Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0242/13SC

Ward 25 · Neethan ShanDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Application Withdrawn; Withdrawn
Submitted: 3 October 2013; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 260 Beechgrove Dr
Ward: Ward 25 · Neethan Shan
Submitted: 3 October 2013
Status: Application Withdrawn
Outcome recorded: Withdrawn
Hearing date: —
Decision: Deferred
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

This application is for consent to sever the land into three residential lots, shown as Parts 1, 2 and 3 on the attached Lot Division Plan. Part 1 would have a frontage of 17.9 m on Lawrence Ave E. and a lot area of 416 m2. Part 2 would have a frontage of 12 m on Beechgrove Drive and a lot area of 482 m2. Part 3 would have frontage on Beechgrove Drive and Lawrence Avenue E., and a lot area of 415 m2. [The Committee of Adjustment approved an application to sever this property into three lots in August, 2010, however, the owners did not fulfill the conditions of consent within one year and the the consent lapsed. The owners have revised their proposal and submitted these new applications.]

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 25

1 lobbied · 9 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 25: 1 lobbied and 9 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	9	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.