Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 167253 STE 20 SA

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 3 June 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 46 Charlotte St
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 3 June 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: 248 units
Related file: 16 167239 STE 20 OZ

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

Description

Proposal for rezoning for a 46 storey mixed use building with 5 storey office podium with a retail/service unit on the ground floor and 248 rental residential units on the remaining 46 storeys. Please note, this is combined Zoning (OZ) and Site Plan (SA) circulation.Please Note, this application has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.The revised submission includes the following material:Covering latter dated Nov. 4, 2016summary of reponses to ECS memoUpdated Funcional Servicing Report (revised Nov. 4, 2016)revised architectural plansTransportation Update from BA Consulting (Nov. 4, 2016)Updated draft Zoning By-lawsUpdated TGS ChecklistEnergy Modeling ReportProject Data Sheet

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.

355 Adelaide Nominee Inc
SM36147 · 25 November 2024 · “46 Charlotte Street”
355 Adelaide Nominee Inc
SM36152 · 25 November 2024 · “46 Charlotte Street”
Cityzen Development Group
SM21758 · 5 May 2015 · “46 Charlotte Street”

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 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied1,881

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied3%
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 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	66	—	100% (n=5)	0%	3%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	165	1,881	100% (n=11)	0%	2%	0.04

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.