Committee of Adjustment application · Consent (severance) (CO)
Committee of Adjustment application B0024/19NY
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 21 June 2019
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Consent (severance) (CO)
- Addresses
- 50 Lawrence Ave E
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Submitted
- 21 June 2019
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 21 November 2019
- 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 into residential lots and for the granting of easements/rights-of-way. Files B0024/19NY, A0441/19NY and A0442/19NY will be considered jointly.
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
Angela Hamel-Smith · registration SM29115
Sever 50 Lawrence Ave. E. into 2 lots; seek minor variances for 50 & 50 Lawrence Ave. E.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.87
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM29115: Sever 50 Lawrence Ave. E. into 2 lots; seek minor variances for 50 & 50 Lawrence Ave. E. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application B0024/19NY at 50 Lawrence Ave E: To obtain consent to sever the property into residential lots and for the granting of easements/rights-of-way. Files B0024/19NY, A0441/19NY and A0442/19NY will be considered jointly. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Sever 50 Lawrence Ave. E. into 2 lots; seek minor variances for 50 & 50 Lawrence Ave. E.
Matched fields
- address
- 50 LAWRENCE AVE E
- application_address
- 50 LAWRENCE AVE E
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
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.
Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 15
2 lobbied · 26 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 26 | 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.