Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A0296/20EYK
- Status
- TLAB Appeal
- Refused
- Submitted
- 4 August 2020
- Appealed
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 611 Keele St
- Ward
- Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
- Submitted
- 4 August 2020
- Status
- TLAB Appeal
- Outcome recorded
- Refused
- Hearing date
- 25 May 2021
- Decision
- Refused
- Objection at the hearing
- Not recorded
- Appealed
- Yes
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
To construct a new self-storage facility.
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
Talus Capital Corp. · registration SM31029
Site Plan and Minor Variance Applications for the Redevelopment of 611 - 623 Keele Street.
Evidence High confidence · score 0.90
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM31029: Site Plan and Minor Variance Applications for the Redevelopment of 611 - 623 Keele Street. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0296/20EYK at 611 Keele St: To construct a new self-storage facility. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Site Plan and Minor Variance Applications for the Redevelopment of 611 - 623 Keele Street.
Matched fields
- address
- 611-623 KEELE ST
- application_address
- 611 KEELE ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 5 York South-Weston | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 23 December 2020 |
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Diamond CorpSM34611 · 4 July 2023 · “611 Keele St”
- Fieldgate HomesSM25656 · 12 February 2018 · “611 Keele Street.”
- Astral Media Outdoor, L.P.SM14184 · 8 March 2010 · “611 Keele St”
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 5
8 lobbied · 137 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 8 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 137 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.