Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 12 162586 ESC 35 SA
55 Thora Ave; 3087 Danforth Ave
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 27 April 2012
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 55 Thora Ave; 3087 Danforth Ave
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Submitted
- 27 April 2012
- 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
- 20 units
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Proposed 4 storey affordable housing building containing 20 dwelling units and 44.7 square metres of retail space on the ground floor along Danforth Avenue. A total of 5 surface vehicle parking spaces are proposed on site with access from the rear public lane off Thora Avenue, and 18 bicycle spaces. Revised design reflects a Danforth Ave. road widening, increased building setback from Thora Ave., and reallocation of first floor spaces with increased retail space and garbage room moved to the rear. Current submission reflects minor variances approved by C. of A. on Oct. 11, 2012 relating to etbacks (from Danforth Rd. and for ground floor residential units), parking reductions and rear angular plane. NOAC issued Aug. 6, 2013, signed by Greg Lintern, Director, Community Planning.
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.