Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

In light of the lack of evidence regarding the feasibility of ingress and egress under EC 9.724(2)(b)(3), the Commission should reverse the Hearings Official's decision on this issue and deny the application. Issue 4: The piping of Brae Burn Creek and the capture, piping and pumping of surface and stormwater to irrigate other parts of the cemetery unnecessarily removes attractive natural vegetation in violation of EC 9.724(b)(1). The Commission should hold that the Hearings Official erred in finding that piping the creek is necessary for wastewater and stormwater management, and should hold that the piping of the creek will unnecessarily remove attractive natural vegetation in violation of EC 9.724(2)(b)(1). EC 9.724(2)(b)(1) requires that the proposed project be designed to "Avoid unnecessary removal of attractive vegetation". (Emphasis added). The applicant has included plans in the CIR application to pipe approximately 340 feet of Brae Burn Creek that cross the southwest corner of his property. His plan is to pipe the creek, capture surface and stormwater and pump the water to a future reservoir to irrigate other parts of the cemetery. Applicant's Hearing Memorandum, p. 3. Since the piping will be part of an irrigation system for other parts of the cemetery, it is not necessary for the proposed housing development and will unnecessarily remove attractive natural vegetation in violation of EC 9.724(2)(6)(1). The Hearings Officer, however, found that the piping of the creek is necessary to get sanitary lines under the creek to reach City facilities south of the property, that it is necessary to remove vegetation to get storm water to the creek, and that piping the creek is part of the CIR housing development. Decision of the Heariings Official, p. 8. However, the Hearings Official's findings on this issue are in error. First, the Hearings Official made a factual error in holding that "[t]he creek is piped on both sides of the property [and that] [t]he application seeks to pipe the rest of the creek...". Decision of the Hearings Official, p.3. The creek, in fact, is not piped on both sides of the property. As my Post Hearing Submittal, p.3 states, "[t]he creek is open its entire length, except where it goes under streets". Oral testimony at the hearing by David Berg and Tamara Horodysky also provided evidence that the creek is not piped nett to the applicant's property and that the only piping is culverts under Brae Burn Drive. The clearest evidence that the creek is not piped on either side of the applicant's property is contained in the applicant's final site plan which shows that the applicant's property does not abut Brae Burn Drive where the culverts are contained. Second, there is no evidence that the piping of the creek across the entire southwest corner of the proper . a distance of approximately 340 feet, is necessary in order to place a sanitary line under the creek. The applicant submitted no expert testimony on the piping issue and there is nothing in the applicant's submissions explaining that such piping is necessary. The Public Works Response on the wastewater service makes it clear that such piping is not necessary. Public Works noted in regard to wastewater that "the connection to the public wastewater system at this location would appear to involve a crossing of North Braewood 11