lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 18 226512 STE 20 SA

485 King St W; 533 King St W; 539 King St W

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
17 September 2018
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
9
0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
485 King St W; 533 King St W; 539 King St W
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
17 September 2018
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
34,916 m² gross floor area
Related file
16 159483 STE 20 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Control application for a mixed-use development of residental, office, and retail/restaurant uses: 34,916.0 square metres residential gross floor area; 20,111.0 square metres non-residential gross floor area. This site plan application is associated with the recently approved (LPAT Settlement) Zoning By-law Amendment application (file no. 16 159483 STE 20 OZ). The proposed building has a 'pixilated' design with a variable massing which includes a central couryard and four 'peaks'. Several heritage buildings will be incoporated into the design. The property at 485 King Street West in no longer part of the development site.

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 · 9 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina5
  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina4
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaCouncillor staff504 May 2018
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council404 May 2018

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 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • 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 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied165—100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
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.