Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 18 140669 ESC 35 OZ
2787 Eglinton Ave E; 2791 Eglinton Ave E
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 9 April 2018
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 2787 Eglinton Ave E; 2791 Eglinton Ave E
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Submitted
- 9 April 2018
- 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
- 198 units; 18,053 m² gross floor area
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
The application proposes an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit 6 blocks of 4-storey stacked townhouses containing 198 residential units. The proposed development would have a total gross floor area of 18,053 square metres, and a Floor Space Index of 1.84 times the lot area. A total of 238 vehicular and 149 bicycle parking spaces, and 1 type-G loading space would be provided to service the proposed development.April 2019 (To be reviewed concurrently with 18 148155 ESC 35 SA)Following the October 2018 submission, the proposal has been further revised as follows:1. The Block fronting onto Horton Boulevard has been removed;2. A new public park, approximately 1,170 square metres in size, is now proposed adjacent to Horton Boulevard;3. garbage storage, loading and the ramp to the underground parking garage have been relocated to the southerly portion of Block C;4. Two visitor parking spaces have been added at-grade adjacent to the loading space;5. The total number of units has decreased from 196 to 184; and6. The density has been reduced from 1.79 FSI to 1.62 FSI;
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.
- Mattamy (Danforth) LimitedSM32246 · 26 August 2021 · “2787 Eglinton Avenue East”
- Mattamy Homes LimitedSM27155 · 13 December 2018 · “2787 Eglinton Ave East”
- Core Development Group Ltd.SM24944 · 14 August 2017 · “2787 Eglinton Avenue East”
- Pemberton Group Inc.SM24626 · 29 May 2017 · “2787 Eglinton Avenue East”
- Astral Media Outdoor, L.P.SM21719 · 27 April 2015 · “2787 Eglinton Avenue East”
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 20
13 lobbied · 19 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 13 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 19 | 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 | 571 | — | 100% (n=78) | 0% | 12% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 760 | — | 96% (n=78) | 4% | 14% | 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.