lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 230027 STE 32 SA

2301 Danforth Ave; 2309 Danforth Ave; 2315 Danforth Ave

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
28 September 2016
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
11
10 meetings · 4 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
2301 Danforth Ave; 2309 Danforth Ave; 2315 Danforth Ave
Ward
Ward 19 · Brad Bradford
Submitted
28 September 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
170 units; 12,173 m² gross floor area
Related file
15 242710 STE 32 OZ

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

Description

The application proposes an 8 storey new mixed use building having a gross floor area of 12,173 square metres with 170 residential units (of which 14 will be rental replacement units). 380 square metres of street-related retail. A total of 105 vehicular and 138 bicycle parking spaces will be provided. REVISED NOAC ISSUED jUNE 3, 2019

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

2 linked registrations · 11 communications · 10 meetings · 4 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 21 St. Paul's5
  • Ward 32 Beaches-East York2
  • Office of Councillor Bradford1
  • Ward 21 St. Paul's1
  • Ward 32 Beaches-East York1
  • Ward 31 Beaches-East York1
Data table· 6 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 21 St. Paul'sMember of council551 June 2016
Ward 32 Beaches-East YorkMember of council2227 February 2017
Office of Councillor BradfordCouncillor staff1025 June 2019
Ward 21 St. Paul'sCouncillor staff119 March 2017
Ward 32 Beaches-East YorkCouncillor staff119 March 2017
Ward 31 Beaches-East YorkMember of council1118 April 2016

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 19

6 lobbied · 28 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 19: 6 lobbied and 28 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied6Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied28Hidden: 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.