Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0199/24TEY

Ward 9 · Alejandra BravoDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Approved
Submitted: 23 February 2024; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 2; 1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 72 Perth Ave
Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted: 23 February 2024
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 24 April 2024
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 for a new rental building (approved under Site Specific Zoning By-law 182-2022, as amended by City Wide By-law 569-2013, and Minor Variance Decision A0892/22TEY) by increasing the building height from 11 to 16 storeys, reducing the ground floor height, increasing the residential density, increasing the number of residential units from 128 to 211 units, amending the building setbacks/stepbacks and reducing the loading space provisions on site. The existing vacant two-story building (previously used as a place of worship) will 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

Castlepoint Developments · registration SM35062
Briefing on a proposed committee of adjustment application at 72 Perth Ave
Evidence High confidence · score 0.93
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM35062: Briefing on a proposed committee of adjustment application at 72 Perth Ave (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0199/24TEY at 72 Perth Ave: To alter the development standards for a new rental building (approved under Site Specific Zoning By-law 182-2022, as amended by City Wide By-law 569-2013, and Minor Variance Decision A0892/22TEY) by increasing the building height from 11 to 16 storeys, reducing the ground floor height, increasing … (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Briefing on a proposed committee of adjustment application at 72 Perth Ave
Matched fields
address
72 PERTH AVE
application_address
72 PERTH AVE

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 2 communications · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Data table· 2 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Alejandra Bravo	Councillor staff	1	0	5 December 2023
Alejandra Bravo	Member of council	1	1	18 December 2023

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Mihevc Consulting and Mediation1 registration

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

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

Castlepoint Numa
SM37698 · 1 June 2026 · “72 Perth 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 9

27 lobbied · 333 matched

Median days

Lobbied169
Matched, unlobbied134

Approval rate

Lobbied67% n=27
Matched, unlobbied95% n=279

Refusal rate

Lobbied33%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Appeal rate

Lobbied26%
Matched, unlobbied6%

Objection rate

Lobbied29%
Matched, unlobbied30%

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 9: 27 lobbied and 333 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	27	169	67% (n=27)	33%	26%	29%
Matched, unlobbied	333	134	95% (n=279)	5%	6%	30%

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.