Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A1284/15TEY
- Status
- Closed
- Refused
- Submitted
- 22 December 2015
- Appealed
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 260 Gamble Ave
- Ward
- Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
- Submitted
- 22 December 2015
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Refused
- Hearing date
- 13 September 2016
- Decision
- Refused
- Objection at the hearing
- No
- Appealed
- Yes
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
To alter the existing three-storey multi-unit residential apartment building by converting the basement storage area into two new dwelling units.
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
Akelius Canada Ltd. · registration SM23440
260 Gamble Avenue Minor variance in accordance with zoning certificate 15-197388 ZZC, hearing date is scheduled for September 13, 2016.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM23440: 260 Gamble Avenue Minor variance in accordance with zoning certificate 15-197388 ZZC, hearing date is scheduled for September 13, 2016. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A1284/15TEY at 260 Gamble Ave: To alter the existing three-storey multi-unit residential apartment building by converting the basement storage area into two new dwelling units. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 260 Gamble Avenue Minor variance in accordance with zoning certificate 15-197388 ZZC, hearing date is scheduled for September 13, 2016.
Matched fields
- address
- 260 GAMBLE AVE
- application_address
- 260 GAMBLE AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther 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 14
4 lobbied · 69 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 | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 69 | 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.