Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 12 105496 ESC 44 OZ
1379 Military Trl; 1381 Military Trl; 1383 Military Trl; 1385 Military Trl; 1387 Military Trl; 1389 Military Trl; 1391 Military Trl; 1393 Military Trl; 1399 Military Trl; 1401 Military Trl; 1403 Military Trl; 1405 Military Trl
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 12 January 2012
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 1379 Military Trl; 1381 Military Trl; 1383 Military Trl; 1385 Military Trl; 1387 Military Trl; 1389 Military Trl; 1391 Military Trl; 1393 Military Trl; 1399 Military Trl; 1401 Military Trl; 1403 Military Trl; 1405 Military Trl
- Ward
- Ward 25 · Neethan Shan
- Submitted
- 12 January 2012
- 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
Zoning By-law amendment to reduce the minimum lot frontage requirement from 21m to 15 m to enable the severance of the existing 5 lots into 12 new lots for single detached dwellings, to allow for a reduced side yard building setback of 1.2 m on one side of the future dwellings, and to permit a reduction in the minimum rear yard building setback to 7.5 m + 40% of lot depth where the lot depth is greater than 33.5 m. The rear portions of the lands are proposed to be rezoned to Major Open Spaces (O) and conveyed into public ownership. The total site area is approx. 2.37 ha. Concurrent consent applications (file no.'s B003/12SC to B007/12SC inclusive) have also been filed.
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 matchedHidden: 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 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 | 3 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.