Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 14 260003 NNY 23 OZ
1 Flax Field Lane; 3 Flax Field Lane; 5 Flax Field Lane; 7 Flax Field Lane; 9 Flax Field Lane; 11 Flax Field Lane; 15 Flax Field Lane; 17 Flax Field Lane; 19 Flax Field Lane; 21 Flax Field Lane; 23 Flax Field Lane; 36 Churchill Ave; 36A Churchill Ave; 36B Churchill Ave; 38 Churchill Ave; 38A Churchill Ave; 38B Churchill Ave; 40 Churchill Ave
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 3 December 2014
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 1 Flax Field Lane; 3 Flax Field Lane; 5 Flax Field Lane; 7 Flax Field Lane; 9 Flax Field Lane; 11 Flax Field Lane; 15 Flax Field Lane; 17 Flax Field Lane; 19 Flax Field Lane; 21 Flax Field Lane; 23 Flax Field Lane; 36 Churchill Ave; 36A Churchill Ave; 36B Churchill Ave; 38 Churchill Ave; 38A Churchill Ave; 38B Churchill Ave; 40 Churchill Ave
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Submitted
- 3 December 2014
- 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
- 3,769 m² gross floor area
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment/Site Plan Control to permit the development of eighteen (18) townhouse dwelling units with a total residential gross floor area of 3,769 sq. m resulting in a density of 1.44 FSI. 36 tandem parking spaces are proposed for residents and visitors in private integral garages accessed via a private mews from Churchill Avenue.
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 18
38 lobbied · 63 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 38 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 21% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 63 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 15% | 0.04 |
| 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.