Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 12 112660 NNY 16 SA

Ward 8 · Mike ColleDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Under Review; In progress
Submitted: 26 January 2012; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 515 Chaplin Cres; 525 Chaplin Cres
Ward: Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted: 26 January 2012
Status: Under Review
Outcome recorded: In progress
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description: 290 units
Related file: 09 199580 NNY 16 OZ

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

Description

INACTIVE The subject property contains two 8 storey residential apartment buildings that are linked by a below grade garage. The proposal is to construct an addition to the southern building (515 Chaplin) by adding 69 new units to the southeast end in an area of the site that contains a surface parking lot. There would be 18 existing rental units demolished and replaced by 18 new rental units plus an additional 69 rental units. The current building contains 221 units and the total unit count after construction would be 290 units. The proposed building height is 13 storeys with the roof being used for a mechanical penthouse and outdoor amenity area.

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.

Eldebron Holdings Limited
SM33158 · 12 April 2022 · “515 Chaplin Crescent”

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 8

25 lobbied · 69 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=2

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied8%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=63
Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 8: 25 lobbied and 69 matched unlobbied applications in 16 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	25	—	100% (n=3)	0%	8%	0.00
Matched, unlobbied	69	—	100% (n=2)	0%	4%	0.00

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	449	—	100% (n=63)	0%	4%	0.07
Matched, unlobbied	1,236	—	97% (n=98)	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.