lobbyTO

Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 17 277580 NNY 16 OZ

41 Chatsworth Dr

Ward 8 · Mike ColleDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
20 December 2017
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
4
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
2 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
41 Chatsworth Dr
Ward
Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted
20 December 2017
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

Zoning Bylaw Amendment application to permit a 4/5 storey, 7,826.26 square metre residential condominium building with 30-units, with 5 floors of residential units and 2 levels of below grade parking. A total of 68 parking spaces would be provided in the parking structure and 27 long term bicycle parking spaces would be provided for residents and and 3 short term bicycle parking spaces would be provided for visitors.

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

4 linked registrations · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence1
  • Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 16 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council1122 August 2017
Ward 8 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council1115 December 2020

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

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 8

33 lobbied · 57 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=2
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=3

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied27%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 8: 33 lobbied and 57 matched unlobbied applications in 22 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied33—100% (n=2)0%12%0.00
Matched, unlobbied57—100% (n=3)0%27%0.03
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.