Appeal of Driveway Widening -

103 Moore Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations.)

The Toronto Community Council submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The following motion by Councillor Bossons carried on the following division of votes:

"That the existing paving at 103 Moore Avenue be permitted to remain."

Yeas:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Disero and Silva - 5

Nays:Councillors Rae, Adams and Walker - 3

Upon the reopening of the question, the following motions were lost on the following division of votes:

By Councillor Bossons:

"That the existing paving at 103 Moore Avenue be permitted to remain."

Yeas:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero and Silva - 4

Nays:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow and Walker - 4

By Councillor Adams:

"That City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code due to insufficient space to meet the required clearance from back of the City sidewalk and the landscaping requirements."

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow and Walker - 4

Nays:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero and Silva - 4

Upon a further reopening of the question, the following motions were lost on the following division of votes:

By Councillor Bossons:

"That the existing paving at 103 Moore Avenue be permitted to remain."

Yeas:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero, Fotinos and Silva - 5

Nays:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow, McConnell and Walker - 5

By Councillor Adams:

"That City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code due to insufficient space to meet the required clearance from back of the City sidewalk and the landscaping requirements."

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow, McConnell and Walker - 5

Nays:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero, Fotinos and Silva - 5

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 23, 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 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit the existing brick paving to remain in connection with the Driveway widening application, as it does not meet the paving specifications as required by the Code. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council request the removal of the existing paving fronting 103 Moore Avenue and that the area be paved in permeable materials such as ecostone or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as per the conditions of the permit issued.

Background:

Mr. Richard Sadlowski, owner of 103 Moore Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4T 1V7, in his communication of July 20, 1998, requested staff to reconsider the request to change the newly paved area, in order to meet the City's paving specifications.

Comments:

Mr. Richard Sadlowski of 103 Moore Avenue, applied for driveway widening parking fronting his residence on October 3, 1997. The application was approved and subsequently a construction and paving permit No. SACP 97-P291 was issued on December 18, 1997.

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. One of the criteria of the Code requires that the proposed parking area be paved with semi-permeable material in accordance with the alternative paving treatment specifications set out in § 400-88, Schedule XXXV, Part II, or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

One of the conditions of the permit stated that the parking area was to be paved in accordance to the specifications for alternate paving treatment as illustrated in Appendix 'A'.

On June 3, 1998 the applicant called to advise that the work was completed. An inspection was conducted on June 15, 1998, and determined that the parking area was paved with brick pavers and not in conformity with the paving specifications and conditions on the permit issued. Mr. Sadlowski was left a notice advising to make changes to the paving in order to meet the required specifications, i.e. provide 25% of the surface area as porous.

Conclusions:

The paving does not meet the City's specifications for semi-permeable paving material, as required by the Municipal Code and as per the condition on the construction permit. It is therefore recommended that this request be denied by Council.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778