François Hémon-Morneau

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant minor variances to permit a two-storey garden suite.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving revised variances for height, separation distance, and lot coverage.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances satisfied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit an increased driveway width.

The variance was sought to accommodate a third parking space required for two proposed additional residential units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, finding that the amended application was minor and that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an existing accessory structure and a widened driveway at their residential property.

The appellant argued the widened driveway was necessary for wheelchair accessibility.

The Tribunal authorized the variances for the accessory structure and driveway width, finding they met the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, the Tribunal refused the variance for a reduced parking space depth, agreeing with the City's expert that it could negatively impact sidewalk accessibility.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny a minor variance to permit a driveway width of 5.3 m, whereas the maximum permitted width is 4.9 m.

The appellant sought the variance to accommodate parking for an additional residential unit.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence of the City's planner that the variance failed to maintain the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was not desirable, and was not minor due to adverse impacts on the streetscape and emergency access.

The appeal was dismissed.