[Northern Light]

The Star suggests it may be under consideration:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/a-tunnelling-machine-trapped-near-old-mill-cost-the-city-25-million-to-rescue-now/article_7569dc64-d75d-11ef-bcd7-e798ddc8c

This (potential) change is the result of scandalous mess where the City's directional boring machine in the Old Mill area got ensnared by lawfully permitted tie-backs from an adjacent condo, prompting a 25M rescue of a 3M machine.

The City wants to avoid a repetition............

While builders express concern that an outright ban could send the cost of foundations for hirise or midrise buildings soaring by 50%.

***

What struck me, from article was this:

Read in the context of the article, the suggestion is that no one records in the City's database, which maps all underground utilities and the water table............. the location of tiebacks.

Why not?

It also got me to thinking, since tiebacks are often located under an adjacent private property, one on which the owners presumably have the theoretical right to dig down, shouldn't the adjacent owner's permission be required?

I mean, you can't build 'over' someone else's property w/out a legal agreement in place, why should get to put anything 'under' their building either?

@ProjectEnd and @ADRM are flagged for thoughts.

 

[ProjectEnd]

The Star suggests it may be under consideration:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/a-tunnelling-machine-trapped-near-old-mill-cost-the-city-25-million-to-rescue-now/article_7569dc64-d75d-11ef-bcd7-e798ddc8c

This (potential) change is the result of scandalous mess where the City's directional boring machine in the Old Mill area got ensnared by lawfully permitted tie-backs from an adjacent condo, prompting a 25M rescue of a 3M machine.

The City wants to avoid a repetition............

While builders express concern that an outright ban could send the cost of foundations for hirise or midrise buildings soaring by 50%.

***

What struck me, from article was this:

View attachment 711516

Read in the context of the article, the suggestion is that no one records in the City's database, which maps all underground utilities and the water table............. the location of tiebacks.

Why not?

It also got me to thinking, since tiebacks are often located under an adjacent private property, one on which the owners presumably have the theoretical right to dig down, shouldn't the adjacent owner's permission be required?

I mean, you can't build 'over' someone else's property w/out a legal agreement in place, why should get to put anything 'under' their building either?

@ProjectEnd and @ADRM are flagged for thoughts.

The City is not considering this, I don't have a clue what the Star is on about. And you can only tieback under a neighbour's property with a Tieback Agreement in place. Legally you don't need a crane swing agreement (though it is highly advisable and insurance generally pushes for them, but they are not required), but you cannot tie under anyone without their permission and appropriate compensation.

 

[citynomad]

The lack of central database is definitely surprising. Tiebacks are usually installed with legal agreements, but a lot of the older ones were never tracked in a modern system, which is why they're causing headaches now.

 

[DSCToronto]

The Star suggests it may be under consideration:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/a-tunnelling-machine-trapped-near-old-mill-cost-the-city-25-million-to-rescue-now/article_7569dc64-d75d-11ef-bcd7-e798ddc8c

This (potential) change is the result of scandalous mess where the City's directional boring machine in the Old Mill area got ensnared by lawfully permitted tie-backs from an adjacent condo, prompting a 25M rescue of a 3M machine.

The City wants to avoid a repetition............

While builders express concern that an outright ban could send the cost of foundations for hirise or midrise buildings soaring by 50%.

***

What struck me, from article was this:

View attachment 711516

Read in the context of the article, the suggestion is that no one records in the City's database, which maps all underground utilities and the water table............. the location of tiebacks.

Why not?

It also got me to thinking, since tiebacks are often located under an adjacent private property, one on which the owners presumably have the theoretical right to dig down, shouldn't the adjacent owner's permission be required?

I mean, you can't build 'over' someone else's property w/out a legal agreement in place, why should get to put anything 'under' their building either?

@ProjectEnd and @ADRM are flagged for thoughts.

I know of two local buildings here in St Lawrence where a new developer next door had to negotiate (and pay $$$$) for tie-back agreements. These are tie-backs into private land and I have no idea if these agreements were registered with the City but those whose property was accessed (below their foundations) certainly know (and were paid.)