lobbyTO

Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0398/17TEY

171 East Liberty St

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageReport an error on this page
Status
Closed
Approved
Submitted
5 April 2017
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Minor variance (MV)
Addresses
171 East Liberty St
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
5 April 2017
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Approved
Hearing date
9 August 2017
Decision
Approved
Objection at the hearing
No
Appealed
No appeal recorded

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page

Description

To correct technical errors in the Site Specific By-law in order to properly recognize the previously reviewed/approved plans - established through of rezoning (File No.12 246860 STE 19 OZ) and Site Plan Applications (File No. 14 266871 STE 19 SA). The current Site Plan application proposes to re-develop a portion of the site, known as the Liberty Market Building, with a 28 storey mixed-use building containing residential units, office and retail space. There will be three-levels of underground parking; including, bicycle parking spaces. The requested changes being sought through this minor variance application are internal to the building and will not affect the exterior configuration of the proposed 28-storey mixed-use building.

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.

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 10

20 lobbied · 261 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied136
  • Matched, unlobbied138

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=20
  • Matched, unlobbied93% n=214

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied7%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied5%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied14%
  • Matched, unlobbied18%

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 10: 20 lobbied and 261 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied20136100% (n=20)0%0%14%
Matched, unlobbied26113893% (n=214)7%5%18%
Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (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.