lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 132832 ESC 40 SA

2035 Kennedy Rd

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
29 March 2016
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
24
5 meetings · 5 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
2035 Kennedy Rd
Ward
Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
Submitted
29 March 2016
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
658 units
Related file
15 167709 ESC 40 OZ

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

Description

Phase One of a proposed multi-phased, high density mixed use development which includes the retention and expansion of the existing hotel use. Phase One consists of 31 and 34 storey residential condominium apartment towers on the west portion of the site with a total of 658 dwelling units and ground floor retail space.

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

3 linked registrations · 24 communications · 5 meetings · 5 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Norm Kelly, Ward 4010
  • Mayor's Office4
  • Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt4
  • Ward 34 Don Valley East3
  • Ward 39 Scarborough-Agincourt3
Data table· 5 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Norm Kelly, Ward 40Councillor staff10127 April 2018
Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff402 November 2018
Ward 40 Scarborough-AgincourtMember of council4412 October 2016
Ward 34 Don Valley EastMember of council3030 October 2018
Ward 39 Scarborough-AgincourtMember of council3030 October 2018

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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 22

7 lobbied · 14 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 22: 7 lobbied and 14 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied7Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied14Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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.