Committee of Adjustment application · Consent (severance) (CO)
Committee of Adjustment application B0067/20TEY
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 7 October 2020
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Consent (severance) (CO)
- Addresses
- 200 Sterling Rd
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Submitted
- 7 October 2020
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 31 March 2021
- 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 a portion of land for the purpose of a lot addition.
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.
- HC Lower JCT Holdings LPSM37702 · 8 June 2026 · “200 Sterling Road”
- HC Lower JCT Holdings LPSM29038 · 23 October 2019 · “200 Sterling Road”
- HC Lower JCT Holdings LPSM29040 · 23 October 2019 · “200 Sterling Road”
- HC Lower JCT Holdings LPSM27492 · 30 January 2019 · “200 Sterling Road”
- HC Lower JCT Holdings LPSM27464 · 29 January 2019 · “200 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Greybrook Sterling Inc.SM24623 · 29 May 2017 · “200 Sterling Road”
- ROI CapitalSM19677 · 23 September 2013 · “200 Sterling Road”
- Nestle Canada IncSM18072 · 16 May 2012 · “200 Sterling road”
- Nestle Canada IncSM18077 · 7 May 2012 · “200 Sterling Road”
- Nestle Canada IncSM18013 · 12 April 2012 · “200 Sterling 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), Ward 9
2 lobbied · 7 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 | 7 | 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.