Aimee Powell

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to approve a site plan application for two new commercial buildings with drive-through facilities within the statutory timeframe.

Following revisions to address technical issues regarding traffic, servicing, and sidewalk ownership, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal represents appropriate commercial infill development, makes efficient use of existing infrastructure, and is consistent with provincial and local planning policies.

The Tribunal approved the site plan drawings subject to the parties finalizing a site plan agreement.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for a consent to sever and minor variances to facilitate the creation of two residential lots from one existing lot.

The central issue was whether the proposed reduced lot width and area were compatible with the character of the mature neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert planning evidence, finding that the appropriate neighbourhood study area was broader than just the immediate street and included a mix of lot sizes.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed development would coexist harmoniously without unacceptable adverse impacts, satisfied the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, and met the four-part test for minor variances under s. 45(1).

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was given, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for provisional consent and minor variances to effect a lot line adjustment and access easement for lands containing a heritage-designated Hindu temple.

The Shree Jagannath Temple Canada, which occupies the temple, opposed the application, arguing it would negatively impact parking and future expansion.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot size would provide adequate parking and allow the temple to continue its current operations.

The Tribunal concluded that the consent satisfied the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).