Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 11 157561 ESC 36 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 30 March 2011
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 35 Birchcliff Ave
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Submitted
- 30 March 2011
- 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
- 25 units
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
The property is located at the south-east corner of Birchcliff Avenue and Kingston Road, is irregular in shape, approximately 0.1438 hectares (0.3 acres) in size, with a frontage of 33.51 m along Kingston Road and a frontage of 49.88 m along Birchcliff Avenue. There are 5 existing dwellings (one semi-detached and three detached dwellings) in the properties. The applicant has filed this site plan control application for a 5 storey mixed use building containing 3 commercial units and residential amenity areas on the ground floor and 25 residential units. The commercial units will comprise a gross floor area of approx 300 sq. m. while the residential uses will comprise a gross floor area of approximately 3 468 sq.m. for a gross floor area total (for these two uses) of 3 768 sq.m. There is one level of underground parking that is to contains 18 parking spaces. 10 surface parking spaces, including 2 disabled parking spaces are also proposed for a total of 28 parking spaces. The proposed floor space index is 2.41.
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 20
11 lobbied · 34 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 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 | 11 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 34 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
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.