December 23, 1999
To: Toronto Community Council
From: Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1
Subject: Results of Re-poll for Front Yard Parking at 84 Hilton Avenue
(Midtown)
Purpose:
To report on the results of the re-poll conducted in connection with front yard parking at 84 Hilton Avenue. As this is a
matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1) City Council deny the application for front yard parking at 84 Hilton Avenue;
OR
(2) City Council approve the application for front yard parking for one vehicle at 84 Hilton Avenue, subject to:
(a) the maximum area to be paved for parking not to exceed 2.6 m wide by 5.9 m long;
(b) the parking area being paved with semi-permeable paving materials, i.e., ecostone pavers or approved and equivalent
permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and
(c) the applicant paying all applicable fees and complying with all other criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 400,
Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Background:
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 28, 1999, had before it staff's report dated April 13, 1999,
respecting an appeal for front yard parking at 84 Hilton Avenue.
The Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of the report until its meeting to be held on June 22, 1999, for
deputations, and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report at that time on the results of the
poll, the cost of which is to be borne by the applicant.
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of June 22, 1999, had before it staff's report dated June 22, 1999,
respecting the results of the polling conducted to determine neighbourhood support of the front yard parking application at
84 Hilton Avenue.
The Toronto Community Council again deferred consideration of the foregoing report and requested the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services to conduct a re-polling of the area using the most up-to-date data available from the
Finance Department and the City Clerk.
Comments:
Front yard parking is governed by the criteria set out in the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic
and Parking. The current criteria of the Code:
(a) prohibits front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street;
(b) limits the number of parking spaces to one; and
(c) requires that a formal poll be conducted to determine whether there is sufficient neighbourhood support to the
application, and such poll has a favourable result.
Ms. Deborah Buchler, owner of 84 Hilton Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5R 3E7, submitted an application for front yard
parking on January 5, 1999. The application was refused, as the proposal did not meet the current criteria of the Municipal
Code, since permit parking is authorized on the odd side of this portion of Hilton Avenue. For the Committee's
information, the property is within permit parking area 5B, where as of December 23, 1999, a total of 254 permits have
been issued against a total of 264 spaces (10% over-allocation). There are two on street permits issued to the residents of
84 Hilton Avenue. Ms. Deborah Buchler subsequently submitted an appeal to staff's decision.
The appeal was considered by the Toronto Community Council, which deferred the report and requested that a formal poll
be conducted and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report on the results of the poll.
The initial polling was conducted in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 90, Polling and Notifications Procedures, of
the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The area polled was on both sides of Hilton Avenue, from Nos. 73 to 121 on
the odd side and from Nos. 66 to 110 on the even side, including 56 Nina Street. The majority of the ballots cast were in
favour of the parking proposal. The Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of this report and requested a
repolling of the area.
The results of the second poll were as follows:
Polling Summary
The majority of the ballots cast were opposed to the parking proposal.
The proposal for front yard parking at this property does not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code as
follows:
(b) the formal poll did not determine sufficient neighbourhood support to the application.
Staff cannot issue Ms. Buchler a front yard parking permit as the location does not meet the requirements of the Municipal
Code.
On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council
grant the appeal.
