Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 17 145395 NNY 33 SA
3 Kingslake Rd; 3-5 Allenbury Gdns; 5 Kingslake Rd; 11 Allenbury Gdns; 17 Allenbury Gdns; 21 Allenbury Gdns; 170 Fairview Mall Dr; 180 Fairview Mall Dr
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 18 April 2017
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 3 Kingslake Rd; 3-5 Allenbury Gdns; 5 Kingslake Rd; 11 Allenbury Gdns; 17 Allenbury Gdns; 21 Allenbury Gdns; 170 Fairview Mall Dr; 180 Fairview Mall Dr
- Ward
- Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
- Submitted
- 18 April 2017
- 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
- 207 units
- Related file
- 11 293972 NNY 33 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Phase 2.1 of the Allenbury Revitalization Project. This application proposes the removal of 70 existing TCHC rental units and the construction of a 10 storey rental apartment building with 75 units, a 17 storey market ondominium building with 207 units, 28 rental and 8 market townhouse units. 294 vehicle parking spaces are proposed in underground parking 290 bike parking spaces are proposed. This file is associated with the master site plan file #12 263954 and the Official Plan and Zoning file # 11 293972
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 17
14 lobbied · 20 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 | 14 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 20 | 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.