Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A1242/16TEY

220 King St W

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Approved
Submitted: 16 December 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 2; 0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 220 King St W
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 16 December 2016
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 19 April 2017
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 construct an accessory structure in the rear patio area in lieu of an existing loading space.

Linked lobbying registrations

These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.

Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored

220 King Street West GP Inc. · registration SM22923
220 King Street West, Toronto, ON
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM22923: 220 King Street West, Toronto, ON (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A1242/16TEY at 220 King St W: To construct an accessory structure in the rear patio area in lieu of an existing loading space. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 220 King Street West, Toronto, ON
Matched fields
address
220 KING ST W
application_address
220 KING ST W

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 2 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Ward 2 Councillor Cressy2

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 2 Councillor Cressy	Councillor staff	2	0	10 May 2016

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 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.