Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0784/17TEY

158 Sterling Rd

Ward 9 · Alejandra BravoDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Withdrawn
Submitted: 18 July 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 158 Sterling Rd
Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted: 18 July 2017
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Withdrawn
Hearing date: —
Decision: Withdrawn
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

See C of A Dec A0607/16TEY Geospatial Mapping Inquiry see SM and emails.

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.

Rio Tinto Alcan
SM30716 · 14 October 2020 · “158 Sterling Road”
Castlepoint Studio Partners
SM24465 · 3 May 2017 · “158 Sterling Road”
Castlepoint Studio Partners
SM18668 · 6 November 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
CAW-Canada
SM18571 · 18 October 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
Castlepoint Studio Properties Limited
SM16444 · 26 May 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
Rio Tinto Alcan
SM17739 · 27 January 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
Castlepoint Studio Partners
SM17405 · 4 November 2011 · “158 Sterling Road”
Castlepoint Studio Partners
SM16075 · 21 March 2011 · “158 Sterling Road.”

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.