A family in North York reached out to Speakers Corner after being hit with a notice of violating Toronto bylaws, which they say isn’t only unfair but will impact many other homeowners and tenants across the city. Solomon Mayer owns two semi-detached properties on Apache Trail. One is his primary residence with a basement apartment. He rents out the other, located across the street, with the same layout. His homes are nearly identical to many others on his street.“The way they’re designed, they have multiple entrances, and so many of these homes here have been converted into multi-unit houses,” he explained.The benefit for tenants who rent is the parking. Nearly all of the homes have wide driveways. “You can park two cars side by side, enough for three to four cars on the driveway, which allows our tenants to park as well as us,” he said.Mayer, who purchased his properties more than 20 years ago, says he’s never had an issue. “Then, in January, we had a bylaw officer come by and notify us that we were in violation,” he said.Related:‘Just keep the car!’: Several Canadians say their luxury electric vehicles are malfunctioning. Transport Canada now reviewing concernsDrivers in Toronto’s east end speak out on commute chaosThe officer told Mayer that his homes violate a section in bylaw 569-2013, which states that on lots with a frontage between six metres and less than 15 metres, the requirement is that 50 per cent of the front yard must be made up of landscaping. Of the required landscaping in the front yard, 75 per cent of the landscaped area must be soft. “We’ve been told that means we’re only allowed to park directly in front of the garage and nothing beyond that,” Mayer said. “So that would mean that the extra space where our tenants park would have to be converted back to some kind of soft landscaping.”Mayer believes the notices were given without officers measuring his property. “We were told due to the snow, they couldn’t take measurements, so I am not sure how they determined this without that,” he said.No notices for other homes in the neighbourhoodMayer, who was given notices on both properties he owns, says if enforced, it will drive his tenants out as there is no overnight street parking in his neighbourhood. “They’ve moved in with the expectation of parking space, and now they would lose it,” he said.Mayer says his homes — among dozens of other multi-unit homes with the same exterior layout on his street, were the only ones to receive notices. “There’s hardly a single home in this neighbourhood unaffected by this because everyone has widened driveways,” he said. “According to the city, every single one of them is in violation, yet it’s only me receiving any notices.”Speakers Corner reached out to city staff. A spokesperson refused to elaborate on Mayer’s specific case.“As these are active investigations, we cannot provide specific comments. Investigative work continues, and once it is complete, we will be able to offer additional information,” they said. “The addresses in question are in Ward 17 and within the boundaries of former North York where front yard parking on city boulevard is not permitted as per the requirements of parking on residential front yards and boulevards bylaw. The Zoning Bylaw 569-2013 does not permit parking in the front yard beyond the designated driveway leading to the garage.”When asked why only Mayer’s properties were targeted and not others in the neighbourhood, the city spokesperson told us they only investigate after a complaint is made. “The city responds to service requests on a complaint basis and generally does not conduct proactive or routine inspections of private properties to ensure compliance with city bylaws. In this case, Municipal Licensing and Standards received a complaint and initiated an investigation.”Calls to revisit the bylawOther than making the corrections to comply, which Mayer says will be costly, city staff says homeowners can apply for a minor variance through the Committee of Adjustment to seek relief from the zoning bylaw. “But the variance, we’re told, will cost between $2,000-$5,000 just to apply with no guarantee of success. If we fail, we lose that fee,” Mayer said. “And if we fail, we lose tenants, which drives them out and into an already overburdened housing market. This doesn’t make sense for a city that says it’s desperate for affordable housing.”Mayer is calling on the city to revisit the bylaw and at least allow homes like his, built long before it was implemented, to be exempt from it. “This isn’t just about me. This impacts thousands of homeowners and landlords across the city who may not even know they are in violation of this bylaw,” he said. “I’m also appealing to politicians to fix this. This needs to be fixed. This has repercussions that affect not just us but all the families that are property owners and many tenants throughout the city.”If you have an issue, story or question you’d like us to look into, visit the Speaker’s Corner tab on the city news website.