Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 13 273809 ESC 40 SA

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; 12 Eaton Park Lane; 13 Eaton Park Lane; 15 Eaton Park Lane; 16 Eaton Park Lane; 17 Eaton Park Lane; 1251 Bridletowne Crcl

Ward 22 · Nick MantasDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 4 December 2013; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
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; 12 Eaton Park Lane; 13 Eaton Park Lane; 15 Eaton Park Lane; 16 Eaton Park Lane; 17 Eaton Park Lane; 1251 Bridletowne Crcl
Ward: Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
Submitted: 4 December 2013
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: 282 units
Related file: 12 266748 ESC 40 OZ

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

Description

This application is to permit the development of 282 townhouse units. Site-Specific By-law No. 1022-2014 applies to the lands.

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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 22

7 lobbied · 14 matched

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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=63
Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 22: 7 lobbied and 14 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	7	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	14	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	449	—	100% (n=63)	0%	4%	0.07
Matched, unlobbied	1,236	—	97% (n=98)	3%	3%	0.04

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.