Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 12 227987 ESC 44 OZ
36 Bennett Rd; 38 Bennett Rd; 54 Woodgrove Dr; 55 Woodgrove Dr; 56 Woodgrove Dr; 57 Woodgrove Dr; 58 Woodgrove Dr; 59 Woodgrove Dr; 60 Woodgrove Dr; 61 Woodgrove Dr; 62 Woodgrove Dr; 63 Woodgrove Dr; 64 Woodgrove Dr; 65 Woodgrove Dr; 66 Woodgrove Dr; 67 Woodgrove Dr; 68 Woodgrove Dr; 70 Woodgrove Dr; 72 Woodgrove Dr
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 13 August 2012
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 36 Bennett Rd; 38 Bennett Rd; 54 Woodgrove Dr; 55 Woodgrove Dr; 56 Woodgrove Dr; 57 Woodgrove Dr; 58 Woodgrove Dr; 59 Woodgrove Dr; 60 Woodgrove Dr; 61 Woodgrove Dr; 62 Woodgrove Dr; 63 Woodgrove Dr; 64 Woodgrove Dr; 65 Woodgrove Dr; 66 Woodgrove Dr; 67 Woodgrove Dr; 68 Woodgrove Dr; 70 Woodgrove Dr; 72 Woodgrove Dr
- Ward
- Ward 25 · Neethan Shan
- Submitted
- 13 August 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 application for a proposed 19-lot detached residential subdivision involving the eastward extension of Woodgrove Drive to Bennett Road. The proposed subdivision is to be constructed on the southern portion of the lands at 60 Bennett Road, which were severed from the William G. Miller Junior Public School site. Two of the proposed lots are to front onto Bennett Road and 17 lots are to front onto the extension of Woodgrove Drive. The proposed lot frontages range from approximately 12 metres to 18 metres.
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.