Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 162080 STE 12 SA

Ward 12 · Josh MatlowDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Under Review; In progress
Submitted: 14 June 2022; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 33 Davisville Ave
Ward: Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted: 14 June 2022
Status: Under Review
Outcome recorded: In progress
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description: 526 units; 30,786 m² gross floor area
Related file: 22 162082 STE 12 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Approval for proposed 6-storey (22.5 metre) base building and 33-storey tower element, which will have a total height of 125.0 metres to the top of the roof and 132.0 metres to the top of the mechanical penthouse. The building will contain total of 526 residential dwelling units and 30,786 square metres of residential GFA, resulting in a net density of 10.69 FSI, based on the development site area of 2,880 square metres. The existing 21-storey rental apartment building on the northern portion of the site will be retained. On-hold at applicant's request.

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.

CAPREIT
SM34345 · 18 April 2023 · “33 Davisville Avenue”
CAPREIT
SM33299 · 1 June 2022 · “33 Davisville Avenue”
OSMINGTON GEROFSKY DEVELOPMENT CORP
SM33291 · 30 May 2022 · “33 Davisville Avenue”

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 12

32 lobbied · 72 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied511

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=4
Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied3%
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 12: 32 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	32	—	100% (n=4)	0%	3%	0.00
Matched, unlobbied	72	511	100% (n=7)	0%	0%	0.05

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.