Trisha Hughes

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.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny consent and minor variance applications to create two additional residential lots.

The City opposed the applications, citing concerns over flood hazards, inadequate emergency vehicle access, and the lack of an Environmental Impact Study for development within a natural heritage system.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence of the City's witnesses and found that the proposed consent did not meet the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and the variances did not satisfy the four tests under section 45(1).

The appeal was dismissed.