Development application · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
Development application 12 114268 ESC 36 SB
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 30 January 2012
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
- Addresses
- 3640 St Clair Ave E
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Submitted
- 30 January 2012
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 12 114256 ESC 36 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
The site is located at the northwest corner of Midland Ave and St Clair Ave E. The site is triangular in nature and has a site area of 1.52 ha. A branch of the CNR is located along the northwest boundary of the stie. The CNR right-of-way is separated from the ite by an existing safety berm. The rezoning application is to rezone the site from Industrial Commercial Zone (MC) in the Scarborough Employment District Zoning By-law No. 24982 to Townhouse Residential (TH) in the Midland/St. Clair Zoning By-law No. 842-2002 to permit a 48 townhouse unit development in five building blocks and to introduce site specific provisions including setbacks, height (at 3 storeys) and visitor parking standards. The plan of subdivision is to create a public street and blocks for the townhouse development.
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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 20
1 lobbied · 1 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 1 | 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 | 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.