Metroscapes
Active Member
Again, focusing on the natural hazard aspect (what I can speak to).
First things first, I am not part of the City or TRCA so I could be wrong. But I would expect the City takes the TRCA's advice, with little to nothing overtop. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect the City to provide commentary on top of the TRCA's analysis.
Second, It seems the applicant is asserting that it is not within the erosion hazard. That's a valid argument to make, with justification. But again, the impression I got from the documents is that even if they said "per TRCA", they showed the slopes on either side of St Dennis Drive (i.e. north of the "paleo terrace") as being in the broader erosion hazard.
The letter says the opposite. So if that's the argument you're making, revise your documents. You can't break up the hazard like this, you're either in or out of the overall hazard. Pick a lane. The applicant needs to revise their argument and justify to the TRCA that Slopes 2 and 3 are not part of the overall hazard lands.
Again, I'm not an engineer, and I'm not TRCA judging the policy adherence here. But again, it strikes me they "received this comment from TRCA", but got nothing from the City, and it's up to the City/TRCA to produce a technical report refuting their findings. I don't think that's how it works. I believe it's up to the applicant to do the studies to satisfy. And as I outlined above, no additional work is really needed, it's a disagreement over policy / definitions and the legal team's assertions conflicting with what the studies suggest.
