lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 17 120977 STE 28 SA

76 Howard St; 84 Howard St; 100 Howard St; 575 Bloor St E; 577A Bloor St E; 585 Bloor St E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
24 February 2017
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
7
5 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
76 Howard St; 84 Howard St; 100 Howard St; 575 Bloor St E; 577A Bloor St E; 585 Bloor St E
Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted
24 February 2017
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
769 units
Related file
10 247063 STE 28 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Application to permit a mixed use development consisting of a 2 tower scenario with retail uses at grade located on the Eastern portion of the site. The 2 residential towers will be 37 and 45 storey's with a 4 storey podium linking the 2 towers. The towers will have a total of 769 residential units and 445 parking spaces are proposed in 4 levels of below grade parking. This Application is for Block 3 of a 3 Block proposal issued under ZBA/OPA Application (10-247063 STE 28 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 · 7 communications · 5 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale5
  • Ward 13 Toronto Centre2
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 28 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council5327 June 2018
Ward 13 Toronto CentreMember of council227 January 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.

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 13

56 lobbied · 128 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=8

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied7%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

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 13: 56 lobbied and 128 matched unlobbied applications in 32 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied56—100% (n=5)0%7%0.16
Matched, unlobbied128—100% (n=8)0%2%0.01
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.