Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 17 125434 STE 18 OZ
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 7 March 2017
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 158 Sterling Rd
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Submitted
- 7 March 2017
- 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
- 32 units
- Related file
- 16 122757 STE 18 SA
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Application to remove the holding symbol from Block 1 of the lands known as 158 Sterling Road (to be 20 Perth Avenue) to allow for the construction of 32 townhouse 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.
- Rio Tinto AlcanSM30716 · 14 October 2020 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM24465 · 3 May 2017 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM18668 · 6 November 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- CAW-CanadaSM18571 · 18 October 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio Properties LimitedSM16444 · 26 May 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Rio Tinto AlcanSM17739 · 27 January 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM17405 · 4 November 2011 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM16075 · 21 March 2011 · “158 Sterling Road.”
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 9
19 lobbied · 28 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 19 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.