Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 21 183324 STE 10 OZ
350 Queens Quay W; 370 Queens Quay W; 390 Queens Quay W
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 13 July 2021
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 350 Queens Quay W; 370 Queens Quay W; 390 Queens Quay W
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 13 July 2021
- 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
- 249 units
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit one 16-storey residential tower above the existing 5-storey parkade (with a total height of 21 storeys, or 66 metres, inclusive of the mechanical penthouse) at 396 Queens Quay West. It also includes additions to the existing buildings at 390 and 396 Queens Quay West, as well as interior and exterior alterations at 350, 370 and 390 Queens Quay West. Overall, the proposal will introduce 249 new dwelling units, 43 new hotel suites, and public realm enhancements along along Queens Quay West.
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.
- Retirment Concepts DevelopmentsSM23096 · 9 May 2016 · “390 Queens Quay West”
- Coal Harbour Properties Ltd.SM22360 · 20 October 2015 · “370 QUEENS QUAY WEST”
- Retirement Concepts Developments Ltd.SM19716 · 1 October 2013 · “390 Queen's Quay West”
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 10
88 lobbied · 94 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 88 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 10% | 0.03 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 94 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 5% | 0.01 |
| 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.