lobbyTO

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

Development application 10 186660 ESC 44 OZ

1 Asterfield Dr; 2 Asterfield Dr; 5 Asterfield Dr; 6 Asterfield Dr; 9 Asterfield Dr; 10 Asterfield Dr; 14 Asterfield Dr; 15 Asterfield Dr; 17 Asterfield Dr; 18 Asterfield Dr; 21 Asterfield Dr; 22 Asterfield Dr; 25 Asterfield Dr; 26 Asterfield Dr; 29 Asterfield Dr; 30 Asterfield Dr; 33 Asterfield Dr; 34 Asterfield Dr; 36 Asterfield Dr; 37 Asterfield Dr; 38 Asterfield Dr; 40 Asterfield Dr; 41 Asterfield Dr

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
1 June 2010
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
1 Asterfield Dr; 2 Asterfield Dr; 5 Asterfield Dr; 6 Asterfield Dr; 9 Asterfield Dr; 10 Asterfield Dr; 14 Asterfield Dr; 15 Asterfield Dr; 17 Asterfield Dr; 18 Asterfield Dr; 21 Asterfield Dr; 22 Asterfield Dr; 25 Asterfield Dr; 26 Asterfield Dr; 29 Asterfield Dr; 30 Asterfield Dr; 33 Asterfield Dr; 34 Asterfield Dr; 36 Asterfield Dr; 37 Asterfield Dr; 38 Asterfield Dr; 40 Asterfield Dr; 41 Asterfield Dr
Ward
Ward 25 · Neethan Shan
Submitted
1 June 2010
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

The Zoning By-law amendment application is to permit the construction of 23 detached dwelling units with appropriate setbacks, height and massing. An associated plan of subdivision has been filed to create 23 proposed lots for the construction of a detached dwelling per each of these land parcels. Cross-Reference Plan of Subdivision Application No. 12 286202 ESC 44 SB. The subdivision is also for the southerly extension of Asterfield Drive to connect with Lawrence Avenue East.

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 25

3 lobbied · 4 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 25: 3 lobbied and 4 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied3Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied4Hidden: 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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.