lobbyTO

Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 18 157321 ESC 35 OZ

65 Lily Cup Ave; 300 Danforth Rd

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
11 May 2018
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
1
1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
65 Lily Cup Ave; 300 Danforth Rd
Ward
Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted
11 May 2018
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
241 units; 21,809 m² gross floor area

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

Description

INACTIVE The application proposes an amendment to the Former City of Scarborough Warden Woods Community Zoning By-law No. 950-2005, to permit 4 blocks of 4-storey stack townhouses and one 12-storey mixed-use building on the subject property. The proposed development would have total gross floor area of 21,809m2 and a Floor Space Index of 3.07. The application also proposes 241 residential units and 162m2 of retail/commercial space on the ground floor of the mixed-use building. One type "G" loading space, 302 vehicular and 277 bicycle parking spaces would be provided to service the proposed development.

Linked lobbying registrations

These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.

Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 39 Scarborough-Agincourt1
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 39 Scarborough-AgincourtMember of council1115 June 2018

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

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 matched

Hidden: 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 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 20: 13 lobbied and 19 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied13Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied19Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.