Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0248/26NY

Ward 6 · James PasternakDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Approved
Submitted: 8 July 2026; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 123 Garratt Blvd
Ward: Ward 6 · James Pasternak
Submitted: 8 July 2026
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 20 August 2026
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 permit two air-supported indoor sports domes. The lands are subject to holding provisions as identified in Site-Specific Zoning By-law No. 707-2024. The proposed recreation use is not permitted until the holding symbol (H) has been lifted.

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.

Northcrest Developments
SM30540 · 8 September 2020 · “123 Garratt Boulevard”
Downsview Metro Devco
SM28684 · 19 August 2019 · “123 Garratt Boulevard”

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 6

2 lobbied · 14 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 6: 2 lobbied and 14 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	2	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	14	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.