lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 11 106801 STE 22 SA

30 Roehampton Ave

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
14 January 2011
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
3
1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
30 Roehampton Ave
Ward
Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted
14 January 2011
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
11 106780 STE 22 OZ

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

Description

Rezoning application to permit the existing lands containing a surface (Green P) parking lot to be redeveloped for the purposes of a 33 storey mixed use building containing 384 above grade residential units, 6,259, and 119 bachelor, 1 bed and 2 bed, and 4 levels of below grade parking, of which 2 levels are to be used exclusively for the purposes of a Green P parking garage. Also included in the proposal is the sub-surface conveyance of a portion of the p3 level of the adjacent building to the north, municipally known as 2345 Yonge Street, for additional parking to serve the residential component of the proposed building.

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 · 3 communications · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 22 St. Paul's2
  • Ward 22 St. Paul's1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 22 St. Paul'sMember of council2112 June 2013
Ward 22 St. Paul'sCouncillor staff1017 June 2013

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.

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 12

32 lobbied · 72 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=4
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 12: 32 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied32—100% (n=4)0%3%0.00
Matched, unlobbied72—100% (n=6)0%0%0.05
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.