Development application · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
Development application 16 150074 ESC 42 CD
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 4 May 2016
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
- Addresses
- 1088 Progress Ave
- Ward
- Ward 23 · Jamaal Myers
- Submitted
- 4 May 2016
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 12 269606 ESC 42 SA
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Condominium Approval for Phase One of development consisting of 105 stacked townhouses and one level of underground parking.
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.
- Empire Pace (1088 Progress) Ltd.SM24850 · 15 July 2017 · “1088 Progress Ave”
- Empire Pace (1088 Progress) Ltd.SM24544 · 11 May 2017 · “1088 Progress Ave.”
- Empire Pace (1088 Progress) Ltd.SM24546 · 11 May 2017 · “1088 Progress Ave”
- Empire Pace (1088 Progress) Ltd.SM24548 · 11 May 2017 · “1088 Progress Ave”
- Ballantry Homes Inc.SM11347 · 7 March 2008 · “1088 Progress Ave”
- Ballantry (Markham Gardens) Inc.SM11353 · 7 March 2008 · “1088 Progress Avenue”
- Ballantry Homes Inc.SM11351 · 6 March 2008 · “1088 Progress Avenue”
- Ballantry (Markham Gardens) Inc.SM11356 · 6 March 2008 · “1088 Progress Avenue”
- Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater TorontoSM11391 · 11 February 2008 · “1088 Progress 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 Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.