Development application · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
Development application 11 286680 STE 18 SB
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 4 October 2011
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
- Addresses
- 362 Wallace Avenue
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Submitted
- 4 October 2011
- 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
- 169 units
- Related file
- 11 286663 STE 18 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Draft Plan of Subdivision for the creation of 6 parcels, 5 for development purposes for industrial and residential purposes and a 6th block for pedestrian connection to existing beltline trail. Refer to related OPA and OZ for mixed use development including new North South public roadway connecting Ruskin Ave and Wallace Ave and extending Macaulay Ave for 25 2 storey industrial units flanking CPR and 9 Residential construction blocks containing 169 stacked townhouse dwelling units. Included in proposal is a 3 storey community centre building fronting onto Ruskin Ave. All parking spaces to serve the units to be located below grade accessible from both Ruskin Ave and Wallace Ave. 8 visitor parking spaces to be located at grade on public roadway. Refer to related application for draft plan of subdivision for creation of 6 blocks.
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.
- Somerset Wallace Developments LimitedSM19285 · 8 May 2013 · “362 Wallace Avenue”
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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 9
1 lobbied · 3 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 3 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | 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.