Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 18 132864 STE 18 SA

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

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 22 March 2018; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 57 Wade Ave; 65 Wade Ave; 77 Wade Ave
Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted: 22 March 2018
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: 13,473 m² gross floor area
Related file: 17 277975 STE 18 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Control application to facilitate the development of an 7-storey office building, with a total GFA of 13,473 square metres. 34 parking spaces will be provided at-grade, as well as 114 long term bicycle parking spaces and 6 short term bicycle parking spaces. The site is located immediately east of the rail corridor of the GO Barrie line, which will be elevated in the future by Metrolinx as part of the Big Move Regional Express Rail initiative, north of Bloor Street West, and one block west of the Landsdowne TTC station near Bloordale Village.

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.

Next Property Group
SM25089 · 27 September 2017 · “57 Wade Avenue”
Dufferin Concrete
SM12573 · 4 December 2008 · “77 Wade Ave.”
Dufferin Concrete
SM12574 · 4 December 2008 · “77 Wade ave.”

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.