Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 239951 STE 09 SA

Ward 9 · Alejandra BravoDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Under Review; In progress
Submitted: 15 December 2022; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 2 Union St
Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted: 15 December 2022
Status: Under Review
Outcome recorded: In progress
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 23 138819 STE 09 OZ

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

Description

Proposed St. Clair - Old Weston GO station (Smart Track) by Metrolinx. Proposal comprises:- 3 entrance buildings: main entrance located at south end of site adjacent to Union St. Seconary entrance at north end of sit adjacent to Union St. Third entrance located on west side of rail corridor near planned extension of Gunns Rd.- Increase from three tracks to four mainline tracks- Three platforms to serve all four Metrolinx tracks, with canopies over at least 85% of the platformlength, enclosures at the top of stairs and elevators, passenger shelters, and all amenities such aslighting, public address, digital and static signage, and snowmelt.- Two tunnels to connect each of the platforms to a station building on the east side of the rail corridor.- Corridor station facilities including six-bay bus loop to accommodate TTC vehicle and Wheel Trans, aplaza, sidewalk, MUP and circulation space to accommodate all pedestrian and cycling activity,secure and covered cycling facilities, as well as landscaping, street furniture and plantings.

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 9

20 lobbied · 21 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=4
Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

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 9: 20 lobbied and 21 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
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=4)	0%	0%	0.10

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.