Committee of Adjustment application · Consent (severance) (CO)

Committee of Adjustment application B0007/16SC

Ward 21 · Michael ThompsonDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Await Expiry Date; Approved
Submitted: 26 January 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Consent (severance) (CO)
Addresses: 1340 Danforth Rd
Ward: Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
Submitted: 26 January 2016
Status: Await Expiry Date
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 22 September 2016
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

This application is for consent to create easements over the land at 1340, 1350 and 1360 Danforth Road in favour of the land at 1346 Danforth Road. The owners of 1346 Danforth Road are proposing to develop the land with an 18-storey, 277-unit residential apartment building. The land at 1346 Danforth Road was created by severance from the land at 1340, 1350 and 1360 Danforth Road. The owners have determined that it is necessary to obtain easements over portions of the remainder land for the purposes of providing residents with access to the proposed building from Danforth Road, and access to various outdoor amenity areas on the properties. Toronto City Council passed By-law No. 392-2015 on April 2, 2015 to permit the proposed development (File No. 12 247037 ESC 38 OZ). The applicants also submitted an application for Site Plan Approval for the development (File No. 14 104488 ESC 38 SA).

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.

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.

Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 21

3 lobbied · 5 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide

26 lobbied · 179 matched

Median days

Lobbied184
Matched, unlobbied115

Approval rate

Lobbied79% n=24
Matched, unlobbied88% n=133

Refusal rate

Lobbied21%
Matched, unlobbied12%

Appeal rate

Lobbied15%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Objection rate

Lobbied25%
Matched, unlobbied25%

Data table· 4 rows

Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 21: 3 lobbied and 5 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	3	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	5	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide: 26 lobbied and 179 matched unlobbied applications in 21 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	26	184	79% (n=24)	21%	15%	25%
Matched, unlobbied	179	115	88% (n=133)	12%	3%	25%

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.