Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A0308/24NY
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 12 June 2024
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 90 Wynford Dr
- Ward
- Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
- Submitted
- 12 June 2024
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 18 July 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
Proposal to convert the first three floors of the existing office building to self-storage. Floors 3 to 5 will remain as office.
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
StorageVault Canada · registration SM35594
Minor Variance and Site Plan for 90 Wynford Drive
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.90
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM35594: Minor Variance and Site Plan for 90 Wynford Drive (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0308/24NY at 90 Wynford Dr: Proposal to convert the first three floors of the existing office building to self-storage. Floors 3 to 5 will remain as office. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Minor Variance and Site Plan for 90 Wynford Drive
Matched fields
- address
- 90 WYNFORD DR
- application_address
- 90 WYNFORD DR
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 2 communications · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jon Burnside | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 31 May 2024 |
| Jon Burnside | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 13 June 2024 |
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.
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 16
5 lobbied · 35 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 | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 35 | 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.