Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 212893 NNY 25 SA

2710 Bayview Ave; 2716 Bayview Ave; 2720 Bayview Ave; 2722 Bayview Ave

Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos LinDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 25 August 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 2710 Bayview Ave; 2716 Bayview Ave; 2720 Bayview Ave; 2722 Bayview Ave
Ward: Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted: 25 August 2016
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
Related file: 15 267780 NNY 25 OZ

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

Description

Site plan application to permit 3 blocks of townhouses along Bayview Avenue with a total of 20 units. Additionally, one detached dwelling is proposed west of the townhouses on Caldy Court. Vehicular access would be provided from Fifeshire Road. The detached dwelling would be located behind the townhouses and take access from Caldy Court (Rezoning file NO. 15 267780 NNY 25 OZ)Revised NOAC - May 21, 2026Amending Site Plan Agreement - July 9, 2026 (AT7103909)

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 15

12 lobbied · 41 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=61
Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 15: 12 lobbied and 41 matched unlobbied applications in 10 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	12	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	41	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.