Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 10 321128 NNY 23 OZ
1 Slingsby Lane; 3 Slingsby Lane; 5 Slingsby Lane; 7 Slingsby Lane; 9 Slingsby Lane; 11 Slingsby Lane; 13 Slingsby Lane; 15 Slingsby Lane; 17 Slingsby Lane; 19 Slingsby Lane; 21 Slingsby Lane; 23 Slingsby Lane; 25 Slingsby Lane; 27 Slingsby Lane; 131 Finch Ave E; 131A Finch Ave E; 131B Finch Ave E; 131C Finch Ave E; 131D Finch Ave E; 133 Finch Ave E; 133A Finch Ave E; 133B Finch Ave E; 133C Finch Ave E; 133D Finch Ave E; 135 Finch Ave E; 135A Finch Ave E; 135B Finch Ave E; 137 Finch Ave E; 137A Finch Ave E; 137B Finch Ave E; 139 Finch Ave E; 139A Finch Ave E; 139B Finch Ave E; 139C Finch Ave E; 141 Finch Ave E
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 30 December 2010
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 1 Slingsby Lane; 3 Slingsby Lane; 5 Slingsby Lane; 7 Slingsby Lane; 9 Slingsby Lane; 11 Slingsby Lane; 13 Slingsby Lane; 15 Slingsby Lane; 17 Slingsby Lane; 19 Slingsby Lane; 21 Slingsby Lane; 23 Slingsby Lane; 25 Slingsby Lane; 27 Slingsby Lane; 131 Finch Ave E; 131A Finch Ave E; 131B Finch Ave E; 131C Finch Ave E; 131D Finch Ave E; 133 Finch Ave E; 133A Finch Ave E; 133B Finch Ave E; 133C Finch Ave E; 133D Finch Ave E; 135 Finch Ave E; 135A Finch Ave E; 135B Finch Ave E; 137 Finch Ave E; 137A Finch Ave E; 137B Finch Ave E; 139 Finch Ave E; 139A Finch Ave E; 139B Finch Ave E; 139C Finch Ave E; 141 Finch Ave E
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Submitted
- 30 December 2010
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 7 units
- Related file
- 1220-2011; 1415-2011
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
28 unit, 4-storey residential townhouse development (comprised of 4 Blocks of 7 townhouse units; 2 Blocks fronting onto the south side of Finch Avenue East and 2 Blocks at the rear which are separated by a landscape area providing a visual corridor through the site. Each residential unit would be provided with 2 internal parking spaces (except for two units which would have one internal space), accessed via an interior private lane with a driveway connection to Finch Avenue East. Assembly of 6 individual lots. Concurrent Site Plan Control application (File # 10 321150 NNY 23 SA).
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 18
38 lobbied · 63 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 38 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 21% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 63 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 15% | 0.04 |
| 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.