Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0698/17EYK

Ward 9 · Alejandra BravoDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Refused
Submitted: 4 August 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 609 McRoberts Ave
Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted: 4 August 2017
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Refused
Hearing date: 7 September 2017
Decision: Refused
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 legalize and maintain the following: a second floor enlargement with a covered rear deck, a front porch enlargement with a new canopy, a rear basement entrance and a new rear gazebo. Previous Committee of Adjustment Decision (File Number: A404/12EYK) approved variances related to the gross floor area and height of the accessory building. Previous Committee of Adjustment Decision (File Number: A220/14EYK) approved variances related to front yard setback, dwelling length, second storey platform area and front yard soft landscaping.

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.

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 9

27 lobbied · 333 matched

Median days

Lobbied169
Matched, unlobbied134

Approval rate

Lobbied67% n=27
Matched, unlobbied95% n=279

Refusal rate

Lobbied33%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Appeal rate

Lobbied26%
Matched, unlobbied6%

Objection rate

Lobbied29%
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 9: 27 lobbied and 333 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	27	169	67% (n=27)	33%	26%	29%
Matched, unlobbied	333	134	95% (n=279)	5%	6%	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.