Committee of Adjustment application · Consent (severance) (CO)
Committee of Adjustment application B0041/21TEY
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 6 April 2021
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Consent (severance) (CO)
- Addresses
- 2301 Danforth Ave
- Ward
- Ward 19 · Brad Bradford
- Submitted
- 6 April 2021
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 22 June 2022
- 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 sever the lot, located within the mixed-use building, into three lots and to create various easements/rights-of-way.
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
Marlin Spring Developments · registration SM32891
2301-2315 Danforth Ave - Consent to Sever Application
Evidence High confidence · score 0.91
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM32891: 2301-2315 Danforth Ave - Consent to Sever Application (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application B0041/21TEY at 2301 Danforth Ave: To obtain consent to sever the lot, located within the mixed-use building, into three lots and to create various easements/rights-of-way. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2301-2315 Danforth Ave - Consent to Sever Application
Matched fields
- address
- 2301-2315 DANFORTH AVE
- application_address
- 2301 DANFORTH AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brad Bradford | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 1 February 2022 |
Other registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Marlin Spring Investments Ltd.SM23010 · 18 April 2016 · “2301 Danforth Ave.”
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 19
2 lobbied · 16 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 | 16 | 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.