Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0343/18SC

Ward 22 · Nick MantasDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Refused
Submitted: 9 November 2018; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 3260 Sheppard Ave E
Ward: Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
Submitted: 9 November 2018
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Refused
Hearing date: 17 October 2019
Decision: Refused
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

The owner is seeking relief from the Zoning By-law to permit a three phased redevelopment of the site. The proposal includes two 30-storey point towers fronting onto the north side of Sheppard Avenue East, one 11-storey mid-rise building situated behind the towers, and a block of 3-storey townhouse units along the rear of the subject site. In July 2014, City Council adopted site-specific Zoning By-law 1002-2014 to permit the redevelopment of the Subject Site with a phased mixed-use development under a different owner. The application now requires variances to reflect several design refinements to the proposal. The application is also subject to a Site Plan Control Application (File No.: 13 240117 ESC 40 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.

Mondiale Development LTD.
SM24110 · 27 February 2017 · “3260 Sheppard Ave. East”
Harmony Village Sheppard INc.
SM17064 · 7 September 2011 · “3260 Sheppard Ave. E.”

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 22

1 lobbied · 4 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 22: 1 lobbied and 4 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	1	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	4	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.