lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 133711 WET 03 SA

26 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 30 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 32 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 34 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 36 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 38 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 45 Burnhamthorpe Cres; 47 Burnhamthorpe Cres; 49 Burnhamthorpe Cres

Ward 3 · Amber MorleyDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
NOAC Issued
Approved
Submitted
12 April 2022
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
26 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 30 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 32 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 34 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 36 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 38 Burnhamthorpe Rd; 45 Burnhamthorpe Cres; 47 Burnhamthorpe Cres; 49 Burnhamthorpe Cres
Ward
Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted
12 April 2022
Status
NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
19 183250 WET 03 OZ

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

Description

Proposal for the redevelopment of the subject site with four three-storey apartment buildings, wellness centre building and below grade parking structure. The site is subject to ZBL 569-2013, as amended by Site-specific ZBL 791-2023(OLT). A Minor Variance application (File A0482/25EYK - final binding March 4, 2026) approved a series of variances to the parent and site-specific ZBLs.

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.

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 3

24 lobbied · 100 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied71% n=10

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied29%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 3: 24 lobbied and 100 matched unlobbied applications in 18 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied24—100% (n=5)0%4%0.25
Matched, unlobbied100—71% (n=10)29%4%0.14
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—97% (n=98)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.