'Garage Mahal' dispute over
Etobicoke-Lakeshore MPP ordered to pay $5,000 in cost to neighbour over proposed garage
The former environment minister's "Garage Mahal" is dead - at a cost of $5,000.
The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) ruled a year ago against the abandoned plan by former environment minister Laurel Broten and her husband Paul Laberge to build an elaborate two-storey garage with mechanical lift onto their Long Branch home.
More recently, the OMB ordered the couple to cover half of a neighbour's costs in fighting the proposed garage that sparked controversy and unwanted publicity for Broten last year.
"I'm happy we resolved the outstanding issues with our neighbour. I'm happy the matter is closed, and we've all moved on," Broten said in an interview yesterday.
Robbie Robinson was one of five nearby neighbours who complained the proposed garage was too big, out of character with the neighbourhood and would threaten a mature tree that straddles a neighbouring property.
Robinson had hired a lawyer, a land-use planner and an arborist in mounting his OMB appeal.
Some Liberal staffers at Queen's Park privately decried the proposed building as the "Garage Mahal" after India's Taj Mahal. The garage was to include a mechanical lift in which to house two of the couple's four vehicles, as well as bikes and baby gear for their then-20-month-old twin sons.
Broten and Laberge had originally obtained a minor variance from the local committee of adjustment, which Robinson challenged before the OMB.
Broten, then environment minister, first defended the garage.
But much criticism and concerns about family safety triggered the couple to scrap the plan on late-day Friday before last year's Canada Day long weekend.
In an affidavit to the board, Laberge wrote that news coverage of the battle with neighbours resulted in "slow-moving vehicles with occupants looking at my family home" causing "additional concern and worry."
Yet the hearing was scheduled for the following Tuesday, which meant Robinson had already paid money to contract a lawyer, land-use planner and arborist to provide evidence at the hearing.
"The reasons cited... for the last-minute withdrawal do not mitigate the consequences of their conduct," board vice-chair Susan Campbell wrote of Broten and Laberge in her six-page ruling released in April.
It was "clearly unreasonable" for the couple to withdraw their application at the eleventh hour, and to not appear before the Tuesday hearing, which proceeded as scheduled, Campbell wrote.
After the hearing, Campbell allowed Robinson's appeal and ruled the variances sought by the couple were not authorized.
