lobbyTO

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

Committee of Adjustment application B0110/21TEY

320 Bloor St W

Status
Closed
Approved
Submitted
3 December 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
24
1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type
Consent (severance) (CO)
Addresses
320 Bloor St W
Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted
3 December 2021
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Approved
Hearing date
23 March 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 create an overhang easement/right-of-way in favour of 316 Bloor Street W.

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 · 24 communications · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Dianne SaxeCouncillor staff1519 July 2024
Dianne SaxeMember of council9015 February 2024

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 11

3 lobbied · 25 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 11: 3 lobbied and 25 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied3Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied25Hidden: 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.