Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 17 273164 ESC 44 SA

Ward 25 · Neethan ShanDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 8 December 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 2; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 0; 0 meetings · 0 offices

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 4569 Kingston Rd
Ward: Ward 25 · Neethan Shan
Submitted: 8 December 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: 101 units
Related file: 16 167524 ESC 44 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Control application to enable the development of a proposed 11-storey (34.3 m) tall mixed use building, with a 4-storey building section towards the rear portion of the site that includes an outdoor rooftop amenity area on the 5th floor. The proposal includes of 101 residential units with retail at grade. A driveway is proposed along the east side of the site, leading to a ramp to three levels of underground parking providing a total of 101 vehicular parking spaces. A Type "G" loading space is proposed within the east wall of the building perpendicular to the driveway.

Linked lobbying registrations

These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.

Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored

Mutual Development Coropration · registration SM25157
Planning for 4569 Kingston Rd, Scarborough, ON M1E 2P3
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.88
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM25157: Planning for 4569 Kingston Rd, Scarborough, ON M1E 2P3 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 273164 ESC 44 SA at 4569 Kingston Rd: Site Plan Control application to enable the development of a proposed 11-storey (34.3 m) tall mixed use building, with a 4-storey building section towards the rear portion of the site that includes an outdoor rooftop amenity area on the 5th floor. The proposal includes of 101 residential units with… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Planning for 4569 Kingston Rd, Scarborough, ON M1E 2P3
Matched fields
address
4569 KINGSTON RD
application_address
4569 KINGSTON RD
Mutual Development Corporation · registration SM25136
Planning for 4569 Kingston Rd, Scarborough, ON M1E 2P3
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.88
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM25136: Planning for 4569 Kingston Rd, Scarborough, ON M1E 2P3 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 273164 ESC 44 SA at 4569 Kingston Rd: Site Plan Control application to enable the development of a proposed 11-storey (34.3 m) tall mixed use building, with a 4-storey building section towards the rear portion of the site that includes an outdoor rooftop amenity area on the 5th floor. The proposal includes of 101 residential units with… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Planning for 4569 Kingston Rd, Scarborough, ON M1E 2P3
Matched fields
address
4569 KINGSTON RD
application_address
4569 KINGSTON RD

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

No communications recorded.

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Kohn Partnership Architects Inc.1 registration

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 25

4 lobbied · 18 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 25: 4 lobbied and 18 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	4	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	18	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.