lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 20 146340 STE 12 SA

265 Balliol St

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
19 May 2020
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
5
5 meetings · 4 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
265 Balliol St
Ward
Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted
19 May 2020
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
233 units; 18,102 m² gross floor area
Related file
17 223999 STE 22 OZ

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

Description

To construct a 27-storey rental residential tower containing 233 rental units and 135 below grade parking spaces and a total residential gross floor area of approximately 18,102square metres, and a non-residential gross floor area of 150 square metres. The existing 26-storey residential building, containing 202 rental units, will be maintained on the easterly portion of the subject 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

1 linked registration · 5 communications · 5 meetings · 4 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Office of Councillor Matlow, Ward 222
  • Office of Councillor Matlow, Ward 121
  • Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul's1
  • Ward 22 St. Paul's1
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Matlow, Ward 22Councillor staff227 August 2017
Office of Councillor Matlow, Ward 12Councillor staff117 January 2019
Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul'sMember of council117 January 2019
Ward 22 St. Paul'sMember of council111 August 2017

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 12

32 lobbied · 72 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=4
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

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 12: 32 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied32—100% (n=4)0%3%0.00
Matched, unlobbied72—100% (n=6)0%0%0.05
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.