lobbyTO

Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0132/19SC

2217 Kingston Rd

Status
Closed
Approved
Submitted
13 May 2019
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
3
3 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Minor variance (MV)
Addresses
2217 Kingston Rd
Ward
Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted
13 May 2019
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Approved
Hearing date
25 July 2019
Decision
Approved
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 permit a six-storey mixed use building containing a healing lodge and transitional housing with retail space on the ground floor. A healing lodge is a Residential Care Facility that provides a culturally-relevant, restorative care setting to aid Indigenous women who are making a transition from the correctional system into the community. The proposed healing lodge would include twelve residences and gathering spaces for cultural programming. More information about this proposal, including details about the cultural programming proposed by the Thunder Woman Healing Lodge Society, are available online at the Application Information Centre at www.toronto.ca/aic.

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 3 communications · 3 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Gary Crawford2
  • Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Gary CrawfordCouncillor staff2210 June 2019
Ward 20 Scarborough SouthwestMember of council1110 June 2019

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

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

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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied9Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied295Hidden: 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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (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.