Planning manager Don Herweyer wrote to planner Sally Switzer on July 4, 2007:
Sally,
I spoke to Erwin Dreessen today regarding the RONA application that is currently on circulation.
Mr. Dreessen would like clarification on a number of points including the following:
1) Does the proposed development intrude into the 1982 floodplain limit?
2) If it does it would be premature for the City to consider approving the development. I indicated that if it were to intrude that the approval of the Class EA for the Carp River Restoration project would be a prerequisite to the development proceeding.
3) Mr. Dreessen did not receive a copy of the draft plan of subdivision so the references to the Block #’s in the Application Summary are not clear. I have provided a full size copy of the draft plan of subdivision which will be mailed to Mr. Dreessen’s home address tomorrow.
4) Mr. Dreessen would like to receive a plan indicating the existing zoning and the proposed zoning. I indicated that this is typically prepared later in the process when the application for zoning is ready to proceed to Committee and Council, but that we would prepare a plan showing this as soon as possible. Please have Mapping prepare same and forward a copy of same via e-mail to Mr. Dreessen.
5) Mr. Dreessen would like to view stormwater management report prepared in support of the subdivision application. Please contact Mr. Dreessen following July 9th for him to view said study.
Lastly, Mr. Dreessen will be away until July 9th. I indicated that there was no difficulty in providing formal comments after his return given that additional information is required in order for meaningful comments to be provided. Mr. Dreessen if I have missed anything please feel free to clarify via e-mail.
I replied the following day:
Don, Sally:
Don’s e-mail fairly reflects our conversation of yesterday, except:
– I also requested a copy of the draft Conditions of Plan of Subdivision, not just the map; a reduced form of the map would also be appreciated;
– I would want to receive a copy of the SWM report, not be told that I can come and see it somewhere. I need to pass this on to others with greater expertise than I;
– The paragraph in the Summary dealing with the proposed zoning is quite specific; there must be a map now. As a minimum, a map with the current zoning should be available;
– To the extent possible, both electronic and paper versions of the additional information would be appreciated;
– I never said anything about being away until July 9. I noted the comment deadline of July 6 and asked whether our conversation yesterday qualified as in-time comment; follow-up would inevitably stretch beyond that deadline. You indicated that that was ok, that the August 13 planned Draft PoS Approval was optimistic anyway.
Finally, let me emphasize again that this file seems to repeat the history of the Taggart/Loblaws application in this same area. On that issue, Carol Gudz felt compelled to file an appeal to the OMB, only to find out much later, following considerable effort and expense by both appellant (and her agent, me) and the applicant, his lawyer and consultants, and the Board, that we had no significant reason for concern because the proposed development did not intrude into the 1982 floodplain. That is, the inadequacy of the information provided by the city to the public was the cause of our apprehended concern. Sadly, this June 8 Summary repeats that pattern. It is incumbent upon the city to improve its ways.
It was subsequently explained to me that the draft Conditions for the plan of Subdivision have not been composed yet.
Erwin Dreessen
21 July 2007