Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Corporation of the District of Burnaby, B.C., in recognition of its growing complexity and the expanding goals of its citizenry, adopted the Burnaby Zoning By-law #4742 in June of 1965. In section 7.3(i) it specifies that Preliminary Planning Approval (PPA) must be received from the Director of Planning before the issuance of a Building Permit. PPA is intended to ensure that the preliminary design drawings meet all of the provisions of the Zoning By-law, reflect Council policies and observe other relevant municipal by-laws. The system in Burnaby appears to be effective in obtaining a signed commitment from the developer agreeing to execute the project in accordance with the approved PPA drawings. It is after this point that the present system appears to break down— 76% of projects constructed 1974 -1976 were not completed exactly according to the approved design drawings. Most of the variance occurs in finishes, details and landscaping as opposed to siting, bulk and use regulations, and is such that the environmental criteria which could have been met by the faithful execution of the approved plans, is not being met. This reduces environmental standards below that which is being approved on the PPA drawings. The purpose of this study is: (1) to show why compliance is necessary/desirable; (2) to understand the problem and suggest possible remedies. The findings confirm that PPA compliance is desirable for the following reasons: the short term achievement of each of 48 community objectives is directly dependent upon compliance to the PPA drawings; one change in any of nine compliance categories can adversely affect the short term achievement of many objectives; compliance is not advantageous to only one group to the exclusion of all others, rather it is mutually beneficial to at least three major groups (the Municipality, the general public and developers) in eight compliance categories and to two groups in the ninth; compliance can offer a number of advantages to the Municipality, the general public and developers' and no major disadvantages have been found to indicate that compliance should not be encouraged. The findings also confirm that compliance is critical for the achievement of many community objectives. It has been found that 38 of the 48 objectives discussed cannot be achieved by alternative devices independently of the PPA process. The examination of the present development control system from PPA application to completion shows that variation from the approved drawings can occur because of bureaucratic errors, unfamiliarity with the PPA drawings, ignorance of proper amendment procedures, blatant disregard for the drawings and peculiar site conditions. It was then found that the current: system can be adapted to deal with the first three potential sources of non-compliance; but the system is currently incapable of effectively dealing with blatant disregard for the drawings or peculiar site conditions, nor can it easily adapt. These observations resulted in several recommendations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".