Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0606/21TEY

Ward 12 · Josh MatlowDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Approved
Submitted: 9 March 2021; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 1; 0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 129 St Clair Ave W
Ward: Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted: 9 March 2021
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 6 October 2021
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 development plan approved under Site Specific By-law 538-2012 for a 28-storey residential building by permitting visitor parking spaces within the existing parking garage to be occupied by users who are not visitors to 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

Churchterrace Developments Inc. · registration SM31349
Matters relating to the redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 129 St. Clair Avenue West.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM31349: Matters relating to the redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 129 St. Clair Avenue West. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0606/21TEY at 129 St Clair Ave W: To alter the development plan approved under Site Specific By-law 538-2012 for a 28-storey residential building by permitting visitor parking spaces within the existing parking garage to be occupied by users who are not visitors to the building. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Matters relating to the redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 129 St. Clair Avenue West.
Matched fields
address
129 ST CLAIR AVE W
application_address
129 ST CLAIR AVE W

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul's1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul's	Member of council	1	0	8 March 2021

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

McCarthy Tetrault LLP1 registration

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

Diamondcorp
SM17744 · 27 January 2012 · “129 St Clair Ave W”
Whitecastle New Urban Fund
SM17447 · 11 November 2011 · “129 St. Clair Avenue West.”
Diamond Corp
SM17399 · 3 November 2011 · “129 St. Clair Avenue West.”
Whitecastle New Urban Fund
SM17401 · 3 November 2011 · “129 St. Clair Avenue West”
Diamond Corp
SM16602 · 20 June 2011 · “129 St. Clair Avenue West”

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 matched

Median days

Lobbied106
Matched, unlobbied145

Approval rate

Lobbied50% n=12
Matched, unlobbied90% n=291

Refusal rate

Lobbied50%
Matched, unlobbied10%

Appeal rate

Lobbied35%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Objection rate

Lobbied86%
Matched, unlobbied30%

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 12: 20 lobbied and 357 matched unlobbied applications in 7 matched strata
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%

Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
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.