Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 19 250319 STE 09 SA
150 Sterling Rd; 152 Sterling Rd; 158 Sterling Rd
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 18 November 2019
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 150 Sterling Rd; 152 Sterling Rd; 158 Sterling Rd
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Submitted
- 18 November 2019
- 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
- 17,323 m² gross floor area
- Related file
- 11 228729 STE 18 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan Approval Application for the development of two commercial blocks for proposed 6-storey and 8-storey non-residential buildings comprised of 7,896 square metres and 17,323 square metres of non-residential gross floor area, respectively. 91 parking spaces are proposed between the two buildings.
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.
- Rio Tinto AlcanSM30716 · 14 October 2020 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM24465 · 3 May 2017 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM18668 · 6 November 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- CAW-CanadaSM18571 · 18 October 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio Properties LimitedSM16444 · 26 May 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Rio Tinto AlcanSM17739 · 27 January 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM17405 · 4 November 2011 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM16075 · 21 March 2011 · “158 Sterling Road.”
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 9
20 lobbied · 21 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 0% | 0.10 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 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.