Pickering Pickering Casino Resort | 51.45m | 15s | Pickering Developments | CGL Architects

Johnny Au said:
Not to be confused with the verb "to trump," which means to outrank all others (primarily used in card games).
Click to expand...
Welp, this one is spell with a capital "T" though. Kind like the difference between a "trumpet" and a "Tr*mpet". It becomes sorta the same words with completely different nuances...

...more seriously though - and since this can be a touchy subject for some - if I am straining too much here, let me know and I'll just drop it. But I kinda wanted to convey the increasingly frustration I am feeling with such a gratuitous misuse of a MZO here. And it's callous disregard for a sensitive environment that no one has any right being near, unless they're planning to help preserve it, IMO. So sorry about this. :(
 
Last edited:
IMG_9302.JPG
IMG_9308.JPG
IMG_9307.JPG
IMG_9306.JPG
IMG_9305.JPG
IMG_9304.JPG
IMG_9303.JPG
 
The TRCA has issued a permit for this proposal, 'under duress'.

The TRCA is a body that is very sensitive to politics and generally tries very hard to play nice both with the province and with its 'municipal partners'.

So it's very out of character to see staff get very overtly political around this permit; which they very much are.

Article from the Star:

www.thestar.com

‘Under duress,’ Toronto’s conservation authority fights back against push to level environmentally sensitive Pickering wetlands

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is asking the public to help fight the latest attack on its authority.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

For those with paywall issues:

outline.com is available for purchase - Sedo.com

outline.com outline.com

From the article:

1615038050104.png


The statement from the TRCA goes into greater detail and is even more overt in its hostility.

I like it.

trca.ca

TRCA’s Response to the Province’s Unheralded Regulation Legally Requiring TRCA to Grant Permission for Development at 1802 Bayly Street by March 12, 2021

UPDATE - March 12, 2021: READ: TRCA STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 5, 2021, Toronto, ON - The Provincial government has issued Ontario
trca.ca trca.ca
 
allengeorge said:
Also, there’s the fact that the province is retroactively changing legislation to prevent lawsuits over the MZO.

In a rural broadband bill.
Click to expand...

Retroactive legislation is not expressly unconstitutional; but generally is subject to legal battles and might well face limitations.

It shouldn't be tried in this case; first, because the issuing of the permit(s) has been wrong; second because nothing would preclude them from re-issuing the MZO under new rules, on a go-forward basis, the merits be damned.

As such there really is no justification for this action by the province.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Retroactive legislation is not expressly unconstitutional; but generally is subject to legal battles and might well face limitations.

It shouldn't be tried in this case; first, because the issue of the permit(s) has been wrong; second because nothing would preclude them from re-issuing the MZO under new rules, on a go-forward basis, the merits be damned.

As such there really is no justification for this action by the province.
Click to expand...
In there minds there is though. That is, doing whatever the Hell they want and not be held in account for it. But I suspect that will likely be poor PR if they where to wear that one on openly their sleeves... /sigh
 
So, as noted above, the TRCA 'under duress' moved to issue the permit to destroy the provincially significant wetlands.

BUT, it also moved to attach special conditions to the permit; conditions sufficiently arduous that the proponent is appealing them, requiring a hearing on March 12th with the Board of Directors for the TRCA.

I would like to report that I am genuinely impressed with TRCA staff, who, in my estimation have followed the law, but imposed conditions that may make the permit unusable, should it be up upheld.

The whole thing is a bit long, (20 conditions); I will provide a link for the keen below; but highlight some of the interesting stuff here as well, and my comments after said stuff.

Permit link:


From the above:

1615299808988.png


Pretty self-explanatory; for legitimate reasons, they have provided the proponent a very short time period within which to do the work.

1615299960387.png


The requirement, essentially, is to ensure funds available to the TRCA if any damage is done to this site, but the project is not delivered, to permit the TRCA to fully restore it.

1615300060428.png


An easement to the TRCA, granted now, in service of the prospect of restoration.

1615300163692.png


This secures land being offered by the proponent, 12km to the north as ecological compensation - 93 acres

1615300221902.png


Love this one! Requires that the proponent cover all future costs of the land, plus property taxes in perpetuity.

1615300389058.png



Upfront payment for all restoration works that have been 'agreed to'.

1615300456203.png


Mandatory rescue and relocation of rare/high value plants

1615300545060.png


Love this one! The proposal would affect some of the wetland that is not owned by the proponent. That land has not been covered by the MZO.

This condition requires the proponent to get a permit for the property they don't own, and which is not covered by the MZO because they will be impacting it.

Finally, there's this beauty:

1615300667279.png


The proponent must agree, as a condition of the permit; that they must abide by all the conditions even if the province quashes them by regulation or legislation at a later date.

****

In addition to the above, the TRCA is not satisifed with the 93 acres, because it can't recreate that full extent of the wetlands that would be destroyed.

It would like the proponent to find sufficient land to replace every acre of lost wetland, as wetland.

In the alternative, pay for the TRCA to buy same.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
BUT, it also moved to attach special conditions to the permit; conditions sufficiently arduous that the proponent is appealing them, requiring a hearing on March 12th with the Board of Directors for the TRCA.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately 10:1 the government will put another law in place that allows the Minister of Housing or the Environment to override the conditions imposed by CAs.

Unfortunately the voters of Ontario don't care - as witnessed by the OPC's polling numbers. Note: I would be just as upset with this if the OLP were to pull these shenanigans.
 
allengeorge said:
Unfortunately 10:1 the government will put another law in place that allows the Minister of Housing or the Environment to override the conditions imposed by CAs.

Unfortunately the voters of Ontario don't care - as witnessed by the OPC's polling numbers. Note: I would be just as upset with this if the OLP were to pull these shenanigans.
Click to expand...
#20 seems to address that very thing.

...and I wouldn't go by any polling numbers currently until an election is called. Least not for this province.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Well now.............motivations may be becoming clearer:


It appears this may be about a probable (exceedingly large) Amazon warehouse; and that there may be an alternative site in Ajax with the Ford gov't playing favourites.
Click to expand...
It seems like the plan is similar to what Amazon is building in Barrhaven right now. That one is a 2.7 million square foot, 5 storey warehouse. It's also nearing completion right now.

If it weren't on a provincial wetland, it would actually be a great project as it's much, much more land efficient than most warehouse facilities. The 1.5 million SF Canadian Tire warehouse in Bolton sits on 69 hectares, while the 2.7 million square foot Barrhaven Amazon facility sits on 26 hectares (about 5x denser than Canadian Tire.. which makes sense since it's 5 floors vs. 1.)!

If we are looking to reduce the urban footprint of our industrial lands, this is the way to go. Multi-storey industrial is going to have to become common place in the future if we want to minimize sprawl... Just perhaps not on a protected wetland feature.
 
In related news...

Ford government fast-tracks 6 new GTA development deals using controversial MZOs
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-mzos-toronto-development-1.5942671

Friends of the Foundry and folks here will be happy to learn this from the article:

"Ford insisted an MZO is passed only after the province receives a letter by the city council or mayor of each region asking his government to allow the development."

Hmm... is Tory playing his cards close to his chest re: the Foundry?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top