Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A0778/15NY
- Status
- Closed
- Refused
- Submitted
- 18 August 2015
- Appealed
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 99 Erskine Ave
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Submitted
- 18 August 2015
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Refused
- Hearing date
- 26 November 2015
- Decision
- Refused
- Objection at the hearing
- Not recorded
- Appealed
- Yes
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
To permit the addition of two-storeys to the approved 32-storey building, resulting in a 34-storey residential apartment building. No other changes are proposed to the built form. Related planning files include consent application B033/14NY, 07 277684 NNY 25 OZ and 10 288680 NNY 25 SA.
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
Deltera Inc. · registration SM22402
101 Erskine Ave., Toronto
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.72
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 SM22402: 101 Erskine Ave., Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0778/15NY at 99 Erskine Ave: To permit the addition of two-storeys to the approved 32-storey building, resulting in a 34-storey residential apartment building. No other changes are proposed to the built form. Related planning files include consent application B033/14NY, 07 277684 NNY 25 OZ and 10 288680 NNY 25 SA. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 101 Erskine Ave., Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 101 ERSKINE AVE
- application_address
- 99 ERSKINE AVE
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 Jaye Robinson, Ward 45 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 7 February 2017 |
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 15
5 lobbied · 419 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 | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 419 | 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.