lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 269750 NNY 25 SA

17 Farmstead Rd; 740 York Mills Rd; 750 York Mills Rd

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
21 December 2016
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
2 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
17 Farmstead Rd; 740 York Mills Rd; 750 York Mills Rd
Ward
Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted
21 December 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
601 units
Related file
13 198702 NNY 25 OZ

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

Description

To permit the addition of 192 new apartment units in a stacked townhouse form that are 3 and 4 storeys in height within 7 building blocks. The proposed new gross floor area for the site would be 19568 m2. The three existing 18 storey rental apartment buildings with 409 rental units would be maintained. The overall total gross floor area of the existing and proposed development would be 64341 m2 resulting in a density of 2.2 FSI with a total of 601 dwelling units. A total of 688 parking spaces would serve the entire site with access provided from York Mills Road and Farmstead Road.

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 · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 251
  • Ward 25 Don Valley West1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 25Councillor staff1112 November 2014
Ward 25 Don Valley WestMember of council113 February 2012

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 15

12 lobbied · 41 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 15: 12 lobbied and 41 matched unlobbied applications in 10 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied12Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied41Hidden: 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.