June 3, 1998

 To:Toronto Community Council

 From:Lesley Watson, Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services

 Subject:Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, to Permit Driveway Widening at 60 Russell Hill Road (Midtown)

 Purpose:

 To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, to permit driveway widening parking which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code, as requested by Councillor Adams. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a public hearing.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 Not applicable.

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 (1)an application for a parking space adjacent to the private driveway at 60 Russell Hill Road be denied by City Council, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code: and

 (2)the existing crushed stone paving, situated on the City boulevard adjacent to the driveway and which was installed without a permit be removed and restored to soft landscaping.

 Background:

 Councillor John Adams has asked me to report on a request for a by-law exemption to permit driveway widening at 60 Russell Hill Road.

 Comments:

 Mr. Sidney Oland, co-owner of 60 Russell Hill Road, Toronto, Ontario M4V 2T2, is requesting an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, in order to park two motor vehicles in front of his house (see Appendix >A=), for a total of 3 spaces.

 We opened a file on this location in November 1996 because construction in the boulevard had begun without permits. Subsequently the owner submitted an application to re-pave the driveway and walkway. A permit to re-pave the driveway was issued on November 20, 1996. The owners were advised that the area adjacent to the driveway could not be paved or approved for a parking area as it did not meet the criteria of the Municipal Code. The permit clearly indicates that there is to be no parking within the City street allowance so as to contravene the Zoning By-law and Municipal Code Chapter 248.

 The property has a private driveway 3.57 metres wide, which leads to an open parking area in front of the newly constructed addition, on the east side of the existing house. This addition and parking space were approved by Committee of Adjustment, appealed to the OMB, and granted by the OMB with conditions. The driveway is approximately 22.0 metres long from the curb to the wall of the building.

 Including the legal parking space on private property approved by the Committee of Adjustment, the property can accommodate parking for 3 vehicles (see diagram in Appendix >B=). Although parking on private driveways in front of houses is a zoning infraction, it is difficult to enforce and is a fairly common practice throughout the former City of Toronto. (City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86 governs any parking on the property. It prohibits any parking on any portion of the lot beyond the front wall of a dwelling, but permits casual parking on a properly surfaced driveway.)

 Why the application should be denied

 Driveway widening is governed by the criteria set out in ' 248-3 of Municipal Code Chapter 248 and Zoning By-law No. 438-86. This application does not meet three requirements of the legislation, as summarized in the table below and explained further in the text.

 Driveway widening is only permitted where the existing private driveway does not exceed a width of 2.6 metres at its narrowest point. Another condition of the Code prohibits driveway widening if the property has access to an existing parking facility on private property. At 60 Russell Hill Road, neither of these criteria are satisfied. As shown in the Appendices, the private driveway is over 2.6 metres in width and leads to a open parking facility on the property.

 Accordingly, Mr. Oland was advised by letter on September 26, 1997 that the property is not eligible for driveway widening, and therefore an application could not be considered.

 Why the owners want additional parking

 Mr. Oland wants more permitted parking on his property because: 1) he complains that it is a nuisance to jockey the cars; 2) his wife Ingrid Weger, who has a provincially-issued disabled permit, can get closer to the door; and 3) his mother-in-law, who is a very frequent visitor, could park on the parking pad instead of parking on the street. Therefore, he is requesting licences for two spaces in the City boulevard--one at the end of his driveway, and an additional space next to the private driveway. If licensed, this would effectively provide parking for 4 vehicles at 60 Russell Hill Road.

Mr. Oland has submitted documentation in an effort to argue legal non-conforming use, as the parking area adjacent to the private driveway has been in existence for many years. However, since the parking area was not in existence prior to the passing of the Zoning By-law in 1953, legal non-conforming use cannot be granted. The documentation of Dr. Pauline Strunk clearly states that her parents had initially installed the parking area adjacent to the driveway after they purchased the property in the mid 1960's.

 Complaints about unauthorized parking

 We have received complaints about the unauthorized parking on the widened portion of the driveway. We confirmed these complaints and asked the owners to cease the parking, or concrete curbstones would be installed. The parking continued and in January 1998 the City installed a concrete curbstone to prevent the unauthorized parking.

 Conclusions:

 As the property has access to an open parking space at the front of the dwelling, by means of a private driveway which is greater than 2.6 metres, this location is not eligible for driveway widening. This request should be denied by Council.

 City Council, at its meeting of April 16, 1998, adopted Clause 66 of Report No. 3 of the Toronto Community Council, and by so doing denied an almost identical request for 17 Lynwood Avenue.

 Contact Name and Telephone Number:

 Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

 Director

NP/np

 (p:\1998\ug\cws\bae\to981068.bae) - np