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

Committee of Adjustment application B0014/16TEY

Ward 9 · Alejandra BravoDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Approved
Submitted: 2 March 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Consent (severance) (CO)
Addresses: 158 Sterling Rd
Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted: 2 March 2016
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 9 June 2016
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 obtain consent to sever the property to create two lots. Note: The retained lot forms the lands within a draft plan of subdivision application (12 226212 STE 18 SB).

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.

Rio Tinto Alcan
SM30716 · 14 October 2020 · “158 Sterling Road”
Castlepoint Studio Partners
SM24465 · 3 May 2017 · “158 Sterling Road”
Castlepoint Studio Partners
SM18668 · 6 November 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
CAW-Canada
SM18571 · 18 October 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
Castlepoint Studio Properties Limited
SM16444 · 26 May 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
Rio Tinto Alcan
SM17739 · 27 January 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
Castlepoint Studio Partners
SM17405 · 4 November 2011 · “158 Sterling Road”
Castlepoint Studio Partners
SM16075 · 21 March 2011 · “158 Sterling Road.”

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 9

2 lobbied · 7 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 9: 2 lobbied and 7 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	2	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	7	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.