Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 106006 STE 30 SA

77 East Don Roadway; 79 East Don Roadway; 661 Queen St E; 667 Queen St E

Ward 14 · Paula FletcherDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 19 January 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 77 East Don Roadway; 79 East Don Roadway; 661 Queen St E; 667 Queen St E
Ward: Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
Submitted: 19 January 2016
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: 85 m² gross floor area
Related file: 14 176221 STE 30 OZ

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

Description

Proposal for site plan approval related to 5 new mixed use buildings which are connected via 4 levels of below grade parking, fronting Queen St E is a 6 storey mixed use building containing commercial space, on the east side of the laneway are 14 and 12 storey mixed use buildings , fronting onto the east Don Roadway are 14 and 20 storey mixed use buildings, each buillding will contain residential, having a combined GFA of 85.472 sq m.

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 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 14: 17 lobbied and 35 matched unlobbied applications in 11 matched strata
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.

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.