Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 18 126601 WET 04 SA
1 St Stevens Crt; 3 St Stevens Crt; 5 St Stevens Crt; 7 St Stevens Crt; 289 The Kingsway; 291 The Kingsway
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 8 March 2018
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 1 St Stevens Crt; 3 St Stevens Crt; 5 St Stevens Crt; 7 St Stevens Crt; 289 The Kingsway; 291 The Kingsway
- Ward
- Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
- Submitted
- 8 March 2018
- 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
- 523 units
- Related file
- 13 164210 WET 04 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
This application seeks approval to demolish 5 existing residential apartment buildings containing a total of 156 rental dwelling units and proposes to provide 156 replacement rental dwelling units within a new stand-alone replacement rental building as part of the proposed redevelopment of the site.These properties are part of a related group of buildings at 289 and 291 The Kingsway and 1, 3, 5 and 7 St. Stevens Court that was subject to a Zoning By-law Amendment Application (File No. 13 164210 WET 04 OZ) for the development of four new residential buildings ranging in height from 6 to 9 storeys containing a total of 523 residential units (including 156 replacement rental dwelling units).The Zoning By-law Amendment Application was the subject of a hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board (No. PL150676). The Board Order is still outstanding, the applicant has yet to fulfilled the requirements of the Board. Site Plan Approval can not be issued until the Zoning By-law is given final approval by the Board.
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 2
5 lobbied · 15 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 | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 15 | 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.