Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0858/25TEY

Ward 12 · Josh MatlowDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Approved
Submitted: 21 November 2025; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 4 Ridgewood Rd
Ward: Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted: 21 November 2025
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 14 January 2026
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 two-storey detached U-shaped dwelling with an integral four-car garage at the basement level, a horseshoe driveway, a front basement foyer (terrace on ground floor above foyer), a rear ground floor one-storey conservatory (connected internally with main ground level) with stairs, a rear courtyard (between dwelling and conservatory structure), a rear second floor balcony and an in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard. Also, to construct two new one-storey detached ancillary buildings (cabanas) on the east and west sides of the in-ground swimming pool.

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 12

20 lobbied · 357 matched

Median days

Lobbied106
Matched, unlobbied145

Approval rate

Lobbied50% n=12
Matched, unlobbied90% n=291

Refusal rate

Lobbied50%
Matched, unlobbied10%

Appeal rate

Lobbied35%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Objection rate

Lobbied86%
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 12: 20 lobbied and 357 matched unlobbied applications in 7 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	20	106	50% (n=12)	50%	35%	86%
Matched, unlobbied	357	145	90% (n=291)	10%	5%	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.