lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 254041 NNY 16 SA

1202 Avenue Rd; 1204 Avenue Rd

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
21 November 2016
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
67
0 meetings · 6 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
1202 Avenue Rd; 1204 Avenue Rd
Ward
Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted
21 November 2016
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
16 254034 NNY 16 OZ

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

Description

REVISED proposal for a 7-unit, 3-storey townhouse development on a lot at the north-west corner of Avenue Road and Hillhurst Blvd. Access to 7 rear parking spaces via a driveway from Hillhurst Blvd. Concurrent Rezoning application - File # 16-254034 NNY 16 OZ.

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 · 67 communications · 0 meetings · 6 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence30
  • office of councillor colle11
  • office of councillor Colle9
  • ward 87
  • Ward 8 -Colle6
  • Ward 8 - Colle4
Data table· 6 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 8 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council3002 June 2020
office of councillor colleCouncillor staff11023 May 2019
office of councillor ColleCouncillor staff9023 May 2019
ward 8Councillor staff709 June 2020
Ward 8 -ColleCouncillor staff6023 May 2019
Ward 8 - ColleCouncillor staff4016 May 2019

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 8

25 lobbied · 70 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied8%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

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 8: 25 lobbied and 70 matched unlobbied applications in 16 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied25—100% (n=3)0%8%0.00
Matched, unlobbied70727100% (n=4)0%4%0.00
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.