Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 19 184442 ESC 24 SA
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Approved
- Submitted
- 8 July 2019
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 66 Dale Ave; 80 Dale Ave
- Ward
- Ward 24 · Paul Ainslie
- Submitted
- 8 July 2019
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 285 units; 15,704 m² gross floor area
- Related file
- 18 154389 ESC 36 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
The revised proposal is to develop a 12-storey (plus Mechanical Penthouse) residential building containing a gross floor area of 15,703.96 sq. m (169,036.02 sq. ft) and a density of 1.11 FSI. This provides for a proposed residential unit count of 285 dwellings, consisting of 80 studio units (28.07%), 113 one-bedroom units (39.65%), 77 two-bedroom units (27.02%), and 15 three-bedroom units (5.26%).There is approximately 570 sq m (6,135 sq ft) of indoor amenity space located on the B2 and ground floor, and 570 sq m (6,135 sq ft) of outdoor amenity space located on the ground floor, for a total amenity area of 1,140 sq m (12,270 sq ft) or a total 4 sq m per unit. Parking is proposed at-grade and contains a total of 50 parking spaces, including 16 visitor parking spaces and 9 accessible spaces. A total of 20 short-term bicycle parking spaces are proposed at-grade and 194 long- term bicycle parking spaces are proposed on the B2 level, for a total of 214 bicycle parking spaces.
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 24
6 lobbied · 15 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 | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 15 | 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.