lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 19 127591 STE 13 SA

26 Grenville St; 27 Grosvenor St

Status
NOAC Issued
Approved
Submitted
19 March 2019
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
4
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
9
8 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
26 Grenville St; 27 Grosvenor St
Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted
19 March 2019
Status
NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
770 units
Related file
19 127586 STE 13 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Control application to permit a mixed-use building with two towers, 32 and 46 storeys (113.3 metres and 155.2 metres) in height, connected by an 11-storey podium. The existing buildings on the site would be demolished. The proposed development includes 770 rental units (of which 231 will be affordable), a child care facility (725 square metres), a fitness club (2,064 square metres), and ground level retail (437 square metres). A total of 200 parking spaces and 790 bicycle parking spaces are proposed to support the new development. The Zoning By-law Amendment application (19 127586 STE 13 OZ) has been approved by Council (TE24.10).

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

4 linked registrations · 9 communications · 8 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 13 Toronto CentreMember of council8718 August 2021
Chris MoiseMember of council1126 May 2023

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=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.