Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 150508 STE 27 SA

36 Wellesley St W; 951 Bay St; 951-971 Bay St; 955 Bay St; 965 Bay St; 967 Bay St; 969 Bay St; 971 Bay St

Ward 13 · Chris MoiseDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 4 May 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 36 Wellesley St W; 951 Bay St; 951-971 Bay St; 955 Bay St; 965 Bay St; 967 Bay St; 969 Bay St; 971 Bay St
Ward: Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted: 4 May 2016
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 12 133688 STE 27 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Application to amend the approved 41-storey mixed-use building ("The Britt", formerly known as the Sutton Place Hotel - Site Plan Application No. 13 231613 STE 27 SA). The approved building would be altered by: increasing the building height from 130 m to 132 m (excluding the mechanical penthouse), increasing the building envelope from 139 m to 142 m, increasing the footprint of the mechanical penthouse by 14.2%, and decreasing the length of the colonnade from 37 m to 36.2 m. There are no proposed changes to the number of residential units.

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.