Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A0142/26TEY
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 18 February 2026
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 271 Russell Hill Rd
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Submitted
- 18 February 2026
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 9 September 2026
- 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 alter the development standards, as approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly the Ontario Municipal Board), for a four-storey residential building (currently under construction), by increasing the metric height of the building from four-storeys (13.33 m) to five-storeys (17.03 m), the maximum gross floor area, the depth, and providing front terraces on the fourth and fifth storeys, as well as rear balconies on the second to fifth storeys. Also, to reduce the front and side yard setbacks, landscaped open space, and parking space dimensions (within a parking stacker) within the integral garage (below grade). A Site Plan Approval amendment application (File No. 20 26 169961 STE 12 SA) is currently under review. There will be a total of 8 residential dwelling units on this lot and 13 parking spaces within a below grade garage.
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 12
20 lobbied · 357 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 20 | 106 | 50% (n=12) | 50% | 35% | 86% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | 145 | 90% (n=291) | 10% | 5% | 30% |
| 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.