Development application · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
Development application 20 145737 NNY 16 CD
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 15 May 2020
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
- Addresses
- 1185 Eglinton Ave E
- Ward
- Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
- Submitted
- 15 May 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
- 655 units
- Related file
- 08 111649 NNY 26 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Draft Plan of Standard Condominium to permit 29 and 31-storey buildings and 22 townhouses for a total of 655 residential units, 555 residential parking spaces, and 98 visitor parking spaces. Site also known as 1185 Eglinton Avenue East. Associated applications include Site Plan application 2015 159786 NNY 26 SA, Plan of Subdivision application 2015 159976 NNY 26 SB, and Minor Variance decision A0368/18NY.
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.
- LindvestSM26563 · 27 July 2018 · “1185 Eglinton Avenue East”
- Lindvest Properties LimitedSM26200 · 10 May 2018 · “1185 Eglinton Avenue East”
- Lindvest Properties LimitedSM25667 · 16 February 2018 · “1185 Eglinton Avenue East”
- Lindvest Properties LimitedSM23356 · 19 July 2016 · “1185 Eglinton Avenue East”
- Independent Order of ForestersSM19125 · 22 March 2013 · “1185 Eglinton Avenue East.”
- Norma WaltonSM15304 · 28 October 2010 · “1185 Eglinton Avenue East”
- Skyline 1185 Eglinton Avenue Inc.SM11195 · 11 February 2008 · “1185 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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.