Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A0790/23TEY
- Status
- Closed
- Refused
- Submitted
- 12 September 2023
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 62 Croft St
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Submitted
- 12 September 2023
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Refused
- Hearing date
- 8 November 2023
- 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
1. Chapter 10.10.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013The maximum permitted floor space index is 1 times the area of the lot (100.9 m²).The new dwelling will have a floor space index equal to 1.91 times the area of the lot (192.5 m²).2. Chapter 10.10.40.70.(1), By-law 569-2013The minimum required front yard setback is 6 m.The new dwelling will be located 0 m from the front (east) lot line.3. Chapter 10.10.40.70.(2), By-law 569-2013The minimum required rear yard setback is 7.5 m.The new dwelling will be located 2.5 m from the rear (west) lot line.4. Chapter 10.10.40.70.(4)(A), By-law 569-2013The minimum required side yard setback where there are no windows or doors is 0.45 m.The new dwelling will be located 0 m from the side (north and south) lot lines.5. Chapter 10.5.40.70.(2), By-law 569-2013The minimum required setback of a building or structure from the original centreline of a lane is 2.5 m.The new dwelling (at the second and third storeys) will be located 1.98 m from the original centreline of the lane abutting the front (east) lot line.6. Chapter 10.5.50.10.(1)(D), By-law 569-2013A minimum of 75% (1.47 m²) of the required front yard landscaped open space must be in the form of soft landscaping.In this case, 63% (1.25 m²) of the required front yard landscaped open space will be in the form of soft landscaping.7. Chapter 10.5.40.60.(1)(D), By-law 569-2013A platform without main walls, attached to or less than 0.3 m from a building, with a floor higher than the first floor of the building above established grade may encroach into the required rear yard setback 1.5 m if it is no closer to a side lot line than 0.45 m. The rear third storey roof deck will encroach 5 m into the required rear yard setback and will be located 0.45 m from the side (north and south) lot lines.
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 11
16 lobbied · 354 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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 354 | 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.