Committee of Adjustment application · Minor variance (MV)
Committee of Adjustment application A1333/21TEY
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 22 October 2021
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Minor variance (MV)
- Addresses
- 1921 Davenport Rd
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Submitted
- 22 October 2021
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 9 February 2022
- Decision
- Approved
- Objection at the hearing
- Not recorded
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
To construct a new five-storey mixed-use building with 2 commercial units and 19 residential units. The existing one-storey commercial building will be demolished.
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
Jason Silva · registration SM29726
1921 Davenport Rd. To discuss the Committee of Adjustments variances and Site Plan Approval.
Evidence High confidence · score 0.93
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM29726: 1921 Davenport Rd. To discuss the Committee of Adjustments variances and Site Plan Approval. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A1333/21TEY at 1921 Davenport Rd: To construct a new five-storey mixed-use building with 2 commercial units and 19 residential units. The existing one-storey commercial building will be demolished. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1921 Davenport Rd. To discuss the Committee of Adjustments variances and Site Plan Approval.
Matched fields
- address
- 1921 DAVENPORT RD
- application_address
- 1921 DAVENPORT RD
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ana Bailao | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 4 February 2020 |
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 9
27 lobbied · 333 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
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 | 27 | 169 | 67% (n=27) | 33% | 26% | 29% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 333 | 134 | 95% (n=279) | 5% | 6% | 30% |
| 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.