April 22, 1998
To:Toronto Community Council
From:Lesley Watson, Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services
Subject:Appeal of Denial of Application for Commercial Boulevard Parking - Gladstone Avenue Flankage of 1137
Dupont Street (Davenport)
Purpose:
To report on the business owner=s appeal of staff=s refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking on the
Gladstone Avenue flankage of 1137 Dupont Street, because of a negative public poll. As this is a matter of public interest,
it is scheduled as a deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:
(1)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage of 1137
Dupont Street, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant
complying with the criteria set out in ' 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;
OR
(2)City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage of 1137 Dupont
Street.
Background:
Mr. John Lu, in his letter of March 24, 1998 (Appendix >A=), has requested an appeal of staff=s decision to refuse his
application for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage of 1137 Dupont Street.
Comments:
Mr. John Lu, owner of Downtown Electronics, 1137 Dupont Street, Toronto, Ontario M6H 2A3, submitted an application
on October 20, 1997, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage for the
parking of 5 motor vehicles (as amended), parallel to the roadway as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix >B=).
This application meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking as set out in ' 313-39 of City of Toronto
Municipal Code Chapter 313.
As the proposed parking is on a residential flankage, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants
within 100 m from the proposed parking. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application
is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response,
re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.
A poll dated January 7 to February 6, 1998, was conducted on the west side from Nos. 776 and 820 Gladstone Avenue and
on the east side from Nos. 811 and 859 Gladstone Avenue to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll
were as follows:
Polling Summary
Mr. Lu was advised in writing that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued.
Mr. Lu is concerned that the polling process was flawed. In response, I note that the standard ballot for commercial
boulevard parking (Appendix >C=) clearly explains the reasons for the poll and how the results will be used. In this
particular case, the poll was conducted in English and French as requested by the former Councillor (i.e. every person
polled received the ballot form in 2 languages).
A commercial boulevard parking licence was issued to a former occupant of the property on July 10, 1987 but was
cancelled in December 1988.
Staff cannot issue Mr. Lu a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage because the poll
result was negative. I am satisfied that the public poll was conducted properly.
On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council
grant the appeal.
