Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A0183/16NY
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 19 February 2016
- Appealed
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 384 Ruth Avenue
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Submitted
- 19 February 2016
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 7 April 2016
- Decision
- Approved
- Objection at the hearing
- Not recorded
- Appealed
- Yes
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
To construct a new two- storey detached dwelling with an integral garage. The existing dwelling would be demolished.
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
Igor Martsenyuk · registration SM21899
Proposed minor variance applications for the dwellings proposed on the properties municipally known as 382 and 384 Ruth Avenue.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM21899: Proposed minor variance applications for the dwellings proposed on the properties municipally known as 382 and 384 Ruth Avenue. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0183/16NY at 384 Ruth Ave: To construct a new two- storey detached dwelling with an integral garage. The existing dwelling would be demolished. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed minor variance applications for the dwellings proposed on the properties municipally known as 382 and 384 Ruth Avenue.
Matched fields
- address
- 384 RUTH AVE
- application_address
- 384 RUTH AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 3 communications · 2 meetings · 2 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 24 Willowdale | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 4 August 2015 |
| Office of Councillor Shiner, Ward 24 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 4 August 2015 |
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Igor MartsenyukSM20649 · 4 July 2014 · “384 Ruth Avenue”
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 18
9 lobbied · 202 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 9 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 202 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.