lobbyTO

Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0206/23SC

756 Warden Ave

Status
Closed
Refused
Submitted
5 September 2023
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
1
1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type
Minor variance (MV)
Addresses
756 Warden Ave
Ward
Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted
5 September 2023
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Refused
Hearing date
3 April 2024
Decision
Refused
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 construct a new building with Electronic Gaming and Bingo Hall uses on the site. A previous minor variance application was approved to construct a new one storey industrial condominium (A0269/22SC). Cross reference related Site Plan Application File No. 2021 197589 ESC 20 SA. This application was previously deferred at the November 2023 & January 2024 hearing.

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Frances NunziataMember of council118 August 2024

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

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

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 20

9 lobbied · 295 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 20: 9 lobbied and 295 matched unlobbied applications in 7 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied9Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied295Hidden: 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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (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.