lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 268941 NNY 09 SA

39 John Perkins Bull Dr; 41 John Perkins Bull Dr; 43 John Perkins Bull Dr; 45 John Perkins Bull Dr; 47 John Perkins Bull Dr; 49 John Perkins Bull Dr; 51 John Perkins Bull Dr; 80 Carl Hall Rd

Ward 6 · James PasternakDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
20 December 2016
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
39 John Perkins Bull Dr; 41 John Perkins Bull Dr; 43 John Perkins Bull Dr; 45 John Perkins Bull Dr; 47 John Perkins Bull Dr; 49 John Perkins Bull Dr; 51 John Perkins Bull Dr; 80 Carl Hall Rd
Ward
Ward 6 · James Pasternak
Submitted
20 December 2016
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
15 172297 NNY 09 SB

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

Description

((Temporary Address - 27 Frederick Tisdale Drive)) 50 unit stacked towns Blocks 4 and 5 on Block G. (Stanley Greene). Please note that a seperate application (File 16-268887 NNY 09 SA) has been filed for the related 155 town house development on Blocks 1,2,3 and 6.((Parent sub-division approval File # 15-172297 NNY 09 SB)).

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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 6

17 lobbied · 41 matched

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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 6: 17 lobbied and 41 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied17Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied41Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (n=96)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.