lobbyTO

Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 25 101365 NNY 15 OZ

20 Brentcliffe Rd; 100 Vanderhoof Ave

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
6 January 2025
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
20 Brentcliffe Rd; 100 Vanderhoof Ave
Ward
Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted
6 January 2025
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
475 units; 30,628 m² gross floor area

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page

Description

Original proposal was to permit a 39-storey mixed-use building with a total gross floor area of 30,628m² (5.63 FSI), and comprised of 1,128m² of non-residential space on the ground floor and 475 residential units. The proposed development includes a tower element that sits atop a 5-storey base building. Proposed are two levels of underground parking with all vehicular and loading access to the site is off Frederick Todd Way. Indoor and outdoor amenity spaces are proposed on the 6th floor, as well as additional indoor amenity provided on level 39.The proposal has been revised (May 2026) to permit a 32-storey (102.9 meters, plus 6.0 metre mechanical penthouse) mixed use building at 20 Brentcliffe Road and 100 Vanderhoof Avenue. The proposed development would consist of 383 residential dwelling units, of which, six (6) units would be provided as affordable rental housing, 1,815 square metres of non-residential space at grade, and 2 levels of underground parking. A parkland dedication of 469 square metres at the northeast corner of the site is provided 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.

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 15

20 lobbied · 36 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=2
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=5

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied25%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 15: 20 lobbied and 36 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied20—100% (n=2)0%10%0.05
Matched, unlobbied36—100% (n=5)0%25%0.01
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.