lobbyTO

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

Development application 15 179745 NNY 33 OZ

0 George Henry Blvd; 0 Sheppard Ave E; 32-50 Forest Manor Rd; 55 Forest Manor Rd; 62 Forest Manor Rd; 65 Forest Manor Rd; 66 Forest Manor Rd; 70 Forest Manor Rd; 80 Forest Manor Rd; 85 Forest Manor Rd; 95 Forest Manor Rd; 100 Parkway Forest Dr; 106 Parkway Forest Dr; 110 Parkway Forest Dr; 120 George Henry Blvd; 120-130 George Henry Blvd; 123 Parkway Forest Dr; 125 George Henry Blvd; 125 Parkway Forest Dr; 130 George Henry Blvd; 130 Parkway Forest Dr; 1751 Sheppard Ave E; 1761 Sheppard Ave E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
24 June 2015
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
0 George Henry Blvd; 0 Sheppard Ave E; 32-50 Forest Manor Rd; 55 Forest Manor Rd; 62 Forest Manor Rd; 65 Forest Manor Rd; 66 Forest Manor Rd; 70 Forest Manor Rd; 80 Forest Manor Rd; 85 Forest Manor Rd; 95 Forest Manor Rd; 100 Parkway Forest Dr; 106 Parkway Forest Dr; 110 Parkway Forest Dr; 120 George Henry Blvd; 120-130 George Henry Blvd; 123 Parkway Forest Dr; 125 George Henry Blvd; 125 Parkway Forest Dr; 130 George Henry Blvd; 130 Parkway Forest Dr; 1751 Sheppard Ave E; 1761 Sheppard Ave E
Ward
Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
Submitted
24 June 2015
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
13 267996 NNY 33 OZ

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

Description

Application to remove the holding symbol (H-3) from site specific Zoning By-law No. 342-2015(OMB). As a pre-condition to the removal of the H-3 holding symbol, the owner must have completed the community centre/child care facility. The removal of the H-3 holding symbol will allow building B2 (24-storeys) and Building B3 (33-storeys) to proceed in accordance with the underlying zoning.

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.

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 17

13 lobbied · 16 matched

Hidden: 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 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 17: 13 lobbied and 16 matched unlobbied applications in 11 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied13Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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.