Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 10 139880 STE 19 SA

38 Grand Magazine St; 60 Grand Magazine St; 90 Sloping Sky Mews; 620 Fleet Street.

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 25 March 2010; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 38 Grand Magazine St; 60 Grand Magazine St; 90 Sloping Sky Mews; 620 Fleet Street.
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 25 March 2010
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description: 502 units

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

Description

Site plan approval for a 17 storey and 16 storey tower above a 9 storey podeum including - a 2 storey structure adjaced to Fort York BLVD containing Live Work Units - 502 units of which 26 are Live Work and 6 are townhouse type units - 533 parking spaces - above and below grade. 473 resident - 60 Visitor. - Also - 6 autoshare spaces - and 13 Tandem Spaces not included in above calculation.

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.

West Harbour City III Residences Corp.
SM20860 · 4 August 2014 · “38 Grand Magazine Street.”
West Harbour City(IV) Residences Corp.
SM17792 · 10 February 2012 · “60 Grand Magazine Street”
Plazacorp Investments Limited
SM13544 · 30 September 2009 · “620 Fleet Street.”

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 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied1,881

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied3%
Matched, unlobbied2%

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 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	66	—	100% (n=5)	0%	3%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	165	1,881	100% (n=11)	0%	2%	0.04

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.