Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 09 199580 NNY 16 OZ
515 Chaplin Cres; 525 Chaplin Cres
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 23 December 2009
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 515 Chaplin Cres; 525 Chaplin Cres
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Submitted
- 23 December 2009
- 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
- 290 units
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
1) 2009: This application proposes to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a 13 storey addition to the existing 8 storey rental building at 515 Chaplin Crescent by demolishing 18 existing rental units, replacing them with 18 rental replacement units and adding a total of 69 net new rental housing units for a total of 290 units on the site. The site is located on the south west corner of Roselawn Avenue and Chaplin Crescent. The site currently contains two existing 8 storey rental apartment buildings with a total of 221 units. A Rental Housing Demolition application was also submitted with the rezoning application for the 18 existing residential rental units proposed to be replaced within the new addition with compensation and the right to return for the tenants. **NOTE - By-laws were never enacted.2) July 27, 2020 - Revised Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 13 storey addition to the existing 8 storey rental building. Changes include a reduction in the number of units to 278 and a structural connection to the existing building limited to the first floor.**Note proposed revisions to the by-laws3) September 18, 2020 additional documents: (a) Letter outlining changes to the application; (b) Letter to Engineering; and (c) Letter on Tieback Encroachment.4) March 2, 2022: Revised Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 13 storey addition to the existing 8 storey rental building. **Note concurrent Site Plan Control Application 12 112660 NNY 16 SA
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.
- Eldebron Holdings LimitedSM33158 · 12 April 2022 · “515 Chaplin Crescent”
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 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 33 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 12% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 57 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 27% | 0.03 |
| 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.