Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 18 135986 WET 12 SA
85 Canon Jackson Dr; 135 Canon Jackson Dr; 2175 Keele St
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 28 March 2018
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 85 Canon Jackson Dr; 135 Canon Jackson Dr; 2175 Keele St
- Ward
- Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
- Submitted
- 28 March 2018
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 15 239429 WET 12 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
This application is for the South Phase of the Property (Blocks 3 and 4) . The built form proposed in the Application conforms and implements the final and binding Zoning By-law Amendment for midrise buildings and stacked back{o-back townhouses.
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.
- DiamondcorpSM35124 · 8 December 2023 · “2175 Keele Street”
- Daniels Humber River CorporationSM26784 · 3 October 2018 · “2175 Keele Street”
- Diamond CorpSM26698 · 24 September 2018 · “2175 Keele Street.”
- DiamondcorpSM24268 · 26 March 2017 · “2175 Keele Street”
- Daniels Humber River CorporationSM23283 · 23 June 2016 · “2175 Keele Street”
- Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2SM22511 · 20 November 2015 · “2175 Keele Street”
- Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2SM22502 · 17 November 2015 · “2175 Keele Street”
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 5
15 lobbied · 40 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 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 | 15 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 40 | 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 | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
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.