lobbyTO

Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 08 110771 STE 27 OZ

203 Jarvis St

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
12 February 2008
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
0
0 meetings · 0 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
203 Jarvis St
Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted
12 February 2008
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
14,702 m² gross floor area

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

Description

This application proposes to redevelop the existing commercial surface parking lot at 203 Jarvis Street with a 20-storey hotel containing 261 guest rooms with a proposed building height of 61 metres (66 metres including mechanical penthouse) and a gross floor area of 14,702 square metres. The applicant proposes 69 vehicular parking spaces within three levels of underground parking accessed via a car elevator. The hotel would include limited grade-related retail such as a coffee shop or convenience store for public use with a total area of approximately 104 square metres.

Linked lobbying registrations

These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.

Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

No communications recorded.

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 13

83 lobbied · 97 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=10
  • Matched, unlobbied93% n=14

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied7%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied11%
  • Matched, unlobbied17%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 13: 83 lobbied and 97 matched unlobbied applications in 34 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied83—100% (n=10)0%11%0.14
Matched, unlobbied971,79393% (n=14)7%17%0.08
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (n=70)2%13%0.05

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.