Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0279/24TEY

Ward 9 · Alejandra BravoDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Approved
Submitted: 7 March 2024; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 90 Croatia St
Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted: 7 March 2024
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 7 August 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 Blocks C, D, E and F, containing Buildings C, D, E and F of the mixed-use redevelopment approved under Site Specific Zoning By-Law 700-2021 (OLT) to permit increases to the gross floor area, increases to the permitted height, to add additional elements to the list of permitted setback encroachments, increases to specific height projections, increases to the percentage of grade for loading access ramps, limiting reduction of amenity space area from overall gross floor area, and relief from the size and location of the private school and private day nursery. There will be a total of 2,000 residential dwelling units provided at this site. This is currently under review by Site Plan Control Applications (22 129491 STE 09 SA, 22 129524 STE 09 SA, 22 140172 STE 09 SA, 22 140155 STE 09 SA, 22 140160 STE 09 SA and 22 140164 STE 09 SA).

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.

Capital Developments
SM30257 · 23 June 2020 · “90 Croatia Street”

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.