September 2, 1998
To:Toronto Community Council
From:Angie Antoniou, Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and
Enforcement, City Works Services
Subject:Appeal - Driveway Widening - 50 Balsam Avenue (East Toronto)
Purpose:
To report on an application for driveway widening parking which does not meet the
requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of
Toronto Municipal Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to
permit driveway widening for a second parking space, at 50 Balsam Avenue, as such a
request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Background:
Ms. Sally Rollinson and Mr. Paul Rollinson, co-owners of 50 Balsam Avenue, have
requested an appeal to staff's decision to refuse the application for a second parking space at
this location.
Comments:
This location was previously licensed for driveway parking for one (1) vehicle. The parking
was confined within the private driveway and totally on private property.
Ms. Sally Rollinson and Mr. Paul Rollinson have recently purchased the property and
submitted an application on July 20, 1998 to park two motor vehicles on private property,
situated on the private driveway and on a widened portion adjacent to the driveway in front
of the property (see Appendix 'A').
The property has a private driveway 3.04 metres wide, which leads to a single car garage at
the rear of the property. The driveway is 16.5 metres long from the back edge of the
sidewalk to the jog in the building where the driveway is reduced to 2.33 metres wide. The
property can accommodate parking for 3 vehicles (see Appendix 'B'). Although parking on
private driveways in front of houses is a zoning infraction, it is hard to enforce and is a fairly
common practice throughout the former City of Toronto. (The former 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.)
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 the requirements of the
legislation, as the Code limits the licensing to one (1) space in the front yard.
The Rollinsons have just been licensed for one space within the limits of the driveway. They
are requesting a second parking space adjacent to the driveway. If the second parking space
is licensed, this would effectively provide parking for 4 vehicles at 50 Balsam Avenue.
Accordingly, the second parking space has been denied and Sally and Paul Rollinson have
been advised of this by letter on August 24, 1998.
Conclusions:
As the property is currently licensed for one (1) parking space at the front of the dwelling
within the confines of the private driveway, and the Code limits the licensing to one (1)
space, this location is not eligible for driveway widening for a second space. Since the
proposal does not meet the current criteria, this request should be denied by Council.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778
Acting Assistant Director
NP/np
(p:\1998\ug\cws\bae\to981121.bae) - np
