Case Study: The Committee Refuses Three Lots on Craven Road
Daniel Du, Development Analytics
Generated 2026-09-22

== Method ==
We measure every low-rise residential lot within 500 m from parcel geometry in EPSG:2952. Frontage is the street-facing edge of the lot, projected along the street. Area is the parcel polygon area. We exclude corner lots from the statistics. We report the share of lots at or below the proposed width and area as a percentile rank. A lot counts as at or below when it is within 0.05 m of the proposed width or within 0.5 m² of the proposed area.

We estimate the width and area of each proposed lot as one third of the measured subject parcel. The decision record describes 'three undersized residential lots' but does not publish the certified dimensions of the refused parts. We state this approximation openly. If the parts were unequal, the smallest part sat further into the tail than these figures show.

Where a lot's own zone label carries an 'f' value, we compare the lot with that value. The same method was used in the delivered Windermere study. The plain R (d0.6) label carries no 'f' value, so most lots in this area cannot be tested this way. We report the tested subset only.

Consent precedent comes from Committee of Adjustment records. We geolocate each record to the parcel fabric and keep files received in 2015 or later. We separate technical severances, which re-establish lots that merged on title, from consents that propose new lots. The open record is thin before 2015, so the precedent counts are conservative. The decision record does not publish the Committee's reasons, and this study does not infer them.

== Sources ==
- City of Toronto Open Data: Committee of Adjustment Applications (decision record), accessed September 2026. Files B0032/18TEY, A0295/18TEY, A0296/18TEY and A0297/18TEY.
- City of Toronto Open Data: Municipal Parcels, Street Centrelines, Zoning By-law 569-2013 layers.

This is a retrospective demonstration on a decided public application. The Committee of Adjustment already decided this file, and it is a public record. Daniel Du was not retained on the matter. We prepared this analysis after the decision, as a work sample. It states no planning opinion.
