Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 20 161761 WET 02 SA
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Approved
- Submitted
- 30 June 2020
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 1455 Royal York Rd
- Ward
- Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
- Submitted
- 30 June 2020
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 94 units; 7,677 m² gross floor area
- Related file
- 20 161756 WET 02 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
A re-zoning application and a site plan approval application have been submitted to develop the vacant site with a 4-storey residential building with a total of 94 units. A total residential gross floor area of 7677m2 is proposed, including indoor amenity areas totalling 1,377 m2. Extensive landscaping and an outdoor amenity space of 520 m2 are proposed around the building. Site vehicular access is proposed from Chapman Road (with existing accesses from Royal York Road and Renault Crescent to be removed), and the proposal includes a single level of underground parking with 50 parking spaces for visitors and employees. A total of 8 short-term bicycle parking spaces are also proposed at-grade at the building entrance. The building would be geared toward senior tenants as an assisted living/memory care facility.
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 2
5 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 | 5 | 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.