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

Committee of Adjustment application B0049/22NY

Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos LinDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Approved with Conditions; Approved
Submitted: 25 November 2022; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Consent (severance) (CO)
Addresses: 939 Eglinton Ave E
Ward: Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted: 25 November 2022
Status: Approved with Conditions
Outcome recorded: Approved
Hearing date: 28 September 2023
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 property into four use lots and to create various easements/rights-of-ways for pedestrian and vehicle access, as well as maintenance and other infrastructure support purposes. Related planning files:15 141830 NNY 26 OZ and 17 278161 NNY 26 SA

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.

Camrost-Felcorp
SM27655 · 15 February 2019 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Upper Eastside Building Group Inc.
SM26550 · 24 July 2018 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Diamondcorp
SM24267 · 26 March 2017 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2
SM22499 · 17 November 2015 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2
SM18293 · 25 July 2012 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”

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 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 15: 2 lobbied and 26 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
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.

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.