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

Development application 26 149454 STE 10 OZ

2 Small St; 200 Queens Quay E; 291 Lake Shore Blvd E

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 24 April 2026; 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: 2 Small St; 200 Queens Quay E; 291 Lake Shore Blvd E
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 24 April 2026
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 23 167778 STE 10 OZ

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

Description

City Initiated Rezoning to amend the Zoning By-law for 291 Lake Shore Boulevard East, 2 Small Street and 200 Queens Quay East (Quayside Blocks 1B, 1C, and 2). A City-owned and operated Community Service, Cultural and Arts Facility is now proposed in the south-easterly portion of Block 1C, fronting on Queens Quay East. The proposal is to revise the minimum required non-residential gross floor area, including the minimum amount required to be dedicated to Community Services, Cultural and Arts Facilitates and General Institutions; to update Zoning Maps, including Map 3 Base Building Areas and Heights; and to revise Holding and Section 37 provisions. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment also revises building mechanical height permissions to respond to operational needs of the City¿s selected non-profit housing providers for Quayside.

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 10

88 lobbied · 94 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=7
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied11%
Matched, unlobbied5%

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 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	88	—	100% (n=7)	0%	11%	0.03
Matched, unlobbied	94	—	100% (n=6)	0%	5%	0.01

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
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.