Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 231206 NNY 08 SA

405 Brookdale Ave; 407 Brookdale Ave; 1648 Avenue Rd; 1650 Avenue Rd; 1650-1660 Avenue Rd; 1654 Avenue Rd; 1660 Avenue Rd; 1662 Avenue Rd; 1666 Avenue Rd; 1668 Avenue Rd; 1670 Avenue Rd

Ward 8 · Mike ColleDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Under Review; In progress
Submitted: 27 October 2021; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 405 Brookdale Ave; 407 Brookdale Ave; 1648 Avenue Rd; 1650 Avenue Rd; 1650-1660 Avenue Rd; 1654 Avenue Rd; 1660 Avenue Rd; 1662 Avenue Rd; 1666 Avenue Rd; 1668 Avenue Rd; 1670 Avenue Rd
Ward: Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted: 27 October 2021
Status: Under Review
Outcome recorded: In progress
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description: 58 units; 13,155 m² gross floor area
Related file: 21 231202 NNY 08 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed redevelopment of the site to permit a 9-storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gross floor area of 830 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 13,155.10 square metres. A total of 58 residential dwelling units are proposed with 87 vehicular parking spaces (24 for vistor) and 90 bicycle parking spaces below grade.

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 8

25 lobbied · 70 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied8%
Matched, unlobbied4%

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 8: 25 lobbied and 70 matched unlobbied applications in 16 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	25	—	100% (n=3)	0%	8%	0.00
Matched, unlobbied	70	727	100% (n=4)	0%	4%	0.00

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.