lobbyTO

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

Committee of Adjustment application B0023/15SC

37 Kecala Rd

Status
Closed
Approved
Submitted
20 April 2015
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Consent (severance) (CO)
Addresses
37 Kecala Rd
Ward
Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
Submitted
20 April 2015
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Approved
Hearing date
6 October 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 a proposal to sever the land at 37 Kecala Road into eight residential lots, each having frontage on Kecala Road as shown on the attached Lot Division Plan. New detached dwellings are proposed on seven of the proposed lots, shown as Lots 1 to 7. The existing heritage listed building (John A. Paterson House) would be retained on Lot 8. The existing place of worship building on the property is proposed to be demolished. This property is also the subject of an application to amend the zoning by-law to replace the existing Place of Worship zoning with new residential zoning and development standards for this proposal (File 15 143623 ESC 37 OZ).

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 2 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 37 Scarborough Centre2
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 37 Scarborough CentreMember of council2011 October 2017

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied3Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied5Hidden: 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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2618479% (n=24)21%15%25%
Matched, unlobbied17911588% (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.