lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 18 272103 WET 03 SA

15 Shorncliffe Rd; 25 Shorncliffe Rd; 5415 Dundas St W; 5421-5429 Dundas St W; 5449-5453 Dundas St W; 5475 Dundas St W; 5481 Dundas St W; 5485-5487 Dundas St. W

Status
NOAC Issued
Approved
Submitted
27 December 2018
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
16
10 meetings · 4 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
15 Shorncliffe Rd; 25 Shorncliffe Rd; 5415 Dundas St W; 5421-5429 Dundas St W; 5449-5453 Dundas St W; 5475 Dundas St W; 5481 Dundas St W; 5485-5487 Dundas St. W
Ward
Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted
27 December 2018
Status
NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
843 units
Related file
18 272108 WET 03 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan application for Phase 2 of a larger multi-phased development at Dundas Street West and Shorncliffee Road. This application is proposing two towers of 44 and 40-storeys connected by a six storey base building fronting onto a private street. A total of 843 dwelling units, 775 parking spaces, and 845 bicycle parking spaces are proposed.

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 · 16 communications · 10 meetings · 4 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore6
  • Councillor Grimes5
  • Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore4
  • Office of Councillor Grimes1
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 5 Etobicoke-LakeshoreMember of council661 May 2017
Councillor GrimesCouncillor staff5118 June 2019
Ward 3 Etobicoke-LakeshoreMember of council427 May 2019
Office of Councillor GrimesCouncillor staff1120 February 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 3

24 lobbied · 100 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied71% n=10

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied29%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

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 3: 24 lobbied and 100 matched unlobbied applications in 18 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied24—100% (n=5)0%4%0.25
Matched, unlobbied100—71% (n=10)29%4%0.14
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.