lobbyTO

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

Committee of Adjustment application B0027/16SC

5789 Steeles Ave E

Status
Closed
Approved
Submitted
3 May 2016
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
0
0 meetings · 0 offices

Application record

Type
Consent (severance) (CO)
Addresses
5789 Steeles Ave E
Ward
Ward 23 · Jamaal Myers
Submitted
3 May 2016
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Approved
Hearing date
22 June 2017
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 sever the land at 5789, 5827, 5883, 5933, 5945, and 5951 Steeles Avenue East into two blocks of land for commercial development and a northerly extension of State Crown Boulevard. The proposed blocks of land are shown on the attached Consent Sketch. The Committee of Adjustment previously gave provisional consent to this severance on three occasions, but each approval lapsed because the conditions were not fulfilled within one year as required by the Planning Act (Files B051/14SC, B043/13SC & B028/12SC). The conveyed lot would have a frontage of 302.2 m, with a depth of 272.4 m and an area of 83,780 m2. The retained lot would have a frontage of 627.6 m, with depth of 266.6 m and an area of 80,420 m2. The land shown as Part 2 would be dedicated to the City for an extension of State Crown Boulevard.

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 · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

No communications recorded.

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 23

4 lobbied · 13 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 23: 4 lobbied and 13 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied13Hidden: 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.