Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 24 135591 NNY 08 OZ
17 Henning Ave; 19 Henning Ave; 50-60 Eglinton Ave W; 90 Eglinton Ave W
- Status
- OMB Appeal
- In progress
- Submitted
- 12 April 2024
- Appealed
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 17 Henning Ave; 19 Henning Ave; 50-60 Eglinton Ave W; 90 Eglinton Ave W
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Submitted
- 12 April 2024
- Status
- OMB Appeal
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- Yes
- Size stated in the description
- 1,206 units; 73,305 m² gross floor area
- Related file
- 20 229115 NNY 08 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
The application proposes to increase the permitted height and density from the approved heights of 35 and 37-storeys as per By-law 1263-2022 (OLT), to 46 and 58-storeys This height increase would result in a total gross floor area of 73,305 m2, comprised of 71,992 m2 of residential GFA and 1,313 m2 of non-residential GFA at-grade. A total of 1,206 residential units are proposed, including 553 units in the west tower and 653 in the east tower. Vehicular and loading access to the development continues to be proposed from the future east-west private laneway on-site, connecting Henning Avenue and Duplex Avenue. Three (3) levels of underground parking are proposed, containing a total of 216 vehicular parking spaces. The revised buildings maintain the setbacks, stepbacks, commercial uses, and heritage retention of the previous approval.
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.
- Madison GroupSM26525 · 20 July 2018 · “50-60 Eglinton Avenue West”
- Madison GroupSM26526 · 20 July 2018 · “50-60 Eglinton Avenue West”
- Madison GroupSM24532 · 10 May 2017 · “19 Henning Avenue”
- Madison GroupSM24532 · 10 May 2017 · “90 Eglinton Avenue West”
- Madison GroupSM24501 · 9 May 2017 · “19 Henning Avenue”
- Madison GroupSM24501 · 9 May 2017 · “90 Eglinton Ave W”
- Madison GroupSM24476 · 4 May 2017 · “19 Henning Avenue”
- Madison GroupSM24477 · 4 May 2017 · “19 Henning Avenue”
- Madison GroupSM24476 · 4 May 2017 · “90 Eglinton Avenue West”
- Madison GroupSM24477 · 4 May 2017 · “90 Eglinton Avenue West”
- Madison GroupSM22115 · 12 August 2015 · “90 Eglinton Avenue West”
- Madison HomesSM17506 · 1 December 2011 · “90 Eglinton Avenue 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 8
33 lobbied · 57 matchedApproval 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 | 33 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 12% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 57 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 27% | 0.03 |
| 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.