lobbyTO

Development application · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)

Development application 12 117151 ESC 42 SB

55 Mac Frost Way

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
3 February 2012
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
41
4 meetings · 14 offices

Application record

Type
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
Addresses
55 Mac Frost Way
Ward
Ward 23 · Jamaal Myers
Submitted
3 February 2012
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
12 117140 ESC 42 OZ

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page

Description

Proposed 37 lot residential draft plan of subdivision consisting of 9 detached lots in order to develop single detached dwellings and 5 blocks in order to develop 28 freehold townhouses. Proposed lots/blocks would have frontages on Staines Road and a new public street.

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 41 communications · 4 meetings · 14 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 37 Scarborough Centre8
  • Ward 43 Scarborough East8
  • Mayor's Office5
  • Ward 39 Scarborough-Agincourt5
  • Ward 3 Etobicoke Centre3
  • Ward 38 Scarborough Centre2
  • Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River2
  • Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore2
Data table· 14 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 37 Scarborough CentreMember of council8026 April 2013
Ward 43 Scarborough EastMember of council8022 February 2013
Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff5324 April 2013
Ward 39 Scarborough-AgincourtMember of council5021 February 2013
Ward 3 Etobicoke CentreMember of council3026 April 2013
Ward 38 Scarborough CentreMember of council2021 February 2013
Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge RiverMember of council2021 February 2013
Ward 5 Etobicoke-LakeshoreMember of council2026 November 2012
Office of Councillor MilczynCouncillor staff1026 November 2012
MayorMember of council1114 March 2013
Ward 35 Scarborough SouthwestMember of council1021 February 2013
Ward 4 Etobicoke CentreMember of council1026 April 2013
Ward 40 Scarborough-AgincourtMember of council1023 November 2012
Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge RiverMember of council1023 November 2012

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

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 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Data table· 2 rows
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide: 16 lobbied and 48 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied48Hidden: 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.