Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A0503/17TEY
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 3 May 2017
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 19 Western Battery Rd
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 3 May 2017
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 13 September 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 alter the redevelopment plan for a new 28-storey residential building containing 481 dwelling units, approved under Site-Specific By-law 1079-2010 with respect to development standards associated with: mechanical penthouse area, vehicle parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces.
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
CentreCourt Developments Inc. · registration SM25061
19 Western Battery Road
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.86
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 SM25061: 19 Western Battery Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0503/17TEY at 19 Western Battery Rd: To alter the redevelopment plan for a new 28-storey residential building containing 481 dwelling units, approved under Site-Specific By-law 1079-2010 with respect to development standards associated with: mechanical penthouse area, vehicle parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 19 Western Battery Road
Matched fields
- address
- 19 WESTERN BATTERY RD
- application_address
- 19 WESTERN BATTERY RD
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
Other registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- CentreCourtSM30631 · 30 September 2020 · “19 Western Battery Road”
- CentreCourtSM25027 · 13 September 2017 · “19 Western Battery 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 10
20 lobbied · 261 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 | 136 | 100% (n=20) | 0% | 0% | 14% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 261 | 138 | 93% (n=214) | 7% | 5% | 18% |
| 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.