Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 13 269709 STE 22 SA

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

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 25 November 2013; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 129 St Clair Ave W
Ward: Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted: 25 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: 253 units
Related file: 10 314966 STE 22 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Control application for a 28-storey mixed-use building with 253 units, 6 townhouse units fronting onto Foxbar Road, 205 resident parking spaces, 26 visitor parking spaces, 155 resident bicycle parking spaces, 39 visitor bicycle parking spaces and 1 retail bicycle parking space. The heritage building will be altered and incorporated into the new building.

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.

Churchterrace Developments Inc.
SM31349 · 8 March 2021 · “129 St. Clair Avenue West.”
Diamondcorp
SM17744 · 27 January 2012 · “129 St Clair Ave W”
Whitecastle New Urban Fund
SM17447 · 11 November 2011 · “129 St. Clair Avenue West.”
Diamond Corp
SM17399 · 3 November 2011 · “129 St. Clair Avenue West.”
Whitecastle New Urban Fund
SM17401 · 3 November 2011 · “129 St. Clair Avenue West”
Diamond Corp
SM16602 · 20 June 2011 · “129 St. Clair Avenue West”

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.