Oh, if only the two sides of the family had talked, I'm sure all of this totally-not-illegal-manoeuvring could have been avoided. (So, how was that settled eventually? Were the tenants sent to debtors prisons? The whole thing sounds Dickensian.)

42
 
The site in question, as it appeared in City of Toronto aerial photos from 1970: (the year a Sorbara affliated company signed a lease for the site, from another Sorbara company)

1654796556725.png
 
interchange42 said:
Oh, if only the two sides of the family had talked, I'm sure all of this totally-not-illegal-manoeuvring could have been avoided. (So, how was that settled eventually? Were the tenants sent to debtors prisons? The whole thing sounds Dickensian.)

42
Click to expand...

A quick follow-up search doesn't show any obvious articles on the fallout; I doubt the archived legal docs were ever digital........
 
This one is the subject of an Appeals Report to the next meeting of EYCC:


Applicant appealed to the OLT back in March.

City and the applicant are miles apart here. The City does not envision anything like the proposed level of intensification here. Noted is that the site is 950M from the nearest entrance to Pioneer Village Station, and is outside any PMTSA or Secondary Plan area.

1698849820830.png

1698849852338.png
 
Nothing specific to report.........yet........but in advance of this fall's OLT meeting the City and the Proponent are communicating.

This could show up on the next Council agenda as a settlement offer, TBD.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top