Appeal - Driveway Widening -
17 Lynwood Avenue (Midtown)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the request for an
exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening at 17 Lynwood Avenue, as such a
request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from the
Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on an application for driveway widening parking which does not meet the requirements
of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, as requested by the former City Council. As
this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a public hearing.
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 at 17 Lynwood Avenue, as such a request does not comply with
Chapter 248 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Background:
Former Councillor Howard Joy had asked me to report directly to the former City Council on a
request for a by-law exemption to permit driveway widening for 2 vehicles at 17 Lynwood
Avenue. Former City Council, at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, referred this matter for
deputations to the former City Services Committee, or its successor committee.
Comments:
Ms. Gina Tapper, owner of 17 Lynwood Avenue, submitted an application on July 21, 1997 to
park two motor vehicles on a pad on the City boulevard, situated partly at the end of her private
driveway and on a widened portion adjacent to the driveway in front of the property (see
diagram in Appendix 'A' and photograph in Appendix 'B').
The property has a private driveway 2.97 metres wide, which leads to a single car garage
attached to the house at the front wall. The driveway is 12.3 metres long from the back edge of
the sidewalk to the garage. Including the parking space in the garage, the property can
accommodate parking for 3 vehicles (see diagram in Appendix 'C'). 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. (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 three requirements of the
legislation, as summarized in the table below and explained further in the text.
| Municipal Code requirements for driveway
widening: |
17 Lynwood Avenue application does not
meet requirements because: |
| Driveway must be less than 2.6 m wide
|
Driveway is 2.97 m wide |
| There is no access to parking on private
property |
There is access to a private garage at end of
driveway |
| If all other criteria are met, only 1 space may
be licensed |
Does not meet other criteria and is requesting
licences for 2 spaces
|
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 17
Lynwood, 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 garage on the property.
Ms. Tapper wants more parking on her property because she complains that it is hard for her
guests and tradespeople to find parking on the street, and this parking is limited to 1 hour.
Therefore, she is requesting licences for two spaces in the City boulevard--one at the end of her
driveway, and an additional space next to the private driveway. If licensed, this would
effectively provide parking for 4 vehicles at 17 Lynwood. A further condition of the Code limits
the licensing to one space only in the front yard.
Accordingly, Ms. Tapper's application has been denied. She was advised of this by letter on July
25, 1997.
Conclusions:
As the property has access to a ground level garage 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. 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
