Dennis Perlin

The appellant appealed the refusal by the Town of Oakville's Committee of Adjustment to grant a minor variance permitting a motor vehicle dealership and related uses on the subject lands.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Tribunal to approve the variance subject to agreed conditions.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised application that eliminated one variance and modified others.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, representing good planning and appropriate infill development.

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

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit stacked townhouses.

Prior to the merits hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment on consent to revise its proposal to address the Town's concerns.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it would ensure a fair and expeditious hearing, and scheduled a three-day hearing for May 2026.

The Town of Oakville appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances for increased residential floor area ratio and lot coverage to permit a new two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a revised proposal that introduced a one-storey architectural element and reduced building height.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it mitigated massing impacts and maintained the character of the stable residential neighbourhood.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize five minor variances required to construct a new two-storey single-detached dwelling.

The requested variances related to maximum driveway width, maximum private garage size, minimum interior side yard setback, minimum front yard setback, and maximum building height.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the Town of Oakville's denial of a minor variance application to permit a motor vehicle dealership.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions and requested additional time to submit a revised Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing for April 2026 and set deadlines for the procedural documents.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to increase the maximum dwelling depth to permit a covered rear porch on a single detached dwelling under construction.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and would not cause adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to a condition requiring an amended site plan agreement.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement with revised variances and conditions.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the revised variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances related to garage floor area, garage projection, dwelling depth, front yard setback, and main wall proportionality.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that they satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The appellant appealed a municipal by-law designating a farmhouse under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Following a structural assessment revealing significant deterioration, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on expert architectural evidence that the property met only one of the required criteria for designation, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and repealed the designating by-law, noting the parties' agreement to salvage and relocate historic materials.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the five requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances to permit reduced landscaping widths for outside storage at an industrial property.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the variances.

The Tribunal found the variances satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with provincial policies, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by DGB Trafalgar Limited objecting to the Town of Oakville's heritage designation By-law 2023-154 for the Bentley Family Farmhouse.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The hearing is scheduled to commence by video on September 10, 2024.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Roseville Properties Inc. against the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and its conditional approval of a Site Plan Application for a 10-townhouse development.

The Tribunal ordered that the Site Plan Appeal be heard together with the Zoning By-law Amendment Appeal.

The Region of Halton was granted Party status in the Site Plan Appeal.

The Tribunal also set deadlines for the submission of the Procedural Order, Issues List, and witness statements ahead of the scheduled hearing.

The Town of Oakville appealed a minor variance application by Jan and Joe Manta regarding the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement in writing.

Based on the affidavit evidence of a land use planner, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and authorized the amended variance to permit a maximum residential floor area ratio of 44.54%, subject to conditions, without requiring further notice under s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

The Town of Oakville appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance for a maximum residential floor area ratio to permit a second-storey addition.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on revised plans that reduced the massing and scale of the addition.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the amended variance subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to construct a second storey and ground floor addition to their detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and presented revised variances with reduced massing and setbacks.

The Tribunal found the amended application minor, requiring no further notice.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and authorized the revised variances subject to conditions, finding they met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a consent application to sever a property in a prime agricultural area to create a separate lot for an existing kennel, leaving the existing dwelling on the retained lot.

The Tribunal found that the proposed lot creation was not for agricultural uses but solely to facilitate the transfer of the kennel independent of the residential dwelling.

The Tribunal held that the application would fragment prime agricultural lands, was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and did not conform to the Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Parkway Belt West Plan, or the applicable official plans.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and revised the architectural drawings to reduce the overall height and massing of the dwelling.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling, which were approved by the Committee of Adjustment.

The adjacent neighbour appealed the decision, arguing the proposed massing would negatively impact the streetscape, natural light, and privacy.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances maintain the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, are desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and are minor in nature due to architectural mitigation measures.