CITY PLANNING FILE NUMBER

08 192870 WET 06 OZ
Send content, including photos, you want posted on blog to tz.smith@sympatico.ca
Publicly comment on any post by clicking "comments"
Please contact jemcain@gmail.com if you want to be added or removed from the e-mail distribution list for 51 Lake Shore Drive
This blog was set up by neighbours concerned about development on this site. There is currently a proposal to build seven four storey units (six semis and one single) that would greatly reduce public views of the lake, is partially on green space and lakeside "hazardous lands" and is totally out of character with the neighbourhood. This would require a huge amendment to Toronto's Official Plan and zoning by-laws.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

LETTER OF CLARIFICATION OF EXTENT OF CURRENT PUBLIC CLAIM FROM MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Linda Jeffrey, the new Minister of Natural Resources, wrote to Laurel Broten, MPP Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and outlined her ministry's current position on this property.  Laurel had asked for clarification following inquiries from her constituents.  The letter states that her staff have concluded their investigation, reaching an agreement with the developer, and that the matter is now with the Land Titles office.
The letter is archived below. (Double-click on images for better view)

However, the same old questions are raised ....

·     Did MNR have all the evidence required to make their decision?
·     Was their investigation thorough enough?
·    Did the City of Toronto fully explain to MNR why this lakefill land is shown as "open space" (parkland) on City zoning maps?
·     If there is no "evidence" to support either legal or illegal lakefill on this additional 60 odd feet, why default to "legal"?
·    Why not declare there is a current lack of evidence to support either claim and let it go to a public Land Registry tribunal where all parties can present their case?
·    How cozy is the relationship between MNR, the applicant, the applicant's "expert" witnesses and the applicant's counsel?
·     Why is there no onus on the applicant to prove (at a tribunal) that the lakefill was done legally (Le. on dry, accreted lakebed)?
·    Why have'nt the former owners of this property applied for absolute title over the last 100 years?
·     What stopped them? (knowledge that it was really public land?) 



No comments:

Post a Comment