Northern Light
Superstar
The Star suggests it may be under consideration:
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.
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.
