Toronto 2630 Kipling | 24.5m | 6s | Petrogold | K. Loffler McAlpine
- Thread starter PMT
- Start date
This is pretty much halfway between Finch and Steeles, on the opposite side of Kipling from where a number of slabs overlook the Humber Valley to the east.
42
42
WislaHD
Superstar
This one had a file uploaded to the portal, correspondence between the proponent and the City over TRCA lands. @Northern Light would be best suited to make sense of it!
Northern Light
Superstar
Essentially the issues are thus:
Rowntree Creek currently passes under Kipling in a box culvert.
That culvert is under-sized and creates a bottleneck during flood conditions, where the water either backs up, creating a flood risk upstream of Kipling, or may over-top Kipling.
Evidence suggests the former will occur before the latter.
In order not to be developing in a hazard zone , waterflow may represent a danger to people or property, a solution must be agreed upon.
After initial technical work, two possible solutions were worked out. The first, is a relief culvert beside the existing one, which can handle additional flow. This is the much cheaper, and less disruptive option.
The second is replacing the entire box culvert with a larger one.
The knock on the former is that it only expands conveyance by 15%; which is likely enough, at least for the immediate needs of the development here; but which may be under-sized relative to future needs; and also that creates one more structure the City must then maintain. The knock on the latter is that its ~4x the cost, and would be more disruptive to traffic on Kipling.
The estimated cost of the latter option is 1.4M. However, it does provide 25% more flow capacity and also leaves the City only one piece of infrastructure to maintain.
The TRCA's direction was that they prefer the full replacement option, but if the City didn't want to play ball on that one, they could live with the relief culvert option.
The correspondence is the developer requesting the City agree to cost share the larger option; or agree to the less costly choice.
They make the case that the 1.4M is sufficiently prohibitive that without cost-sharing, the culvert replacement option may 'sterilize' area sites from future intensification.
Given that almost all the other affected properties are SFH, and within the yellowbelt, this is an amusing assertion.
That correspondence dates from August and I don't know what solution has been agreed to at this point, if any.
****
There are no good face-on pictures of the culvert that I could see in the files available, but you can make it out in this aerial pic from the Natural Heritage Impact study:
Culvert is in the lower right of the above image with the light blue line passing through it and under Kipling.
This is a sketch of the Relief Culvert option:
In the image below, you see an orange-shaded area, which is the existing flood-risk designated zone:
The narrower red lined area represents the reduced flood risk area after improvements.
You can see that currently the entirety of the subject lands are within the risk area, while post-improvement only a few metres are the rear of their property would remain at risk.
Amare
Senior Member
Great details as always @Northern Light! I never wouldve known.