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

Development application 13 107003 NNY 26 OZ

Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos LinDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 16 January 2013; 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: 939 Eglinton Ave E
Ward: Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted: 16 January 2013
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: 1,300 units

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

Description

The application proposes to amend the Official Plan Employment Areas designation of the site to permit a mixed use development with residential, retail and office uses. The mixed use proposal would contain 1,300 dwelling units in four buildngs with heights up 29-storeys, a 7-storey, 10,000 square metres office building, 6,600 square metres of retail space along Eglinton Avenue East and Brentcliffe Road, an underground parking garage and a public park,

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.

Camrost-Felcorp
SM27655 · 15 February 2019 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Upper Eastside Building Group Inc.
SM26550 · 24 July 2018 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Diamondcorp
SM24267 · 26 March 2017 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2
SM22499 · 17 November 2015 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2
SM18293 · 25 July 2012 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”

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 15

20 lobbied · 36 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=2
Matched, unlobbied100% n=5

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied10%
Matched, unlobbied25%

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 15: 20 lobbied and 36 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	20	—	100% (n=2)	0%	10%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	36	—	100% (n=5)	0%	25%	0.01

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
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.