Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 17 185378 WET 17 OZ
0 Foundry Ave; 0 St Clarens Ave; 18 Foundry Ave; 30 Turntable Cres; 900 Lansdowne Ave; 940 Lansdowne Ave; 980 Lansdowne Ave; 1100 Lansdowne Ave
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 22 June 2017
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 0 Foundry Ave; 0 St Clarens Ave; 18 Foundry Ave; 30 Turntable Cres; 900 Lansdowne Ave; 940 Lansdowne Ave; 980 Lansdowne Ave; 1100 Lansdowne Ave
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Submitted
- 22 June 2017
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Proposed Official Plan Amendment to the Davenport Village Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to former City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86, as amended by Zoning By-law No. 728-2006, to permit the construction of three residential apartment buildings with heights of 12, 29, and 36 storeys with 7-storey podiums, two 4-storey stacked townhouse buildings, and a 1-storey daycare building. The southern block previously referred to as 980 Lansdowne (Phase 6) and 900 Lansdowne (Phase 9) have been merged into one Phase 6. 30 Powerhouse is also part of this submission proposing mixed use.
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.
- Edgewood Holdings IncSM22579 · 14 December 2015 · “980 Lansdowne Avenue”
- Emsatec Canada IncSM19631 · 1 September 2013 · “980 Lansdowne Ave.”
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 9
19 lobbied · 28 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 19 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | 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 | 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.