132008.169.1 Notice of submission Victor Weinberg

Section 9.5 of the Strategic. Plan addresses the site's Rural Conservation designation and provides
greater guidance for development on this site through objectives and implementation criteria. The
first (and only applicable) objective of this designation is to:

          "protect the environment values of the land in the Rural Conservation designation and ensure
          those values are not adversely impacted as a consequence of the development on or adjacent
          to the land."

The first implementation criteria under this objective states that land with this designation has
significant constraints which generally preclude its suitability for house site areas. The seco uli criteria
indicates that the protection of the environment values will be the paramount factor in determining
the suitability of any application. The third criteria specifically references the subject land noting that
it has significant environmental constraints and some environmental value and that no further
subdivision is envisaged.

Clearly the applicant is not proposing to subdivide the property. However, it is believed that the
applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that the proposed development will not have
considerable impacts on this site and the surrounding environmental areas. I do not believe that the
application yet meets the above mentioned objectives and implementation criteria.

REGARDING SETBACKS


The PLANNING SCHEME at section 8.10 states that the minimum setback to Western Boundary for
Non Urban zoning is three (3) meters. Any setback closer than the currently proposed seven (7) to
twelve (12) meters would be UNACCEPTABLE and OUT OF CONTEXT given the size of the subject land.
It is worth noting that the minimum setback requirement under the NOOSA PLAN for this site to the
same boundary is six (6) meters.

The setback to the NORTH (The National Park) is insufficient considering the size of the subject land.
The same can be said of the setback to the SOUTH. And I am led to believe, because the applicant
questions the natural line of the frontal dune as determined by LAU surveyors, there is also a problem
with the setback to the EAST regarding the 125m setback line from the toe of the frontal dune.

The proposed construction is too big. It pushes the limits of the boundaries to the NORTH, SOUTH,
EAST and WEST, and goes against the intent for development on this sensitive site.

REGARDING SLOPE STABILITY

The subject land is located within a LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA. Current Best Practice slope stability
construction would call for limiting large areas of cut and fill. The proposed development flies in the
face of the Best Practice methods and council's intent for the sensitive development on sites of this
nature.

I refer to the locality plan. On the same hill with essentially the same slope, only a few meters from
my land, almost directly above and approximately fifty (50) meters from the subject land, there is a
circle of about thirty (30) meters in diameter MISSING from the picture. It would have been in the
picture except that it disintegrated into a sink hole big enough to swallow my house. It was the CUL
DE SAC at the end of McAnally Drive, no longer there, which became nationally known as the biggest
pot hole in Australia.