Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0161/17SC

Ward 21 · Michael ThompsonDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Approved
Submitted: 11 May 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 2155 Lawrence Ave E
Ward: Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
Submitted: 11 May 2017
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 15 February 2018
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

The property at the southwest corner of Lawrence Avenue East and Birchmount Road is developed with a 12-storey, 243-unit residential building with at-grade commercial uses. This development was originally intended to be integrated with a development on the property to the south at 1236 Birchmount Road, including shared parking facilities. A by-law passed by City Council in 2006 (By-law No. 817-2006) required parking for residents, visitors and commercial uses to be provided collectively on both properties. At the time, the two properties were under affiliated ownership. The properties are now owned by separate entities. The owners of 2155 Lawrence Avenue are requesting a variance to require parking facilities to be provided on their property only, instead of collectively on both properties. The parking spaces currently provided on the property comply with the zoning requirements, and the number of parking spaces will not change.

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.