Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)

Committee of Adjustment application A1321/17TEY

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Approved
Submitted: 24 November 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Minor variance (MV)
Addresses: 16 York St
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 24 November 2017
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 25 April 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 alter the redevelopment plan approved under Site-specific By-law 494-2009 by reducing the total length of street related retail uses along the entire street frontage of the site, and reducing the total width of commercial space fronting on Bremner Boulevard.

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.

The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited
SM24891 · 24 July 2017 · “16 York Street”
Lanterra Developments
SM21773 · 8 May 2015 · “16 York Street”
Lanterra Developments
SM10393 · 11 February 2008 · “16 York Street”

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.