Servicing reports are commonly returned when the reviewer cannot trace the design criteria, assumptions and calculations to a coordinated set of plans. The issue is often completeness and consistency rather than a single incorrect number.
Evidence and criteria gaps
Frequent comments include missing municipal criteria, unsupported capacity statements, unclear connection assumptions and design flows that cannot be reconciled with the proposed use. A report may cite an available pipe without confirming its size, elevation, operating condition or the limits of the available data.
Stormwater sections are often incomplete when drainage areas, allowable release rates, storage volumes, major flow routes or water-quality measures are not shown consistently between the report and drawings.
Coordination gaps
The architectural, landscape and civil plans may use different building footprints, finished-floor elevations, parking layouts or site boundaries. Service connections can conflict with trees, light poles, retaining walls and utilities. Reviewers also return submissions where revisions were made to one discipline’s drawing but not carried through the report calculations.
A clear comment-response matrix, revision narrative and quality-control check help the reviewer find each change. Bous Engineering provides municipal coordination for civil submissions and resubmissions.
For the next steps, see how municipal engineering comments are addressed and what can delay an engineering submission.
Key takeaway
A review-ready servicing report makes its basis visible: current criteria, controlled input files, traceable calculations and drawings that agree. It should also state where capacity or agency confirmation remains outstanding.
Bous Engineering supports servicing, stormwater, grading and municipal approval assignments across Eastern Ontario.