Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 14 259293 STE 20 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 2 December 2014
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 164 Avenue Road
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Submitted
- 2 December 2014
- 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
- 175 units
- Related file
- 09 199225 STE 20 SA
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Planning application for 20 storey mixed use building - retail on ground floor -175 residential units - 189 parking spaces - 3 levels below grade parking.
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
Menkes Developments Ltd · registration SM20007
164 Avenue Road
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.84
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM20007: 164 Avenue Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 259293 STE 20 SA at 164 Avenue Rd: Planning application for 20 storey mixed use building - retail on ground floor -175 residential units - 189 parking spaces - 3 levels below grade parking. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 164 Avenue Road
Matched fields
- address
- 164 AVENUE RD
- application_address
- 164 AVENUE RD
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 16 January 2014 |
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Avenue Davenport Development Ltd.SM14626 · 22 June 2010 · “164 Avenue Road”
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 11
46 lobbied · 113 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 | 46 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | 1,629 | 100% (n=12) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| 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.