Front Yard Parking for Disabled Persons -
26 Ascot Avenue (Davenport)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council permit the excess concrete
paving fronting 26 Ascot Avenue to remain in place.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 28, 1998) from
the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation
Services:
Purpose:
To comment on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and
Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit the excess concrete paving
to remain in connection with the disabled front yard parking application.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council request the removal of the excess concrete paving fronting 26 Ascot
Avenue and that permeable materials such as gravel, turf stone or ecostone be installed at 2.4
m from the base of the tree.
Background:
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of October 14 and 15, 1998, had before it a
communication (September 24, 1998), from Councillor Betty Disero, requesting that the
disabled front yard parking application at 26 Ascot Avenue be reconsidered.
The Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of this matter until its meeting to be
held on November 12, 1998, and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services to report at that time.
Comments:
Mr. Mario Rummo and Mrs. Concetta Rummo, co-owners of 26 Ascot Avenue, Toronto,
Ontario M6E 1E7, applied for disabled front yard parking fronting their residence. The
application was approved and subsequently a construction and paving permit No. SACP
97-P202 was issued.
One of the provisions of the issuance of the permit required that no paving in concrete be
permitted for a distance of 4.0 m from the base of the City owned tree and that the concrete
pad cannot exceed a maximum of 2.5 m.
There is a large 70 cm diameter Norway Maple City owned tree fronting the adjacent property
to the east at 24 Ascot Avenue and it is in fair condition. The specifications for trees over 50
cm in diameter require that no impermeable paving be installed within 4.0 m from the base of
the tree and semi-permeable paving is permitted between 2.4 m and 4.0 m.
Prior to paving the area, Mr. Rummo called our office and enquired if he could pave the entire
front yard in concrete. He was advised not to use concrete due to the tree next door and to
keep the concrete area to the maximum allowed as per permit No. SACP-97-P202. He was
also advised that if he wished to pave using brick pavers, the area could be expanded to
accommodate a walkway adjacent to the parking area to be used for the wheelchair.
Inspection by Urban Forestry staff and staff of this Department determined that most of the
front yard was paved in concrete, in excess of and in contravention to the permit issued. The
concrete paving is 4.1 m in width and within 2.4 m from the base of the tree. Cement paving
will not permit air and water penetration to the roots of the tree, and will eventually cause the
tree to die back. Installing any impermeable materials within 2.4 m of the bases of City trees
is in contravention of this Department's specifications and Article 1 of the former City of
Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 331. The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture
& Tourism is requesting the permeable materials such as gravel, turf stone or ecostone be
installed at 2.4 m from the base of the tree instead of the cement paving.
Mr. Rummo was advised to remove the paving by letter dated February 11, 1998, and again
advised directly by Urban Forestry staff on March 18, 1998.
In our subsequent letter of September 14, 1998, Mr. Rummo was advised that his file has been
closed and that any parking taking place is considered unauthorized and subject to by-law
enforcement.
Conclusions:
The Norway Maple tree adjacent to 26 Ascot Avenue, fronting 24 Ascot Avenue is 70 cm in
diameter and is in fair condition. The specifications for trees over 50 cm in diameter require
that no impermeable paving be installed within 4.0 m from the base of the tree and
semi-permeable paving is permitted between 2.4 m and 4.0 m. To ensure the continuous
health of this tree, the excess paving must be removed and permeable materials such as gravel,
turf stone or ecostone be installed at 2.4m from the base of the tree.
Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:
Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778Warren Quan, 392-1940
Works and Emergency ServicesEconomic Development, Culture & Tourism
--------
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (September
24, 1998) from Councillor Disero:
I am writing on behalf of Mr. Mario Rummo of 26 Ascot Avenue, with respect to his
application for disabled front yard parking privileges fronting his premises.
I am taking the liberty of enclosing copies of letters from Works and Emergency Services
dated February 11, 1998 and September 14, 1998, respectively.
As you will note in the letter dated February 11, 1998, a construction and paving permit was
issued to Mr. Rummo for the paving of the approved disabled front yard parking area. One of
the provisions of the issuance of the permit required that no paving in concrete be permitted
for a distance of 4.00 m from the base of the City-owned tree and also, that the concrete pad
cannot exceed a maximum of 2.50 m.
According to Works and Emergency Services, inspection revealed that Mr. Rummo deviated
from the conditions of the permit, in that the amount of paving exceeds the maximum
permitted. At this point, Mr. Rummo was informed to remove the excessive paving, as
required by City specifications, as indicated on the attached map. A follow-up inspection of
the property revealed that the excessive paving was not removed and Mr. Rummo's file was
subsequently closed. Furthermore, Mr. Rummo has been informed that any further parking
will be subject to by-law enforcement of curbstones.
As Mr. Rummo's wife is disabled and in a wheelchair, they require the pavement area to be
larger, in order to accommodate the vehicle and the wheelchair.
In view of this, I would appreciate if you could please reconsider allowing Mr. Rummo to
maintain the existing paved front yard parking area and subsequently approve his application
for disabled front yard parking.
--------
(A copy of the letters (February 11, 1998 and September 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services referred to in the foregoing communication was forwarded to
all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on
November 12, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).
