June 30, 1999

To: Toronto Community Council

From: Angie Antoniou, Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1

Subject: Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, to Permit Driveway Widening at 26 Duncannon Drive (North Toronto)

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit driveway widening parking which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code, as requested by Councillor Walker. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the request for driveway widening at 26 Duncannon Drive and that the boulevard be restored to its original condition;

OR

(2) (a) City Council approve the request for driveway widening for one vehicle, within the limits of the driveway, subject to the removal of the excess paving and paving the parking pad in accordance with City's specifications; and

(b) City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening for a second parking space at 26 Duncannon Drive.

Background:

Councillor Michael Walker, in his letter dated May 25, 1999 with the attached communication from Mr. David Altman, owner of 26 Duncannon Drive, Toronto, Ontario M5P 2M1, asked me to report on the feasibility of legalizing driveway widening at 26 Duncannon Drive.

Comments:

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current criteria of the Code:

(a)limits the number of licenced parking space to one;

(b)prohibits driveway widening if the property has access to an existing parking facility on the lot with access by a driveway that has a width of 2.6 metres or more;

(c)permits the widening of a private driveway to a maximum width of 2.6 metres, as measured from the side lot line;

(d)requires that the proposed parking area be paved with semi-permeable material or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e)requires that the parking area not exceed a maximum of 2.6 metres in width;

(f)requires that a minimum of 50% of the front yard on private property be maintained as landscape open space;

(g)requires a minimum of 15% of the area on the City boulevard be soft landscaping, and all other areas other than the walkway and the parking area must be maintained as soft landscaping; and.

(h)requires that where there is no sidewalk, the parking area be situated no closer than 2.0 metres to the face of the curb.

The property has a private driveway 2.8 metres wide, which leads to a single open parking space adjacent to the dwelling. The driveway is 12.9 metres long from the street to the building where the driveway is reduced to 2.28 metres wide. The property can accommodate parking for 3 vehicles within the limits of the driveway. The driveway has also been widened to 4.88 metres to permit parking adjacent to the driveway. This area is 2 metres wide and 5.7 metres in length as measured from the curb. There is no record of any approval for this widening of the driveway.

Mr. Altman wants to legalize this existing parking configuration and is therefore requesting parking for two vehicles, one on the limits of the private driveway and a second parking space adjacent to the driveway. If the second parking space is licenced, this would effectively provide parking for 4 vehicles at 26 Duncannon Drive.

This existing parking configuration at this location does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code, as follows:

(a)the parking area adjacent to the private driveway is paved in asphalt which is not a permeable paving treatment;

(b)the Code limits the licensing to one space at the front; and

(c)the paved area can not accommodate a motor vehicle and maintain the required 2.0 metre setback from the face of the curb.

I note that no application has been submitted to this department, and that there are no licences issued for parking at the front of the property. The property would meet the requirements of the Code for the licensing of the one parking space within the limits of the private driveway. I also note that the property meets all other physical criteria of the Municipal Code (i.e. landscaping requirements and distances from City trees).

Conclusions:

As the Code limits the licensing to one (1) space, the existing space adjacent to the private driveway is not paved in accordance to City specifications, and the existing parking space adjacent is not long enough to accommodate a vehicle, 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.

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant driveway widening privileges for 26 Duncannon Drive.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

Manager

NP/np

(p:\1999\ug\cws\bae\to991100.bae) - np