Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 10 106892 ESC 36 SA

Ward 24 · Paul AinslieDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 20 January 2010; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 3600 Kingston Rd
Ward: Ward 24 · Paul Ainslie
Submitted: 20 January 2010
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded

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

Description

The site is irregular in shape, comprises 4.24 hectares and is located on the northeast corner of Kingston Road and Markham Road. The Scarborough Village Recreation Centre is located on the property which has several arenas and a theatre (Scarborough Village Theatre). The City is proposing a 250 square foot hub expansion of this building to be located along the frontage of Kingston Road. There currently exist 218 parking spaces and no bicycle parking spaces. The expansion will require 12 additional parking spaces and 11 bicycle parking spaces which will be met through this proposal. A total of 230 parking spaces and 11 bicycle parking spaces will be provided.

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 24

6 lobbied · 15 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 24: 6 lobbied and 15 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	6	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.

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.