Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0167/17TEY

Ward 19 · Brad BradfordDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Refused
Submitted: 14 February 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 2915 St Clair Ave E
Ward: Ward 19 · Brad Bradford
Submitted: 14 February 2017
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Refused
Hearing date: 14 June 2017
Decision: Refused
Objection at the hearing: Yes
Appealed: No appeal recorded

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

Description

To alter the existing lawful non-conforming service station by constructing a canopy above the existing two gas pumps located on the west side of the building and expanding the existing retail store by converting an interior service bay for a take-out eating establishment and retail store.REQUESTED PERMISSION UNDER SUBSECTION 45(2)(a)(i) & (ii) OF THE PLANNING ACT:The property has lawful non-conforming status under the Planning Act, as the service station existed prior to the passing of the Zoning By-law, which does not permit the said use in a RD zone and R1B zone. Any change of use, alterations or additions to the building requires the permission of the Committee of Adjustment under Chapter 10.20.20.10.(1), By-law 569-2013 and Section 7.3.1, By-law 6752.The addition of the fuel dispenser canopy over the two gas pumps on the west side (Squires Avenue flankage) is an alteration and extension to the lawful non-conforming use.

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 19

1 lobbied · 8 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 19: 1 lobbied and 8 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	1	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	8	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.