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

Development application 20 122745 WET 07 OZ

1 Dune Grassway; 3 Marsh Grassway; 4 Cane Grassway; 5 Turf Grassway; 5-36 Needle Firway; 7 Blue Grassway; 8 Dune Grassway; 10 Turf Grassway; 11 Blue Grassway; 17 Cane Grassway; 36 Marsh Grassway; 40 Turf Grassway; 2900 Jane St; 2940 Jane St; 2950 Jane St

Ward 7 · Anthony PerruzzaDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 5 March 2020; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 1 Dune Grassway; 3 Marsh Grassway; 4 Cane Grassway; 5 Turf Grassway; 5-36 Needle Firway; 7 Blue Grassway; 8 Dune Grassway; 10 Turf Grassway; 11 Blue Grassway; 17 Cane Grassway; 36 Marsh Grassway; 40 Turf Grassway; 2900 Jane St; 2940 Jane St; 2950 Jane St
Ward: Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
Submitted: 5 March 2020
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: 991 units

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

Description

A revised Zoning By-law amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to re-develop the site with 8 new blocks, 6 new buildings, a community centre, a public park, public roads and private driveways. The buildings would range in height from 4 storeys to 25 storeys and contain a total of 941 new dwelling units consisting of townhouses and apartment units of which 341 are TCHC units and 600 are market units. The units would consist of townhouses and apartment units. The existing 152 TCHC apartment units at 5 Needle Firway would be retained. A total of 991 residential units in addition to the 152 retained are proposed. A total of 932 parking spaces would be provided site wide. Properties include: 3, 36 Marsh Grassway, 7, 11 Blue Grassway, 4, 17 Cane Grassway, 5, 10, 40 Turf Grassway and 1,2, & 8 Dune Grassway.

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.

None.

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 7

7 lobbied · 8 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 7: 7 lobbied and 8 matched unlobbied applications in 7 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	7	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	8	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 and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
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.