Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 26 218963 NNY 15 SA
1 The Bridle Path; 2425 Bayview Ave; 2427 Bayview Ave
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 13 August 2026
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 1 The Bridle Path; 2425 Bayview Ave; 2427 Bayview Ave
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Submitted
- 13 August 2026
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 51 units; 13,554 m² gross floor area
- Related file
- 24 245561 NNY 15 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan Control Application proposes the development of a 6-storey residential building. The building will provide a total of 51 residential units, being a mix of 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units. A paved access from The Bridal Path will be provided, leading to 1 level of below-grade parking, providing a total of 120 parking spaces; as well as 46 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed development provides a total GFA of 13,553.60 square metres and a FSI of 2.28. Additionally, the proposed development provides 212.90 square metres of indoor amenity space and 145.20 square metres of outdoor amenity space.
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.
- Times Group CorporationSM36506 · 19 March 2025 · “1 The Bridle Path”
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 15
12 lobbied · 41 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 | 12 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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.