Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0248/20SC

Ward 22 · Nick MantasDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Application Withdrawn; Withdrawn
Submitted: 19 October 2020; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 2150 McNicoll Ave
Ward: Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
Submitted: 19 October 2020
Status: Application Withdrawn
Outcome recorded: Withdrawn
Hearing date: 15 December 2020
Decision: —
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

The purpose of the application is to permit the proposed draft plan of condominium to create a two separate land parcels (Part 1 and Part 2) for the existing property (retail/commercial development) This minor variance application is for Part 1. Cross-Reference Site Plan Control Application 16 242851 ESC 39 SA. and Draft Plan of Condominium Application 19 263279 ESC 22 CD.

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.

GTA China Centre Inc
SM23990 · 30 January 2017 · “2150 McNicoll Ave”

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 22

1 lobbied · 4 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 22: 1 lobbied and 4 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	4	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.