Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 15 168656 WET 06 OZ
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 4 June 2015
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 68 Daisy Ave
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Submitted
- 4 June 2015
- 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 · City application page
Description
Proposed amendments to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the development of 73, 4-storey townhouse units within 7 blocks. An existing school building, currently utilized as a childcare centre, would be retained (and partially altered - portion to be demolished).
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
Dunpar Developments Inc. · registration SM22292
68 Daisy Avenue Zoning Bylaw Amendment and Site Plan Approval
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM22292: 68 Daisy Avenue Zoning Bylaw Amendment and Site Plan Approval (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 168656 WET 06 OZ at 68 Daisy Ave: Proposed amendments to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the development of 73, 4-storey townhouse units within 7 blocks. An existing school building, currently utilized as a childcare centre, would be retained (and partially altered - portion to be demolished). (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 68 Daisy Avenue Zoning Bylaw Amendment and Site Plan Approval
Matched fields
- address
- 68 DAISY AVE
- application_address
- 68 DAISY AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
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 3
37 lobbied · 72 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 37 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 16% | 0.27 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 15% | 0.04 |
| 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.