Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A0890/14NY

Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos LinDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: OMB Appeal; Refused
Submitted: 13 November 2014; Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 24 Sutherland Dr
Ward: Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted: 13 November 2014
Status: OMB Appeal
Outcome recorded: Refused
Hearing date: 5 March 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 construct a new two-storey detached dwelling with an integral, below grade, one car garage. The existing dwelling and detached garage would be demolished. Please be advised this application was previously before the Committee of Adjustment on January 8, 2015. It was the decision of the Committee Members to DEFER the application SINE DIE at the request of the applicant in order to allow him an opportunity to meet with neighbours and discuss changes to the variances and submit revised plans. Please note the following changes from the previous Revised Public Hearing Notice dated February 23, 2015: the elimination of the front yard setback and lot frontage variances, the revision of the proposed floor space index to 0.68 times the area of the lot (By-law No. 569-2013) and a variance added for the proposal of a below grade garage.

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 15

5 lobbied · 419 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 15: 5 lobbied and 419 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
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.

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.