Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0111/15SC

Ward 21 · Michael ThompsonDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Refused
Submitted: 7 April 2015; Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 23 Ivanhoe Crt
Ward: Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
Submitted: 7 April 2015
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Refused
Hearing date: 14 May 2015
Decision: Refused
Objection at the hearing: Not recorded
Appealed: Yes

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

Description

The applicant is seeking relief from the provisions of the Zoning By-law to allow the already constructed canopy (roof) over the existing front porch. The Committee of Adjustment approved a variance for 38% lot coverage in August 2011, to permit at the time the roof over the rear and side deck.

Linked lobbying registrations

No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.

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 21

3 lobbied · 48 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 21: 3 lobbied and 48 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	3	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	48	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.