Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 13 259835 STE 27 SA

Ward 13 · Chris MoiseDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 1 November 2013; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 119 Isabella St; 571 Jarvis St
Ward: Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted: 1 November 2013
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: 3,707 m² gross floor area
Related file: 11 224619 STE 27 OZ

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

Description

To obtain Site Plan Approval for the construction of an expanded facility for Casey House, a treatment centre for people with HIV and AIDS. The site is located on the SW corner of Jarvis and Isabella St directly east of the current Casey House at 9 Huntley St. The site currently houses a Heritage building at 571 Jarvis St and a coach house at 119 Isabella St. The proposed construction would incorporate the existing heritage building at 571 Jarvis St. The heritage listed coach house at 119 Isabella St would be demolished. The proposed construction of a new Healthcare facility will be have a total GFA of 3707 m2 all of which is non-residential. The proposed Height will be 19.35 m (4 storeys) and will have 15 institutional parking spaces in a below grade parking structure. One Type B loading space 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 13

56 lobbied · 128 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied7%
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 13: 56 lobbied and 128 matched unlobbied applications in 32 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	56	—	100% (n=5)	0%	7%	0.16
Matched, unlobbied	128	—	100% (n=7)	0%	2%	0.01

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.