Development application · Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)
Development application 08 211953 ESC 35 PL
1 Seminoff St; 2 Pilkington Dr; 35 Wilkes Cres; 37 Wilkes Cres; 39 Wilkes Cres; 41 Wilkes Cres; 43 Wilkes Cres; 45 Wilkes Cres; 47 Wilkes Cres; 49 Wilkes Cres; 51 Wilkes Cres; 53 Wilkes Cres; 55 Wilkes Cres; 330 Danforth Rd; 332 Danforth Rd; 334 Danforth Rd; 336 Danforth Rd; 338 Danforth Rd; 340 Danforth Rd; 342 Danforth Rd; 344 Danforth Rd; 346 Danforth Rd; 348 Danforth Rd; 350 Danforth Rd; 352 Danforth Rd; 354 Danforth Rd; 356 Danforth Rd; 358 Danforth Rd; 360 Danforth Rd; 362 Danforth Rd; 364 Danforth Rd; 366 Danforth Rd; 368 Danforth Rd; 370 Danforth Rd; 372 Danforth Rd; 374 Danforth Rd; 376 Danforth Rd; 378 Danforth Rd; 380 Danforth Rd; 382 Danforth Rd; 384 Danforth Rd; 386 Danforth Rd; 388 Danforth Rd; 390 Danforth Rd; 392 Danforth Rd; 394 Danforth Rd; 396A Danforth Rd; 396B Danforth Rd; 398A Danforth Rd; 398B Danforth Rd
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 9 October 2008
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)
- Addresses
- 1 Seminoff St; 2 Pilkington Dr; 35 Wilkes Cres; 37 Wilkes Cres; 39 Wilkes Cres; 41 Wilkes Cres; 43 Wilkes Cres; 45 Wilkes Cres; 47 Wilkes Cres; 49 Wilkes Cres; 51 Wilkes Cres; 53 Wilkes Cres; 55 Wilkes Cres; 330 Danforth Rd; 332 Danforth Rd; 334 Danforth Rd; 336 Danforth Rd; 338 Danforth Rd; 340 Danforth Rd; 342 Danforth Rd; 344 Danforth Rd; 346 Danforth Rd; 348 Danforth Rd; 350 Danforth Rd; 352 Danforth Rd; 354 Danforth Rd; 356 Danforth Rd; 358 Danforth Rd; 360 Danforth Rd; 362 Danforth Rd; 364 Danforth Rd; 366 Danforth Rd; 368 Danforth Rd; 370 Danforth Rd; 372 Danforth Rd; 374 Danforth Rd; 376 Danforth Rd; 378 Danforth Rd; 380 Danforth Rd; 382 Danforth Rd; 384 Danforth Rd; 386 Danforth Rd; 388 Danforth Rd; 390 Danforth Rd; 392 Danforth Rd; 394 Danforth Rd; 396A Danforth Rd; 396B Danforth Rd; 398A Danforth Rd; 398B Danforth Rd
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Submitted
- 9 October 2008
- 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
Description
Part lot control for Block 131 to 137 inclusive and Block 144, Registered Plan 66M-2437, for 50 common element condominium townhouse lots at 1 Seminoff Street, 330-398B Danforth Road (even numbers), 2 Pilkington Drive, and 35-55 Wilkes Crescent (odd numbers).
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.
- The Goldman GroupSM13124 · 29 May 2009 · “350 Danforth 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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.