Development application · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)

Development application 14 140928 STE 22 CD

54 Berwick Ave; 56 Berwick Ave; 58 Berwick Ave; 62 Berwick Ave; 66 Berwick Ave; 68 Berwick Ave; 70 Berwick Ave; 72 Berwick Ave; 74 Berwick Ave; 191 Duplex Ave; 193 Duplex Ave; 195 Duplex Ave; 197 Duplex Ave; 199 Duplex Ave; 201 Duplex Ave; 203 Duplex Ave; 205 Duplex Ave; 207 Duplex Ave; 209 Duplex Ave; 211 Duplex Ave

Ward 12 · Josh MatlowDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 10 April 2014; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
Addresses: 54 Berwick Ave; 56 Berwick Ave; 58 Berwick Ave; 62 Berwick Ave; 66 Berwick Ave; 68 Berwick Ave; 70 Berwick Ave; 72 Berwick Ave; 74 Berwick Ave; 191 Duplex Ave; 193 Duplex Ave; 195 Duplex Ave; 197 Duplex Ave; 199 Duplex Ave; 201 Duplex Ave; 203 Duplex Ave; 205 Duplex Ave; 207 Duplex Ave; 209 Duplex Ave; 211 Duplex Ave
Ward: Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted: 10 April 2014
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: 222 units
Related file: 08 152941 STE 22 OZ

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

Description

To obtain draft plan approval for a three-storey townhouse and 17-storey residential condo building containg 222 residential units. Parking will be provided below grade with a total of 248 residential parking spaces and 24 visitor parking spaces. See SPA 11 1205484 STE 22 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.

None.

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 Condominium (CD), Ward 12

5 lobbied · 11 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Data table· 4 rows

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 12: 5 lobbied and 11 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	5	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	11	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	28	—	100% (n=3)	0%	0%	0.04
Matched, unlobbied	95	—	100% (n=6)	0%	0%	0.03

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.