Committee of Adjustment application · Consent (severance) (CO)
Committee of Adjustment application B0023/24SC
- Status
- Conditional Consent
- Approved
- Submitted
- 24 June 2024
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Consent (severance) (CO)
- Addresses
- 1680 Brimley Rd
- Ward
- Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
- Submitted
- 24 June 2024
- Status
- Conditional Consent
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 18 September 2024
- 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 server the property into two lots. Cross Reference Rezoning Application File No. 06 200146 ESC 37 OZ, Site Plan Control File No. 06 200147 ESC 37 SA, and Draft Plan of Condominium Application File No. 21233420ESC21CD. This application was previously deferred at the August 2024 hearing.
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.
- Atria DevelopmentSM33295 · 31 May 2022 · “1680 Brimley Road”
- Gykan Enterprises Inc.,SM24612 · 24 May 2017 · “1680 Brimley 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 21
3 lobbied · 5 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 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 | 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. | ||||
| 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.