Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 199117 STE 04 SA

1926 Lake Shore Blvd W

Ward 4 · Gord PerksDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 16 August 2021; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 1926 Lake Shore Blvd W
Ward: Ward 4 · Gord Perks
Submitted: 16 August 2021
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 16 270607 WET 13 SA

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

Description

A Site Plan Application was submitted (16 270607 WET 13 SA) and the Notice of ApprovalConditions were issued on October 28, 2018. The Statement of Approval was issued on May 8,2019. Revisions have been made to the architectural drawings and landscape drawingssince the Statement of Approval was issued and a Site Plan Amendment Application is required.The changes include reducing the amount of visitor parking to provide more locker space, revisions to the landscape plans, the addition of an indoor pool to the west tower, and creating a combined suite in the east tower.

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.

Diamante Developments Corp.
SM23736 · 18 November 2016 · “1926 Lake Shore Blvd. W.”
DF Lake Shore Ltd. (as GP of DF Lake Shore LP)
SM23717 · 14 November 2016 · “1926 Lake Shore Blvd West”
DF Lake Shore LP
SM23681 · 4 November 2016 · “1926 Lake Shore Boulevard West”

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 4

17 lobbied · 33 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 4: 17 lobbied and 33 matched unlobbied applications in 13 matched strata
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	33	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.