Damaged Sod - 2 Northgate Drive,

Off Whitley Avenue Flankage -

North York Spadina

The North York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the appropriate City Officials be directed to replace the damaged sod at this location; and

(2)the local councillor meet with the appropriate City Officials to determine how they can reduce the cost.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (February 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Public Works which was deferred on April 1, 1998 and subsequently brought forward at the request of Councillor Moscoe:

Purpose:

The residents of #2 Northgate Drive have requested that the Department replace the boulevard sod off Whitley Avenue because it is full of weeds and it is dying.

Source of Funds:

There are approximately 220 square metres of sod to be restored at a cost of $2,209.55. The necessary funding can be provided from the approved Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that no immediate action be taken at this time. The Department has already replaced the sod on this boulevard on two occasions. The condition of the boulevard sod will be reviewed this summer to determine the extent of damages, and if necessary, the appropriate Department Officials will be authorized, after inspection, to take necessary action to give effect thereto. An attempt to restore the sod by means of fertilization or spot restoration, can be considered.

Council Reference/Background History:

A memorandum dated September 5, 1997 was received by this Department, from former Councillor Frank Di Giorgio, on behalf of the property owner, regarding the poor sod replacement and to have it repaired. The Department replied by memorandum dated October 20, 1997, from the Public Works Commissioner, Alan Wolfe, P. Eng., advising him that the sod had been replaced twice, first by the contractor in 1994, as part of the water main cement mortar lining program and secondly by the district crews as part of the Overlay Road Rehabilitation Program. Under both cases the Department relied on the resident to maintain the sod, once it was placed.

On October 15, 1997, a letter was submitted to former Councillor Frank Di Giorgio, from the property owner, Mr. Joe Speranzioso, advising him that he had attempted to maintain the grass once it was resodded two years ago, but that the lawn had died and was full of weeds. He was unhappy with the Department=s decision and requested that the grass be fixed.

On January 16, 1998, a memorandum was received by this Department, from the Committee Secretary of the Clerks Department, advising to submit a report to the Community Council.

Comments and/or Discussions and for Justification:

During construction a contractor is obligated by their warranty period of two years to ensure that the sod will survive and grow. After that period, the Department relies on the property owners to maintain the boulevard sod. The two year period, has always been more than a sufficient time frame, to determine any deficiencies.

Conclusions:

In view of the Department=s policy with respect to contractor warranty periods and the practice of relying on residents to maintain the boulevards fronting or flanking their properties, it is advised that no action be taken.