Development application · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)

Development application 17 114962 STE 27 CD

Ward 11 · Dianne SaxeDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 9 February 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
Addresses: 21 Avenue Rd; 135 Yorkville Ave
Ward: Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted: 9 February 2017
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 11 332287 STE 27 SA

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

Description

Draft Plan of Standard Condomimium to permit 51 non-residential units. This application is related to Site Plan Control Application No. 11 332287 STE 27 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.

Yorkville/Cumberland Neighbourhood Coalition
SM18292 · 25 July 2012 · “21 Avenue Road.”
Felcorp
SM18244 · 3 July 2012 · “21 Avenue Rd”
Yorkville/Cumberland Neighbourhood Coalition
SM17934 · 22 March 2012 · “21 Avenue Road”
Friends of Yorkville
SM14024 · 20 January 2010 · “21 Avenue Road.”
MTCC 626, MTCC 1276, 130 Bloor KS Inc., Standard Toronto Condominium Corporation 1920
SM13628 · 22 October 2009 · “21 Avenue Road”
Camrost-Feldcorp
SM11216 · 11 February 2008 · “21 Avenue Road”

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 11

4 lobbied · 10 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 11: 4 lobbied and 10 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	4	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	10	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.