Development application · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
Development application 11 329814 NNY 25 SB
9 Fairmeadow Ave; 17 Fairmeadow Ave
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 22 December 2011
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
- Addresses
- 9 Fairmeadow Ave; 17 Fairmeadow Ave
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Submitted
- 22 December 2011
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 11 329800 NNY 25 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Proposal is to subdivide the southern portion of the existing school site into 12 lots. A new public road is proposed. It is proposed to construct a single family dwelling on each of the lots.The existing school building would continue to operate on the northern portion of the site.
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
Sorbara Group of Companies · registration SM18078
17 Fairmeadow Avenue (also known as 9 Fairmeadow)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM18078: 17 Fairmeadow Avenue (also known as 9 Fairmeadow) (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 329814 NNY 25 SB at 17 Fairmeadow Ave: Proposal is to subdivide the southern portion of the existing school site into 12 lots. A new public road is proposed. It is proposed to construct a single family dwelling on each of the lots.The existing school building would continue to operate on the northern portion of the site. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 17 Fairmeadow Avenue (also known as 9 Fairmeadow)
Matched fields
- address
- 17 FAIRMEADOW AVE
- application_address
- 17 FAIRMEADOW AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 25 Don Valley West | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 16 October 2012 |
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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.