DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA GUIDELINES - REVIEW

September 13, 2016Pages 204–2102 sections

Staff review checklist documenting how the proposal complies with Environmental Protection & Natural Hazard guidelines.

September 8, 2016Reviewer: James Davison

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA GUIDELINES - REVIEW

Application Number:	DP 2016/09
Address:	2670 HERBATE RD
Legal Description:	LOT A SECTION 3 HIGHLAND DIST. PLAN VIP72045
Applicant:	DAMON LANGLOIS
Description:	DOCK CONSTRUCTION W/VARIANCE
Plan Details:
Reviewer:	JAMES DAVISON
Date:	SEPT. 8 2016

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & NATURAL HAZARD

General

Guidelines	Proposal
Development in freshwater riparian areas – e.g. adjacent to streams, lakes, wetlands and other freshwater watercourses – must comply with the requirements of the Riparian Area Regulations.	YES
Development of riparian and shoreline areas should be limited and not negatively impact the ecological health of the immediate area or impede public access.	YES
Table text snippet regarding retention of vegetation Retention of existing healthy riparian and shoreline vegetation should be maximized with any paths, structures or other constructed areas sited to minimize impact on trees and sensitive areas.	YES
Table text snippet regarding restoration of habitat Restoration of riparian and shoreline vegetation and habitat, including removal of invasive species, is encouraged for all properties within this Development Permit Area. Development should result in a net increase in native vegetation in almost all circumstances including trees, shrubs and grasses.	YES - APPLICANT PLANS TO REMOVE INVASIVES, PLANT NATIVE SPECIES.

Guidelines	Proposal
For shoreline areas heavily impacted by previous development, target the restoration of ecologically appropriate vegetation for an average 15m wide (minimum 5 m) shoreline zone over 50% of the shore length.	APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE DETAILED PLAN IF DESIRED, BUT IMMEDIATE SHORELINE IS NATURAL.
Riparian and shoreline area development should sensitively manage storm water, focusing on infiltration and release of storm water in ways and quantities that mimics natural patterns, avoids scouring and erosion and results in storm water free from pollutants.	N/A
Shoreline protection measures should be limited to those necessary to prevent damage to existing structures or established uses on adjacent upland.	YES
In the design of new developments or re-development, the use of soft engineered and innovative alternatives to stabilizing shorelines and preventing erosion, such as bioengineering rather than traditional hard engineered measures should be used. In general, the harder the construction measure, the greater the impact on shoreline process, including sediment transport, geomorphology and biological functions. "Hard" measures refer to those with solid, hard surfaces, such as concrete bulkheads, while "soft" structural measures rely on less rigid materials, such as biotechnical vegetation measures or beach enhancement. There is a range of measures varying from soft to hard that include: Vegetation enhancement. Upland drainage control. Biotechnical measures. Beach enhancement. Anchor trees.	YES.

Page 3 of the form completing general guidelines and starting the docks and wharves guidelines.

Guidelines	Proposal
List of hard shoreline measures Gravel placement. Rock (rip rap) revetments. Gabions. Concrete groins. Retaining walls or bulkheads.	YES
Text snippet regarding professional consultation for hard measures Where hard measures can conclusively be shown to be the only means of effectively preventing erosion, they should be designed in consultation with a registered professional biologist, qualified environmental professionals and professional engineers, as appropriate.	YES
Text snippet regarding preservation of overhanging vegetation The preservation and enhancement of native trees and shrub clusters that overhang the waters edge is strongly encouraged as these provide shade, protection and feeding habitat for fish and wildlife.	YES
Text snippet regarding public pathways design Any new public pathways or public access should be designed and constructed in consultation with a registered professional biologist or qualified environmental professional, as appropriate, and the Town of View Royal Parks Department.	YES

Construction of New & Replacement of Existing Docks & Boat Launch Facilities

Guidelines	Proposal
Text snippet regarding public access and multiple users Docks and wharves should ensure that public access along the shore is maintained, and should serve multiple users as much as possible rather than one dock per property.	YES
Design, size and location of docks and wharves should not limit opportunities for water access for neighbouring private properties.	YES

Page 4 of the form continuing dock guidelines and starting rocky shore guidelines.

Guidelines	Proposal
Private docks and wharves should be designed to provide access to the water and seasonal boating opportunities, rather than sized to facilitate year round moorage of boats.	YES
Docks and wharves should be sited to avoid impacts on sensitive ecosystems such as eelgrass beds, fish habitat, and natural processes such as currents and littoral drift.	YES
Docks should be constructed in a manner that permits the free flow of water beneath. Supports should be located on a hard substrate.	YES
Text snippet regarding floating docks and minimal ramp use Floating docks should not rest on the bottom at any time and a minimal, moveable ramp should be utilized to connect the dock with the shore rather than a fixed wharf or pier.	YES
Piers and pilings and floating docks are preferred over solid-core piers.	YES
Text snippet regarding materials for dock construction Docks should be constructed of stable materials that will not degrade over time. The use of unenclosed plastic foam or the use of creosote treated pilings is strongly discouraged.	YES

Specific Ocean Shoreline Types – Rocky Shores (Proposal: N/A)

Guidelines	Proposal
Ensure that a minimum 15-metre setback for new buildings and structures, additions to existing buildings and structures or the placement and removal of fill is maintained.
Due to the inherently stable nature of this type of shoreline, applications for shore protection measures will generally not be accepted unless evidence is provided by a qualified coastal professional that there is a substantial risk of damage or loss of structures.

Guidelines	Proposal
Due to the inherently stable nature of this type of shoreline, applications for shore protection measures will generally not be accepted unless evidence is provided by a qualified coastal professional that there is a substantial risk of damage or loss of structures.

Page 204–210

Beach Shores (Proposal: N/A)

Guidelines	Proposal
Text snippet regarding beach shore setback and nourishment Ensure that a minimum 15-metre setback for new buildings and structures, additions to existing buildings and structures, or the placement and removal of fill is maintained.
Continued snippet regarding beach nourishment design Where shore protection measures are necessary, make use of "beach nourishment" designs, which add appropriately sized material to the upper beach, creating a natural beach slope and beach armour.
Use of seawalls and rip rap embankments are generally not acceptable except when no alternative shore protection design is possible.

Marsh Shores

Guidelines	Proposal
Text snippet regarding property-specific assessment for marsh shores Provide a property-specific assessment with respect to building setbacks and shore protection designs, as stream sediment processes are important and will vary from site to site.	YES
Dredging or filling of marsh shore should not be permitted.	YES
Use of marsh shore areas should be limited to park or conservation uses that do not require structural intrusions.	YES

Guidelines	Proposal
Repeated text snippet regarding beach nourishment for marsh shores Where shore protection measures are necessary, make use of "beach nourishment" designs, which add appropriately sized material to the upper beach, creating a natural beach slope and beach armour.	YES / N/A
Text snippet prohibiting seawalls on marsh shores Sea walls and rip rap embankments should not be used to protect these shoreline areas.	N/A

Development Applications

Guidelines	Proposal
i. Development applications shall include an impact assessment report, following recognized best-management practices, prepared by a registered professional biologist with the following information: Detailed identification of all environmentally sensitive areas within the site; Criteria used to define the boundaries of ESAs; Inventory of significant fish species, red and blue list species, sensitive ecosystems, wildlife trees and related habitat classification within the site; Impact statement describing effects of the proposed development on natural conditions; Recommendations for mitigating habitat degradation, including management of sedimentation and erosion, stabilization and re-vegetation of degraded or impacted areas, Text snippet regarding identification of development-free areas identification of areas that should remain free of development or be subject to special conditions, and recommendations as to any rearrangement of proposed development activities on the site that would be beneficial to the protection of ESAs.	YES.

Guidelines

Proposal

i. Development applications shall include an impact assessment report, following recognized best-management practices, prepared by a registered professional biologist with the following information:

Detailed identification of all environmentally sensitive areas within the site;
Criteria used to define the boundaries of ESAs;
Inventory of significant fish species, red and blue list species, sensitive ecosystems, wildlife trees and related habitat classification within the site;
Impact statement describing effects of the proposed development on natural conditions;
Recommendations for mitigating habitat degradation, including management of sedimentation and erosion, stabilization and re-vegetation of degraded or impacted areas,
Text snippet regarding identification of development-free areas
identification of areas that should remain free of development or be subject to special conditions, and recommendations as to any rearrangement of proposed development activities on the site that would be beneficial to the protection of ESAs.

YES.

Guidelines	Proposal
ESAs Guidelines for mitigating habitat degradation, including limits of proposed leave strips and buffer zones.	YES
Recommended development permit conditions under s. 920(7) of the Local Government Act, to be considered by the Town in issuing a development permit, including any recommendations regarding the timing and sequence of development activities and the monitoring of those activities by the professional biologist.	YES
In relation to watercourse areas, the impact assessment report shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional in accordance with the assessment methods for riparian area assessments prescribed under the Riparian Areas Regulation and shall provide the information listed in the previous guideline.	YES
Where development is within this Development Permit Area, design details of proposed mitigating measures are to be provided in an environmental management plan prepared by qualified project consultants with the assistance of a registered professional biologist. Minimizing sedimentation and erosion, stabilizing and re-vegetating impacted areas, and monitoring requirements must also be addressed in the management plan.	YES.
Where development is within this Development Permit Area, a storm water management plan must be prepared by a qualified engineer in consultation with a registered professional biologist.	N/A.
Where steep or unstable slopes exist or there is risk of flooding, a report from a geotechnical engineer must be provided.	N/A
Design details for all shoreline works must be submitted by qualified engineer.	N/A.