Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 23 218161 WET 03 SA
- Status
- Refused
- Refused
- Submitted
- 24 October 2023
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 1061 The Queensway
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Submitted
- 24 October 2023
- Status
- Refused
- Outcome recorded
- Refused
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 1,166 units
- Related file
- 14 241637 WET 05 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
The application is being submitted in two phases. Phase One being the two easterly towers at 34 and 43 storeys respectively, and Phase two being the westerly 26 storey tower fronting onto the park.There are 495 units being proposed for Tower A and 382 units being proposed for Tower B, resulting in 877 overall units being proposed for Phase One. 239 vehicular parking spaces and 674 bicycle parking spaces are being proposed for Phase One. The total gross floor area proposed is for Phase One is 54,513, for a floor space index (FSI) of 6.64 times the site area. The total units for both Phase One and Phase Two (Site Plan Application 23 218177 WET 03 SA) being proposed are 1,166 units, with 485 total vehicular parking spaces and 904 total bicycle parking spaces, resulting in a total site density of 8.83 times the area of the lot.There is an active Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application for the site (14 241637 WET 05 OZ).
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 3
24 lobbied · 100 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 24 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 4% | 0.25 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 100 | 1,629 | 70% (n=10) | 30% | 4% | 0.14 |
| 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.