lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 13 134203 STE 28 SA

333 King St E; 351 King St E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
15 March 2013
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
1
1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
333 King St E; 351 King St E
Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted
15 March 2013
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
46,520 m² gross floor area

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

Description

This is a Gold Star Site Plan Control application for a proposed a 17-storey office tower at 351 King Street East with a 5 storey podium and retail uses at grade. The proposal comprises 46,520 m2 of non-residential Gross Floor Area, of which 44,532 m2 is for office use and 1,988 m2 is for retail use). There are a total of 282 vehicle spaces in four levels of underground parking and 190 bike parking spaces at grade and on the P1 level. Note that this tower was one of two office towers approved through a rezoning application for the larger (former Toronto Sun) property at 333 King Street East, file no 12 144494 STE 28 OZ and site-specific Bylaw 818-2013 (with amending Bylaw 401-2014 and CofA Decision dated Dec 10, 2014, file no A0974/14TEY),

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 · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale1
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 28 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council1127 March 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 13

56 lobbied · 128 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied7%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

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 13: 56 lobbied and 128 matched unlobbied applications in 32 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied56—100% (n=5)0%7%0.16
Matched, unlobbied128—100% (n=7)0%2%0.01
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.