Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A0713/18EYK
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 20 September 2018
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 330 Humberline Dr
- Ward
- Ward 1 · Vincent Crisanti
- Submitted
- 20 September 2018
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 11 April 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 loading facility on the north side of the existing industrial 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
Kim Hill · registration SM27336
Minor Variance requested for location of loading docks for 330 Humberline Drive, Etobicoke, ON, M9W 5X3.
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 SM27336: Minor Variance requested for location of loading docks for 330 Humberline Drive, Etobicoke, ON, M9W 5X3. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0713/18EYK at 330 Humberline Dr: To construct a new loading facility on the north side of the existing industrial building. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Minor Variance requested for location of loading docks for 330 Humberline Drive, Etobicoke, ON, M9W 5X3.
Matched fields
- address
- 330 HUMBERLINE DR
- application_address
- 330 HUMBERLINE DR
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 1 Etobicoke North | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 9 January 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 1
2 lobbied · 42 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 42 | 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.