August 30, 1999

To:Toronto Community Council

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

Subject:Request for an Exemption from Chapter 400 of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit the existing paving to remain at 62 Stibbard Avenue (North Toronto)

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 existing brick paving to remain in connection with the front yard parking application as the existing paving does not meet the paving specifications as required by the Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council require the existing paving fronting 62 Stibbard Avenue to be replaced with a permeable material such as ecostone or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

OR

(2)City Council approve the existing paving to remain in front of 62 Stibbard Avenue.

Background:

Councillor Michael Walker, in his letter dated August 5, 1999, together with a letter dated July 29, 1999 from Ms. Janet Bryson, owner of 62 Stibbard Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C2, requested an exemption from the Municipal Code to permit the existing paving to remain.

Comments:

Ms. Janet Bryson, applied for disabled front yard parking fronting her residence in August 1994, and has been licensed for disabled front yard parking since November 1995.

Applications for disabled front yard parking are governed by Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, formerly By-law No 636-81. The current criteria of the Code and the by-law at the time of approval:

(a)does not require the property to meet landscaping requirements as stipulated for regular front yard parking applications;

(b)does not require a formal polling process to be conducted to determine neighbourhood support of the application; and

(c)does not permit the disabled front yard parking licence to be transferred to a new owner, and is only valid as long as the disabled person resides permanently at the property.

On February 12, 1999, Ms. Bryson submitted an application to change the disabled front yard parking licence to regular front yard parking. The application was processed and the formal polling was conducted to determine neighbourhood support of the application. The application was approved and subsequently a Construction and Paving Permit No. 57606 was issued on May 19, 1999 to Ms. Bryson.

Front Yard Parking is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, which requires:

(a)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; and

(b)that a minimum of 50% of the front yard on private property be maintained as landscape open space, and that 30% of that area be maintained as soft landscaping.

The parking area has been paved in interlocking brick since the approval was granted for disabled front yard parking in 1994.

The existing conditions of the front yard at this location do not meet the requirements of the Code, as follows:

(a)the existing paving is not an acceptable paving treatment; and

(b)the soft landscape requirement in the front yard is not met.

In order to meet the requirements of the Code, the applicant must change the existing paving to meet City specifications, and remove some of the paving in order to increase the planting area fronting the front wall to meet the landscaping requirements, as outlined in the Construction and Paving Permit issued to Ms. Bryson, and as per the attached sketch (Appendix "A").

 Conclusions:

As the existing paving does not meet the City's specifications for semi-permeable paving material, and as the amount of soft landscaping does not meet the requirement of the Code, it is recommended that this request be denied by Council.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7768

Manager

NP

(p:\1999\ug\cws\bae\to991129.bae) - np