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

Committee of Adjustment application B0027/24SC

Ward 20 · Parthi KandavelDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Conditional Consent; Approved
Submitted: 14 June 2024; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Consent (severance) (CO)
Addresses: 320 McCowan Rd
Ward: Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted: 14 June 2024
Status: Conditional Consent
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 9 July 2025
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 obtain consent to establish a permanent easement/right-of-way for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress on the shared recreation area, over Parts 1 and 2, for the purpose of accessing, repairing, maintaining and replacing the structures and improvements located on the Easement Lands.

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.

Blauson Assets Management Ltd
SM29587 · 9 January 2020 · “320 McCowan Road”
BLAUSON ASSET MANAGEMENT
SM29581 · 8 January 2020 · “320 McCowan Road”
BLAUSON ASSET MANAGEMENT
SM29582 · 8 January 2020 · “320 McCowan Road.”
BLAUSON ASSET MANAGEMENT
SM29584 · 8 January 2020 · “320 McCowan Road.”
BLAUSON ASSET MANAGEMENT
SM29163 · 14 November 2019 · “320 McCowan 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), 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· 2 rows

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.