Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A0365/21TEY
- Status
- Application Withdrawn
- Withdrawn
- Submitted
- 19 March 2021
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 467 Spadina Rd
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Submitted
- 19 March 2021
- Status
- Application Withdrawn
- Outcome recorded
- Withdrawn
- Hearing date
- 18 August 2021
- Decision
- —
- 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 alter the lawfully existing building by constructing interior alterations to convert the use back to a seventeen unit apartment building containing two bedrooms per unit. Scope of work includes proposed common areas in the basement.
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
SpiceCart Investments · registration SM30865
467 Spadina Road
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
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 SM30865: 467 Spadina Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0365/21TEY at 467 Spadina Rd: Proposal to alter the lawfully existing building by constructing interior alterations to convert the use back to a seventeen unit apartment building containing two bedrooms per unit. Scope of work includes proposed common areas in the basement. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 467 Spadina Road
Matched fields
- address
- 467 SPADINA RD
- application_address
- 467 SPADINA RD
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 9 communications · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor Josh Matlow | Councillor staff | 9 | 1 | 16 November 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.
- 467 Spadina LimitedSM20330 · 22 April 2014 · “467 Spadina Road”
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 12
20 lobbied · 357 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
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 | 20 | 106 | 50% (n=12) | 50% | 35% | 86% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | 145 | 90% (n=291) | 10% | 5% | 30% |
| 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.