Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 15 249529 STE 30 SA
4 Montcrest Blvd; 650 Broadview Ave; 658 Broadview Ave; 660 Broadview Ave
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 10 November 2015
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 4 Montcrest Blvd; 650 Broadview Ave; 658 Broadview Ave; 660 Broadview Ave
- Ward
- Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
- Submitted
- 10 November 2015
- 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
- 1,004 m² gross floor area
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Revised application submitted on December 16, 2016: The Applicant, Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc., has submitted a Site Plan Application on behalf of the Montcrest School, which proposes to develop the site with an additional GFA of 1,004m2 for the expansion of the existing Montcrest School at 650 to 660 Broadview Avenue. All of the existing buildings fronting Broadview Avenue, and subject to this application, are listed on the City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties. The application contemplates the demolition of previous additions to the existing buildings and further additions to enhance and expand the existing Montcrest School.
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 14
17 lobbied · 35 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 | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 35 | 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.