Lot Grading / Plot Plans Sample Clauses

Lot Grading / Plot Plans. Lot grading must adhere to the latest approved Laurel 22 Lot Grading Plan (found on The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (Phase 4) website), not to adjacent lots or unfinished lanes. The Buyer is responsible for meeting the required grade elevations and ensuring drainage patterns are maintained within the property lines to the satisfaction of the Municipality. Drainage ▇▇▇▇▇▇, bioretention areas (rain gardens) and retaining walls, where required and approved must be designed to enhance the site’s natural character and conform to the overall approved site grading and drainage plans. Drainage ▇▇▇▇▇▇, bioretention areas (rain gardens) and retaining walls that are installed by the Developer shall not be altered in any way. The costs of obtaining proper grading and drainage are the responsibility of the Buyer. Plot plans must be prepared by an Alberta Land Surveyor (A.L.S.) and include the information required as per Appendix E.

Related to Lot Grading / Plot Plans

  • Design Criteria A/E shall prepare all work in accordance with the latest version of applicable County’s procedures, specifications, manuals, guidelines, standard drawings, and standard specifications. A/E shall prepare each Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) package in a form suitable for letting through County’s construction contract bidding and awarding process.

  • Grading The coarse aggregate as delivered to the mixer, shall be well graded as per IS specifications. Maximum size of aggregate used for the work shall be 20mm or 40mm or as specified in items in the bill of quantities and it shall confirm to IS: 383-1970, clause 4.2 (Table-2) However, the exact gradation required to produce a dense concrete of specified strength and desired workability shall be decided as per laboratory test by the Engineer. Coarse aggregate for use in concrete shall be well graded and shall conform to IS: 383-1970 requirements (as per Table-II) given below: 63mm 100 - - - 40mm ▇▇-▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ - - 20mm ▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇-▇▇▇ 100 - 16mm - - ▇▇-▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ 12.5 - - - 90-100 10.00 ▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇-▇▇ 4.75mm 0-5 0-10 0-10 0-10

  • Design Criteria and Standards All Projects/Services shall be performed in accordance with instructions, criteria and standards set forth by the Director.

  • Loop Testing/Trouble Reporting 2.1.6.1 Telepak Networks will be responsible for testing and isolating troubles on the Loops. Telepak Networks must test and isolate trouble to the BellSouth portion of a designed/non-designed unbundled Loop (e.g., UVL-SL2, UCL-D, UVL-SL1, UCL-ND, etc.) before reporting repair to the UNE Customer Wholesale Interconnection Network Services (CWINS) Center. Upon request from BellSouth at the time of the trouble report, Telepak Networks will be required to provide the results of the Telepak Networks test which indicate a problem on the BellSouth provided Loop. 2.1.6.2 Once Telepak Networks has isolated a trouble to the BellSouth provided Loop, and had issued a trouble report to BellSouth on the Loop, BellSouth will take the actions necessary to repair the Loop if a trouble actually exists. BellSouth will repair these Loops in the same time frames that BellSouth repairs similarly situated Loops to its End Users. 2.1.6.3 If Telepak Networks reports a trouble on a non-designed or designed Loop and no trouble actually exists, BellSouth will charge Telepak Networks for any dispatching and testing (both inside and outside the CO) required by BellSouth in order to confirm the Loop’s working status. 2.1.6.4 In the event BellSouth must dispatch to the end-user’s location more than once due to incorrect or incomplete information provided by Telepak Networks (e.g., incomplete address, incorrect contact name/number, etc.), BellSouth will ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Networks for each additional dispatch required to repair the circuit due to the incorrect/incomplete information provided. BellSouth will assess the applicable Trouble Determination rates from BellSouth’s FCC or state tariffs.

  • Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure: A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have. B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit. C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant. D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable. E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.