Inc./ Verizon Wireless Special Use Permit Project Review for Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Request: Location: A Special Use Permit for a wireless communication
Section 1. Introduction
Overview of Manual Acknowledgements i x Section 1. Introduction 1.0 Overview of Section 1 1-1 1.1 The GESC and DESC Permits 1-2 1.2 Reasons for the GESC and DESC Permits 1-2 1.3 Legislative Mandate 1-3
Minor Site Plan Review Process
Minor Site Plan Review Process Pre-Application Conference Community Meeting (optional) Submit Application Determination of Completeness Staff Report (optional) Technical Review Committee Decision Notice
City of San José, California CITY COUNCIL POLICY
City of San José, California CITY COUNCIL POLICY TITLE 1 1 of 6 EFFECTIVE DATE 1/22/91 REVISED DATE 9/16/03 APPROVED BY Council Action - January 22, 1991; August 11, 1992; August 20, 1996 (9d); September
Checklist for Tentative Subdivision Map
Checklist for Tentative Subdivision Map All submittal information shall be provided to the Community Development Department. All submittal information shall be presented along with the Uniform Application,
City of Massillon Site Plan Checklist
City of Massillon Site Plan Checklist The following information MUST be included with all Site Plans submitted for review and processing in order to constitute a complete Site Plan Package. Incomplete
TOWN OF NORTH BRANFORD
TOWN OF NORTH BRANFORD Town Hall 909 Foxon Road P.O. Box 287 North Branford, Connecticut 06471 Planning & Zoning (203) 484-6010 Building Department (203) 484-6008 Department Fax (203) 484-6018 INSTRUCTIONS
Porter County Plan Commission
Plan Type: Development Plan Administrative DRC PC Primary Plan Administrative DRC PC Secondary Plat/Replat Administrative DRC PC PUD Conceptual Detailed Final Project Information Project Name: Developer
Major Site Plan Application
Procedure Section 496-11.3.7 of the City Code: Major Site Plan Review allows for the discretionary review of the site configuration and architectural design of projects which, due to their magnitude, are
PRELIMINARY PLAT / CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PACKAGE REQUIREMENTS
Development Services Department, 3363 West Park Place, Pensacola, Fl 32505 (850) 595-3475 PRELIMINARY PLAT / CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PACKAGE REQUIREMENTS All Preliminary Plat / Construction
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS RCV D REJECT PENDING
1 of 5 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS RCV D REJECT PENDING 1. General Information. 1.1 Applicant s name, address and contact numbers. 1.2 Project name, type, address and legal description of the property. 1.3
-and- (the Artist ) maquette means the drawing or model, prepared by the Artist, of the proposed Art Work;
THIS AGREEMENT made in triplicate this th day of, 200 BETWEEN: CITY OF OTTAWA (the City -and- (the Artist WHEREAS the Council of the former City of Ottawa, an old municipality as defined in the City of
Application for Site Plan Review
Application for Site Plan Review 3275 Central Blvd., Hudsonville, Michigan 49426-1450, 616.669.0200 fax 616.669.2330 It is STRONGLY recommended that any application that must go before the Planning Commission
there are no known Critical Environmental Area(s) on the site which will be impaired as the result of the proposed Actions; and
TOWN OF FARMINGTON PLANNING BOARD PB 0501-18 & 0502-18 SEQR Resolution Determination of Non-Significance Preliminary Subdivision Plat & Preliminary Site Plan, James Brenchley, 5106 Rushmore Road Whereas,
ARTICLE 5 PLOT PLANS & SITE PLAN REVIEW
ARTICLE ARTICLE PLOT PLANS & SITE PLAN REVIEW Section.0 Purpose The purpose of this article is to specify the documents and/or drawings required for plot plans and site plan review so as to ensure that
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. General Submission Requirements
COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST Jan 2016 The following checklist has been compiled to assist the applicant in preparing their application for approval pursuant to Ontario Regulation 162/06. This checklist
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON * * * *
REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 18 to Provide a Definition of Agricultural
APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DEVELOPMENT PLAN
209 S. Main Street Marysville, Ohio 43040 Phone: (937) 645-7350 Fax: (937) 645-7351 www.marysvilleohio.org APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DEVELOPMENT PLAN *** IMPORTANT INFORMATION ~ Please
UNPLATTED SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PACKAGE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Services Department, 3363 West Park Place, Pensacola, Fl 32505 (850) 595-3475 UNPLATTED SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PACKAGE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS All Unplatted Subdivision Application Submittal
ARMOUR TOWNSHIP SITE PLAN APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
SITE PLAN CONTROL ARMOUR TOWNSHIP SITE PLAN APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Site Plan Control is a process involving municipal approval of the lay-out, design and appearance of certain new developments, as authorized
ZONING R-LI Low Intensity Residential District. [Amended by Ord. No. 1684] PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT.
130.19. R-LI Low Intensity Residential District. [Amended 10-2-95 by Ord. No. 1684] 130.19.1. Purpose. To preserve steep slopes, floodplains, and other sensitive natural areas and to provide opportunities
LARAMIE COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE 3966 Archer Pkwy Cheyenne, WY Phone (307) Fax (307)
3966 Archer Pkwy Cheyenne, WY 82009 planning@laramiecounty.com Phone (307) 633-4303 Fax (307) 633-4616 SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 1. Pre-Application Meeting: The applicant shall meet with a Laramie County
PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS CLASS 4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. A. Written Material
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 970.668.4200 0037 Peak One Dr. PO Box 5660 www.summitcountyco.gov Frisco, CO 80443 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS CLASS 4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Per the provisions
5.7 Plan Documentation and Supporting Information.
5.7 and Supporting Information. In any case where the and Supporting Information for a Development Plan requires the submission of a Site Plan, Overall Plan, Landscape Plan, Building Elevations, Sign Plan
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS A.1 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM PLAN SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS A.1 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM PLAN SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS All plans for sanitary sewer main extensions, improvements and modifications
MINUTES. Charles Farris was absent from the meeting. Also present was Rodger Lentz, Janet Holland of Development Services and two interested citizens.
MINUTES Planning & Design Review Board January 9, 2018 The regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Wilson Planning and Design Review Board was held on Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 7:00 pm in the Council
SITE PLAN APPLICATION
SITE PLAN APPLICATION SECTION 1. APPLICANT/OWNER INFORMATION Please Print or Type Applicant/Developer: City: State: Zip: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: Applicant s Status: (Check One) Owner Tenant Prospective
The following draft Agreement supplements, but does not replace, the MOU by and between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the California
The following draft Agreement supplements, but does not replace, the MOU by and between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), which was entered
BEFORE THE QUEENSTOWN-LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN HEARINGS PANEL. IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991
BEFORE THE QUEENSTOWN-LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND the Proposed District Plan STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF TIMOTHY CARR
CITY OF PINE CITY SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES
CITY OF PINE CITY SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES I. PURPOSE AND COMPLIANCE In implementing City Code, Chapter 8, Section 815, the City Council of the City of Pine City (the City ) finds that
APPLICATION FOR SITE PREPARATION PERMIT
Engineering Division 550 Landa Street New Braunfels, Texas 78130 (830) 221-4020 1. Subdivision/Plat Name: Location Description/ Nearest Intersection: Acreage: APPLICATION FOR SITE PREPARATION PERMIT No.
City of Keizer Floodplain/Greenway Development Application
City of Keizer Floodplain/Greenway Development Application If there are any questions about this application, who should be contacted (Agent)? Name: Address: Daytime Phone Number(s): Fax: Email: 1. Applicant
Sec Radio, television, satellite dish and communications antennas and towers.
Se 2106. - Radio, television, satellite dish and communications antennas and towers. (a) (b) (c) (d) No guy wires or other accessories associated with any antenna or tower shall cross, encroach, or otherwise
INTENT An Administrative Site Plan is required for the following situations, excluding single-family detached development:
SECTION 13-400 ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN 13-401 INTENT An Administrative Site Plan is required for the following situations, excluding single-family detached development: A. All development on vacant land
Applying for a Site Development Review (Sign CVCBD only)
Guide Applying for a Site Development Review (Sign CVCBD only) What is it? Site Development Review ensures that new buildings or land uses are compatible with their sites and with the surrounding environment,
City of Hamilton INFORMATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
City of Hamilton INFORMATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT There is a $200.00 non-refundable fee for each request. Requests must be completed and submitted to the Public Works Department, City of Hamilton,
LAW ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 1998
LAW ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 1998 LAW ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER May 7, 1998 Ulaanbaatar city CHAPTER ONE COMMON PROVISIONS Article 1. Purpose of the law The purpose of this law is to regulate relationships
Attachment #2 PPW133-07
Attachment #2 PPW133-07 Pg. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Assessment Study In January 2005, Regional staff retained to commence a Schedule C Environmental Assessment Study to identify the improvements
Applying for a Site Development Review
Guide What is it? Applying for a Who approves it? ensures that new buildings or land uses are compatible with their sites and with the surrounding environment, other development, and traffic circulation.
Planning Permit Application LAND USE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION (LUP)
Planning Permit Application LAND USE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION (LUP) 415 W 6 th ST ~ Vancouver, WA 98660 PO Box 1995 ~ Vancouver, WA 98668 Phone (360) 487-7800 www.cityofvancouver.us Type Of Work Type I
Checklist for Minor Plan Modification
Checklist for Minor Plan Modification All submittal information shall be provided to the Community Development Department. All submittal information shall be presented along with the Uniform Application,
Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control (GESC) Checklist
Development Services Department 100 N. Wilcox Street, Castle Rock CO 80104 Planner of the Day 303-660-1393 Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control (GESC) Checklist A complete Grading, Erosion and Sediment
WILTON MANORS, Island City 2020 WILTON DRIVE, WILTON MANORS, FLORIDA 33305
WILTON MANORS, Island City 2020 WILTON DRIVE, WILTON MANORS, FLORIDA 33305 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (954) 390-2180 FAX: (954) 567-6069 This package includes: General Submittal Procedures Submittal
VINTAGE ORIGINAL ART MURAL REGISTRATION PROCESS
VINTAGE ORIGINAL ART MURAL REGISTRATION PROCESS VAM Applicant wants to register a mural created before October 12, 2013 as a Vintage Original Art Mural Contact DCA Mural exists in database Mural is NOT
Recommended Changes to the Public Hearing Draft Zoning Ordinance
DATE: December 6, 2016 TO: Village of Oak Park FROM: Arista Strungys SUBJECT: Recommended Changes Recommended Changes to the Public Hearing Draft Zoning Ordinance ZONING MAP» Edit to remove right-of-way
BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2017
BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 Mr. Virgona called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. The following statement was read: Pursuant to The Open Public