Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0342/16SC

240 Alton Towers Crcl

Ward 23 · Jamaal MyersDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Approved
Submitted: 16 November 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 1; 0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 240 Alton Towers Crcl
Ward: Ward 23 · Jamaal Myers
Submitted: 16 November 2016
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 13 July 2017
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 a free-standing, drive-through restaurant at the northeast corner of the Milliken Wells Shopping Centre.

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

Cedar City Developments · registration SM23535
240 & 250 Alton Towers Circle
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
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 SM23535: 240 & 250 Alton Towers Circle (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0342/16SC at 240 Alton Towers Crcl: To permit a free-standing, drive-through restaurant at the northeast corner of the Milliken Wells Shopping Centre. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 240 & 250 Alton Towers Circle
Matched fields
address
240&250 ALTON TOWERS CIR
application_address
240 ALTON TOWERS CIR

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Building1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Building	City staff	1	0	1 April 2020

Other 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 23

3 lobbied · 32 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 23: 3 lobbied and 32 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	3	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	32	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.