Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 10 142758 WET 17 SA
6 Foundry Ave; 980 Lansdowne Ave
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 30 March 2010
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 6 Foundry Ave; 980 Lansdowne Ave
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Submitted
- 30 March 2010
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 10 142739 WET 17 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Application to permit a 128-unit stacked townhouse development located in 5 building blocks and to permit an extension to a public park. The site is Phase 4 of the Davenport Village development.
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.
- Edgewood Holdings IncSM22579 · 14 December 2015 · “980 Lansdowne Avenue”
- Emsatec Canada IncSM19631 · 1 September 2013 · “980 Lansdowne Ave.”
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 9
20 lobbied · 21 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 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 | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.10 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
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.