Driveway Widening Appeal - 50 Balsam Avenue
(East Toronto)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request
for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening for a second parking
space, at 50 Balsam Avenue, subject to the owners:
(1)submitting an landscaping plan satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic
Development, Tourism and Culture, which would restrict the parking to two cars; and
(2)providing an Undertaking that they will not park more than two cars on the
property.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998)
from the Acting Assistant 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, 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
--------
Ms. Sally Rollinson appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter.