Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A0543/19NY
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 6 August 2019
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 1928 Eglinton Ave W
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Submitted
- 6 August 2019
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 24 October 2019
- 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 construct a new multi-storey mixed-use building.
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
Clifton Blake Asset Management · registration SM28817
Minor Variance and Site Plan Amendment application for the site 1920-1924 Eglinton Avenue West
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.74
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 SM28817: Minor Variance and Site Plan Amendment application for the site 1920-1924 Eglinton Avenue West (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0543/19NY at 1928 Eglinton Ave W: To construct a new multi-storey mixed-use building. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Minor Variance and Site Plan Amendment application for the site 1920-1924 Eglinton Avenue West
Matched fields
- address
- 1920-1924 EGLINTON AVE W
- application_address
- 1928 EGLINTON AVE W
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 2 communications · 1 meeting · 2 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Colle, Ward 8 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 13 December 2019 |
| Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 9 October 2019 |
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.
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 8
7 lobbied · 357 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.