Committee of Adjustment application · Consent (severance) (CO)
Committee of Adjustment application B0074/17NY
- Status
- Closed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 1 December 2017
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Consent (severance) (CO)
- Addresses
- 1075 Leslie St
- Ward
- Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
- Submitted
- 1 December 2017
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Hearing date
- 28 February 2018
- Decision
- Approved
- Objection at the hearing
- No
- 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 the land for the purpose of a lot addition. Related planning files include consent application file B0075/17NY (1087, 1091 and 1095 Leslie), 15 108593 NNY 25 OZ, 15 108578 NNY 25 SB, and 16 193617 NNY 25 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.
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), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.