Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 09 131219 NNY 08 OZ

1 Mantello Dr; 3 Mantello Dr; 5 Mantello Dr; 7 Mantello Dr; 9 Mantello Dr; 11 Mantello Dr; 13 Mantello Dr; 17 Mantello Dr; 19 Mantello Dr; 21 Mantello Dr; 23 Mantello Dr; 25 Mantello Dr; 26 Mantello Dr; 27 Mantello Dr; 28 Mantello Dr; 29 Mantello Dr; 30 Mantello Dr; 31 Mantello Dr; 32 Mantello Dr; 33 Mantello Dr; 34 Mantello Dr; 35 Mantello Dr; 36 Mantello Dr; 37 Mantello Dr; 38 Mantello Dr; 39 Mantello Dr; 40 Mantello Dr; 41 Mantello Dr; 43 Mantello Dr; 45 Mantello Dr; 47 Mantello Dr; 49 Mantello Dr; 51 Mantello Dr; 53 Mantello Dr; 55 Mantello Dr; 57 Mantello Dr; 59 Mantello Dr; 102-134 Hucknall Rd; 130 Hucknall Rd; 132 Hucknall Rd; 134 Hucknall Rd; 136 Hucknall Rd; 138 Hucknall Rd; 140 Hucknall Rd; 142 Hucknall Rd; 144 Hucknall Rd; 146 Hucknall Rd; 148 Hucknall Rd

Ward 7 · Anthony PerruzzaDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 28 April 2009; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 1; 1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 1 Mantello Dr; 3 Mantello Dr; 5 Mantello Dr; 7 Mantello Dr; 9 Mantello Dr; 11 Mantello Dr; 13 Mantello Dr; 17 Mantello Dr; 19 Mantello Dr; 21 Mantello Dr; 23 Mantello Dr; 25 Mantello Dr; 26 Mantello Dr; 27 Mantello Dr; 28 Mantello Dr; 29 Mantello Dr; 30 Mantello Dr; 31 Mantello Dr; 32 Mantello Dr; 33 Mantello Dr; 34 Mantello Dr; 35 Mantello Dr; 36 Mantello Dr; 37 Mantello Dr; 38 Mantello Dr; 39 Mantello Dr; 40 Mantello Dr; 41 Mantello Dr; 43 Mantello Dr; 45 Mantello Dr; 47 Mantello Dr; 49 Mantello Dr; 51 Mantello Dr; 53 Mantello Dr; 55 Mantello Dr; 57 Mantello Dr; 59 Mantello Dr; 102-134 Hucknall Rd; 130 Hucknall Rd; 132 Hucknall Rd; 134 Hucknall Rd; 136 Hucknall Rd; 138 Hucknall Rd; 140 Hucknall Rd; 142 Hucknall Rd; 144 Hucknall Rd; 146 Hucknall Rd; 148 Hucknall Rd
Ward: Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
Submitted: 28 April 2009
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded

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

Description

Proposal for 47 three-storey townhouses with a 1,022m2 commercial plaza (17 parking spaces) with a new public road and pedestrian connection to Sentinel Park to the south.

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

Averton Developments Inc. · registration SM11821
102-134 Hucknall Road
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM11821: 102-134 Hucknall Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 131219 NNY 08 OZ at 102-134 Hucknall Rd: Proposal for 47 three-storey townhouses with a 1,022m2 commercial plaza (17 parking spaces) with a new public road and pedestrian connection to Sentinel Park to the south. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 102-134 Hucknall Road
Matched fields
address
102-134 HUCKNALL RD
application_address
102-134 HUCKNALL RD

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Office of Councillor Perruzza1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Office of Councillor Perruzza	Councillor staff	1	1	12 September 2011

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 7

7 lobbied · 8 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

Lobbied1,925
Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=64
Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

Lobbied13%
Matched, unlobbied13%

Data table· 4 rows

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 7: 7 lobbied and 8 matched unlobbied applications in 7 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	7	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	8	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	573	1,925	100% (n=64)	0%	13%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	763	1,793	98% (n=70)	2%	13%	0.05

Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). 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.