Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A1063/17TEY

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Approved
Submitted: 2 October 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 1100 King St W
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 2 October 2017
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 7 March 2018
Decision: Approved
Objection at the hearing: No
Appealed: No appeal recorded

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page

Description

To modify the redevelopment plan, approved under Site-specific By-law 225-2014(OMB), by building greater than the permitted height to accommodate a mechanical penthouse and a pool deck, by increasing non-residential floor area to build a larger residential tower entry, and by allocating more parking spaces for commercial use.

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.

First Capital REIT
SM29707 · 4 February 2020 · “1100 King St. W”
First capital Realty
SM27571 · 5 February 2019 · “1100 King St. W”
King Liberty North Corporation
SM27109 · 30 November 2018 · “1100 King Street West”
King Liberty North Corporation
SM19634 · 4 September 2013 · “1100 King Street West”
Urbancorp
SM19119 · 21 March 2013 · “1100 King Street West”
URBANCORP DEVELOPMENTS INC
SM17356 · 20 October 2011 · “1100 KING ST WEST”
Kilmer Brownfield Management Limited
SM12642 · 8 January 2009 · “1100 King Street W”
Urbancorp
SM11342 · 7 March 2008 · “1100 King Street West.”

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 10

20 lobbied · 261 matched

Median days

Lobbied136
Matched, unlobbied138

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=20
Matched, unlobbied93% n=214

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied7%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Objection rate

Lobbied14%
Matched, unlobbied18%

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 10: 20 lobbied and 261 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	20	136	100% (n=20)	0%	0%	14%
Matched, unlobbied	261	138	93% (n=214)	7%	5%	18%

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.