Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 17 144152 STE 22 SA

33 Holly St; 86 Soudan Ave; 88 Soudan Ave

Ward 12 · Josh MatlowDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 13 April 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 33 Holly St; 86 Soudan Ave; 88 Soudan Ave
Ward: Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted: 13 April 2017
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: 545 units; 42,916 m² gross floor area
Related file: 13 211324 STE 22 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Approval application to permit redevelopment of the site, including retention of the two existing rental apartment buildings and construction of two new residential buildings (27 and 34 storeys, with a total 545 new dwelling units). Approximately 42,916 square metres of new residential gross floor area is proposed.

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.

Plazacorp Investments Limited
SM26590 · 9 August 2018 · “33 Holly Street.”
Holly Dunfield Residences Corp.
SM26515 · 10 July 2018 · “33 Holly Street”
Bayfield Management Limited
SM19178 · 30 April 2013 · “33 Holly Street”
Law Offices of Jack Greenberg
SM19248 · 30 April 2013 · “33 Holly Street”
Compten Management Inc.
SM19251 · 30 April 2013 · “33 Holly Street”

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 12

32 lobbied · 72 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied511

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=4
Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied3%
Matched, unlobbied0%

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 12: 32 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	32	—	100% (n=4)	0%	3%	0.00
Matched, unlobbied	72	511	100% (n=7)	0%	0%	0.05

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.