Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 22 242103 STE 13 OZ
17 Gould St; 38 Dundas St E; 44 Gerrard St E; 50 Gould St; 55 Gould St; 87 Gerrard St E; 101 Bond St; 101 Gerrard St E; 104 Bond St; 105 Gerrard St E; 110 Bond St; 111 Bond St; 112 Bond St; 122 Bond St; 125 Bond St; 136 Dundas St E; 137 Bond St; 202 Jarvis St; 240 Jarvis St; 245 Church St; 270 Church St; 277 Victoria St; 285 Victoria St; 296 Church St; 297 Victoria St; 322 Church St; 341-355 Yonge St; 350 Victoria St; 380 Victoria St
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 23 December 2022
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 17 Gould St; 38 Dundas St E; 44 Gerrard St E; 50 Gould St; 55 Gould St; 87 Gerrard St E; 101 Bond St; 101 Gerrard St E; 104 Bond St; 105 Gerrard St E; 110 Bond St; 111 Bond St; 112 Bond St; 122 Bond St; 125 Bond St; 136 Dundas St E; 137 Bond St; 202 Jarvis St; 240 Jarvis St; 245 Church St; 270 Church St; 277 Victoria St; 285 Victoria St; 296 Church St; 297 Victoria St; 322 Church St; 341-355 Yonge St; 350 Victoria St; 380 Victoria St
- Ward
- Ward 13 · Chris Moise
- Submitted
- 23 December 2022
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
This is an application that is to address two main objectives: 1) to bring the portion of the university's lands currently zoned under the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86 into the City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013; and 2) to establish bicycle parking, loading space, and automobile parking rates for lands owned and operated by Toronto Metropolitan University as an overlay approach in By-law 569-2013. No development is proposed as part of this application.
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.
- SoskolneAssociates.SM23061 · 2 May 2016 · “277 Victoria Street.”
- SoskolneAssociates.SM23061 · 2 May 2016 · “38 Dundas Street E”
- Ryerson UniveristySM22065 · 21 July 2015 · “111 Bond Street”
- Yong JoSM18529 · 9 October 2012 · “38 Dundas Street East”
- Ryerson UniveristySM16545 · 8 June 2011 · “341-355 Yonge St”
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 13
83 lobbied · 97 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 83 | — | 100% (n=10) | 0% | 11% | 0.14 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 97 | 1,793 | 93% (n=14) | 7% | 17% | 0.08 |
| 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.