ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – 327 BESSBOROUGH CLOSE

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

TO: Committee of the Whole DATE: September 2, 2015 FROM: J. Davison, MCIP RPP Planner MEETING DATE: September 8, 2015 FILE NO.: 3060-20-2015-14

ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – 327 BESSBOROUGH CLOSE

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee receive this report for information.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES’ COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to present an application for an Environmental Development Permit (with variances) to permit the construction of an over-height retaining wall and landscaping within the 15m Natural Watercourse and Shoreline Development Permit Area.

BACKGROUND

The property is zoned R-1: Detached Residential (Large Lot) and is adjacent to the entrance to Lime Kiln Cove. The owner was in the process of doing some repair to failing retaining walls and foundation of the house, and built a new 1.5m tall retaining wall approximately 11m from the natural boundary. The distance from the natural boundary and the height of the retaining wall both require variances. The works need the Development Permit due to being within the 15m Development Permit area.

The work is partially underway, having been halted by a Stop Work Order on May 29, 2015.

PROJECT INFORMATION

The subject property is subject to a requirement to obtain a Development Permit according to the Natural Watercourse and Shoreline Development Permit Area (DPA). This DPA focuses on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas.

The applicant has submitted the following information in support of their application:

1. Applicant’s Statement – August 2015
2. Environmental Report – Swell Consulting – July 27 2015
3. Geotechnical Report – Ryzuk Geotechnical – July 28 2015
4. Arborists Report – Talbot Mackenzie – July 15 2015
5. Site Survey – JE Anderson & Associates – June 16 2015
6. Landscape Plan – LADR Landscape Architects – Aug 21 2015
7. Location Plan and Elevation – Matthew Bergink AutoCAD Technician – no date
8. Letters of support from neighbours

Variances requested:

• Variance to the height of a retaining wall from 1.2m to 1.5m.
• Variance to the setback from the natural boundary to the sea from 15m to 11m.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

The focus of this application is the protection of the environment as it relates to the construction of the retaining wall and landscaping on the site. The applicant has provided a comprehensive report from Swell Environmental outlining the existing conditions, the potential impacts of the works, measures to follow during construction, and suggestions for reclamation activities within the DP area. Additionally, the applicant has provided reports from an arborist and a geotechnical engineer, and a plan from a landscape architect to inform the process and ensure that all measures are being taken to protect the natural environment.

Retaining Wall Variances

The Zoning Bylaw identifies a maximum height for a retaining wall as 1.2m. This regulation is intended to both limit unnatural terraforming and to lessen the total visual impact of retaining walls for neighbouring properties. In this case, staff believes that the visual impact on the neighbours is non-existent, and the retaining wall’s height both serves a function and is not excessive in height.

Trees

No trees are being removed as a result of these works. An issue identified by the arborist and the biologist was the deposit of soil around the base of several Garry Oak trees. The reports recommend removal of the soil. This will be a recommended condition of the Development Permit.

Environmental Recommendations

The environmental report outlines recommendations and best practices for the construction activities and the reclamation activities:

• Erosion & Sediment Control and Spill Prevention & Response measures must be implemented to protect the marine ecosystem from construction activities:
  • Schedule construction activities during dry weather;
  • Ensure concrete wastes are contained: wet concrete is not deposited into surrounding water, remove excess concrete, and do not allow water from equipment and tool cleaning to enter the environment;
  • Cover exposed soils (e.g. tarps, grass seed);
  • All work to be conducted by hand.
• Soil removal and tree protection as described by arborists at Talbot & McKenzie.
• Revegetation as designed by LADR Landscape Architects with approximately 50% of the area cleared converted to lawn and 50% to native species.

The report goes on to say that, if these measures are followed:

“In summary, the works completed to date and the remaining proposed work will not disturb any rare or endangered species or ecosystems, and, provided the measures described in this assessment are followed, no negative effects on the ecology of the marine environment and shoreline conditions are expected”

Staff agrees with the assessment and believes that this project is in keeping with the character of the shoreline development in the neighbourhood and will have no negative impacts to either the environment or to adjacent properties.

Staff will be recommending that the enclosed Landscape Plan be implemented as a condition of the Development Permit, along with a performance deposit for 125% of the cost estimate for the works involved.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee receive this report for information.

SUBMITTED BY: J. Davison, MCIP RPP, Planner

REVIEWED BY: L. Chase, MCIP RPP, Director of Development Services

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Subject Property Map
2. Subject Property Orthophoto
3. Applicant’s Statement – August 2015
4. Environmental Report – Swell Consulting - July 27 2015
5. Geotechnical Report – Ryzuk Geotechnical – July 28 2015
6. Arborists Report – Talbot Mackenzie – July 15 2015
7. Site Survey – JE Anderson & Associates – June 16 2015
8. Landscape Plan – LADR Landscape Architects – Aug 21 2015
9. Location Plan and Elevation – Matthew Bergink AutoCAD Technician – no date
10. Letters of support from neighbours