Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0110/17SC

11 Hill Cres

Ward 20 · Parthi KandavelDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Refused
Submitted: 7 April 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 1; 0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 11 Hill Cres
Ward: Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted: 7 April 2017
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Refused
Hearing date: 1 June 2017
Decision: Refused
Objection at the hearing: Not recorded
Appealed: No appeal recorded

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page

Description

To construct a new two-storey detached dwelling.

Linked lobbying registrations

These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.

Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored

Paul Benson · registration SM24635
11 Hill Crescent
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM24635: 11 Hill Crescent (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0110/17SC at 11 Hill Cres: To construct a new two-storey detached dwelling. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 11 Hill Crescent
Matched fields
address
11 HILL CRES
application_address
11 HILL CRES

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Office of Coucillor Paul Ainslie1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Office of Coucillor Paul Ainslie	Councillor staff	1	0	30 May 2017

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Stikeman Elliott LLP1 registration

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

None.

Comparison with similar applications

Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.

Minor variance (MV), Ward 20

9 lobbied · 295 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

Lobbied126
Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

Lobbied75% n=154
Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

Lobbied25%
Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

Lobbied19%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

Lobbied43%
Matched, unlobbied27%

Data table· 4 rows

Minor variance (MV), Ward 20: 9 lobbied and 295 matched unlobbied applications in 7 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	9	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	295	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	173	126	75% (n=154)	25%	19%	43%
Matched, unlobbied	3,646	114	91% (n=3,058)	9%	4%	27%

Submission to hearing. Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.

Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.