lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 19 232956 STE 11 SA

78 Queen's Park; 84 Queen's Park; 90 Queen's Park

Ward 11 · Dianne SaxeDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
OMB Appeal
In progress
Submitted
7 October 2019
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
78 Queen's Park; 84 Queen's Park; 90 Queen's Park
Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted
7 October 2019
Status
OMB Appeal
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes
Related file
19 118245 STE 11 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Approval application to permit a 9-storey (43 metres, including mechanical penthouse), 14,770 square metre building on the site that would comprise institutional and ancillary uses, including a recital hall, laboratories, work areas, meeting rooms, offices and a cafe. Falconer Hall and the Edward Johnson Building are proposed to be retained and integrated into the development while the McLaughlin Planetarium is proposed to be demolished.

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 11

46 lobbied · 113 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied1,629

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=2
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=12

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied9%
  • 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 11: 46 lobbied and 113 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied46—100% (n=2)0%9%0.09
Matched, unlobbied1131,629100% (n=12)0%2%0.02
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.