Rajvi Patel

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a reduced parking space depth of 4.79 metres, where 5.4 metres is required, to facilitate a driveway widening.

The City presented uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variance failed the four tests under the Planning Act, as it would result in vehicles encroaching onto the municipal sidewalk, impacting pedestrian safety and the streetscape.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence, found the variance did not meet the four tests, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the City's Committee of Adjustment refusal of his applications for a consent severance and minor variances to permit the development of a family home.

The subject property is located entirely within the floodplain of the Credit River.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans and Zoning By-Law, and were not desirable or minor.

The Tribunal also found that the consent application did not have regard to several criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeals were dismissed.