lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 18 232301 STE 27 SA

203 Jarvis St

Ward 13 · Chris MoiseDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
26 September 2018
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
10
4 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
203 Jarvis St
Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted
26 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
179 units; 21,206 m² gross floor area
Related file
16 207248 STE 27 OZ

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

Description

Proposed 32-storey (107.1 metres including the mechanical penthouse) mixed-use tower containing 240 hotel suites and 179 dwelling units. The total gross floor area is 21,206.2 square metres. Four levels of underground parking are proposed with 46 parking spaces for residents, 29 parking spaces for visitors and hotel guests, and a total of 190 bicycle parking spaces.

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

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

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 136
  • Ward 13 Toronto Centre4
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 13Councillor staff607 October 2019
Ward 13 Toronto CentreMember of council447 October 2019

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 13

56 lobbied · 128 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied7%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

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 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=7)0%2%0.01
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.