lobbyTO

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

Committee of Adjustment application B0075/16EYK

216 Dixon Rd

Status
Closed
Refused
Submitted
6 October 2016
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
11
1 meeting · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Consent (severance) (CO)
Addresses
216 Dixon Rd
Ward
Ward 1 · Vincent Crisanti
Submitted
6 October 2016
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Refused
Hearing date
9 February 2017
Decision
Refused
Objection at the hearing
Not recorded
Appealed
Yes

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page

Description

To obtain consent to sever the property into four residential lots.

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 11 communications · 1 meeting · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Office of Councillor Rob Ford, Ward 29
  • Ward 2 Etobicoke North2
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Rob Ford, Ward 2Councillor staff908 February 2017
Ward 2 Etobicoke NorthMember of council2126 October 2015

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

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), Ward 1

2 lobbied · 7 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 1: 2 lobbied and 7 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied7Hidden: 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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2618479% (n=24)21%15%25%
Matched, unlobbied17911588% (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.