Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 12 266748 ESC 40 OZ

1 Eaton Park Lane; 3 Eaton Park Lane; 4 Eaton Park Lane; 5 Eaton Park Lane; 7 Eaton Park Lane; 8 Eaton Park Lane; 9 Eaton Park Lane; 11 Eaton Park Lane; 13 Eaton Park Lane; 15 Eaton Park Lane; 16 Eaton Park Lane; 17 Eaton Park Lane; 1251 Bridletowne Crcl; 1255 Bridletowne Crcl

Ward 22 · Nick MantasDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 23 October 2012; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 1 Eaton Park Lane; 3 Eaton Park Lane; 4 Eaton Park Lane; 5 Eaton Park Lane; 7 Eaton Park Lane; 8 Eaton Park Lane; 9 Eaton Park Lane; 11 Eaton Park Lane; 13 Eaton Park Lane; 15 Eaton Park Lane; 16 Eaton Park Lane; 17 Eaton Park Lane; 1251 Bridletowne Crcl; 1255 Bridletowne Crcl
Ward: Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
Submitted: 23 October 2012
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description: 390 units

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

Description

Proposed residential development containing 390 dwelling units, comprised of 368 units that are stacked townhouses and 22, 3-storey townhouses. The proposal has been revised to a development comprised of 282 dwelling units.

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.

Genesis Homes
SM23665 · 31 October 2016 · “1251 Bridletowne Circle.”
Waltman Building Group Inc.
SM23575 · 29 September 2016 · “1251 Bridletowne Circle”

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 22

6 lobbied · 8 matched

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

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=78
Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

Lobbied12%
Matched, unlobbied14%

Data table· 4 rows

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 22: 6 lobbied and 8 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	6	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	8	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	571	—	100% (n=78)	0%	12%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	760	—	96% (n=78)	4%	14%	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.