Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 17 244416 STE 18 SA

Ward 9 · Alejandra BravoDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 6 October 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 440 Dufferin St
Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted: 6 October 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: 351 units
Related file: 11 320041 STE 18 OZ

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

Description

Site plan approval proposing three mixed-use buildings (13 storeys, 10 storeys and 9 storeys) containing 351 residential units with retail at grade in Buildings "A" and "B" and 7 residenital units and 40 hotel units above employment/office/light industrial space in Building "C". | Buildings "A" and "B" are connected by two levels of below-grade parking and Building "C" has an independent two-level below-grade parking garage, with a combined total of 285 parking spaces. | Site-specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications and accompanying bills were approved at the OMB (PL140271) in July 2016, and are in force and effect, as further amended by the OMB on May 8, 2018.

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.

SiteLine Property Management Inc.
SM21687 · 20 April 2015 · “440 Dufferin 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 9

20 lobbied · 21 matched

Approval rate

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

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
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 9: 20 lobbied and 21 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	20	—	100% (n=4)	0%	0%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	21	—	100% (n=4)	0%	0%	0.10

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.