Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A0553/17TEY
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 15 May 2017
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 85 Richmond St W
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 15 May 2017
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 6 December 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 alter the existing office building by facilitating heritage restoration, recladding and the addition of non-residential gross floor area to the rear of the 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
Oxford Properties Group · registration SM25069
Minor Variance and Site Plan application related to 85 Richmond Street West for Oxford Properties Group
Evidence High confidence · score 0.91
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM25069: Minor Variance and Site Plan application related to 85 Richmond Street West for Oxford Properties Group (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0553/17TEY at 85 Richmond St W: To alter the existing office building by facilitating heritage restoration, recladding and the addition of non-residential gross floor area to the rear of the building. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Minor Variance and Site Plan application related to 85 Richmond Street West for Oxford Properties Group
Matched fields
- address
- 85 RICHMOND ST W
- application_address
- 85 RICHMOND ST W
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor McConnell | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 22 September 2017 |
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 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.