Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 20 219216 STE 14 SA
629 Eastern Ave; 633 Eastern Ave; 675 Eastern Ave.
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Approved
- Submitted
- 17 November 2020
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 629 Eastern Ave; 633 Eastern Ave; 675 Eastern Ave.
- Ward
- Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
- Submitted
- 17 November 2020
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 13 195390 STE 30 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 construction of a private road with public access easement to connect Eastern Ave and Lake Shore Blvd E, as contemplated by Site Specific by-law 1174-2015. NOAC issued December 5, 2025.
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.
- SmartCentres REITSM37769 · 10 July 2026 · “675 Eastern Avenue.”
- SmartCentres REITSM36520 · 10 April 2025 · “629 Eastern Avenue”
- SmartCentres Real Estate Investment TrustSM36443 · 12 March 2025 · “629 Eastern Avenue”
- SmartREITSM22309 · 5 October 2015 · “675 Eastern Avenue”
- Studio Centre Developments Inc.SM21970 · 19 June 2015 · “675 Eastern Avenue”
- SmartcentresSM11358 · 11 February 2008 · “675 Eastern Avenue”
- Toronto Film Studios Inc.SM11359 · 11 February 2008 · “675 Eastern Ave.”
- SmartcentresSM11360 · 11 February 2008 · “675 Eastern Ave.”
- Toronto Film Studios Inc.SM11361 · 11 February 2008 · “675 Eastern Ave.”
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 14
17 lobbied · 35 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 35 | 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=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.