Development application · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
Development application 20 122857 WET 07 SB
1 Dune Grassway; 3 Marsh Grassway; 4 Cane Grassway; 5 Turf Grassway; 7 Blue Grassway; 8 Dune Grassway; 10 Turf Grassway; 11 Blue Grassway; 17 Cane Grassway; 36 Marsh Grassway; 40 Turf Grassway
- Status
- Draft Plan Approved
- Approved
- Submitted
- 6 March 2020
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
- Addresses
- 1 Dune Grassway; 3 Marsh Grassway; 4 Cane Grassway; 5 Turf Grassway; 7 Blue Grassway; 8 Dune Grassway; 10 Turf Grassway; 11 Blue Grassway; 17 Cane Grassway; 36 Marsh Grassway; 40 Turf Grassway
- Ward
- Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
- Submitted
- 6 March 2020
- Status
- Draft Plan Approved
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 941 units
- Related file
- 20 122745 WET 07 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
A Rezoning Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision application to re-develop the site with 6 new residential 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. Building One would contain 123 TCHC units, Building Two would contain 218 TCHC units, Building Three would contain a community centre and daycare facilities, Building Four would contain 283 market units, Building Five would contain 48 market units, Building 7a would contain 142 market units and Building 7b would contain 127 market units. A total of 667 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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 7
1 lobbied · 1 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 1 | 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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.