lobbyTO

Development application · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)

Development application 16 181544 STE 27 CD

50 Charles St E; 50-60 Charles St E; 61 Hayden St; 64 Charles St E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
28 June 2016
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
16
7 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
Addresses
50 Charles St E; 50-60 Charles St E; 61 Hayden St; 64 Charles St E
Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted
28 June 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
622 units
Related file
13 199558 STE 27 OZ

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

Description

Draft Plan of Standard Condominium to permit a 55-storey residential building with 622 residential units and 4 levels of below grade parking containing 167 parking spaces. Refer to related Site Plan Application No. 14 249782 STE 27 SA.

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 · 16 communications · 7 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale13
  • Office of Councillor Wong-Tam2
  • Office of Councillor K. Wong-Tam1
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council1367 April 2015
Office of Councillor Wong-TamCouncillor staff2114 May 2014
Office of Councillor K. Wong-TamCouncillor staff104 June 2014

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.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 11

4 lobbied · 10 matched

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

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%
Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 11: 4 lobbied and 10 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied10Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied28—100% (n=3)0%0%0.04
Matched, unlobbied95—100% (n=6)0%0%0.03

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.